Pages 1 - 125 -- Readings and an Address, Birmingham, 1932 (Volume 112).

THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (1)

John 2:1 - 12, 18 - 25

J.T. I hope that these meetings may be used of the Lord to show the bearing of John's gospel as typical of conditions in Christendom at the present time. In order that the present application of this gospel may be clear to us, it may be noted that the things related generally took place in Judaea, which, because of its attitude toward Christ at that time, corresponds with the modern apostate religious world. The synoptic gospels generally engage us with occurrences in Galilee. Then none of the signs in John deals with demon possession, so we have not to do with these either, but with man's trained mind, active in denial of the truth. Moreover, the word used for works of power, as is well known, is "sign", not "miracle"; that is to say, the signs are not to call the congregation together, so to speak, like the bells of a church, as in the synoptic gospels, but to instruct the spiritual mind as to certain features of the Lord's service. I think the Lord would help in considering this sign as regards the manifestation of His glory. "This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him". The Spirit would indicate to us that the 'signs' are to be read in that light. They are the manifestation of His glory, not of course in the sense in which He will be manifested presently in glory, but in the moral sense, to the end that those who are known as His disciples should believe; therefore, although the signs are for all, they are especially for those already disciples, as is said later, "That ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and

that believing ye might have life in his name", (John 20:31).

Rem. There are a certain number of signs through the gospel, so it would help if you would enumerate them.

J.T. They are: The water made wine (chapter 2:1 - 12); the nobleman's son healed (chapter 4:46 - 54); the impotent man healed (chapter 5:1 - 16); the multitude fed (chapter 6:1 - 14); Christ walking on the water (chapter 6:15 - 21); the blind man's eyes opened (chapter 9); Lazarus raised (chapter 11); the voice from heaven (chapter 12:28 - 30); Christ's enemies falling to the ground when He said "I am" (chapter 18:6); His own resurrection (chapter 20); the condition of the grave clothes, the appearance of the angels, Christ's appearance to Mary, His coming in through closed doors to the disciples (all in chapter 20); finally His manifestation to Peter and those with him (chapter 21). The Lord's own resurrection is the greatest sign. The Jews asked, "What sign shewest thou to us, that thou doest these things?" Jesus answered, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up". "He spoke of the temple of his body".

Ques. Are they cumulative and all leading up to a climax, so to speak?

J.T. I think the climax is the appearance of Christ after He arose. That is the great end in view, to draw us into the spiritual realm where Christ is known as outside of what is material, coming through closed doors. The end of chapter 20 says, "Many other signs therefore also Jesus did before his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name", John 20:30,31. It is as if the writer intended us to consider specially the first twenty chapters. The great end in view is to draw us into the spiritual realm, the world in which Christ is

apprehended outside of what is material, and I am sure we all own the immensity of that.

Rem. The signs were in the presence of His disciples.

J.T. That would show, as already said, that the disciples were in view -- that they might believe.

H.E.S. Your thought is of the spiritual realm as seen in chapter 20.

J.T. Yes, the spiritual realm is especially opened up in chapter 20, which of course we shall come to towards the end of our meetings. What is before us today is the manifestation of Christ's glory for faith, and it may help to compare this with the first reference to His glory in chapter 1. As become flesh His glory is contemplated by certain persons: it will help to compare those two features of His glory, John 1:14 and John 2:11.

Ques. How do you distinguish them, the contemplation of the glory and the manifestation?

J.T. The first, as I understand it, is what I should refer to as private, seen by certain persons. It alludes to what was apprehended spiritually throughout the whole course of the Lord's sojourn here among His own. The writer of the Acts refers to the period "in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up", Acts 1:21,22. During that period I apprehend there were opportunities for discerning what was there, the relations between Himself and His Father -- a very wonderful suggestion. As become flesh He dwelt among us: "The Word became flesh and dwelt", or tabernacled, "among us", (John 1:14) which I suppose alluded to provisional circumstances, that they were not final. His position then was not final or fixed, it was provisional, but such as would bring within our range results that are final, what He is with the Father.

Ques. Is that His personal glory?

J.T. Yes, His glory particularly as loved: "a glory as of an only-begotten with a father", John 1:14.

G.W.W. You laid emphasis on the word 'tabernacled'.

J.T. I thought it alluded to the transient, provisional position He had taken up. You see, it is 'with' or alongside the Father. It is not His service there, nor His activities mediatorially, but what He is with the Father. You want to think of Jesus according to all the lovableness and affection involved in such a relation: "an only-begotten with a father".

Ques. I was wondering, that being so, whether "full of grace and truth" would bring in mediatorship?

J.T. That is what they are intended to convey about Him. He was "full of grace and truth". They would be there, and that, I think, is the secret of the word 'sent' in John's gospel. It is that side of things; He is sent. He was there with the Father, full of all that was needed in His mediatorial service, and He came out thus. His personal position is alluded to, and what was seen there, not His activities.

Ques. Would you distinguish between what is moral and what is personal?

J.T. What they contemplated was personal. It was a question of a divine Person become flesh: "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", (John 1:14) meaning that He was where they could see Him, but then He is not spoken of as 'with' them. He "dwelt among us" is general, but the point is. He was contemplated as "with a father". It is the secret really of understanding the economy of this gospel, that is to say, the Father and the Son. If we are to see the precious, blessed relations that existed and the glory of them, it is the glory as of an only one with a father. Any one contemplating that would understand the economy of John's gospel, which is that "the Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand", John 3:35. The contemplation of the relations between the Father and the Son is what gives lustre to everything.

Ques. Would that be characteristic? It is not the Father, but "as of an only-begotten with a father".

J.T. Yes; it is a relation well known among men, employed to indicate to us what was contemplated; that is to say, the peculiar glory of the relations between the Lord as Man here with the Father.

E.J.McB. Would Abraham and Isaac going together be a figure of it? Genesis 22.

J.T. Yes, indeed! The converse between them is very beautiful, pointing unmistakably to what we are now considering.

W.C.G. How does the sentence in John's epistle fit in: "The eternal life, which was with the Father" (1 John 1:2)?

J.T. It fits in exactly, but it is not there the Person that is in view, but the thing that was in Him: "that eternal life". Some have assumed that that alluded to a past eternity, what He was in Deity, but it is not so at all. It refers to what He was as Man here. It is there eternal life is apprehended: "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life; (and the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us)" (1 John 1:1, 2).

Ques. Is the thought here that whilst He was the Word become flesh and dwelling amongst them in grace and truth, they contemplated His glory as with the Father?

J.T. That is the idea. The tabernacling would mean that He moved about. We read of "all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us", Acts 1:21. They had thus opportunity of seeing in varied circumstances this beautiful thing that was discerned by some, this beautiful relation between the Father and the Son. It is said in Luke that "by day he was teaching in the temple, and by night, going out, he

remained abroad on the mountain called the mount of Olives" (Luke 21:37). What was He doing there? That is the idea of His secret relations.

Rem. What was quoted from the epistle has reference to incarnation and not to the past eternity.

J.T. Obviously; it is a question of "that eternal life", which is Christ as Man, so that the first allusion to life in chapter 1 of the gospel is, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men" verse 4. It was in Him as Man that light shone.

Ques. Is the thought that the life He lived here became the light of men? How could we know the Lord apart from the life He lived here?

J.T. John 1:1 - 3 contemplates the Lord's eternal personality. He was in the beginning with God, and was God, and all things received being through Him. Nothing is said of light in these verses, but we have it in verse 4: "the life was the light of men". It is what was there in that connection, that is, the life was exclusively for men. It does not go beyond men, great and glorious as it is; it was not for angels, it is for men, and it shone in Him as a Man. It could not shine otherwise to be intelligible to us. Verses 4 - 13 form an epitome of Christ's presence in this world and its results.

A.S.L. Verse 4 is one of those reciprocal expressions that can be put either way.

J.T. The parts of the statement are of equal value, showing when you come to John's gospel that what shines is a tangible thing, that there is something substantial behind it. When God said, "Let there be light, and there was light", (Genesis 1:3) we are not told what the light was; it is simply light, but in this gospel the light is the result of something substantial.

A.S.L. Is it the light of the love of God: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", verse 18? Is the light that is shining, the full revelation of God in Christ?

J.T. I think verse 18 is greater than verse 4. The word 'revelation' is not there. "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", John 1:18. The declaration of God goes beyond the light of life. We ought to distinguish between those two verses.

A.S.L. I was thinking too of another verse: "The darkness is passing and the true light already shines" (1 John 2:8). What is that "true light"?

J.T. It is the same idea carried forward in John's epistle, only in John 1:4 it is what shone in Christ, and in John's epistle it is what shines in the saints. That is, the light that shone into our souls becomes life in our souls and in turn shines as "true light" to others.

A.S.L. How would you define the expression "true light"?

J.T. Well, it is to expose the false things that were coming in. John's epistle is to show that the life was a tangible thing; it was not something abstract or theoretic, but tangible. It says in the first chapter, that which we have seen, heard, and handled concerning the word of life, but in chapter 2, it is in the saints. In measure, what it was in Him, it is in the saints.

A.S.L. "Which thing is true in him and in you" (1 John 2:8).

J.T. The extension of the testimony was dispersing the darkness.

A.S.L. Then the true light has already shone.

J.T. It is shining in the saints. Of course, Christ is the life always, but John's epistle deals with it as in the saints.

Rem. Is the distinction between declaration and revelation of great importance? I feel the Lord is helping us as to this.

J.T. I think it is, because the import of declaration is to bring God out; it is not to remove a veil. The original word for revelation implies a veil removed

that what it concealed may be seen. Declaration is God brought out, which is a different idea, and has in view our limitations, that we are not capable of looking in to see all that is there in the Deity. But the "only-begotten Son" brings God out, declares Him.

A.S.L. Would that be at all analogous to the verse in Colossians 1, where He is spoken of as the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15)?

J.T. That would carry representation too, but declaration is a strong word, involving that God is brought out.

Ques. Would you connect declaration with God and revelation with the Father?

J.T. "No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", John 1:18. The declaration includes both I think. I should not like to leave out what is conveyed in the title Father, because in John's gospel the Father is the name of God which conveys grace and affection; He does not judge anyone.

Ques. Would the declaration of God include what was ministered by the Lord during His life as well as in His death?

J.T. It would include both. God is there, and no one but the Son could declare Him. The Person was Himself divine. So all that God is, was brought out. Whether it were understood or not, there it was.

S.J.B.C. Do you think the pronoun "him" is left out (verse 18) because it is the declaration of the Father and the Son? The article is left out in regard to God; it is an abstract statement, and the declaration has been made as far as our spiritual capacity can take it in.

J.T. The article is before 'Father'; I think the Father is there very definitely. The declaration of God involves the Father and the Son. The Declarer has part in what is declared. The omissions you mention and the emphasis on 'he' in the verse, place the declaration and the Declarer in greater prominence. For the

declaration of God a divine Person came into manhood and was owned in it as Son. The preposition "in" (Greek eis ) in verse 18 indicates that the Lord as Man had come into the position spoken of.

H.F.N. Would you say a little more in regard to your remark as to revelation ?

J.T. Many have the idea that it is just the removal of a veil for us to look in. Of course, there is revelation, as the Lord says, "No one knows who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal him" Luke 10:22. There is the thought of seeing the Father, but it is in the Son, in Christ as Man, that we see the Father. It is not a veil removed for us to look into the relations of deity before incarnation; the suggestion is, of what is there in the Son. It involves what is most precious. The Lord calls the attention of certain persons to the Father in such a way that the Father is seen. There is a difference between Christ revealing the Father to certain persons, and the Father being in Him to be seen by all. The latter would be included in John 1:18. Compare John 14:8 - 11 and John 15:24.

F.S.M. Revelation is connected rather with the sense of sight, whereas declaration is more what is heard.

J.T. The idea in declaration could be illustrated by a case at court. The case is fully set out so as to be intelligible to all concerned. The matter in question is brought out by certain substantial, incontrovertible evidences. The declaration of God is public. It is not to certain persons only.

D.L.H. Is there not in declaration the idea of showing in a public way? The word used in Romans 3:25 is "showing forth". God's righteousness is shown in the mercy seat. It is there for all.

J.T. It is there whether people see it or not. The word in John 1:18 is the strongest as to what we are

dealing with, that is God coming out, not only in Christ in a personal sense, but in certain things that happened.

J.J. Is there the thought of interpretation in John 1:18?

J.T. Interpretation is not strong enough as to what is in view.

A.S.L. Is it not the idea of setting forth or making manifest?

J.T. It is the idea of bringing a thing out to where you are; whether it is to your intelligence or to your heart, the thing is brought out. God is declared by the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.

M.W.B. With regard to revelation does it imply a work in the soul, as referring to some specific person?

J.T. I think so. It is the Lord selecting persons to reveal to. The word is used in the last book of the Bible, but it is the same idea; it is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his bondmen", Revelation 1:1. It conveys the restricted thought -- to certain persons.

A.S.L. There are the two words in John 17, "manifested" and "made known".

J.T. The manifestation in verse 6 would be the Father's name made evident so as to be readily grasped; "made known" would be that the Lord had instructed the disciples as to it, and would do so. Verse 26 is deeper than verse 6.

Eu.R. Would you say a word as to light in distinction to what you have been saying as to revelation? Is light more limited?

J.T. Well, it is the light of life. Life is necessarily more limited than God; that is all I was thinking. Life is spoken of by itself, and this helps us to understand John's epistle. John's gospel is God, the epistle rather the life.

Eu.R. In chapter 3 it says, "Light is come into the world", John 3:19.

J.T. Christ was the "true light". John was not the true light: "The true light was that which, coming into the world, lightens every man", John 1:9. It sheds light on everything, and that is the Person of Jesus; God shone in Him.

Ques. "They ... have known truly that I came out from thee, and have believed that thou sentest me"; (John 17:8) would that be declaration?

J.T. The Lord is telling His Father about the disciples, how they had come into things. What He says of the disciples in John 17, while involving declaration, is more revelation. I am sure the Lord would help us as to the distinction between the glory contemplated (verse 14) and the glory manifested (verse 18). I believe the glory contemplated is the secret of coming into the economy that is opened up to us in this gospel, the relations between the Father and the Son, the beautiful relations and affections that were seen, and then the truth that subsisted in Him, so that in His public service those who companied with Him were intelligent as to what He was doing and saying. But when He begins to perform signs He is calling attention to Himself in a public way, that He might be believed on.

Ques. Would you say what was indicated in the "beginning of signs"?

J.T. It was on the third day, as you will notice. Therefore, it is a complete testimony, and comes in, I think, as confirmatory of the teaching that is opened up in chapter 1. Chapters 1 and 2 stand together as an introduction to the book, so that this being on the third day directs us back to the other days. There is development in the truth that had been the testimony of John the baptist leading to followers of Jesus. That was the beginning of discipleship and these disciples begin to gather other disciples. In the first instance Andrew finds Simon, pointing to material for the church, then the Lord finds Philip, and Philip finds

Nathanael, pointing to the remnant of Israel. Then the third day is the culmination of all this, in which you have not relief for man indicated, but positive blessing; that is, the first sign is joy brought in. The Lord has come, not merely to set things right, but to bring in positive joy, and thus "he manifested his glory and his disciples believed on him".

Ques. Would you say that the signs indicate the great moral results that flow from verse 18 of chapter 1?

J.T. Quite so. The millennial day will show the great results of what is indicated in chapter 1.

Ques. Would this first sign manifesting His glory embrace both the millennial day and the present day of the Spirit?

J.T. Yes, Scripture has always a moral significance. Our concern now is to see not only the primary application of any sign but its present bearing, and I think we ought to be prepared for positive joy, that the Lord can bring in the very best at the end.

J.J. You said at the beginning that the occurrences were mainly in reference to Judaea; why is this in Cana of Galilee?

J.T. I think it is to help us as to the position of the testimony now. Whilst His activities are mainly in relation to the public body, there is what is in Cana of Galilee, and the real thing goes on there. Compare Isaiah 9:1. So the first three signs are in Galilee, but it is as having come out of Judaea. It is an important matter that as having come up out of Judaea He performs these signs. It opens up the position for the moment, that there is something outside the great public system; the Lord honours that and brings in positive blessing there in household conditions.

P.L. Would that be Philadelphia?

J.T. That would be the bearing of it.

Ques. Would you connect reproach with Galilee?

J.T. That is what it means, viewed from the stand-point of Jerusalem, and so at the end of the sign, the

Lord is said to have "descended to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples; and there they abode not many days". I think the allusion is to the Lord recognising the Jewish remnant. The sign relates to the millennium; but the subsequent period is "not many days", that is the Lord's relations with the remnant for a little while before He takes up the church. So the next part of the chapter alludes to the truth of the assembly, but those few days which He spent with His mother and brethren and disciples, bear on the position in the early part of Acts. But it is only a few days awaiting Paul's ministry, which brought those few days to an end.

C.H.W. Does the thought of His glory manifested there refer to Him as Christ the Son of God? I was wondering whether it is contrasted with the glory of God in chapter 11.

J.T. "His glory" here is general, giving character to all the signs. In this connection His disciples are said to have believed on Him.

Rem. Those "not many days" would be practically ended when Paul says, "Lo, we turn to the gentiles", Acts 13:46.

J.T. That is what I understand. Christ rebukes His mother because she associated herself with Him on natural lines, yet He does recognise her in the testimony, for He descends to Capernaum with her, which I think refers to His ministry in a sphere of special testimony. Compare Matthew 11:23.

Rem. The connection you make between "not many days" at Capernaum and the early part of Acts is most interesting and instructive, and seems to indicate the line of the operation of the Spirit which prepares for the assembly to emerge out of the remnant, and so be ready for Paul's ministry.

J.T. That is what I understand; and then the cleansing of the temple which the Lord calls His Father's house, is another reference to that. They said it was forty and six years in building, which was quite to be

expected from them, for the natural man makes much of what he has. But the Lord did not intend to refer to Herod's great structure. He did not mean to honour Herod at all; He was thinking of His Father's house. They said it took forty and six years to build, but He spoke of the temple of His body. Now we are coming into something that fits in with Paul; it is the inner side, something that would contain the whole mind of God, which Israel never did nor could. So, when He was raised from the dead His disciples believed the Scriptures and the things which Jesus had said. You have the full bearing of the Scriptures and the things that Jesus said at the end of the chapter, which I think brings us on to ground on which there is preparation for the assembly.

E.J.McB. I was very interested in your reference to the Lord remaining some days with the remnant of Israel. It was rather intended to lead them out to the new thing.

J.T. "Not many days" does not suggest that the circumstances suited His heart; He had something more than that before Him. It was a combination of His mother and brethren and disciples; His disciples come last. Presently the first two disappear and the disciples will be everything, for that is the point; His disciples believed on Him, not yet His mother and His brethren.

P.L. In Acts 1 the disciples are referred to and then His mother and brethren; the order is reversed.

J.T. The order in Acts 1 is really the apostles first, those who represented Christ, and I think that Mary and the Lord's brethren in the upper room, mentioned last, have a spiritual significance. They are where they can be influenced and moulded, and withal they had, because of their special relations with Him, much that even Peter could not have. This especially refers to His mother. It is when we are in accord with our

relative importance that we are of true value. The upper room in Acts 1 has the assembly in view.

E.J.McB. Do I understand that the secret of John lies in the fact that we have a joy that is beyond any known joy here -- the new wine?

J.T. Yes. That is the first sign which shows the character of the present position. It is not merely a question of setting things right, but that there is positive joy for all, and if we are not in possession of that there will be very little testimony. The faith of the disciples is in relation to that joy, and it is brought about by vessels being filled with water up to the brim. And as they are filled, the Lord says, "Draw out now". It is a fitting sign to be first, but in a moral sense it indicates what is happening. "Draw out now" from such full water-pots, and you have the very best wine.

Ques. Why is it six?

J.T. It is beyond five, which is the human number. I suppose there is allusion to something to be added for completion; the addition of the water is the complete exercise.

P.L. Would you have a suggestion of this in Nehemiah, you have the purifying and then the singing, the great joy that follows?

J.T. You have there what corresponds. This sign throws light on the whole inquiry. We are dealing with positive blessing, brought in on the third day. "His disciples believed on him"; it does not say His mother or His brethren did.

Ques. What would be the idea of the vessels being stone vessels?

J.T. I think to give you the idea of permanency.

Eu.R. Is there importance in Mary's word, "Whatever he may say to you, do".

J.T. She qualifies there, in saying that, but there is nothing said as to her believing. It is His disciples; that is the idea.

G.J.E. Would you say in connection with what we have in chapters 1 and 2 of the gospel of John and the joy indicated, that it is carried forward in the first chapter of the epistle where it says "that your joy may be full" (1 John 1:4)?

J.T. That suggestion is helpful and opens up something of the prominence of the water in the epistle; the water is given before the blood. Coming into the joy of eternal life begins with the water; the vessels being filled up to the brim, the Lord turns what is in them into the occasion of joy.

Ques. You said the water comes before the blood; you are referring to the order in John's epistle?

J.T. Yes, it throws light on the position as was remarked. I believe the difficulty in entering on eternal life is from the non-application of the water, or, if it be applied, not filling up to the brim. Filling up to the brim means the exclusion of all else. It is what purifies; the stone vessels were for purification.

Ques. Then do you connect the joy with the joy of eternal life?

J.T. Surely; it is the millennial day which is the period for the display of eternal life. It is commanded in Zion, and the nations go into it.

Ques. Then would chapter 6 where it is a question of eating His flesh and drinking His blood be for the continuance of it?

J.T. Quite so; to support us in it now .

J.J. Do you think verse 10 covers the whole of the present period from beginning to end?

J.T. "Every man sets on first the good wine, and when men have well drunk, then the inferior; thou hast kept the good wine till now". In its present bearing it covers the whole period, but it is properly millennial in its application. It is the public thing. The millennial day is the day of eternal life, and therefore it is the best kept to the last; but the Lord would have us have the best, although we get it in a different way. We get it in

a faith period which is the time of special blessedness. They get it in the time of sight. In the book of Revelation there are seven blessednesses available. Special blessednesses are of course above the ordinary, and while this sign primarily alludes to the millennial day, believers have it now. As the Lord says, "Blessed they who have not seen and have believed", John 20:29. One golden thread running through John's gospel is faith, the person who believes misses nothing; he gets the very best, even the companionship of the Father, and the Son, chapter 14:23.

Ques. Is the expression "Draw out now" for our present enjoyment?

J.T. Exactly; it is a question of drawing out now what is there.

Ques. Why did the Lord have to be invited? What follows is consequent upon that, is it not?

J.T. The passage shows how the Lord in His service takes advantage of ordinary circumstances. This was a very ordinary circumstance in Cana of Galilee and the Lord took advantage of it. It is just possible that He was linked in some way with the family by personal relations, but He uses the opportunity to bring in the best.

S.J.B.C. Going back to the water for a moment, do you think this chapter is life out of death?

J.T. It is purification; it was "according to the purification of the Jews". It is the water that purifies; the idea of purification in a vessel, that is, in you or in me. It is the idea of the application of the death of Christ so that the Lord can change it into an occasion of joy, and that would be life.

H.F.N. Does the best involve the whole of John's ministry as reserved for the saints in these last days?

J.T. That is just the point. In this first sign in which the Lord manifests His glory that we might believe on Him, we begin with what is best and that is kept to the last.

M.W.B. In that connection what link do you see between the glory manifested here and the glory which they beheld?

J.T. The glory they contemplated was a question of the relations between Him and His Father, but this glory comes out in the Lord's service. The former is the greater of the two; it is linked up with His Father.

M.W.B. I wondered whether the wine would imply the enjoyment connected with the intimacy of that relationship into which we may be brought now through redemption.

J.T. I think that is right. It may be carried intelligently and profitably into John's epistle. We are not to be content with anything less than the fulness of joy.

THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (2)

John 4:46 - 54

J.T. Our remarks this morning reached the idea of the temple; the Lord raising His body viewed in this way pointing to what comes out in the apostle Paul's ministry, both in its Corinthian and Ephesian aspects, not that the church is formally introduced, but the idea in the word translated temple is that the light of God is there. Chapters 1 and 2 form an introduction, showing how the truth of the gospel reaches on to the truth of the temple, in relation to which the whole scope of Scripture is apprehended, so that it says, "When therefore he was raised from among the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken", (John 2:22). Then chapters 3 and 4 present the truth radically, that is, new birth, dealing with the man from top to bottom; and chapter 4 dealing with the Spirit, not given in the highest intelligent order in which He works in us, but in relation to the lower affections; and the sign which we have read, connects with the idea of a believer's household. This doubtless has in view the spiritual house of chapter 8, where the thought of the house is introduced, without being formally stated to be the house of God. It is said in chapter 8 that the Son abides in it for ever, verse 35. We may be helped now by having in view that chapter 4 brings out the effect of the light on certain individuals so that they become sons of light, the woman in regard of her body and the nobleman in regard of his house.

Ques. Just what do you mean by lower affections?

J.T. Those organs with which water has to do. It is not the Spirit as viewed in the sense of "breath" as in chapter 20, but the Spirit in the sense of 'water' having

deliverance in view. In chapter 20 the breathing contemplates representation, the disciples being sent out, but chapter 4 is more deliverance: it is living water; the woman understood that her body was to be a vessel.

A.F.M. Would you mind distinguishing between the water in the waterpots and the water indicated by the Lord to the woman?

J.T. In the first case, as we saw this morning, the use of the vessels was for purification; they allude to persons as receiving that which brings about a change in them. It is the idea of a complete change from one substance to another. Chapter 4 contemplates permanent satisfaction, as drinking the water that Christ gives we never thirst (verse 14). Whilst change takes place, it is not in the thing, but in its activities; it becomes in the believer "a fountain of water, springing up", John 4:14. Then I think the importance of the believer's household, as in John's gospel, ought to be noted, because the setting is in relation to the Lord's sojourn in Samaria; as to which, nothing is said, of anyone entertaining Him; there is nothing as to suitable accommodation.

Ques. Does the fact that it is emphasised that this was again in Cana of Galilee suggest that the one is the carrying on of the other?

J.T. I think so. It is a sort of sequel; it was after He came out of Judaea; showing that it is something outside the realm of ordinary religious profession. "The Galileans received him", (John 4:45).

P.L. Does it link up with the two believing households in the second and third epistles of John -- that of the elect lady, and Gaius?

J.T. The idea is carried through there very clearly; here it is, "He believed, himself and his whole house", verse 53.

A.F.M. Is there a connection between the woman receiving the water, the men of Samaria, and the believing household?

J.T. There is clearly. The Samaritans were enlightened through the woman. They desired Him to stay there and He stayed two days, but there is nothing said about suitable accommodation for Him there.

A.F.M. Do they not say something more than the woman? It says, "When therefore the Samaritans came to him they asked him to abide with them, and he abode there two days. And more a great deal believed on account of his word; and they said to the woman, It is no longer on account of thy saying that we believe, for we have heard him ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world". (John 4:40 - 42) Was not that a point of advance to bring about assembly conditions in Samaria?

J.T. No doubt, but there is nothing to indicate any accommodation for the Lord as yet; it is said, "He abode there two days". There may be reception of light and appreciation of Christ in an evangelical way as "the Saviour of the world", without suitable accommodation. Of course the Lord valued the desire of the Samaritans, but the setting of the believing household here is significant. The Lord is dealing with the truth in relation to man's whole moral being in chapter 3 and the body in chapter 4; so that the whole person is involved in the two chapters, and then we have a believing household. We cannot have a believing household save as we are dealt with radically, by getting to the root of things. Our being has to be dealt with in the new birth of chapter 3 and in the living water of chapter 4. The body is affected so that the woman becomes a son of light in this respect. It is said in chapter 12, "While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light" (John 12:36). I think she becomes a son of light in regard of her body, and the nobleman becomes a son of light in regard of his house; but the body involves that it is a question of the person, whether one becomes a vessel of what is spiritual. The fact that the woman left her waterpot indicates that

she understood this.

J.J. Would it be right to say that the household in John 4 corresponds with Paul's ministry to the Corinthians, which you were speaking of as the temple of His body, and then the household in chapter 12 with Ephesians? Are those two households the outcome of the two lines?

J.T. Well, we have the households of Chloe and Stephanas in Corinthians; they were reliable persons. In the household of Chloe it was shown that there was full sympathy as regards the conditions in the assembly at Corinth, so that what was discerned by those of that house was the state of division amongst the Corinthians, though they did not say anything about it in their letter to Paul -- nor was anything said about the wicked person in chapter 5. That chapter is based on a report, by whom we do not know, but chapter 1 speaks of the showing of the division at Corinth, which is a most important matter. It was the real difficulty there, so that I have no doubt the idea of the nobleman's household in chapter 4 may be taken to represent what was at Corinth. In this respect the Lord had something for Himself there, and it linked on with Paul. The house in chapter 12 of this gospel is not named; but it was a house in which things could be done for Christ without much being said. A great affair took place as the Lord reached Bethany, but it was not marked by words. It was a place of silent spirituality, so that I think we may see the import in this way, of believing households.

F.I. The condition in the house here was the result of the son being made to live. What is the significance of that?

J.T. I think we have to note the thought of the son. There are two words used. The Holy Spirit says that the man besought the Lord in regard of his son (verse 47). He speaks of him as a 'child' to the Lord, but the Lord calls him son (verse 50). When the man arrived

at his house it says, "The father therefore knew that it was in that hour in which Jesus said to him. Thy son lives; and he believed". The idea of a nobleman and his child is dropped at the end; it is now the father and the son (verse 53). The radical truth of chapters 3 and 4 prepare for the believing household. Of course, much more is involved, but it is remarkable that this second sign comes in at the end of the instruction of chapters 3 and 4, so that it is not now a nobleman, a distinguished person in this world, whose son was healed, but a father.

H.M.S. Would you tell us what is the force of the answer of the Lord Jesus to the nobleman, "Unless ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe", because we might have thought that the very fact of the father coming to the Lord Jesus was a sufficient proof of his belief?

J.T. I think it is a general statement as to how things were, "unless ye see". The Lord would convey to us that we ought to be able to believe without signs and wonders. Of course the signs are to the intent that we should believe, but as we increase in spirituality we believe things without signs.

H.E.S. Is the idea in John's gospel generally that all that is natural is to be set aside so that what is spiritual may be introduced?

J.T. That is what I thought we might note specially; that is, in these two chapters, the dealing with what we are morally, from top to bottom.

E.J.McB. Do you think that the woman was purified by the word the Lord had spoken to her? and that the nobleman represented the corresponding conditions of family life in the home, brought to pass by the Lord coming back to the city where He had brought in the true joy, and then putting it into the family setting?

J.T. Yes. The believing household in this chapter will be seen later as bearing on the general position, so I think what has just been suggested ought to be weighed

over; that is, the dealing with the moral being radically in its entirety, and then the person in relation to his body, because unless these are understood we may have light in our households, but not the simple, primary thought of God -- the father and the son. We finish with this in verse 53. The Father is a primary thought, and belongs to God, and so is the Son.

P.L. Would the thought of the circumcision of his household by Abraham answer a little to chapter 3 in that way, and would the relationships of father and son seen in Abraham and Isaac be the result?

J.T. That is very good. In Genesis 17 circumcision is introduced into the house. There was no Isaac there as yet, but the principle of circumcision is introduced, and the test would be: Will Abraham maintain it? "God", it says, "went up", having "left off talking with him", Genesis 17:22. He broke off the conversation as if it would be resumed, but that it would remain for Jehovah to see whether the resulting conditions would be suitable. Well, we are told that Abraham circumcised all the males in his house; it was thorough. That is, the house is now on the principle, not of the flesh, but of the Spirit. "We are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh", (Philippians 3:3). Then, following on that in chapter 18, Abraham is in the tent door in the heat of the day, showing that he was not governed by fleshly feelings; he was not overcome by the heat; he was in vigour, and Jehovah comes. Three men come to him, and then you have the full thought of Isaac introduced. His house is right, but the world is not right, and so the destruction of Sodom follows. We see in this gospel that God intends to put houses right. He will put the world right too, that is to say, the judgment of it will come, so that it should be a suitable place for Isaac. But in the meantime the principle of the world to come is to be seen in the believer's house, in the father and the son. Therefore the importance of considering

chapter 3: "Except any one be born anew", born throughout as we might call it. It is not merely another time, but a radical dealing with the person. "Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God", (John 3:3) nor enter into it.

W.C.G. Does it correspond with the word in the epistle, "If what ye have heard from the beginning abides in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise which he has promised us, life eternal" (1 John 2:24, 25)? Is it on that line?

J.T. I think so. It is the permanency of divine dealing with us in our moral being, and then in a judicial way, the Son of man lifted up (chapter 3:14,15). Then there is the competent witness to bring in heavenly things; and in chapter 4: the body of the believer; because what we are morally is expressed in our bodies, and the body has to be dealt with. "The body is dead on account of sin", we are told in Romans 8:10, which enters into chapter 4, so that the woman understands now that she is a vessel herself. She had brought out the waterpot for water, but she does not take it back with her. She leaves it at the well and goes back herself and goes to the men of the city. That would mean her body was dead; she had no fear of them. She is in power, she is evidently superior now to the influences that hitherto would have damaged her.

H.E.S. Is it not the thought that now she is free from natural influences and thoughts and is moved only by what is spiritual?

J.T. Yes. The history of the woman has to be taken into account if you are to understand the force of the use of her body, that is, the body is dead, and without making any mention of the body, she leaves her waterpot, clearly implying that she herself could carry things, that she was a vessel of what the Lord was speaking of.

F.C.H. What would be the bearing of water in chapter 3? "Except any one be born of water and of Spirit", John 3:5.

J.T. It is the testimony of death entering into the fibre of our being. It is a divine operation. It is not new creation, but birth, involving things in principle, as in a babe, to be developed later.

A.M.H. Are you including more in chapter 3 than the sovereign act of God in relation to new birth? You referred to Romans 8. Do you include the first seven chapters in John 4?

J.T. Chapters 3 and 4 enter into Romans 1 - 8. Here the new birth is the sovereign act of God, but it involves a process in me, in that it is "born of water and of Spirit". The person is in some sense responsible as acted upon. It is not the idea of being dead and made to live; it is the idea of birth, which no one can define. But there it is in its effects. It is a mysterious thing, but the babe carries all the members that are to be developed.

A.M.H. You say it brings in an element of responsibility?

J.T. In the sense that it is not a dead person made to live, nor one created, as in Adam's case. Adam was not born at all, he was created; but here it is birth.

Ques. Does the water involve that the intelligence of the person is taken account of?

J.T. Well, I think there is something in that. I should not like to say much beyond what I have said. It is not a dead person acted upon, but a person with a moral being, and this transaction of God must affect the person throughout. It involves what is seen in a birth, that is to say, all the elements are there that may be developed into a man.

S.J.B.C. The Lord said, "Except a man be born again". The individuality remains. It is the same person, so Nicodemus understood it that way: "How can a man be born when he is old" (John 3:4)?

J.T. The personality remains. I do not like to build too much upon it, but it is the person who has been dealt with, a person with a previous history, and it is

anyone. "Except any one be born anew", whether it be a religious man, or otherwise, this must happen.

Eu.R. The Lord says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit", John 3:6. Would that give the idea of definiteness to what is born in that way?

J.T. Yes. It does not say that which is born of water is water; the water is just a testimony to the death of Christ, but 'Spirit' is positive, there is something there, and, I believe, all that will be developed later in the man.

Eu.R. What is the bearing of verse 16 upon it? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal", John 3:16.

J.T. That is, of course, the great testimony as to the love of God. The teaching runs into that, but the great features for us now as to our formation, are in the new birth and the lifting up of the Son of man. These are two radical ideas: ideas that deal with things, not in their effects, but at the roots. The understanding of these truths enables us to appropriate and enjoy the love of God and eternal life.

S.J.B.C. I suppose it would bring in the heavenly things afterwards, the Son of man being lifted up and eternal life.

J.T. The passage treats of God dealing with the moral question thoroughly. Much difficulty arises in souls because the truth of John 3 and 4 is not understood.

G.W.W. Is your thought that this radical dealing with things has in view a complete moral change in the person?

J.T. Yes; the identity is the same, but he is completely changed, changed in the sense of a new texture in his moral being, and new things produced on the principle of birth. It is not a change as in 2 Corinthians 3, through something presented objectively. It is a

transaction inwardly which is seen in its effects. "The wind blows where it will", the Lord says, "and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes and where it goes; thus is every one that is born of the Spirit". (John 3:8) You cannot explain it, but there is a definite result manifest.

G.W.W. So the divine thought is, that moral effects will follow that action.

J.T. That is it. Then the uplifting of the Son of man deals with all that I come to realise as obnoxious to God -- the flesh. That is dealt with judicially in the cross, in the Lord Jesus being lifted up. Then, chapter 4 is the Spirit making all that a matter of known power in the soul, so that the person -- spirit, soul and body -- is secured for the testimony, because if I am not secured for the testimony I am not of much value morally. The point is to be secured for the testimony.

G.W.W. Does that touch on 2 Corinthians 3?

J.T. Well, it would, but John is dealing with what happens inside of us, as already said.

G.W.W. You were thinking of the perfect moral transformation that new birth has in view. I wondered whether chapter 4 might at all link on with that work in 2 Corinthians 3, the moral transformation that is effected by the Spirit.

J.T. There is a link, only the change in 2 Corinthians 3 is said to be the result of beholding the glory of the Lord.

A.S.L. Does Paul speak of new birth? Peter does.

J.T. Peter speaks of it in a more advanced way, as born by the word of God, 1 Peter 1:23.

A.S.L. Why do you think Paul does not speak of it?

J.T. Paul's ministry was toward the nations; it was not toward the Jewish world. John is dealing with the religious world. In this world, men pride themselves on being religious, but the Lord says, "Except any one be born anew"; it is to bring out the uselessness of the flesh, although most refined religiously.

A.S.L. Is that not why the Lord speaks of new birth to Nicodemus?

J.T. Yes. It is important to notice that it is the person that is dealt with. It is the whole moral being that is dealt with, and then corresponding with that, the body in chapter 4. It is expressed here in the fact that the woman left her waterpot.

D.L.H. When you speak of the body are you referring to the human body?

J.T. Yes, the woman's body.

D.L.H. Is not that referred to by the Lord when He says, "Shall be in him a well of water"? Does not that refer to the idea of the body?

J.T. Just so; the whole person is in view in the teaching of the chapter.

Ques. What had the Spirit in view when He said in chapter 2, "But he spoke of the temple of his body" (John 2:21)?

J.T. The Lord had His own body in view; it was there that the whole mind of God was; not in the temple that Herod had built in forty and six years; it was in the Lord's own body that the light was, where all inquiry was to be made.

D.L.H. And the church has that character now.

J.T. It leads us on to Paul's ground in Corinthians and Ephesians. In 1 Corinthians 3 it is local, and in Ephesians 2:21 it bears on the coming world.

Eu.R. In Corinthians the apostle brings the truth of the Spirit to bear on the bodies of believers 1 Corinthians 6.

J.J. Do you think the introduction of worship into chapter 4 is on account of what you have said -- that the whole man has been radically dealt with in chapter 3?

J.T. Yes. The new birth has in view that we should be brought into accord with God. God is a Spirit and is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth; hence that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

J.J. You could not speak of worship apart from the clearance of the ground, which is seen in these chapters.

J.T. If you are to have worship, the outgoing of our affections Godward, you must see how essential it is to have the internals right. The psalmist calls upon 'all that is within' him to praise Jehovah (Psalm 103:1). Think of that woman, of all the evil that had been within her; but now all is reversed. There is in principle purification, and the Spirit welling up, she could now call upon all that was within her to praise God. It is what is within us. Those who understand anatomy could tell us something about our bodies, but I do not think anybody understands the human body but God, and the things inside us that are so wonderfully formed for God's praise -- the means of singing and all that, and those internal organs that act of themselves. How important it is that all should be purified and cleansed, so that every automatic, as well as every organ governed by the intelligence, should be called upon to praise God.

P.L. You get the expression, "I will praise thee, for I am fearfully, wonderfully made", Psalm 139:14.

J.T. It says, "Curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth" (verse 15). I believe it could be brought out that all the framework, all the cavities and membranes and so on, have been designed by God, that the believer might become a vessel of God's praise.

Rem. "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your intelligent service" (Romans 12:1). I suppose the vessel of the woman in John 4 would be an expression of that.

J.T. Exactly, and the Holy Spirit says that she went to the men of the city, which I think reminds us that Christ being in us "the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness" (Romans 8:10). She was immune from their influences. Christ was now in her, so to speak. "Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?"(John 4:29)

A.S.L. So Peter could say, "Ye denied the Holy One and the Just", Acts 14:3.

J.T. He was entirely free of the effect of his own denial of Him. If you are to bear witness you must be clear of the thing that had influenced you.

Ques. It says, "Go thy way". Is there instruction there for the obedience of faith? Does it suggest a new way?

J.T. It is simply 'go' here, but the passage says the man went his way. In Mark you have the way, meaning that it is the only way, the one the Lord Himself was on; and you have that carried on into Acts. Of Saul it is said that, "if he found any who were of the way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem";(Acts 9:2) but here it is the man's way, meaning, I think, that the Lord had confidence in him, that he could be trusted.

W.W. Is it important that the man said, "Come down ere my child die", but Jesus said, "Go, thy son lives"? Is this according to John's gospel, connected with the thought of life, rather than healing?

J.T. I think that is right. But before we come to that, there is the effect of the woman's testimony and the desire on the part of the Samaritans to have the Lord stay with them, but there is nothing said about a house or accommodation for Him. That is to say, He is regarded as the Christ, and sought after, and believed on, and said to be the "Saviour of the world", but there is nothing said as to suitable accommodation, and hence we have this second sign resulting in a believing household.

A.F.M. Would Lydia be a contrast in opening her house for the testimony at Philippi?

J.T. That is the idea exactly. The Lord opened her heart to attend to the things spoken by Paul, but she was not content to listen merely. She opened her house to Paul. We may say. So and so is in town, I will go and hear him. That is very good, but what

about suitable accommodation for him? Now the Samaritans went to Him and believed on Him and sought to have Him in the place. That was very well, but there is nothing said of accommodation. That is a very important side to the position, and I believe that is why this second sign comes in, so that you have living accommodation, a believing house with a father and a son.

F.S.M. Do I understand that in each sign there is some distinctive glory of the Son of God which would enhance Him in the vision of our souls, and which signifies some phase of His personal glory? In the first sign it was the provision of joy. What would be the special feature in relation to the Son of God in connection with the second sign?

J.T. I think it lies in the idea of father and son. "Thy son lives". On the ground of social status death was there, but it is no longer a nobleman and his child but a father and a son living. There is the suggestion of divine relations and affections in the house of God.

F.S.M. Is it a household in life?

J.T. Exactly, but I think it is life and dignity, not simply a child living but a son living. We reach the thought of God in this way -- the Father and the Son.

D.L.H. When you speak of accommodation are you thinking of accommodation for Christ?

J.T. Yes, either for Him, or the testimony, or for others, such as Paul. For instance, as was remarked, the Lord opened the heart of Lydia to attend to the things spoken by Paul. Luke and Silas were there, but it was Paul. You have thus a woman whose house was available to him who specially represented the testimony of God. You get there a person who would attend to what Paul said. What a house that was; what holy converse would go on there. What would she talk about? About what Paul said. So it is a household setting of things in Philippi. Then you have the jailer. After he was converted, it says that "he laid the table

for them", Acts 16:34. He did not bring Paul and Silas in to give them something to eat merely, but he washed their stripes and laid the table, indicating that the household was in dignity. His service to the apostle was a dignified service; the accommodation was suitable. That is what I think we should see here, as the result of this sign.

Ques. Is this thought of the Father and the Son the same in character as we have in chapter 1:14: "We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father"?

J.T. I think the Lord wishes to accustom us in our houses to the economy of the Father and the Son; that is John's gospel. In the end of chapter 3 you have, "The Father loves the Son and has given all things to be in his hand", John 3:35. So the economy is formally set up, and now you come into a believing house and you have a father and a son. There is some reflection of the divine economy in that house.

P.L. And what a living son we see in Onesimus returning and Paul saying, "Prepare me also a lodging", Philemon 22.

J.T. Onesimus would be no longer a servant but a son.

P.L. There are suitable conditions now, and accommodation for Paul.

J.T. How delightful would be the incoming of Paul to Philemon's house with Onesimus there! The conditions would be entirely suitable. After Paul leaves the prison at Philippi he goes to Lydia and sees the brethren.

H.M.S. In speaking of the work of God in this household is it the more remarkable because the man was a courtier? You spoke about John presenting the word in religious darkness; is there not also there the great element of worldliness? He may have been a Herodian, but the blessing extends all through the house; you have the father and the son, and then the servants are evidently affected.

J.T. It is the Lord dealing with what you might call the social side. This man does not represent the religious side but the social side; he was a courtier. He would go to court and would have correct manners, but now all is changed, and it is a father and a son. There are the manners of the divine economy, the economy of the Father and the Son.

G.W.W. And in the house, so that the distinctiveness of this new thing in Christianity is to find this moral answer in the household.

J.T. Exactly; it is not Christ and the assembly. John is not dealing with that, but with the economy of the Father and the Son, and it is that which is to be reflected in believing households.

H.F.N. Are the households in John on a higher spiritual level than in the other gospels? Does John lift them on to an entirely spiritual level?

J.T. Exactly. We have that here unmistakably, and then in chapter 12 the house filled with the odour of the ointment.

H.E.S. Is it the idea that this spiritual dignity that is coming in transcends all religious or social dignity?

J.T. Just so, and witnessed in believers.

A.F.M. Would you mind saying a word about the fever? It says, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him".

J.T. I suppose that, like the condition in Peter's house, it is a condition of restlessness.

F.W.W. What is involved in believing here?

J.T. It is general, the word is, "He believed, himself and his whole house". The idea of believing had now become current and was understood; so if we say now that a person is a believer, we understand what is meant. It rather emphasises what we were saying, that the truth was making headway.

F.W.W. The truth was now becoming characteristic of households.

J.T. It says, "Himself and his whole house".

Ques. In chapter 2 it says, "Many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he wrought. But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them",(John 2:23,24) and here you have, "Unless ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe". Now it comes to the point that he does believe with all his house. Would that indicate an advance?

J.T. I think so; it goes further than the jailer's faith. He believed in relation to his house, but I think the faith here is attributed to every one in this man's house. "Himself and his whole house".

J.J. This morning you referred to the days; here it seems to be a question of hours. You have the sixth hour at the beginning of the chapter, and then the seventh hour.

J.T. Well, hours count. They do not come into the division of time in Genesis 1; it is simply day and night, but John remarks considerably on hours. I suppose he used the Roman way of reckoning time. Then the Lord said, "Are there not twelve hours in the day?"(John 11:9) On this day there was a great work done in this particular hour and the man took notice of it. It reminds us of the importance of detail in divine things.

W.R.P. Does the believing of verse 53 go beyond the believing of verse 50?

J.T. I am glad you call attention to that, because in verse 50 the Lord said, "Go, thy son lives. And the man believed the word which Jesus said to him, and went his way". But now in verse 53 it says, "The father therefore knew that it was in that hour in which Jesus said to him. Thy son lives; and he believed, himself and his whole house". I think it is in keeping with the idea in John of progressive faith. It is a question in John, among other things, of the work of God, and the man in chapter 9 is illustrative of this. It is progressive, and we are shown in that chapter the progress of the truth in a man's soul. It is very fine to see a man progressing and the light spreading to his house.

Ques. Is that seen in Timothy's mother? She believed as to the progress of things.

J.T. She was a believing woman; she would believe the testimony as it came to her; whatever came from God she would accept.

W.C.G. The great woman of Shunem made room for the prophet and got a living son 2 Kings 4.

H.M.S. Do you think this man had faith in the Saviour's power, which brought him to Jesus, and he believed His bare word, and then afterwards he believed on the Lord's Person, so that the sign had its full effect in his soul?

J.T. I think so. If you went into this man's house you would find he was, in a general way, a believer. I mean, he would not eliminate from his faith certain features of the truth as some do, as for instance household baptism. He would be a believer of any testimony God gave. Like Lydia and the things spoken by Paul, he would attend to those things. That is what I apprehend is meant by the second reference to believing; I think it is progressive.

D.L.H. Would you get something similar in 1 Peter where they tasted that the Lord is gracious and then, "To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:4,5)? Is that anything corresponding to what we have here?

J.T. That is a very good scripture to bear out the thought of progress being made. Having "tasted that the Lord is gracious", then you move towards Him, and are "being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ", 1 Peter 2:3,5.

Ques. Would what you are saying about believing lead to the remark in the close of chapter 20? "That ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name", John 20:31.

J.T. Exactly; this is an illustration. If the sign led this man to believe and his whole house, what about me and my house? That is the point. So that in chapter 12, the Lord said, "While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light". John 12:36 I think we see through these chapters sons of light. This man is a son of light in relation to his house. I want to be a son of light in relation to my body, and then in relation to my house.

P.L. So would you say in regard of John the evangelist that he was a son of light in relation to his house in that the Lord could commit His mother to him?

J.T. That is very beautiful; he "took her to his own home", John 19:27. The Lord must have had the fullest confidence in that house, but, mark you, she was to be there as John's mother. She was not to be a visitor or one cared for by charity, but there as his own mother.

Rem. It is all the more beautiful because she had sons of her own. The Lord did not send her to their house.

J.T. The apostle John must have had an immense advantage in having the Lord's mother in the capacity of his mother. There it is a mother and son, but here a father and son.

H.D'A.C. The faith of this man was limited in the first case to just believing the word that Jesus had spoken, but in the second case there is no limit.

J.T. It is the general thought. If you went into this man's house, you would find he would be attending to all the things that were current as coming from Christ; the things that were unfolded were matters of consequence to him.

G.W.W. There would be a great difference between the state of the household in verse 50 and in verse 53; things would be very different, so that you would not expect to find in verse 50 the conditions that were in verse 53.

J.T. Just so; the servants were cognisant of the thing; they were in it. "Already, as he was going down, his servants met him and brought him word saying. Thy child lives. He enquired therefore from them the hour at which he got better. And they said to him. Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him". They knew; they were not careless servants in this matter. Hours count in the things of God, as well as days, weeks and years. John says, "It is the last hour" 1 John 2:18, and it denotes a crisis.

Ques. In verse 47 it speaks of the son being about to die; would that refer to Romans 8? "If ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die" (verse 13), and the apostle goes on to speak about the "spirit of adoption".

J.T. Just so. He did not die, but he was about to die. I suppose it is the state of things marking Christians around us.

F.W.W. Would a similar process to this go on in our own souls as the Lord's glory is manifested to us? There is a great deal of difference between a dying child and a living son.

J.T. Just so. The effect of the ministry of Christ at the present time, is to bring us into dignity -- the position of sons.

THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (3)

John 5:1 - 32

J.T. I would suggest that we consider this chapter in relation to the Lord's service in the public profession in modern times. This sign is not a sequel as the two earlier signs are; it is a new feature, and introduces the great subject of the Lord's relations with His Father in His public service. It is a unique chapter in the gospel, and serves as an occasion to consider the relations of the divine Persons in their operations. The scene of the service is Jerusalem, not as yet abandoned by God, but rather where there were still interventions of divine mercy. The intervention of Christ in this scene in this manifest way, making a man completely whole, serves to bring out what Christendom is in its public aspect and profession; and that the work of grace in relation to it, though perfectly done, may end in no moral issue or result for God. So divine Persons themselves are brought into evidence as acting of themselves and by themselves, not mediately but directly, as if to remind us that divine activities will go on to the end whatever happens.

Rem. You have in mind that there was no moral fruit resulting in this man who received the benefit, as there was, for instance, in the blind man in chapter 9, but that the sovereign activities of God go on irrespective of the result.

J.T. I think that is one lesson in the chapter, that although there were no outward permanent results, divine Persons go on in their activities in grace. In chapter 9 we see there is a result in the blind man which leads through the flock in chapter 10 up to the family in chapter 11, which is an encouraging side, because it shows that if one act of divine grace in the

public sphere may not result in anything for God, divine Persons go on until there is something. The exercise begun in the blind man has its culmination in the early verses of chapter 12.

The man in our chapter is not detached from the current religious system; the Lord finds him in the temple. There is no thought of his coming into suffering because of his witness for Christ. In that way it may be applicable to what has taken place in the profession leading up to the last days. The man remains attached to his system instead of suffering with Jesus, and so the Lord has to say to him, "Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee". That is the position; something worse will come. But the sign is perfect in itself; the man was made thoroughly well.

H.E.S. Are you distinguishing between the public sphere and that which is produced, particularly later on, in the vessel?

J.T. I am distinguishing between what has taken place in the public body without result for God, although the work was perfect in itself, and what subsequently had result in something for God. That is, chapters 9 to 12 inclusive, contemplate something for God; so that I think we may regard it as indicating that this dispensation will finish up with something for God. However small, it will be there in quality; but here there is nothing, and so divine Persons are seen acting by themselves. Even as to witness, the Lord appeals to His Father: "The Father who has sent me himself has borne witness concerning me" (verse 37).

Ques. Would it be at all like Sardis? "I have not found thy works complete before my God", Revelation 3:2. There was nothing fruitful for God.

J.T. Just so. Certainly Sardis had "received and heard", but there was no result; but Philadelphia had result for God.

Ques. In what way would His glory shine out when there is no result as in this case?

J.T. In the perfection of the work done and the grace that led Him to think of the man. The public position is described in the first four verses, and then it says, "There was a certain man there who had been suffering under his infirmity thirty and eight years. Jesus seeing this man lying there, and knowing that he was in that state now a great length of time, says to him, Wouldest thou become well? The infirm man answered him. Sir, I have not a man, in order, when the water has been troubled, to cast me into the pool; but while I am coming another descends before me. Jesus says to him. Arise, take up thy couch and walk. And immediately the man became well, and took up his couch and walked". That is certainly the shining out of glory; and the public profession today, indicated in Jerusalem here, has had the advantage of corresponding testimony.

Ques. The rich grace and power of God are there and available, whether it is received or not; it is what comes out from God in grace. So your thought is that the Father and the Son seen in their own immediate relationships, can handle the situation.

J.T. That is how the truth stands.

A.P.M. What is the application of this sign today?

J.T. Well, Sardis has been alluded to, but the revival a hundred years ago resulted publicly in disaster. What we are going on with now is, you might say, a remnant of a remnant. The great body of those affected by the light went off in independency and remained there. Others have gone off since, adding to the darkness. Thus in the many of those who were affected directly by the movement referred to, there was no result for God. Indeed there has been not only the opposition of imitation, but also, from time to time, direct attacks. They come back, knowing the place, with lanterns and torches and weapons. Compare John 18:2, 3.

Eu.R. What is the import of the pool here?

J.T. It is not running water. It alludes, I think, to the stationary character of Christendom. Running water requires scope; you cannot have running water in such an institution as Presbyterianism for example; you cannot have it in those enclosures. Whatever is of God is not sluggish; running water is the Spirit given scope; the way is made for Him, the saints being together in affection. Our meeting here today is on that principle, thank God!

H.M.S. And would this sign be in the nature of declaration, and not revelation in the way you have been speaking of it?

J.T. Somewhat. It is a public matter; God is seen here in the very centre of official religion. The evangelist tells us that "there is in Jerusalem, at the sheepgate, a pool". One has often wondered why it is in the present tense, Jerusalem doubtless having been destroyed at this time; I think it means that this state of things continues around us. God has not wholly abandoned the public profession; the symbol of mercy is still there. You have the idea of a pool and occasional interventions in the troubling of the waters, but no permanent result.

Ques. Would the river at Philippi "where prayer was wont to be made"(Acts 16:13) at the outset, and the Spirit's speaking at the close be in contrast to the pool?

J.T. I think that is right; a river is living. Rivers have power of self-purification. At the outset God brought in the rivers. In Genesis 1 the waters are gathered together into one place and the dry land appeared, but in chapter 2 you have a river going out of Eden to water the garden, and that is a thought that runs through Scripture.

Rem. Like Revelation 22.

J.T. Exactly, and it brings out the gold. Apparently the link is with the gold. It says of the land encompassed by the river Pison -- where the river has free course -- that "the gold of that land is good; bdellium and the

onyx stone are there", Genesis 2:12. They come into evidence in relation to the river.

H.E.S. Were you suggesting that, however stagnant established religion might be, God in His grace was in activity?

J.T. There is a pool in Jerusalem. I should not like to think that God had wholly abandoned the public body. I do not think He has.

Rem. I suppose we see the evidence of that in souls being brought into new birth and in evangelical work.

J.T. Yes. The work of God goes on, otherwise many of us would not be here today. There are angelic visitations, but the Lord comes in and acts entirely aside from these here. That is, He is not working on that principle. The yearly visitation is angelic; there is distance, whereas the Lord Jesus is operating aside from that altogether; He disregards the pool. He asks the man, "Wouldest thou become well?" He had been there a long time, and that is how matters are in the systems; you have to wait. It is a question in the general profession of officialism and what it decides. Whatever God may do has to be held up until officialism moves, and, moreover, there is no power in yourself either. There is no man there; the principle of sympathy is not there. "Sir, I have not a man", the infirm man says, "in order, when the water has been troubled, to cast me into the pool". Now, the Lord comes in in contrast to all that, and that is what I think we may see in the subsequent part of the chapter, how divine activities go on outside of all those things, and that they will go on. There is no thought whatever of divine Persons ceasing to operate. The Lord proceeds immediately to say, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work". From the very outset the Father works.

H.F.N. Are we justified in regarding what underlies this sign, as indicating that the Lord's intent in the

man walking, was that he might move in relation to the sphere where divine Persons are operating? In keeping with what was said as to the father and the son in the house (chapter 4), in this chapter you have the Father and the Son working together. Is there a link in any way?

J.T. That is very suggestive. The intent of the sign was to make the man superior to his circumstances. He carried his bed, and if he did that, he ought to be able to move in relation to divine operations, to move out of the limitations suggested in the pool. I think what is intended is to make him a son of light in relation to his circumstances, that his circumstances should not hold him, but that he should be free to move in relation to what divine Persons were doing. But he did not; he was found in the temple. He did not move spiritually at all.

H.F.N. In chapter 1 it says, "No man hath seen God at any time",(John 1:18) and then we have a reference here to the fact that there was no man to put him into the pool. Does the chapter supply the man?

J.T. I think so; the One in whom God is declared was ready to help the infirm man. We are here in the presence of one of the features of the declaration of God. It implies that we are made superior to our circumstances, which I think applies at the present time, because circumstances are very pressing. God would show us how we are to be superior to them, to carry them as it were, so as to move on with what is being done divinely. The great pressure that exists abroad today is a very serious matter, and it is a question whether we come into the good of this sign, and so are made superior to our circumstances -- sons of light in relation to them -- whether we may be able to carry them and move on. The sequel here, shows that divine Persons have to move on by themselves, and they will do so if we do not go on with them.

Ques. What would you say was the real difficulty with this man seeing he did what the Lord wanted him to do?

J.T. He did not leave the system. He is not cast out; he bears no testimony that arouses any opposition to himself. He remains where he was, and the Lord finds him in the temple and says to him, "Behold, thou art become well; sin no more". I think that would mean that the Lord had no confidence in him. As with the woman in chapter 8, there is nothing to indicate much work in her either, so the Lord says to her, "Sin no more". But we do not get that with the woman at Sychar, nor with the man in chapter 9, nor with Lazarus, -- he is let go; but here evidently the Lord has not much confidence in the man. If one comes into divine benefits and is not moving in relation to them, we lose confidence in him.

M.W.B. Do you think the work here would have in view believers being brought into the liberty of the house in chapter 8?

J.T. I think it would. If we move on from this point as the Lord intended, superior to our circumstances, we shall find ourselves in the liberty of the house. But he was in the temple, he was not detached from the system that served him so poorly, and he did not seek out the Man who served him so well.

Ques. The benefits brought in by Christ are enormous, but the great failing is there is no personal attachment to Christ? Is that the thing that comes out here?

J.T. People remain where they were, but the Lord may follow them up, even though there is no attachment to Him. So the Lord says, "Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee". What a solemn suggestion as to the public body today and anyone remaining in it.

Ques. Would this sign answer to the Lord standing at the door and knocking in Laodicea? The man being

found in the temple would indicate that he had not opened the door to the Lord's knocking, so to speak -- that he did not value the Lord's company.

J.T. That is right. There is no response personally to the Lord, and he is left with this solemn word of warning that something worse may happen to him.

Rem. Had he moved he would have answered to Philadelphia: "I know thy works", but here there was no work for the Lord to take account of.

J.T. Works that He approves are seen in those who are separate from evil. "Sin no more" is answered to by those who have the Spirit.

Rem. I wondered whether it would help to compare this chapter with chapter 4. In chapter 4 the Lord speaks of a fountain of water and the results are wonderful, but here it is a pool.

J.T. The man does not move out of the circumstances in which he was, although he had the power. It is a question of the word of Christ. There was no conversation with the man as in chapters 3 and 4. It is just the word of Christ and the perfect result of it, a man made thoroughly well, but no moral effect in him, so that he stays where he is and rather brings persecution on the Lord.

D.L.H. What is the force of the thirty and eight years, two years short of forty which is the full period of testing?

J.T. I suppose, applying it today, the two years remaining would be to finish the history of Christendom. Forty years is a tentative period. These thirty and eight years would indicate that nothing good was being worked out. Forty years would be the finish, so that Paul says, "Wrath has come upon them to the uttermost", 1 Thessalonians 2:16. I suppose the man comes into that in principle, for he did not leave the doomed system. Later the Lord says, "Now is the judgment of this world", John 12:31. Those who remain in it are judged with the world.

D.L.H. "Sin no more" would refer to the government of God.

J.T. Exactly; sinning again would imply that he remained in the old environment, and would come in for what was coming upon it.

Ques. The Lord here distinctly heals this man apart from the pool; why did He send the blind man to the pool?

J.T. I rather think the water was running in Siloam (compare Isaiah 8:5, 6). Anyway the word there is "sent". There is a moral process in that man.

Rem. The Lord discerned the work of God.

J.T. The Lord knew. "Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him", John 9:3. The works of God are manifested in him, but not in this man. "I have done one work", the Lord said -- not works; the works bear on each other and include the whole of God's operations in a believer.

H.E.S. Is it a marked feature of John's gospel that divine results are permanent? The thought is to produce movement in us, but that movement is not reached in the public body.

J.T. That is right. The first sign indicated that the disciples believed on Him; there was permanent result. They went down to Capernaum, and they are mentioned last after His mother and His brethren, but there is nothing of that with this man; he does not seek the Lord at all.

Ques. Is it not important in chapter 8, in regard of the woman, that He says to her, "Sin no more", and immediately speaks of following? "He that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life", John 8:12. Is it not a question of attraction?

J.T. Yes; it was for her to follow. He did not ask her to do it, as He did others. As I said, she is another case where results are doubtful.

Ques. What relation has the sheepgate to the pool?

J.T. I suppose, professedly, it is where the sheep are cared for.

P.L. Would you say that the shepherd in chapter 10 and the door, are rather in contrast to the sheepgate and the five porches?

J.T. That helps. The gate involves an enclosure, a fold, as the pool implies a stationary thing. It was right so far to have an enclosure, but the time was coming when the shepherd's voice would be heard. The voice of Jesus was there. "Wouldest thou become well?" and the man is empowered to carry his bed, that is, he can move. There was no need to stay in what was stationary; there was a way out. The shepherd was there, but the man did not take advantage of the liberty He gives; he is not characteristically a sheep.

P.L. Would the five porches suggest the indefiniteness of what is connected with Christendom? There is no way defined; the Lord says, "I am the way", John 14:6.

J.T. Five would be here not only ordinary human weakness, but impotency. "Having five porches" possibly alludes to the different sects, involving many ways, whereas the Lord is the one way that we are to follow.

Ques. Would the position of this man be in any way akin to the Galatians, in having received certain benefits and not continuing in them?

J.T. Exactly; they were going back to the limitations of the law which had served them so poorly. Paul speaks of the "beggarly elements", meaning the poverty of it, in contrast to sonship, which would be involved in the believer having power to carry his circumstances. The idea is that if I have been relieved from my circumstances I can follow the Lord. What better can I do than keep with the Lord who so benefits me?

F.W.W. Does the Lord raising the question of the sabbath suggest the idea of the Father working and He working with Him?

J.T. The sabbath had been broken (compare Zechariah 11:10,11). You could not keep sabbath in the presence of sin. Christ is the sabbath of God. It is remarkable that the Lord does these things on the sabbath so as to bring out that there could be no sabbath in the presence of sin. The sabbath is in Himself, and the Father rests in Him, because, potentially, sin is dealt with in His becoming a Man, compare John 1:29.

H.M.S. With regard to the effect of the great sign in this chapter. Is it that the dead hear the voice of the Son of God; whereas the result of the sign in chapter 9 is more the sheep hearing the voice of the shepherd?

J.T. I think we can understand the shepherd coming in in chapter 10, because the idea of sheep is suggested in the man who was an outcast. I think the figure of the shepherd is to bring in the care that we need, as believing on the Son of God. It is to bring out the tender care of the shepherd, so that the idea of unity should come in leading up to the family. But this man does not show himself to be a sheep, and so divine Persons proceed in their operations, leading up to the voice of the Son of God and persons living by that voice, not only by the word. He says, "He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal, and does not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life", but then the voice is more than the word. We do not get anything more than the word mentioned in regard of this man, but you get the idea of the voice connected with John's sheep; and you get the idea of the voice in regard of the dead. It is not so much the word spoken, but the voice -- the voice of the Son of God.

Ques. How is that distinction between the word and the voice realised now?

J.T. The word conveys the mind, also authority, without carrying so much the thought of His affections, what Christ is personally. The voice is the Person

more than what is said. A person is known by his voice.

P.L. So that in Revelation you have the "Word of God" and then "I Jesus".

J.T. Just so. The latter is the Person. In chapter 1, John turns "to see the voice", but afterwards we get what the Lord said.

D.L.H. What would you say of the voice of the prophets?

J.T. That is in the sense of testimony. And of course there would be what the prophets are. The prophets were distinctive; so that Peter tells us what kind of men they were: "Holy men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). That is what the prophets are, and the voice would be a testimony from such persons.

D.L.H. It seems like one voice; it is not the voices of the prophets, but the voice of the prophets.

J.T. That is important; it is their combined testimony. You get the voice from heaven too, in Revelation, without any mention of persons, but when you get the voice of the person distinctively mentioned, it is to call attention to the person.

E.S.H. When the Lord returns it is with voice of archangel; what is your thought as to that?

J.T. It is characteristic; it is supreme authority in Christ, not exactly an archangel speaking.

E.J.McB. The man, in this case, hears the Lord's word. He had the word of Jesus, but he did not know it. The idea of hearing His voice would be that he would know it.

J.T. That is the idea, and it comes out more fully in chapter 10, because the sheep know His voice, and follow Him on account of it.

P.L. The expression of John, to which you referred, in Revelation, "I turned back to see the voice", (Revelation 1:12) would suggest the Person?

J.T. No doubt he had the Person in mind.

Rem. The expression in the Song of Songs answers to it: "The companions hearken to thy voice, let me hear it" (chapter 8:13).

M.W.B. It is interesting that Saul speaks of the voice, and also Ananias: "To see the just one, and to hear a voice out of his mouth" Acts 22:14.

J.T. That supports what we are saying. It is very precious that the Lord's voice is known, but here it is the power that is in Him. It is that Person's voice, the voice of the Son of God.

I think we might see in our enquiry this morning the great bearing of the operations of divine Persons that comes out in the Lord working and Jesus saying, "My Father worketh hitherto". He might have said, Jehovah hath worked, but it is "My Father worketh hitherto and I work". He is bringing in, in the most positive way, the nature of the relations between Himself and His Father in their operations. The passage brings out the equality of the Son, as Man with the Father; but He has assumed a relatively inferior position. I think the chapter is intended to regulate our minds in regard to divine Persons, in the mediatorial position into which They have come. "My Father worketh hitherto"; that is how this thing is going on; the Father works too. We have love in activity in the Father, but the Father is not presented to us as One remaining in the dignity and majesty of deity only, but as hitherto operating, and now the Son operates. "I work", He says. It is the beautiful relations between Them in Their work. The Jews understood fully what the Lord meant, and I think that is the thing the Lord would help us in, to see the meaning of things, to think as Scripture thinks. The Jews understood that what the Lord was saying implied that He was equal with God. He says, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work", and they say in effect, You are making yourself equal with God, and the Lord does not deny it. It is absolutely true. We can come into the knowledge of divine

things, especially in relation to divine Persons, only by thinking in the terms of Scripture.

H.F.N. You referred last night to the Lord ascending up far above all heavens. Would you mind saying how that relates to what you are speaking of this morning? What is the relation of that, to the mediatorial sphere that is opened up here?

J.T. It serves to emphasise what is brought out here. It is equality between divine Persons. The Person who has taken the lowly place, goes above all heavens, that is, beyond the created sphere. The mediatorial service of Jesus obviously has allusion to the created sphere; He has come into it mediatorially. Outside of that we cannot follow Him, and Ephesians clearly intimates that He has gone beyond that, "ascended up above all the heavens", Ephesians 4:10. If we think in the terms of Scripture, we see that that means deity; it means a Person who has the right to go there, but what He is there, we cannot see. The Person is there, but we are limited. We must keep the word 'inscrutable' before us in dealing with these great matters.

H.D'A.C. That is beyond the creature.

Eu.R. Would you distinguish between that and what we have in John 20:17 "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God"?

J.T. I would, for there the ascension is in relation to us, it is to His Father and our Father.

P.L. Would not the expression, "If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before"(John 6:62) connect with deity, as distinct from "I ascend to my Father and your Father"?(John 20:17) I was thinking that the former goes beyond the mediatorial sphere.

J.T. You cannot limit that, I am sure, but I think the point of view there is, that having come down out of heaven. He goes up to heaven, but we cannot follow Him beyond the created sphere. We have to accept our limitations. Nor can we be too positive or too negative as to what is in that realm.

A.S.L. Is it not good to see also that, as you have just said, it is impossible for us to follow Him where He has gone far above all heavens, and it is equally impossible for us to know anything save what is declared, about what was before He came?

J.T. Exactly; the things revealed are for us, and not any more. I cannot even understand how the Lord moved about in the forty days after He rose. He was only occasionally manifested to His own. We have just to bow and say that while we do not understand fully, we worship the wonderful Person that could move about in that inscrutable way.

W.C.G. "I go to prepare a place for you";(John 14:2) would that refer to the new created sphere?

J.T. Yes. There is a new heaven and a new earth, but His going there has really prepared the place; there is a footing for men there; we have liberty as He has.

H.M.S. Would you help us a little more as to verse 17? We have thought when the Lord Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto", that He is referring to the past eternity.

J.T. I do not think that is the allusion, but to the breaking of the sabbath. That is, the rest of God was broken in upon by sin, and there had been no rest since, until Christ became Man. The first use of the word sabbath is in Exodus 16, linked with the manna, which is the idea of Christ as Man here. There was really no sabbath after sin came in until Christ came.

G.W.W. Is the thought that what we may know lies between the two points, when He came into the created sphere, and when He left it?

J.T. Yes.

G.W.W. You cannot travel back beyond the point where He came in and you cannot follow beyond the point where He went out.

Rem. Would that be qualified by what the Lord may be pleased to reveal or declare? One quite follows what was said, but then He has declared certain things.

J.T. Surely; what He has declared, existed before; but it is brought in in relation to the creation, and in Himself as in the likeness of flesh of sin, in the form of man, in such wise as to be intelligible to the creature. I think that is most important, because it shuts out the idea that we can look into what is there. It is the thing brought out so as to be intelligible to us, and that in a Man, "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father", John 1:18. In saying that what is declared existed before, I do not, of course, include the relations taken in order that there should be a declaration.

A.F.M. Would it include the glory that the Lord asks to be glorified with in chapter 17:5?

J.T. That is beyond the created sphere. Evidently it is so, because it was before the world, and so we have to leave it there. We know it is there, and He goes there, but we can say no more as far as I can see.

H.D'A.C. Why does it say He is "higher than the heavens"?

J.T. I think to show that He can go beyond the created sphere. How great He is!

H.D'A.C. I do not see how we come in there.

J.T. I think it is to show that our Priest is a divine Person, but a divine Person in humanity. The Son is our Priest, and so Melchisedec is assimilated to Him. God had in His mind a certain order of priest, and He brings a personage on the scene and mentions things about him which could only apply to a divine Person. "Consider how great this personage was", Hebrews 7:4.

Ques. Are there not certain features about the uncreated sphere that we are to understand, and which call for worship? I was thinking of glory and affection and equality.

J.T. We understand that they are there, as the divine Persons are, but what more can we say? What may be understood has come into our view in one of the divine Persons, in incarnation. I do not think we can speak of understanding anything else; the glory

which He had with the Father is spoken of as existing before the world was, but the Lord does not ask that His own should see it.

Rem. I only meant in reference to understanding that they were there, and that knowledge would enter into the spirit of worship.

J.T. Quite so. That is to say, the inscrutable is there, and the very idea produces worship; but I must worship intelligently, and if I do that, I worship in relation to a God that is known to me. That is to say, He is brought within our understanding, in Christ as Man. I do not think the uncreated sphere enters into our worship beyond what we know is there. We are dealing with what we understand and so the worshippers are intelligent. We worship the Father in spirit and truth; that is, God, come within our range in a known way. We must ever bear in mind "Whom no man has seen, nor is able to see", 1 Timothy 6:16.

W.C.G. Does that lead us to honour the Son as the Father is honoured?

J.T. It does; that He can go beyond what is created. It is more than the liberty of the house (chapter 8:35). The Son abides in the house for ever, that is where we are; but that He can go beyond the created sphere implies that He is on equality with God, and that is what this chapter stresses; although it stresses also, that He is subject and does not do anything of Himself, save whatever He sees the Father doing. Yet the spirit of the whole chapter is equality between divine Persons, and yet subjection in One of Them as Man.

G.W.W. So would it be right to say there was a moment when the Lord passed again into that which is inscrutable? We are confronted with the word 'inscrutability', as you said, and we cannot pass beyond it.

J.T. Undoubtedly, and we instinctively understand it must be so. We cannot restrict Him to limitations that He takes upon Himself. He may speak of Himself, as He does in the Psalms, in a way in which we could

not possibly speak of Him; we have to leave that with Himself. If He says to Jehovah, "Take me not away in the midst of my days",(Psalm 102:24) and speaks in the most abject terms of Himself, the answer is, "Thou art the Same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:27). He made the heavens and all things; there is perfect balance in thinking of the Lord Jesus in that way. But we must not impose as obligatory on Him, what He takes on Himself; and when He humbles Himself in that way, as in the Psalm mentioned, God says, "Thy years are from generation to generation, of old hast thou founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands ... thou art the Same", Psalm 102:24,25,27.

S.J.B.C. F.E.R. once said that we cannot think of Christ as God and Man at the same time.

J.T. That was a very good remark and has helped me. I cannot apply to Him, from the point of view of His deity, that He is a Bondman. He has come out from God and He is God: "Over all, God blessed for ever", Romans 9:5. That is one thing. Then I look at Him in manhood, under God's eye, and I understand something of His bondmanship there. He has taken a Bondman's form in emptying Himself.

F.S.M. Is there blessing in accepting the limitations as suggested in Deuteronomy 29:29 "The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed things are ours"? And then 1 Corinthians 2:10 "The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" We receive the Spirit that we may know the things freely given to us of God. There are things beyond us, but there are things given to us.

J.T. Quite so. The "depths of God" would be the sense in which He is known. But it has to be understood that the Spirit too, whilst a divine Person, has come from Jesus, received from the Father and shed forth. His operations are in that connection, so that we understand the things of God by Him, and He searches the depths of God. The Holy Spirit does not bring out

to us the nature of the eternal relations of Jesus; He brings out what is intelligible to us. We are not fit to receive more. I am not able to take in the creation, much less the Creator!

Ques. What is the glory which He says we shall behold?

J.T. "The glory which thou hast given me";(John 17:22) I apprehend that is the glory that He has come into as a Man. There are glories attaching to Him as Man, which are intelligible to us.

J.J. Do you think the thought of quickening coming in here is absolutely necessary to the understanding of these things?

J.T. I am sure it is; by the "voice of the Son of God". So what would this man understand in whom the sign was wrought? He might become a theologian. I mean, if he were affected by the word of Christ, there was much that he might go in for, had he ability, but evidently he was not quickened in a spiritual sense. Quickening brings us into the realm of life.

The man heard the word, but his affections were not touched. Quickening involves my being taken out of death, but it involves I am alive in my affections and intelligence, which is very wonderful. It enters into Colossians, where we are about to enter Canaan, where we begin to see divine Persons in the sphere in which They are, in relation to eternal purpose.

J.J. Is the thought of quickening in this chapter the continuation of what you said yesterday as to new birth in chapter 4?

J.T. They are distinct ideas, as already indicated. Quickening has a state of death in view.

W.C.G. Would you tell us the relation between what you have said, and verse 24, that is the development of eternal life in the saints?

J.T. What you get in these verses, where the Lord speaks of the Father's working and the Son's working, has in mind the work of God in us. It is the work of

God in us now that is in view. This man is not in that. Divine Persons have to proceed, and they are proceeding on lines that will result in something for God, so that, "He that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal". That person is a characteristic believer; not like the man raised up. The Lord is contemplating persons characterised by hearing His word and believing on Him that sent Him; meaning that you are recognising the economy of this book, the Father and the Son, and the Son coming as 'sent'. There is a moral work in the soul, and you, as believing, have eternal life; it is characteristic. It does not mean the person who is listening to you preaching the gospel, it means a person who hears characteristically. As it says, "Verily, verily ..." Those "verilys" are landmarks in the book, and severally indicate some point the Lord would emphasise. So He says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he that hears my word, and believes him that has sent me, has life eternal"; it is characteristic; he hears Christ's word and believes on the One who sent Him. It is characteristic; I am in the full light of the economy of the book, the Father and the Son, and my portion is eternal life.

E.J.McB. The man that was thoroughly well might afterwards hear the voice of one who came in his own name and be carried away by it, but the one that comes under the operations of the Father and the Son will abide for ever.

J.T. He is a characteristic hearer and believer.

A.S.L. Do you think there is a distinction to be seen and made between My Father and the Father?

J.T. Yes; My Father is the Father related to the Son.

A.S.L. "My Father" is the word He uses when we come into view. He does not say, I ascend to the Father, but My Father.

J.T. You do not get the Father named as our Father, except once in the whole gospel; that is in

chapter 20. It is always the Father, or My Father. The Father is that Person, God acting in grace.

S.J.B.C. Do you think the Father, in the abstract, always refers to the revelation of God as the Father?

J.T. It is generally that Person in the deity. In John's gospel it is never your Father except in chapter 20, but in Matthew it is constantly that. John brings into evidence that God has taken up the attitude of grace expressed in that name; it is formally stated in this chapter that the Father judges no one. So we understand that it is grace; we are brought into an economy of grace. The Father dominates it, and the Son tells us here that He is not doing anything save what the Father does. Think of the marvellous sphere of things into which we are brought where the grace of the Father dominates and where there is all this blessed activity. The Father raises the dead and quickens them, and so does the Son, and we are brought into that realm as recipients of the grace of God.

Eu.R. Would you say one word on the verse in Corinthians, where it says, "To us there is one God the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:6)?

J.T. That is how we stand publicly, which 1 Corinthians treats of: "... there are gods many, and lords many, yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6). That is to say, God, in that Person, remains in the position of deity, being the Father. Then, everything proceeds from Him and everything is for Him. "And one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him", showing that the title "Lord Jesus Christ" may be used to designate the Lord in the past, for it is by Him all things are made. I think it is the public position of Christianity in 1 Corinthians, in contrast to heathendom and Judaism. The Jews would say Jehovah, but the Christian says, "To us there is one God, the Father"; it is God revealed in grace; "And one Lord, Jesus

Christ" who brings everything into existence, "and we by Him", 1 Corinthians 8:6.

A.J.H.B. In John 16:27 you have, "The Father himself loveth you", which is very significant. Do you not think there it is the thought of the love of God coming out to us? It is the Father as that Person.

J.T. It is the Father Himself; the Father is emphasised.

G.W.W. Does not that word "My" in chapter 20 assume the fact that the Lord has assumed a position where He can definitely associate us with Himself? Does not that give special character and emphasis to that word "My" in chapter 20 which would not be present perhaps on other occasions?

J.T. I think that is important, because when He says "My Father" earlier, it is a question of divine Persons.

G.W.W. And that word has distinctly in view the thought of association in chapter 20.

J.T. It brings us in.

THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (4)

John 6:1 - 21

J.T. The bearing of chapter 5 upon the end is of great moment, showing what the public profession is going on to. Divine Persons are seen as operating, incidentally bringing out the equality of the Son with the Father; and then that the operations of the Son go on to the final judgment, the resurrection of those who believe and those who are lost; and then the solemn fact that the one who is coming in his own name will be believed, which indicates the great importance of a clear testimony as to the Person of Christ in view of Antichrist. "The Father", He says, "... has borne witness concerning me", John 5:37. He receives not witness from man, but He recognises John; and the chapter shows at the end, the testimony of Scripture, and the validity of the writings of Moses as equal to the Lord's words. The enemy is especially endeavouring to set aside Moses' testimony; "But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47).

Now chapter 6 contemplates a service in which the Lord includes His disciples. Chapter 5 is at Jerusalem and gives the general view of the public position, divine Persons operating to the end, and the public body becoming apostate; but chapter 6 is in Galilee, so that the position is changed and the disciples are associated with the Lord in this sign. It is a question of food; and the Lord may show us in our consideration of the chapter, that we have a part in the supply of food. The bearing of it is towards all; whatever we have in the way of food is for all. It says, "After these things Jesus went away beyond the sea of Galilee, or of Tiberias, and a great crowd followed him, because they saw the signs which he wrought upon the sick". That is, we

are away now from the scene of religious power and officialism, and special opposition to Christ, so that there is some interest; and interest even of this kind is not to be despised, even if occasioned by the signs. It is God approaching the profession from the standpoint of a remnant under reproach, but with food. It is not on the level of current religion, for the Lord goes up, as verse 3 says, "into the mountain, and there sat with His disciples". The Jewish passover was near, but He was going on with His disciples in moral elevation, so that a new position is taken up and food is supplied, having a bearing towards all. The things said about spiritual food, are said in Capernaum, which is especially the sphere of testimony, and links on with the religious opposition. (Compare Matthew 11:23).

H.E.S. Are you calling special attention to the fact that nothing is said about the disciples in the previous incident, but they are specially mentioned in this one?

J.T. Yes. Chapter 5 contemplates an act of the Lord by Himself. It is a movement, as you might say, in Christendom, in the very heart of the system, and those in high places were reached. God began to move; it was not done in a corner, but in the very heart of the religious system. But there was no permanent result. But divine Persons go on, and now a new position is taken up in the place of reproach "away beyond the sea of Galilee", but the bearing of it is towards the whole profession, and the disciples are associated with Him in it.

D.L.H. Why is the "passover, the feast of the Jews", referred to here at the outset, because the Lord was in Galilee with His disciples?

J.T. I thought it was just to denote that the current religious procedure goes on uninterruptedly, but He was going on too; as if we have to leave the fact that such religious procedure goes on, and not be hindered by it.

A.F.M. In this scripture we have the disciples, as you were saying, and then at the end we have the twelve baskets gathered up. Is there a connection between the two thoughts of administration?

J.T. I think that is what we shall come to. The twelve baskets bring in the thought of the administration of food, and then, at the end, the Lord speaks to "the twelve" without saying more than that, as if the idea of administration is now coming into evidence. But if we have part with the Lord in this service from this moral elevation in the despised place, He will draw us on to His own side; there is obligation attaching to it. The number would denote that it is obligatory upon us, and that the service is to be carried on according to divine manipulation, each having his appointed part. It is very precious to be drawn to the Lord's side, to sit down with Him; to start on this line and come into the idea of the twelve, which will go on into the heavenly city. Because there is nothing less before us now, and the great culmination of the administrative idea in the number twelve is in the new Jerusalem. The Lord, in referring to the apostles, does not go beyond "the twelve", giving the idea that it may be taken up at any time. Where love is amongst the brethren, you come to recognise divine appointment, not perhaps exactly official, but nevertheless there is the recognition of divine appointment and ordering.

Ques. Would that have an application in connection with the preaching, and the preachers of the gospel in a locality?

J.T. Well, somewhat, if we are dextrous enough to avoid officialism, to have the thing without the official garb. I think the word "twelve" just saves us from that. It is a select number, and the administrative idea is in it, so that the preaching of the gospel in our rooms partakes of this idea. Then that introduces another thing, that is, first principles in levitical service. We are told that Peter stood up "with the

eleven". Not only did he recognise that he was one of the twelve, not only did he look to them as supporters, but he owned, in that he stood up with them -- not they with him -- that there were others, that they also could preach. That would make room for all in the principle of it. If one stands up to preach he recognises that others can and do preach.

Ques. You say if we are dextrous enough to avoid the official garb; do you think we are liable to fall into the danger of the official garb?

J.T. Yes. The number twelve has in mind that love exists underneath. If a new meeting is formed, there is the appointment of certain persons to look after different services. There is great danger of becoming official, whereas it is simply that the work has to be done, and the principle is that I am available and the brethren allow me to do it. But the Lord greatly modifies the use of the disciples here, because, according to the better rendering. He hands the food to the people Himself; He keeps us more or less out of view, and yet we are in view, because He speaks to Philip first about it, and says to him, "Whence shall we buy loaves that these may eat?" It is as if the Lord would say. Now I give you the opportunity, what will you do about this? He does not put any obligation upon Philip to provide, but it is simply to bring out where he was, which is an important and exercising thing.

S.J.B.C. Philip was occupied with what was needed, and Andrew was occupied with what they had, but neither of them seemed to have grasped the great truth of the sufficiency of Christ.

J.T. It is an important thing to have our weakness exposed. It is a source of strength just to know how weak and ignorant we are.

Ques. Would not the fact of this being a little boy and the meagreness of the supply, encourage us in whatever conditions we may be found in a day of confusion

and weakness like this? The Lord is always competent to take up what there is if it is taken up with Him. Is there that thought in it?

J.T. Quite so. He "knew what he was going to do", and it would be done. Thank God for that! Things are going to be done, but what about those of us who are allowed of the Lord to take part in the service? The Lord would disclose to us just where we are.

A.F.M. There is a suggestion here of two hundred denarii. Is it not better to own that we have nothing, in order that the Lord may come in for us?

J.T. This calculation of two hundred denarii worth is a question of mathematics; there is no spiritual touch in it at all. That is how things come out. However clever he may have been in calculating, there is the absence of a spiritual touch with Philip.

Ques. Does the Lord expose the position in order that He may use what is there?

J.T. Exactly, so that we are discovered; and only He can disclose just how ignorant and weak we are. When that is done, the precious fact is present that "he knew what he was going to do", but in doing it, He would have them with Him intelligently. If we are to be with Him intelligently He must disclose to us just how ignorant and weak we are.

E.J.McB. Do you think in the unspiritual view that Philip took of it, the Lord would indicate to us that when a new move is being made, you want to confine your exercises to what is spiritual, rather than view the situation from the wealth of the people in actual money? Is that in your mind?

J.T. Yes, because if we are not spiritual we shall come forward with our mathematics, or something else like it, mere knowledge that can be acquired according to man. It did not take a converted man to calculate as Philip did; it was not even levitical.

P.L. Does not John close his gospel with the suggestion that mathematics fail in the presence of this

glorious Person? "I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written", John 21:25.

J.T. Very good. A scientific man would scoff at it, and say it is absurd that the world could not contain the books, but it is a spiritual thing. We get mathematics in John in the Revelation, wonderful measurements governed by the number twelve, in the city, which are absurd to the natural mind, but we have to learn to think spiritually.

Ques. What is the import of the Lord's question, "Whence shall we buy loaves"? It seems to take in the idea that they had not bread, but of the possibility of buying it.

J.T. It was to bring out what was going on in Philip's mind: "But this he said trying him". If I have a mathematical mind, or a mind only able to compute on natural lines, when I should think spiritually, the Lord knows how to expose it. It was a matter of exposure. "He knew what he was going to do", and He knew what was going on in Philip's mind.

H.D'A.C. A mathematician cannot deal with what is infinite. Christ was there, and what was infinite was there in Him, so there is no limit to His resources.

J.T. Exactly. Of course a mathematician could deal with the number of persons present, and that is how Philip calculated. But it is the absence of a spiritual touch that we should notice. If Philip had been spiritual at that moment, he would have turned to the Lord and said. You are the One to answer that question. But his answer indicated that he had no true sense of the greatness of the Person who was speaking.

P.L. Is there a contrast at the end of this chapter between the cold mathematician Judas, who reasoned in figures in chapter 12, and Peter's love for Christ: "Lord, to whom shall we go" (John 6:68)?

J.T. Quite so; the end of the chapter brings out that the Lord was making headway with His disciples, but not with the public; it says that many were going

away from Him in spite of the signs. They wanted to make Him a king; that was the effect upon them, because He could feed them. There is the absence of a spiritual touch on their side all through. But when you come to Peter's reply, you have a spiritual touch.

Ques. I suppose we may have to learn that what is committed to a few, will prove to be sufficient to fill a universe?

J.T. Quite so, if it is connected with Christ; a spiritual link is the solution. So that Philip makes his statement, and then, "One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother", speaks. Notice those two men, because of what is said of them elsewhere. They are the two that tell the Lord when the Greeks come up; they represent a certain element in this gospel. Both of them are soul-finders. Philip was a soul-finder, and so was Andrew; they were both worthy men according to chapter 1, but they miss this. They are brethren who serve well, but miss at a critical time. They miss the spiritual touch, they do not make allowance for the presence of Christ and what He can do; so that Philip magnifies the need, and Andrew minimises the supply.

H.E.S. Is the teaching of John that every fact and circumstance that comes before us is to teach us some spiritual lesson?

J.T. Yes. The great objective is John 20, where we are brought into the spiritual realm, and all this instruction is to lead up to that. But it has a special application at the present time: that if the Lord gives us anything in the way of food, the bearing of it is general. However little it is, if it is connected with Christ it will be enough. So that it says, "One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, says to him, There is a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fishes; but this, what is it for so many?" Before you have the actual food supply brought forward, there is exposure, and one feels the importance of it.

The Lord alone can expose us to ourselves; and how ignorant and unbelieving we are after all.

E.R. I thought the reason why Philip was selected was because of what he confessed in chapter 1: "We have found him of whom Moses wrote",(John 1:45) but he was not true to what he knew.

J.T. He had a good start; he found Nathanael, and knew just what to say to him, and brought him to Jesus, but he is defective here.

A.F.M. Would you mind indicating to us how it is that we may miss the point at such a valuable moment?

J.T. It is a question of state, which is the most difficult thing to discern. What can you say about a man's state? You can only go by what comes out. But it is a question of state in relation to Christ. The Lord probes us in this way; He is going to do a wonderful thing and He wants us with Him in it, but He will have us with Him thoroughly probed and exposed, so that we know just where we are as to intelligence and faith.

Ques. Why is he called Simon Peter's brother?

J.T. I suppose to bring out who the person was; there was to be no doubt as to this. He would be a very weak link in the chain if he were not exposed; and we want to be quite sure who he is. He has an important place, because he was the one who brought Simon to the Lord. You might think he would never do any thing wrong, but we want to be on our guard. However distinguished a man may be, whatever weakness there may be in him must be exposed, at least to himself.

W.C.G. A past act of faith does not prove that a man is in faith now.

J.T. That is true; it must be continuous.

H.M.S. Do you attach any importance to the fact that this long chapter is largely answers to unbelieving questions, until you come to Simon's great question at the end: "Lord, to whom shall we go?"(John 6:68)

J.T. I think that helps to the understanding of it. Peter is the great result in the chapter. I think he is a son of light in relation to the testimony, he is true to his position as one of the twelve. I suppose we find all these questions in our own histories. The chapter helps us as to what the flesh is in its many forms. It must have been very refreshing to the Lord to find one man right: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal", John 6:68.

H.D'A.C. Andrew little knew that there was One there who could feed a starving world.

J.T. The Lord would bring us into this at the present time, that this food, though it may seem very small, is to be linked up with Him, and hence the importance of chapter 5, to build us up in the knowledge of His Person. Here it is not so much the Son of God, as the Son of man, as He tells us, "Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, even God", verse 27.

M.W.B. Do you think they were truly followers here? They were not delivered from circumstances as is suggested in the previous chapter.

J.T. That suggestion is very good. The man who is able to carry his bed, ought to be able to carry these circumstances. Every emergency that arises is met as we understand the Person of Christ. He takes them up to the mountain, and they sit down with Him. What a wonderful position after all the light of chapter 5! You feel as you are sitting down with Him, that you would like to listen as He would disclose to you about Himself and about His Father. Philip and Andrew show that they had missed all that.

J.J. Does verse 9 suggest that the Lord was looking beyond the supply from the twelve to Paul's day?

J.T. Just so. It is some one who has very little distinction. Andrew minimises him and calls him a "little boy", some one of no consequence, but still he

has got something. That is the next point. Possibly it may make room for Paul and all his ministry, but the moral idea of the teaching is he is some one of no consequence but he has got something, small though it be: "There is a little boy here who has five barley loaves and two small fishes". I think the effect of chapter 5 is to make you very small. If you think of the greatness of the Person who is operating, you feel very small, however great you may be really. It came out in the apostle Paul: "who also is Paul",(Acts 13:9) which means small, but he had something. The moral teaching is that we should be on the look-out for persons who have something.

A.F.M. Is that not where the substance is, in one who is small enough to take in all the great thoughts of God, as exemplified in Paul?

J.T. Yes. As you dwell upon the greatness of Christ, it tends to make you little in your own eyes; people do not regard you as a person who is very great and consequential. But keep your eye on the man that has something of value. It was to Andrew's credit that he knew the boy had it, and just what he had. To apply it, he must have heard him give 'a word' in a meeting, or pray; he knew that little boy's measure, but he did not think he was equal to the emergency. Andrew would not think this little boy could 'give an address' or 'take a reading', but he knew he had some food.

J.J. So that the Lord could say. He is "an elect vessel to me"(Acts 9:15), when Paul was in view. It says, "he knew what he was going to do".

J.T. That helps us as to the application of it as to Paul, because the Lord must have taken counsel, so to say, in regard to him: he is "an elect vessel to me"; he had been in the Lord's mind and He knew what He was going to do with him.

Ques. Would the little boy normally develop into the grown man at the end of the chapter?

J.T. I do not think he was morally little. He was a bigger man than Andrew. That was Andrew's estimate of him. The truly spiritual man is little; he does not think of himself in any other way, and so he does not give out that he is some great one. Very often people who do are taken on their own valuation, whereas people may not think much of one who has a small estimate of himself. It very often takes the Lord to value us rightly. Andrew would never forget this, nor would any of the disciples present, I am sure, forget it.

J.J. Would Andrew be something like Barnabas going to seek out Saul?

J.T. Well, you are putting him in good company, because Barnabas understood thoroughly. He did not minimise; he knew that Saul was the man for the work at Antioch, and he brought him there. They worked together for a year, and there was a wonderful result at Antioch.

Ques. Is there anything special in their being barley loaves?

J.T. I think the barley was not very valuable. It has another meaning, it is the first-fruits of the harvest, but I doubt if that is the force of it here. It was rather to minimise what was there, that it was not wheat; it would have been more valuable if it had been wheat. It was a common cereal, and, I believe, the cheapest kind of bread you could get.

M.W.B. Rather like the barley loaf that tumbled into the camp of Midian, Judges 7.

H.M.S. Do you think this little boy was just the right vessel for the moment, just as the little maid in 2 Kings?

J.T. Just so. Also like Jonathan and Ahimaaz in David's day when he was fleeing from Absalom, and the maid that carried to them the news. She was a link in the chain.

H.F.N. What would be the contrast between the little boy here and the man from Baal-shalishah who

brought to the man of God "bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack", 2 Kings 4:42?

J.T. That is a very interesting comparison. In the first place he is a man; and he comes from a certain place, the name of which signifies that it was ruled by a lord, and then he has a large supply. I understand he represents one from heaven, as it were, with the full knowledge of what was needed at the moment. The supply of food was brought to the man of God, and according to the word of Jehovah through him, there was enough and to spare.

Rem. Perhaps like John himself, coming at the end of everything with his gospel, and epistles, and Revelation.

J.T. Well, just so, coming in on the heavenly side.

H.F.N. I only wanted to get a little help as to the difference between the thought of the boy, and the way the man comes into view.

J.T. I think Ephesians brings out the latter, the apostle is in full keeping with what he is presenting. He would have them to understand his knowledge of the mystery, and what he has in the way of intelligence.

H.F.N. I had in mind what you said, that Ephesians contemplates the full grown man. The word 'boy' is used several times in the New Testament. You have the reference to it in Matthew, and then you have the Lord Himself so designated in Luke, then Eutychus in Acts 20, and here you have John's boy. Would there be any teaching in regard of it? Matthew is the only one who says the boy was demon possessed (chapter 17). Then in connection with Eutychus when Paul embraced him it is said, "they brought away the boy alive";(Acts 20:12) and then you have the holy "boy Jesus", Luke 2:43.

J.T. If you take the "boy Jesus", it is the Spirit of God speaking of Him in that way; that is to say, He was perfectly normal. I think the one here is just a boy in the mind of Andrew -- insignificant.

Ques. Would he suggest some one who had an apprehension in measure of what came out in the Lord's Person in the previous chapter?

J.T. I think that is the meaning of it. He is a sort of product of what had gone on. He was not minimising what he had; he had some food. Then as to Eutychus, he is called a "youth" at the first, which is more undefined, but at the end it says, "they brought away the boy alive", Acts 20:12. I think the spiritual meaning is, that Eutychus was a potential man. But that is not the case here; it is that Andrew was minimising what was there. The "boy Jesus" is the normality of His growth as in incarnation.

H.D'A.C. Was not the little boy a pattern to the whole company? He had brought enough food for them, and if each of them had brought as much, the need for the miracle would not have been so great.

Rem. As regards Eutychus, the passage in Acts 20 says the saints "were not a little comforted", verse 12.

J.T. If you have a potential man there will be comfort. Eutychus would be this, through the extraordinary experience he had.

F.S.M. Would there be a willingness on the part of the boy to surrender what he had into the hand of Jesus so that there might be wealth for the company? I was thinking of the way the true Joseph is seen here. Pharaoh recognised the greatness of Joseph and said, "there is none so discreet and wise as thou", Genesis 41:39. I wondered whether if they had recognised the greatness of Christ here, that would have been their answer: "there is none so discreet and wise as thou", Genesis 41:39.

J.T. Exactly; whereas the cup-bearer of Pharaoh minimised Joseph; he referred to him as a Hebrew servant in the prison, but if he had profited spiritually by what had passed before his eyes in Joseph, he would never have alluded to him in that way. He never met a man like him, even Pharaoh was not his equal, but he minimised Joseph in his mind, which is very often the

case with ourselves. Pharaoh never minimised Joseph; he always speaks of him according to what he is.

H.E.S. Was it a calculation of an unspiritual mind in regard to this little boy?

J.T. I think Andrew's calculation is unspiritual.

Rem. It is singular for he had abode with the Lord "that day", (John 1:39).

H.F.N. Does what you have been referring to in connection with an unspiritual touch, raise the whole question of the chapter as to our spiritual constitution, and food forming it? Is that really what will bring about the spiritual touch?

J.T. Exactly; you must have a constitution in keeping with the light you are brought into. What is remarkable in the history of Israel is, that when they arrive at the Jordan they are to provide themselves victuals. God had been doing that for them in the wilderness for forty years. In John it is a question of passing out of death into life, as we get in chapter 5; and chapter 6 is the food that is necessary for that. It is a question of the supply which arises whether you have it or not; this little boy had it.

J.H.T. Why does the Lord pass over the disciples in verse 11, in the distribution of the food?

J.T. I think they had disqualified themselves; He still has to go on doing the needful things Himself. We may think we are doing a good deal, but the Lord gives us to understand that He is doing the work.

D.L.H. Does that not correspond with the Psalm which says, "I will satisfy her needy ones with bread", Psalm 132:15?

J.T. I think it does. He is doing that here, and He would take us on in it. In the other gospels He does use them, but not here; nor does He use them to find the ass in this gospel; He finds it Himself. Well, I think all that is to remind us how weak things are, so that we should think soberly so as to be wise. So that if the Lord does the thing Himself when He might

have used them, why is it? It was surely a challenge to them.

A.F.M. The only part they have in this is to gather up the fragments; is there some point in that?

J.T. Yes. He says to His disciples, "Gather together the fragments which are over and above, that nothing may be lost". That surely is an important service showing that we should value all the Lord gives. Nothing should be lost. The idea is that it is to be kept for administrative purposes; the time will come when it will be needed. If we undervalue or discredit what the Lord gives so bountifully, the supply may slacken or cease entirely.

P.L. Would that be like Joseph during the seven lean years when the food was stored up in the cities?

J.T. Very much.

Ques. Do you think our brethren in the time to come will profit by the ministry that is carried over?

J.T. I doubt if they will understand it; the setting of things is so different.

A.F.M. Would the value of gathering up the fragments be that we may have it now in the form of written ministry, in a permanent form, to be used at times when oral ministry is not so abundant?

J.T. There is the principle here of food being kept. I think the primary thought of the faith was what was kept in the hearts of the saints. Writing seems to have come in later. Baskets are vessels in which things are preserved and carried. Written ministry may be included here, but the truth must be held in faith if it is to be handed on.

J.O.S. Why is it men? "Make the men sit down". In the other gospels it is them.

J.T. They would be the more responsible. There were women and children, as we learn elsewhere, so I suppose men would be the responsible element.

Ques. In regard of the baskets and the gathering up, would it be what was said of Mary the mother of

the Lord, that she "kept all these things in her mind, pondering them in her heart"?(Luke 2:19) Would that be similar?

J.T. That was the principle. There is the idea of preserving and carrying things forward, that nothing of previous ministry is lost.

P.L. I wondered if John himself, writing so many years later, did not represent the fragments gathered up.

J.T. It is very interesting to think of how matured he must have been in writing of these things, as an old brother and apostle. I suppose the Lord took him up specially and prepared him to deal with these weighty matters.

F.W.W. Do you look at the second sign in this chapter as the complement of the first?

J.T. The first is food by which the constitution of the believer is built up, and the second is the Lord's supremacy as outside of and above all evil here. It says, "But when evening was come, his disciples went down to the sea, and having gone on board ship, they went over the sea to Capernaum". Capernaum in this chapter is a special place of testimony. I think the second sign is the complement of the first. They went across the sea to Capernaum. It is a question of leading on in the education of the disciples. In the first sign they were exposed and humbled, although allowed to gather up the fragments. I apprehend the presence of the fragments would be a rebuke to their unbelief; but now they are to have a further lesson.

We must notice Capernaum, for what the Lord said later was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and His references to Capernaum elsewhere -- the mighty works done there -- would show it was a special place of testimony. He is going to call it to account presently, and He would have before us the importance of testimony, as He said to the cleansed leper, "... for a testimony to them", Luke 5:14. However small it may be, testimony is of immense importance. It says, "And it had already become dark, and Jesus had not

come to them, and the sea was agitated by a strong wind blowing. Having rowed then about twenty-five or thirty stadia, they see Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the ship; and they were frightened. But he says to them. It is I: be not afraid. They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land to which they went". This is an important sign. The sign in chapter 5 would enable us to carry our circumstances, that they should not carry us; but here we have the Lord walking on the water -- and agitated water -- that is to say, it is a situation directly affected by Satan. Can I walk on that ? That is the next lesson. But as soon as they receive Him into the ship they are at the land, which I think means solid and known ground; we know where we are. This, added to the first sign in the chapter, would greatly enhance the Lord's greatness in the minds of the disciples. There is no need to fear any more with a Person who can do these things. It says, "They were willing therefore to receive him into the ship".

Rem. This is another side to Matthew 14.

J.T. I have no doubt it is the same incident, but another aspect of it; Peter is not seen walking on the water here. It is rather reserved for the end of the chapter to tell us of Peter's progress: "thou hast words of life eternal", John 6:68. This, in a way, is more than walking on the water.

H.M.S. Referring to the first sign in the chapter, they recognise Jesus as the prophet, but why do they wish to make Him king?

J.T. Is it not the disposition of men to appropriate Christ in relation to their needs here? The whole of Christendom has done that; it is not a question with them of going outside the world; and so, when they come to make Him king, the Lord said it was because they had eaten of the loaves and the fishes; but they were totally blind to the position. Christendom even in its most

favourable aspect, is blind to the moral import of what is professed. The Lord says, "Work not for the food which perishes, but for the food which abides unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give to you; for him has the Father sealed, even God", John 6:27. That is, they would make Him king, but He would bring in the economy of grace, which is a much greater thing. Then He said, "It is not Moses that has given you the bread out of heaven; but my Father". John 6:32

H.E.S. Is your thought that in chapter 5 the gain of His being present was not received, but His activities in this chapter bring gain to the disciples?

J.T. There is gain and much greater general interest, which is in keeping with Galilee. Even interest in the crowds is not to be despised. But it is an interest that tends to appropriate Christ in relation to this world, and for material gain, which is utter darkness to the position; and so He brings in the sealing of Himself as the Son of man by His Father, even God, and then He says, "It is not Moses that has given you the bread out of heaven; but my Father gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world". John 6:32,33. He brings us into the economy of Christianity, and presents the food afforded there.

A.F.M. I suppose it would change all their thoughts if they had "eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood";(John 6:53) they would not have aspired to make Jesus king in this world.

J.T. Showing that eternal life stands outside the realm of nature, not only outside the realm of this world in its bad sense, but the whole realm of flesh and blood. It is a dead Christ that is food for eternal life, a Christ whose blood is separate from His body -- that is, the end of human conditions as they are now. He that eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. One may seek to appropriate Christ for material gain, whereas eternal life is outside of that altogether;

and the food for it is a dead Christ in that sense. As having given His flesh for the life of the world His blood is separate from His body, and that is the end of human condition in flesh and blood; a lesson perhaps of which we know little. I confess I know very little of John 6, but I see that the food is the flesh of Christ, and the drink is the blood of Christ. Eating is a figure used for appropriation. Eating is appropriation, in the power of the Spirit, of the great fact that Christ as here in flesh and blood is here no longer. He has died, it is the end of all flesh and blood conditions.

W.C.G. Does it correspond with the quickening of the Spirit in verse 63?

J.T. That helps as to this chapter -- the spirit of it. The Spirit quickens; we have to understand that the Lord is not thinking of actual flesh and blood; it is spiritual. He wants us to understand what is signified in appropriating Him as dead, that it is the end of flesh and blood conditions. But there is the eating of Himself as He is now, as it is said in verse 57: "he also who eats me shall live also on account of me".

Ques. Could you help us as to the different ways in which the Lord speaks of Himself in this chapter, such as the "bread of life"?

J.T. "The bread of God is he who comes down out of heaven" (verse 33). That is its source; it is coming down, not simply come down from heaven, but coming down. Then, the "bread of life" (verse 49) is the bread which sustains life.

S.J.B.C. What is the distinction between the bread of life and the manna?

J.T. The manna is a living Christ here on earth in everyday life; the Lord was in ordinary circumstances as we are; manna is how He acted in those circumstances. That is, I think, what the manna means. It came down from heaven too; it was rained down.

S.J.B.C. Are the living bread and the manna synonymous?

J.T. I do not think so at all. The manna was for sustenance in the wilderness; this food is for going over Jordan. It is very like the 'victuals' that were required in Joshua 1"Prepare yourselves victuals". The word denotes strong meat; it is stronger meat than the manna. So it does not appear they go over Jordan in the power of the manna merely, although it did not cease till after they went over. Evidently there was other food required. It is another word, something taken in hunting, something strong, needed for the passage over Jordan.

H.W.S. Is there a difference between eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and what is said in verse 57, "he also who eats me"? Is that a further thought?

J.T. It is appropriating Him as He is now.

G.W.W. Does not the suggestion that they would come by force and make Him king, indicate that they had no true sense of who they were, nor of who He was, but for the believer the feeding produces moral suitability in the soul for association with Christ?

J.T. That is right; so that we go over Jordan in the power of this food. 'Victuals' denote strong meat, something to build up a constitution equal to the crossing of the Jordan. For, after all, if it be the article of death, perhaps if we challenge ourselves we are not ready to face it, but it is a question of being fed to face it, so that it is no surprise to us when it comes.

J.J. What is the reason for the change in the title? It is the Son of God in chapter 5 and the Son of man in chapter 6.

J.T. The Son of God is generally what He is on God's side towards us; but this is a lowly Man coming down here, giving His flesh and blood for the life of the world. It is Christ on our side, and He goes up on our side -- the Son of man going up where He was before. It is wonderful to travel the road indicated here and see Him go up, so to speak, for it is the building

up of a spiritual constitution in us, culminating in Peter's remark. In answer to the Lord's question, "Simon Peter answered him. Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God", John 6:68,69. It is what they had believed and known. It is not a revelation from the Father here. The point is to show that there was development, that some one is getting on, and that is our salvation in the testimony. If some one gets on, others will follow. Peter is the leader in this confession. He speaks for the others, but obviously the light he conveys is in his soul. There is somebody getting on, and so he says, "we have believed and known". The faith and knowledge extend back, and are continuous, and there is this beautiful speech: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God", John 6:68,69.

D.L.H. Is it not important to notice that the eating in this chapter is connected with eternal life, whereas the eating of the manna is never so connected?

J.T. Never; the manna is to sustain us here in our life of flesh and blood.

Ques. What is the significance of the expression, four times repeated, "I will raise him up at the last day", John 6:40?

J.T. That is very comforting as to the resurrection. The "last day" is the last day, and so the victory is sure; whatever happens in the interval does not affect it.

H.D'A.C. Why does Peter say, "the holy one of God"? It seems rather disappointing. You would have thought he might have used a greater term like "the Son of the living God".

J.T. That is what some theologians thought he should have said. The Textus Receptus has these very words, but the New Translation has the former.

H.D'A.C. It seems to be somewhat of a drop.

J.T. It is a drop; but I think the point is that Peter says just what he believes. He has reached a

very important point as knowing that Jesus is "the holy one of God".

S.J.B.C. He does not go beyond his measure.

J.T. No. Matthew 16 is, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God",(verse 16) but that is revelation. This is distinct progress founded upon what he had observed in Christ, because he says, "we have believed and known", John 6:69.

Ques. Does the first epistle of Peter work this out experimentally? "To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones ...", 1 Peter 2:4,5.

J.T. That is right. It is growth, constituting believers living stones, so that they come to Christ as the Living Stone. He could speak of it feelingly, for that is what is indicated here. Jesus had words of eternal life, and He was the Christ, "the holy one of God". The thought of holiness at this juncture is most significant.

THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (5)

John 9:1 - 41; John 11:32 - 44

J.T. It will be necessary to touch briefly on chapters 7 and 8, so as to get the link of the instruction between chapters 6 and 9. What was before us yesterday afternoon has special importance as bearing on the present time, the Galilean position, and the food furnished there in relation to the disciples. It is food, as the chapter signifies, "which abides unto life eternal" (verse 27), that is, food to give a constitution for entering into life eternal. The result of the instruction, in Peter as representing the twelve, has a great bearing on the present moment, raising the question with us as to how we are progressing in relation to what the Lord has given in our times. Peter denotes by his answer to the Lord, that he and the others had found that there was no one to go to but Christ, for He had "words of life eternal", John 6:68. That is, all that may be known of it is in Him, not only in a general way, but in the details of it, in the words of it. And then he adds that they had believed and known that He was the Christ "the holy one of God",(John 6:69) the basis thus being laid in his soul for the priestly system in holiness. The Lord, in order to make the position clear, calls attention to the fact that He had chosen the twelve, but that one of them was a devil, so that, whilst progress is being made in the knowledge of the Lord generally in the twelve, the enemy was working, which is a solemn fact.

Then chapters 7 and 8 suggest what is current abroad in Christendom, the current opinions, pros and cons in regard of Jesus, but the testimony and true conflict move on in triumph, so that we are brought into the light of the glory; and that, not only as a matter of light, but in tangibleness in the Spirit received, which

is a very real thing. "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" -- (John 7:38) that is, out of a believer on Jesus. What was in mind was not merely individual, but the Spirit that they should receive, should be received collectively, but its effect should be seen in individuals.

Then chapter 8 opens with the position of the Lord, the manner of His life, not His life as represented in the manna, but His own personal associations on the mount of Olives, which has its place now; the public position being in the temple, and the chapter presenting Him as the "light of the world"; so that he who followed Him should have "the light of life". Chapter 8 brings out the actual presence of life here. Of course it was in Himself, but the coming of the Spirit made it a fact in the saints; and it is a question now of whether it exists practically amongst the people of God, so that there should be "the light of life", which is an excellent guide for believers, who seek a living state of things. Then we have the great immutable truth of the Lord's Person. His entering into the house as formed spiritually here on earth, had a beginning; but His Person had no beginning. He abides in the house for ever, that is to say, from a given time on; but "Before Abraham was, I am", (John 8:58) has no beginning and no end. So that we are on solid ground at the end of chapter 8, immutable ground, in the Lord's assertion and the consciousness, as one might say, of His eternal personality: "Before Abraham was, I am", John 8:58. This great truth is the determining test for all, for the Lord says, "unless ye shall believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins", John 8:24.

M.W.B. With regard to your remarks in reference to the Holy Spirit in chapter 7, would you say a word as to the place the Holy Spirit takes in the mediatorial system? As a divine Person one would suppose there was an initial act of His own, apart from being sent, as with the Lord in Philippians 2, there was an act of His own. He "emptied himself". In what way did the Spirit come into the mediatorial system?

J.T. As acting, I think He is always seen in a mediatorial capacity, but this must anticipate the incarnation. The mediatorial service, whether in the Spirit or in Jesus, links on with the incarnation, and not only so, but also with ascension as regards the Spirit's presence here, Christ being in heaven as chapter 7 clearly states: "The Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified",(John 7:39) as if to call attention to the fact that what we now have, was not yet. It does not refer to the eternal personality of the Spirit, but to the form in which He is here now, that He has come from heaven, as received from the Father, and shed forth. His activities in the creation and in the Old Testament, are of course mediatorial; but I think all must be linked on with the great mediatorial movement in one of the Persons of the deity becoming a Man. It is only thus the creature can understand.

Eu.R. Would you say a word as to chapter 15:26, which reads, "The Spirit of truth who goes forth from with the Father"?

J.T. Well, it is to call attention to the fact that He was with the Father, and thus had a perfect first-hand knowledge (I use that expression for convenience) of the Father's thoughts of Christ; for that is what was in view in His coming -- to bear witness of Jesus. The form of the statement, especially as given by J.N.D., is to assure faith of the Spirit's competency to bear witness of Jesus. He goes forth from with the Father.

A.M.H. Is there any thought in the Spirit descending upon the Lord, of an initial act of His own, prior to His being sent forth by the Lord or given by the Father to us?

J.T. I think the facts presented indicate that the action was sovereign, but in perfect keeping with the Father's announcement accompanying it.

Ques. In the same way in Luke 1:35 as to the birth of the Lord: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee". Would that be in the nature of an initial act?

J.T. I have no doubt it would, but it has to be borne in mind that the Spirit is the Spirit of God ; under this title He is seen in Genesis 1:2; while His attitude there is sovereign, it seems to convey representation.

Ques. Does not "by the Holy Spirit" involve what was mediatorial?

J.T. It does and so God garnished the heavens by His Spirit. The Persons we know as the Son and the Spirit were active in the creation. God created in that way, this involves mediatorship; but They were acting as God, not in a relatively inferior position.

M.W.B. In Acts 10:38 we read, "How God anointed him with the Holy Spirit", as if it were God's act.

J.T. I think, as I remarked, all the activities of the Spirit are on the mediatorial principle, and all hinge on the incarnation, whether anticipatively, or actually afterwards.

G.W.W. So that you would make a good deal of difference between what we read about the Spirit in the Old Testament, and what we read concerning Him subsequent to the incarnation.

J.T. I should; only I have thought all the Old Testament and creational activities anticipate Christ's mediatorship as Man. It is intelligible to me that the mediatorial actions of Christ in the creation, and in the Old Testament, anticipate His incarnation; but it has to be remembered too, that the mediatorial service does not necessarily imply inferiority. One can be a mediator of another as on equal terms. We know that the Spirit spoke and otherwise acted as the Spirit of Christ in Old Testament times, and this shows that He took a mediatorial position in view of incarnation. Compare 1 Peter 1.

H.D'A.C. What makes you say that He acted mediatorially before He became Man?

J.T. He acted thus in the creation. "By whom also he made the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2). On the other hand,

John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 show that all was effected by Him -- without reference to God using Him.

A.M.H. As to sending, could it be said that one divine Person would send Another unless there were some movement first on the part of the divine Person?

J.T. I think the idea of one divine Person sending Another would be subsequent to the Second moving of Himself, and that is clearly intimated in Philippians 2:6. The action is the Lord's. "Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself, taking a bondman's form"; the emptying synchronised with the bondman's form. It was all His own action, and never afterwards obligatory on Him, save by Himself, as far as I see. He has taken it and acts in it, but things are never fixed on Him; the position of a bondman is not fixed on Him as exclusive of other features. He has taken it Himself, and we have to leave it there. I think all the statements in Philippians 2 help as to the Spirit. He is not personally a subject of revelation exactly, as the other Persons are, although He is seen in revelation in the baptismal form, as in relation to the other Persons; but as far as I see, Scripture presents Him as always acting mediatorially. But the Spirit of God is really God, but now taking a lowly place in order to serve, and this is most touching as apprehended.

E.J.McB. With regard to a mediator not necessarily being on a lower platform than the One He mediates with, are we right in connecting the thought of "Let us make man" (Genesis 1:26)?

J.T. You mean that the word is plural. What have you in mind?

E.J.McB. Do you think it refers to the thought of equality between the Persons referred to?

J.T. No doubt. God, in Genesis, is generally in the plural, indicating supremacy; and I think the idea of the plural formally mentioned in the passage you refer to, is to show the importance of the transaction

in view. The plural used thus, is to call attention to the importance of the matter in hand; it was a prime matter with God, especially the creation of man. That is how I understand it. I doubt if you can make very much as to the plural beyond that; all that God is, entered into it, the matter was so important. From the New Testament we know definitely that three Persons were there.

D.L.H. Might we say that the "us" is a plural of dignity?

J.T. Yes. You get it also in wisdom in the book of Proverbs in certain connections. For instance, in chapter 9:1, it is in the plural because the matter is so important. "Wisdom hath built her house" is in the plural, and so in one or two other instances, as if to emphasise them. All that wisdom is, entered into that transaction, for it was a great transaction to build her house. The creation was a prime transaction with God, especially the formation of man.

G.W.W. In referring to those verses in Genesis 1, must we not bear in mind that the One who uses the plural form, and of whom it is used, is the One of whom we are speaking as the Son?

J.T. Quite so; all the actual transactions were by Him, and that is why I think we should regard the mediatorial service as not necessarily a bondman's service. It is seen in Him as in human form, but it was there before; that is, it is the Person who in the creation acted in His own power, and not only for God instrumentally. But He was used by God to make the worlds, Hebrews 1:2.

W.R.P. What about Colossians 1?

J.T. Well, it works out there; you have Him acting in His own power in that chapter, and then you have Him acting instrumentally as well, that is, acting for Another. I think you will see that if you look at the passage, verses 16 - 20.

H.M.S. In reference to Philippians 2 do you consider the bondman's form is what has been called an excess of grace?

J.T. It is to indicate the stoop as an example for us. It was not imposed upon Him, or He could be no model. It was His own mind. Acting in obedience is another thing.

Ques. What He voluntarily assumed?

J.T. The "mind that was in Christ Jesus".

Ques. In Genesis the Spirit of God is mentioned as brooding over the face of the deep; would that be His own act?

J.T. It is the Spirit of God there as already mentioned. If the Spirit of God is acting, God is acting, but it is God in relation with His creation -- as it were, feeling what had come to pass in it.

Ques. Has it in view all that follows in connection with the mediatorial system?

J.T. It has undoubtedly. It is brooding or hovering over. It is God taking account of the chaos, and that in a first-hand way, not merely at a distance. Because Genesis brings that out, that whilst God, of course, knows all things perfectly in Himself, yet He would show us that He has first-hand knowledge of things. So He came down at Babel, and came down to see what Sodom was; and so, the Spirit of God "hovering over the face of the deep"(Genesis 1:2) was that God was taking account of the thing feelingly, in order to bring order out of the chaos.

Eu.R. If we hold carefully in our hearts and minds what you have been saying as to the stoop being entirely His own act, would it not guard us against speaking of limitations upon Him in any way?

J.T. That is what I believe should be observed. He takes up the position Himself, but to impose it upon Him and to limit Him to it, is another matter. In fact, we cannot limit Him to it, because if we look at it from

the divine side, we cannot introduce the thought of bondman.

J.J. Do you think the passage in 1 Timothy 2:5 where the Mediator is referred to, is to put Him on the same equality as God? It says, "God is one, and the mediator of God and men one".

J.T. That is a question of the mediatorial service in regard of men, but His mediatorial service is wider than that; it existed before men existed.

J.J. Only it says that He is one; the word "one" is used twice.

J.T. No doubt it involves His equality. He could not be Mediator on God's part save as equal with God; but He must also be Man to be Mediator in relation to men.

H.E.S. Is there any connection between the thoughts in Genesis of the darkness on the face of the deep, and the condition of this man in John 9?

J.T. I think there is.

G.W.W. Is your thought that every activity of divine Persons as to which we are instructed in Scripture, had in view this movement in incarnation; that that was in prospect in every activity?

J.T. That is what I understand. Wisdom takes us back. I do not think we go back any further than Proverbs 8 indicates. We can travel back with wisdom. And we have to use terms of time; we cannot think otherwise, and so we speak of a time or period in which the necessity for wisdom arose, that is, when the counsels of God in regard of the creation began to take form. Then wisdom came into evidence; it was "brought forth". We can travel back there, and see in wisdom's remarks in Proverbs 8:31, that man was in view. That is the great central thought: "My delights were with the sons of men". Therefore it seems to me, that mediatorial service extending back as far as that, had the incarnation in view. The sons of men would be sons developed in that relation. It helps us as to viewing the matter of

mediatorial service, that there were divine operations from the outset, but their end, and the great central thought, was the incarnation. Everything hinges on that. There would be nothing really to hold the heart of God, apart from His great thought of sonship in a divine Person. That is to say, the centre of the whole created sphere is a divine Person in sonship here, and sons with Him. So the operations before and after are seen there, and the operations of the Spirit are included in that.

W.C.G. In the reference in Joshua to God hearkening to the voice of a man, does that refer to the operations of the Spirit in relation to the mediatorial system?

J.T. I think so; that is typically Christ.

Ques. When it says, "Let us make man in our image",(Genesis 1:26) was it not divine Persons taking counsel as to the form the Son should take in incarnation?

J.T. That was in mind. Adam was the figure of Him that was to come. As I was saying, what would there be in the creation apart from a divine Person becoming Man? There is nothing in it great enough for God. But the creation is held in relation to a divine Person in manhood; the whole moral system, and the physical creation with it, is held in connection with a divine Person in manhood, as the Son.

H.D'A.C. I am not very clear as to that verse "Let us make man". Does it indicate the three Persons in the Godhead or not, and if it is not, what Person does it mean?

J.T. No doubt we would have to put the idea into it, but the plural in such a connection does not necessarily imply more than one Person, especially if it be a question of emphasising the greatness of the thing that is in hand.

H.D'A.C. But with the light we now have we should say so.

J.T. Of course, it was the God now made known in three Persons. The transaction was very great, one

of the divine Persons being in view, as becoming Man, according to eternal purpose.

P.L. In Isaiah we have, "Have ye not understood from the foundation of the earth?"(Isaiah 40:21) and then it says, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth", Isaiah 40:22. You were saying that the foundations of the earth had that Person in view.

J.T. Exactly: "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth". (Isaiah 40:22) The circle may be any extent but there He is. That is the idea. The Holy Spirit would engage us with the grandeur of the thought of a divine Person in the Godhead, known as the Son, as the centre of everything.

Rem. In the chapter we are considering it says, "Since time was, it has not been heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind" (verse 32), as if that One is now coming into view.

J.T. Yes. This is in time; the Lord has been known in time as the Son. The Lord would engage us in this section with the carrying forward of the thought of disciples. They are exposed in chapter 6, and then they shine in the end of that chapter in Peter's confession; and carrying them forward, I think we arrive in chapter 9, at formal relations in a locality, which corresponds with Corinthians; and in the section this afternoon, the Lord may help us to arrive at formal relations in their universal bearing, our heavenly status. So that you have here the neighbours, and in the opening of the man's eyes the sign involves obedience. It is a question of obedience and one being sent, and the neighbours enquire as to it. The bearing of the sign is towards the locality, and it runs on to the beginning of chapter 12, where "Jesus ... six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where was the dead man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead", John 12:1. The passage shows that the Lord came back to the place where the glory of God, and the glory of the Son of God had shone, and found conditions corresponding to the

great light and grace and affection that had been manifested there. That, I think, is what the Lord would bring us to. It is a circle in which the Lord is entertained and yet not a word is spoken as far as the record shows; but there is evidence of great spiritual power and affection, at the beginning of John 12. The silence is broken by Judas, and then the Lord speaks; aside from that there is not a word. It is a question of the saints understanding a realm of spiritual power in silence. If we have that before us, I think what intervenes from chapter 9 will become intelligible.

M.W.B. In what way do you link the family relations with the epistle to the Corinthians? Is it because of the local setting, the place being mentioned?

J.T. Well, I am speaking of what should underlie the external forms in any locality, what should underlie the symbols of the Lord's Supper and all the public aspect of things; to make it what it should be -- to make it a matter of spirituality, and not merely external form. That is to say, the power to sit, for instance, as the bread is passed round -- sometimes taking a considerable time -- and the cup and the box; the ability to sit bodywise, to sit in relation to one another, and not simply waiting patiently for the time to pass. There is a great difference. I use the word "body" because it is used in Corinthians, and I think John 10 helps greatly, the saints being seen there as brought into "one flock".

M.W.B. Therefore behind the external order of Corinthians we are to suppose the spiritual elements of John 12.

J.T. Yes. You would agree with that?

M.W.B. I think it is very helpful; it gives substance to the form.

J.T. It gives substance and power to what is done. We are not simply waiting for the time to pass. The outward form is gone through, but we are able to sit

in spiritual silence, without a word spoken. Thus place is given to the Lord as Head in the assembly.

Ques. Might I ask whether we take sufficient notice of the feeding in the Supper, whether we are in the enjoyment of what is set before us in the way of eating and drinking?

J.T. I think that is a very good suggestion. There is an additional thought to the memorial. It is for a memorial, but then there is the eating and drinking, which necessarily would be enjoyment, and also afford strength.

Rem. I thought that would give us power in respect to the silence, that is to say, you are in the appropriation and the enjoyment of that which is beyond any telling.

J.T. And then, as I was saying, we sit together "bodywise", for 1 Corinthians 10:17, says "we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf". There is such a sense of being in the body, of being so vitally linked up by the Spirit, baptised in the power of one Spirit into one body, and then being made to drink into one Spirit, that it makes the position enjoyable. The links are in power and we are sitting in silence not simply waiting for the time to pass, but in spiritual enjoyment.

Ques. So in a way you are eating with the others; it is all one body?

J.T. Quite so; it is the "bread which we break" and the "cup of blessing which we bless",(1 Corinthians 10:16) and so we are all being made to drink into one Spirit.

Ques. Would the sense we have in that connection bring about the spirit of reverence?

J.T. I am sure it would. It would indicate the spiritual relations in which we are set, and the spiritual enjoyment that we have, so whether it be the announcements, or the giving of thanks, or the passing of the bread and the cup and the box, all is in the power of a current of spiritual links and affections.

E.J.McB. Does the thing hang on the two thoughts, of the believer being cast out of the world on account of his links with Christ, and being brought out of death into the life of Christ? Would they make the conditions for public silence?

J.T. Just so; I think those two things are necessary for assembly formation and service. Chapter 9 is the moral fibre of the saints, like the acacia wood, and fits in with 1 Corinthians. The man proceeds on moral lines. The Lord leaves him and does not give him any instruction as to what to say. It all comes out as the effect of the process in his soul, so that he is able to answer himself. He tells the neighbours what he did, and says, "I saw". He uses the past tense, just acquainting them with the fact, but in dealing with the Pharisees, he says, "I see". It is important as in the assembly that we see, that we have moral perception. "I see", he says, and then he is able to converse with the Pharisees and the Jews, and get the mastery of them. I doubt if any one is rightly in fellowship who has not the mastery in dealing with the Pharisees and the Jews.

Ques. How would you detect that now?

J.T. You are able to give an account intelligently of your position. The man ends up in the most eloquent way. A man that had no previous education and never saw anything, is now on more than equal terms with them, and says, "Since time was, it has not been heard that any one opened the eyes of one born blind". He is reasoning on moral lines, and that is what enters into 1 Corinthians, into the public setting of a local company -- that we can give an account of our position and why we are there. "And they cast him out". He challenges them and says, "do ye also wish to become his disciples?" It is very fine; you can see that he is really in the power of the truth.

J.J. Does the thought of "sent" refer to the Lord only, or does it include the man?

J.T. The man is brought into accord with Christ, who was here on that principle. It is like the boards of the tabernacle brought into accord with the ark, the same kind of material.

P.L. Would you connect the showing forth of His death, as flowing out of the testimony of the blind man; and the memorial more with the fruit of what Lazarus passes through, his relation to Christ in life?

J.T. I think Lazarus brings us on to Colossians. Chapters 11 and 12 point to our being risen with Christ, but I do not think it is as risen with Christ that we remember Him. It is more on the moral line as with the man in chapter 9. 1 Corinthians is more on the moral line, and how can we be here in the presence of these terrible worldly conditions, save as formed morally and able to answer, and not only to answer, but to go forward and establish the truth, that the ground taken is of God. "If this man were not of God he would be able to do nothing". It is the truth reasoned out on moral lines that cannot be gainsaid. But chapters 11 and 12 mean that we are in association with Christ, that we are risen with Him. It is more Colossian ground.

A.F.M. Does the incident of the blind man in this chapter link at all with chapter 4? The Lord reveals Himself to the woman as the Christ, but in this incident as the Son of God, which seems to be the great end of this gospel: "that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God", John 20:31.

J.T. Quite so. I was going to remark that the blind man is cast out, and that is what makes him interesting to the Lord. Of course He is always interested, but the Lord makes no overture until He hears that he is cast out, showing the basis of the public assembly. It is on the principle either of being cast out, or of having left what is opposed to Christ, and when the Lord hears about that in any locality, then He finds us, and raises the question as to His sonship. It is not only that He is to be known as Son, as a question

of His Person -- that is already dealt with in chapters 1 to 5 -- but the point is, that this being known, becomes effective in a believer. That is the great result, and then as it becomes effective in the believer another world is opened up to him, because really this man is without a country, without a home, without a religion; he is a pariah. Well, the Son of God is the portal by which he enters into another world.

W.C. Would that correspond with the Lord coming in in relation to the Supper?

J.T. Somewhat; where the suitable state exists. The state existed with this man: "Jesus heard that they had cast him out". That means he is just like the Lord in the judgment of the world -- worthless.

W.C. The Lord being absent in that way. He comes in in relation to what is coming to light in the man.

J.T. The Lord comes in to associate Himself with what is in accord with Himself. That is the idea. He was rejected, and the man was rejected, so he is fit material for God's world.

H.E.S. Is this what you said at the outset, that it is only as cast out or leaving the sphere of worldly religion that you are brought into the realm of the Son of God?

J.T. You are fit for it. That is involved in the Corinthian position; you can stand your ground. Whether having to do with Jew or gentile you can hold your ground. That is what the man indicates here. So now he is taken on. It is a question of the works of God. That is what we have to see, not the work of God simply, but the works of God: and then, he is to come under the gracious care of the Son of God, who is going to put him somewhere else. He is to learn that the Son of God is the Shepherd. He has the heart of a shepherd, with the most tender consideration for us as His sheep, and He puts us into a flock. That is the teaching, and it links on with the body. It has often been pointed out, but it is very practical, that the Son

of God becomes the Shepherd, meaning that He has tender feelings and consideration for the saints.

H.M.S. Is this on the line of the epistle? "Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5).

J.T. Exactly. He is cast out. Could he stand his ground as cast out and isolated? He was able to hold his own with the Jews and the Pharisees, but definite isolation is a further experience. We need company and care, and that is what chapter 10 provides. There is the care of the Shepherd and companionship in the "one flock". Here we know the Lord as the Father knows Him and He knows the Father.

H.F.N. Would Paul's preaching of the Son of God refer to the public position?

J.T. It would as a testimony. You can understand how this man would come into that in due course. He corresponds very much with Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9.

Ques. Would you distinguish between the work of God and the works of God?

J.T. Certainly, the works of God are what are mentioned here. The work of God would be conversion or new birth, but much more has to be done, and the point is that these works should be manifested in this man.

J.J. You have connected the man in chapter 9 with 1 Corinthians. How would he come into 2 Timothy in these days?

J.T. Well, it is the same idea. Instead of being cast out, in 2 Timothy 2:19 you leave what is evil: "Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity". It is the same kind of moral fibre that enables you to do that.

Ques. Is it in the apprehension of the greatness of the Person with whom he is having dealings, that this man becomes a worshipper?

J.T. Quite so. As soon as the Son of God comes before him he is ready to own Him. The Lord says,

"dost thou believe on the Son of God?" and he says, "And who is he Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him. Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he", meaning that the man had really come into contact with Him before, but was not intelligent as to it. But now he worships Him.

Rem. Would you say that he is in correspondence with the Lord at the beginning on the line of obedience, and he comes into correspondence with Him also on the line of solitariness, and then he is as the solitary one set in the family? The Lord opens to him the wealth of the family, and divine affections.

J.T. That is very good. So the idea of the flock in the next chapter, is to emphasise the care indicated in the Shepherd, so as to lead up to the family in chapter 11. But this terrible fact should be noted that there is a murderous spirit in Jerusalem against Christ, which is seen right through these chapters, and in chapter 10 they surround Him, meaning that His way among them is entirely shut up now. That is the end of His relations with them; and hence He leaves them and goes to where John baptised at the first.

He is now going back to first principles with a view to the family; and goes thence to Bethany, but with calculations of love. The members of the family at Bethany are given, and Jesus loved each of them. He loved the family, and they loved and honoured Him; that is what comes out in the second visit. The position in chapter 11 is the family, but in a locality. It is what was at Bethany, and the Lord comes in due course to the place, and Martha met Him and she gets light, saying, "I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world", John 11:27. She gets light as to the "resurrection and the life", and then she goes off and calls Mary secretly, saying, "The teacher is come and calls thee",(John 11:28) showing how sisterly she has become. As soon as Mary hears that, she goes to Jesus, but she has to go to the place where Martha met Him.

The teaching is, that those in a locality who may be regarded as unspiritual and to some extent ignorant, are brought into evidence as typified in Martha. She was surely very poorly instructed when she met the Lord, but we can never tell what may happen overnight in a brother. We must not be too fixed in our thoughts about brothers, because sometimes changes take place very quickly, and we ought to expect that. So as she met the Lord she was full of orthodox thoughts, and there are many like that. We cannot ignore them for they are brethren, and they may get light. She went to meet the Lord, and said, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died". She believed He would have kept him alive, but that was not the point at all. The point in Christianity is not to keep people alive in the flesh. That is a poor thing as compared with resurrection, so He says, "Thy brother shall rise again". She says to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection in the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes on me, though he have died, shall live; and every one who lives and believes on me shall never die. Believest thou this? She says to him. Yea, Lord; I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world".

Now she is illuminated, and no longer merely an orthodox sister; she believes the testimony presented to her. Christ is now before her as "the resurrection and the life", the Son of God. Orthodoxy is really a barren thing by itself. Christianity is a question of the Person of Christ; and it is as coming into contact with the Person, that we get light in our souls and see everything clearly. She says, "I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world", John 11:27. Now her soul is full of light and she goes off to her sister; her sister has a new place with her. "The teacher is come and calls thee. She, when she heard that, rises up quickly, and comes to him", John 11:28,29. But the Lord did not

go to where she was; she had to go to where He was, meaning that He honoured Martha. When brethren get clear of mere orthodoxy, the Lord would have us to understand what they are. They are valuable in His eyes, and they are to be respected, so He stays where Martha met Him, and Mary has to go there. That is a new experience for her. But there is a great difference in the general influence of the two women. When Mary moves, the Jews move. Not one of them moved when Martha moved, meaning that she had no spiritual influence. It is really a comfort that orthodox people have not much influence, and it works out that way; the Lord sees to that.

Now, when Mary goes the Jews move, and she arrives at the Lord and casts herself before Him, and says, "Lord; if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died". "Jesus therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping" -- that is, the persons she influenced -- He "was deeply moved in spirit". That is one of the finest things in Scripture, a spiritual person actually affecting Christ, because it was when "he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping" that He was "deeply moved in spirit, and was troubled, and said. Where have ye put him? They say to him. Lord, come and see. Jesus wept". There is no equal to this in the Scriptures, and it shows what spirituality is, how the Lord regards it in a locality. Now, these are the circumstances under which the sign took place; that is to say, it is a sign in the presence of spirituality, of spiritual feelings; it is the greatest of the signs, until we come to the Lord's own resurrection.

Ques. Would you say what is the difference between what we have here and Joseph and his brethren as they wept together?

J.T. That was the weeping of joy; it was the feelings of joy and affection that were aroused by the disclosure of who he was. The weeping there is not for sorrow;

but here, it is sorrow.

Ques. Is this not different from the weeping over Jerusalem? This is the silent shedding of tears, not lamenting.

J.T. No, it would not be lamenting. The Lord was deeply moved, and it is said that He "groaned in spirit". He had the feeling too of resentment against death, because of its power over the family of those whom He loved.

H.E.S. Are you suggesting that these wonderful works of God are to be manifested locally, before what is universal is known?

J.T. Yes. The effect of all this manifestation of the glory of God, and the glory of the Son of God, in this wonderful way in the locality, brings about a state of spirituality that may exist in silence. It may speak and express itself, but its power is of such a character, that it is there in volume silently. That is what the early verses of chapter 12 show. The Lord came to Bethany in relation to Lazarus, and immediately it says, "There therefore they made him a supper", John 12:2. It was a golden occasion. Then you have the persons who sat with Him at table, and Martha's serving, and Mary's ointment.

A.F.M. Would that be the merging into one family? You said earlier that He loved them each but now it is the family.

J.T. It is collective.

M.W.B. You referred just now to the state of spirituality that gave room for the sign to take place; would you say how that works out practically? Do you take the raising of Lazarus to be a further thought?

J.T. It is. It would be to enhance the spirituality that was there; and so Martha has to be regulated. She says that he was dead four days. She still needs regulation, and so the Lord said, "Did I not say to thee, that if thou shouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?" He insists on faith if we are to see

the glory of God. Then He comes to the tomb, and "lifted up his eyes on high" -- that is the way it should read -- something that comes into this sign. "Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me; but I knew that thou always hearest me; but on account of the crowd who stand around I have said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me". That is the point, that we should come into the gain of what is presented, and then He said, "Lazarus, come forth". "And the dead came forth, bound feet and hands with grave-clothes, and his face was bound round with a handkerchief". The effect of this would remain in Bethany while this family was there.

Ques. What is the bearing on us of His concern as to their hearing?

J.T. That we should come into the full gain of what happens. In chapter 20 the signs are said to be in the presence of His disciples, and they are written "that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name".

M.W.B. Do you regard progress in spirituality in the way you have brought things before us, first, in chapter 4 as to a person's body, and then spirituality as necessary to a man's house, and then to circumstances, and then the spiritual house of chapter 8? Is there a development in this way?

J.T. There is, indeed. Here we have a house filled with the odour: "The house was filled with the odour of the ointment", John 12:3. It is to bring out the greatness of the result of the signs in Bethany. What odour? The odour of the ointment that was put upon Jesus. I suppose you have that in mind?

M.W.B. Yes, I was wondering whether there was this lying behind your remarks that there must be a recognition of what is spiritual and giving place to the Spirit, before there would be the consciousness by us of passing over into that which this sign sets forth, as

risen with Christ?

J.T. I think so. It is a Colossian scene that is before us. I suppose the face being mentioned means the countenance. It is what we are as viewed in that light as risen; the beauty of what we are in our countenances. And then the silence, as being able to sit in silence in the power of spirituality, so that the Lord has His place and the others have their places with Him at the table, then the service and worship.

Ques. Would you say a word as to the part taken by each of them?

J.T. Lazarus represents the dignity of the position: "Lazarus was one of those at table with him". "And Martha served",(John 12:2) which has its meaning spiritually; and "Mary therefore, having taken a pound of ointment of pure nard of great price, anointed the feet of Jesus", John 12:3. Each has its own significance.

H.E.S. Are we now brought to the point where we reach not only the thought of spirituality but the region of spiritual dignity?

J.T. Yes. It lays the basis for chapter 20.

THE GLORY OF THE SON OF GOD (6)

John 20:1 - 31

J.T. In order to link up this chapter with what we have had, it may be said that chapter 12 closes the case against the Jews, and they are convicted as reprobate. It says, "But though he had done so many signs before them, they believed not on him, that the word of the prophet Esaias which he said might be fulfilled", John 12:37,38. Isaiah is quoted twice; it says, "Esaias said again. He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes and understand with their heart", John 12:39,40. They are blinded judicially, which corresponds with current conditions, and then the Lord, after the case is closed, so to speak, against the Jews, they being exposed, "cried and said. He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that beholds me, beholds him that sent me. I am come into the world as light, that every one that believes on me may not abide in darkness; and if any one hear my words and do not keep them, I judge him not, for I am not come that I might judge the world, but that I might save the world. He that rejects me and does not receive my words, has him who judges him: the word which I have spoken, that shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken from myself, but the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that his commandment is life eternal. What therefore I speak, as the Father has said to me, so I speak", John 12:44 - 50. That is added to the condemnation of the Jews to emphasise the gracious activities of divine Persons and the Lord's words, that they themselves should be the judges of them. It is worth our while to note this, as pointing to the end of the dispensation

judicially, and how the divine presence is there. I have no doubt the Lord is emphasising the truth relative to His Person with this end in view.

H.D'A.C. I am not quite clear as to the distinction you made in chapter 1: "we have contemplated his glory, a glory, as of an only-begotten with a father",(John 1:14) and "the only-begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"(John 1:18). Would you mind giving another statement as to those two scriptures? How far does the mediatorial system go? I have understood through these meetings that it was before the incarnation, in order that the creation should be brought about.

J.T. It is of the last moment that these things should be clear, in so far as we can understand them, but no doubt we all have to own that we understand but very little. But it is clear that as the time for the creation of the physical universe drew nigh, the mediatorial thought came into evidence, and so wisdom came into prominence.

H.D'A.C. And the church and what we have in Christ: men were really in those thoughts even in the creation. For instance, "Let us make man". God certainly had another Man in His mind.

J.T. Yes. It is obvious that man was to be the centre of the creation, but then, what man? Not a man made of clay; he could not sustain the things God had in mind. So that Adam was "the figure of him that was to come", Romans 5:14. That was in the mind of God as ever present.

Ques. "Having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for the administration of the fulness of times; to head up all things in the Christ" (Ephesians 1:9,10). Would that indicate it?

J.T. Just so; "all things". God always had these things in His mind, and in the carrying out of them concretely, the mediatorial idea necessarily comes into view, so that it is seen in the creation, and it is seen in

Israel, and now it has taken positive form in the incarnation. The incarnation was not an afterthought; it was the first thought; it was what was in the mind of God, and all that preceded led up to it. Then in the Word becoming flesh, there was glory, but it had reference to the relations and affections existing between God as Father and the Only-begotten.

H.D'A.C. And those relations would have existed in one way before, though they could not be spoken of quite as we now do in revelation; I mean, the Father and the Son. You were pointing out that the thought of Son had rather an inferior meaning, but He was surely always the object of love to the Father, and all divine Persons must have been in love together. Is that right?

J.T. They were. The Lord expressly says that the One He addressed as Father loved Him "before the foundation of the world",(John 17:24) but to apply the Only-begotten thus is another matter. We cannot exclude the Spirit from the divine circle of affection and make one Person the Only-begotten of Another, when All are in the inscrutableness of absolute deity.

H.D'A.C. The word Only-begotten has always baffled the saints because of the word "begotten".

J.T. Now that attention has been called to it, and the truth made clear, I do not think it baffles spiritual persons.

H.D'A.C. Through the help the Lord has given difficulties disappear.

J.T. They do. An "only-begotten" necessitates a father, and a certain relative inferiority in the person who is designated as the only-begotten. Then verse 18, as you rightly say, is to bring God out, which is the public thing. Verse 14 is more private; it is what is contemplated by certain ones.

H.D'A.C. John was one of them. Verse 18 is more public.

J.T. It is a public thing, but it does not say to any persons in particular: "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him", John 1:18. It is the general public position.

H.D'A.C. It is open to all to get the good of it if they will.

J.T. Quite so; it stands. So that, in this very passage I have called attention to, the Lord says, "He that beholds me, beholds him that sent me", John 12:45. That is public, and His words in the same way are the words of Him that sent Him. So that the position, whilst it is mediatorial clearly in the word "sent", and in a Person who takes a relatively lower position, yet those who see that Person see the One who sent Him. It is not simply that He carried the message or conveyed the mind of God, but God was there Himself, and there so as to be seen. But that does not conflict with the statement in chapter 1, which says, "No one has seen God at any time", verse 18. It cannot conflict with it, hence that verse alludes to the Deity in Its absoluteness, in Its own form, which no one has seen nor can see. That is the inscrutable, which we must recognise; and yet the Lord can say here, "He that beholds me, beholds him that sent me", and then in chapter 14, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", verse 9.

H.D'A.C. You must have anointed eyes for that.

J.T. But then the thing was there; it was there in testimony. The man whose eyes had been opened had seen the Son of God. He did not know it, but still he had seen Him; and so the Lord says, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", John 14:9.

Ques. Did you say the end of this chapter closes the public position?

J.T. It closes the public position in so far as the Lord's testimony to the Jews is concerned. The close of the public position is on the cross.

M.W.B. I should like to get a little more clear as to the distinction between the thought of declaration and light.

J.T. In declaration God is brought out, but then that becomes light. God is light; as declared. He is light; so that Jesus said that He was the "light of the world".

M.W.B. I understood in the first reading that the thought of declaration went rather further than that of light.

J.T. Well, it does. The sun in itself is greater than its rays. Light is a relative thing, but God Himself is brought out in Christ. And that is what the Lord means in the end of chapter 12. It was a testimony; it was not a question of who understood, but it was there as testimony: "He that beholds me, beholds him that sent me". (Verse 45) The idea of "sent" in the end of chapter 12 as applied to the Lord Himself and involving the divine Persons, is carried forward into chapter 13, which I think we ought to notice. The case as to the Jews is closed, and chapter 13 takes up the disciples in the most formal way, not simply as disciples, but as "his own". They are viewed now in a new light; they are His own: "Jesus ... having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end", John 13:1. So that now it is a question of the disciples viewed in this light, and the Lord introduces the idea of being sent in saying, "He who receives whomsoever I shall send receives me; and he that receives me receives him who has sent me", John 13:20. It seems as if the defection of Judas, which was already in evidence here, might be thought to invalidate the testimony of the twelve, and I think the Lord is concerned that the validity of the testimony of the twelve as "sent" should stand notwithstanding the defection of Judas. I mean, it deals with the position of the ground of Christianity on that principle of being sent, and the testimony is valid thus. Although things

may have come to us through questionable persons, the validity of the testimony stands.

J.J. Does the thought of "sent" involve the deity of the Lord?

J.T. The idea in itself does not, because it attaches to us also. The idea itself is a subordinate one; it involves subordination and subjection.

J.J. It is not like "Jesus Christ come in flesh" exactly.

J.T. Not quite. I think it is a further thought than Philippians 2, which is that He came down as emptying Himself, taking a bondman's form. I think the actual sending of Christ must begin there, not exactly in heaven, as in the form of God, but as in humanity. Compare J.N.D.'s letter, vol. 3, pp. 468 to 469 (new edition, pp. 168 - 9).

Ques. When it comes to others the Lord says, "as the Father sent me forth, I also send you" (John 20:21). Would that not express what is characteristic in the sending?

J.T. Well, quite so.

D.L.H. It says, "There was a man sent from God, his name John", John 1:6. Obviously the thought refers to John as on earth.

J.T. That helps; he was sent from God.

W.C. In chapter 10 it speaks of His being sanctified and sent; does that date from the descent of the Spirit upon Him?

J.T. Evidently. I doubt that it can be shown from Scripture that the sending of Christ preceded His incarnation. He came Himself; it was His mind, but the emptying of Himself is seen in His taking a bondman's form.

J.J. What would you say about Isaiah 6? How does the expression there apply? "Here am I, send me", verse 8.

J.T. That is Isaiah himself, but his position was in keeping with the Lord's at His baptism. The Lord's place as Jehovah's servant has prominence in Isaiah.

Ques. What about the Father sending the Son to be the Saviour of the world?

J.T. What we have said would include that. The sanctification obviously alludes to Him as Man and it precedes His being sent. What I think is very weakly understood, is the incarnation itself, and what existed between the Son and the Father at the outset of His place in humanity, that is, the time preceding His baptism. Scripture says comparatively little about it, but it says enough to show that wonderful things went on between Them; and in the coming down of the Spirit, and its abiding upon Him in a bodily form, and the voice from heaven, I think we have the starting-point of the divine operations mediatorially in Christ as Man; so that the idea of sanctification and sending begins there.

E.J.McB. Do I understand you, that being in human form He was available to be sent?

J.T. That is a good way of putting it.

E.J.McB. Otherwise we should not have been able to apprehend or compass it.

J.T. Quite so, and moreover He was on equality in every sense as in deity. As a divine Person His was to command, not to obey; but obedience marks Him as Man.

H.D'A.C. He takes the place of the sent One in Luke 4. He was not only anointed to preach, but sent, which supports what you said about His being looked at as the sent One from His baptism, when the Holy Spirit came upon Him.

J.T. I do not know of any Scripture that says He was sent down from heaven. Scripture says that He came down from heaven, but it is said that the Holy Spirit was sent down from heaven, and I believe the background to that is that Christ as Man is in heaven. The centre of all these things is Christ as Man.

Ques. Does the verse in chapter 20 bear on it, "as the Father sent me forth, I also send you"?

J.T. Well, it does, showing it is the same idea. The disciples were not sent from heaven; they were sent out on earth, just as He had been.

Ques. "Herein as to us has been manifested the love of God, that God has sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him" (1 John 4:9). Would what was observed as to a man being sent from God refer to all such scriptures as that?

J.T. I think so. Sending into the world is also applied to the disciples. "As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world", (John 17:18).

Rem. I think it is the biggest readjustment of thought that many of us have had in the last few years.

J.T. I think things are taking form rightly in our minds. They had this form in Scripture always, but in our minds they are taking a form that is practically and morally right -- that the idea of obedience, as regards Christ, belongs to Him in Manhood. The idea attaches to Him there, and so the sending began with His position here as Man on earth, and properly as the Holy Spirit came upon Him.

H.D'A.C. It would be in His mind before Christ became Man.

J.T. In a moral sense. But even that well-known passage in Psalm 40, "In the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God", is preceded by "mine ears hast thou opened"(Psalm 40:6), so that it belongs properly to Him in the body. "Ears hast thou digged", would mean that He was now ready to listen to commands. Learning obedience (Hebrews 5) implies that He was now in the position to which it applies.

Rem. Does it help to see, not so much the place that you are sent from, but the Person who sends you? I was thinking the Lord chose twelve that they might be with Him and that He might send them out.

J.T. Yes; that is in Mark, and so in the end of that gospel His final charge is, "Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation"(Mark 16:15). Well, where were they before? Literally they were here, but the word is, "Go into all the world".

Ques. In Philippians 2 it says that He emptied Himself and took a bondman's form; is there anything to show that they were simultaneous?

J.T. I think the emptying synchronised with the taking of a bondman's form. He "emptied Himself taking a bondman's form, taking His place in the likeness of men", Philippians 2:7. The statements run on without a conjunction.

A.F.M. Would you mind telling us what you understand by the bondman's form?

J.T. Well, the form He took in becoming Man. "taking his place", it goes on to say, "in the likeness of men". It is to be noted, however, that man's form primarily did not imply bondmanship, so that the latter implies something more; attitude is included. This is seen in "Lo, I come to do, O God, thy will", Hebrews 10:9.

A.F.M. Does the thought of being "sent" come in in connection with the bondman's form?

J.T. That is where it begins.

H.E.S. Are you suggesting that before incarnation the movements are spoken of as His own, but afterwards they are spoken of as subject movements?

J.T. That is what I see, as far as I understand Scripture.

Ques. Do you think the bondman's form is in contrast to being in the form of God?

J.T. Yes.

H.D'A.C. Is He now in the bondman's form?

J.T. If we speak in the terms of Scripture, the fact that He took a bondman's form does not mean that that must always be obligatory upon Him, that He must not be anything else. A person of high degree can easily

take a lowly place, and we speak of it in that way, but it does not imply that he must be always that.

H.D'A.C. And all the time He was here He was more than a bondman.

J.T. As we were saying this morning, you cannot take in the deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ at one time; we are not equal to that.

H.D'A.C. I thought the word "form" involving more than external appearance was wisely chosen, so that it could go into eternity.

J.T. Of Moses it is said, "the form of Jehovah shall he behold", Numbers 12:8. That would be in a very modified way. What he saw we cannot say. It is said that "they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were work of transparent sapphire";(Exodus 24:10) and then in Revelation 4 we see One who sits on the throne who is no less than God, but then it is a form that is obviously human, that can be apprehended. I doubt if it is within our range to see anything beyond that. Certainly it is formally stated that "no one has seen God at any time", John 1:18.

S.J.B.C. Do you think it means simply appearance? The Greek word occurs again in Mark where it says that He appeared unto them in another form, chapter 16:12.

J.T. It means more than appearance. There is the idea of God appearing to men, but "being in the form of God" is a very different idea, belonging properly to deity; and before creation, when there were none to whom the idea of appearance could apply. The word 'status' has been used. J.N.D. uses it, meaning state in its primary meaning in Latin, but it has come now to mean rank or position as well. I think the word 'status' in the sense of condition or state, may serve to express the idea of the form of God. I do not see why we should alter what we have in the best authorities, that the word means 'form' in this sense, and that Christ was in that form. He "emptied himself, taking a bondman's

form",(Philippians 2:7) meaning another form in which He undertook to do the will of God.

H.P.W. Is the form of a bondman, as connected with the Lord a thought that is carried over into eternity, or is it confined to the days of His flesh?

J.T. It is very difficult to say that it is not carried over, because the type of it in Exodus says that He remains a bondman for ever, but then you would have it in a very limited way. Scripture says. He "will come forth and serve them" (Luke 12:37), and we may as well leave it in its scriptural setting, for as soon as we go beyond that, we are like the theologians who try to make divine things fit into the natural mind.

Ques. Does it not suggest the service perpetuated in love? "I love my master, my wife and my children", Exodus 21:5. So it is understandable that it is carried over.

J.T. It is something that Scripture touches very lightly and it can only apply to Him viewed as Man Godward. Towards man He is God, as we have it in Thomas's remark, "My Lord and my God". You cannot introduce the thought of bondmanship there. I think we have to confine ourselves to the terms of Scripture, and if Scripture touches the thought lightly it is well for us to touch it lightly. Exodus 21 and Luke 12 show that the Lord takes up the attitude of servant towards God, and towards His own in eternity, but this cannot enter into His position as "over all, God blessed for ever", Romans 9:5.

A.M.H. Would the Scripture in 1 Corinthians help at all? After the millennium it says, "The Son also himself shall be placed in subjection", 1 Corinthians 15:28. Would that suggest a continuance of the bondman's form?

J.T. It would. It seems to me these varied features of Christ are like beautiful hues. Each has its place in the glory of His Person, but if any particular feature is touched lightly it is well to leave it there, and not make it cover all.

D.L.H. When it says, "that God may be all in all", you cannot exclude the blessed Lord Jesus from that.

J.T. You cannot, but it is just as doubtful to say that He resumes the form of God as to say that He does not. If we think in the terms of Scripture, as this gospel teaches us, we say that we do not know. That is one of the features of this gospel, that one says just what he knows. If Peter does not say, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" as he does in Matthew 16:16, it means that he said just what he knew (John 6:69). The transfiguration of Christ on the holy mount, and "another form", spoken of in Mark 16, remind us of what is possible as to His Person, so that the inscrutable is always present. But at the same time, the tenor of Scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 15:28, leaves us in no doubt that, in a general way. He retains His humanity eternally.

M.W.B. Your remarks yesterday in drawing attention to the Lord as ascended up "far above all heavens" make one feel that He has a region to which our minds can never have access.

P.L. Elihu in the book of Job helps us: "Lo, God is great, and we comprehend him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out", chapter 36:26.

Eu.R. With regard to John 20, we sometimes speak of the privilege as going to heaven. Is that form of expression justified? You have referred to it as the spiritual sphere.

J.T. Well, I think Ephesians warrants it. He "has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together, in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus", Ephesians 2:6. That is our status there; it is ground you can take up in the assembly; you are heavenly.

I think we might touch a little on chapter 13, as we have had the thought of disciples running through these chapters in one way or another. The Spirit of God portrays them before our eyes, so that we might be on our guard against what is exposed in the flesh, and

that we might stimulate what is spiritual as seen in Peter as one of the twelve, and as thus connected with the service of love. I think the idea of the twelve is that love is most available in that relation. We are to stand in relation to one another so that the best possible results accrue. "Have not I chosen you the twelve?"(John 6:70) If we allow the Lord His sovereign right to use us in relation to one another, then you may be sure we shall get the best results; and I think that is what is meant in the use of the word "twelve". Having reached the family circle, and the body of spirituality in the light of the glory that shone in the raising of Lazarus, we have the disciples called "his own". It is one of the most precious things, "having loved his own who were in the world, [he] loved them to the end", John 13:1. So that now, in the following chapters, 13 to 17, we are inside. Instead of a few remarks relative to the public position seen in the Lord's Supper, as in the synoptic gospels, we have these rich unfoldings of divine affections and thoughts, and then the place we have in His heart as before God, in chapter 17. All this, I think, is necessary in the last days to our entrance into chapter 20. It is a question of extended communications on the part of the Lord, so that we may be prepared in intelligence and regulated affections, for the great time of the first day of the week. It corresponds to Acts 20, where as they were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed until midnight, as if to say. Before you partake of the Supper, although you are come together for it, if Paul has anything to say let him say it. We are not told what he said. We are told what he said in 1 Corinthians 11, of what relates to the public service; but we are not told what he said at Troas. It was a long discourse, but I think it would correspond with these wonderful communications of Christ in chapters 13 to 16, so that we might really partake of the Supper and enter into assembly privileges, not only in affection such as Mary Magdalene had, but with intelligence, and hence when

the Lord takes His place in the assembly, we know what to do in relation to Him.

Ques. Ought we to look for a word of ministry on the Lord's day at the breaking of bread?

J.T. I think so. If we got a word early in the meeting from the Lord as Head, we should have a better meeting. I think it has been a mistake to assume that a word should be left to the last, that it should be the close of the meeting. It ought rather to enhance and stimulate what there is present in the way of spiritual intelligence and power. Of course we must wait on the Lord's guidance in what we do, but if a word is to promote worship in the meeting in which it is given, it should be given early.

Ques. You mean after the breaking of bread?

J.T. Yes.

A.F.M. Would that not give a very high tone and character so as to advance the worship?

J.T. Quite so. If we have arrived at Peter's confession in John, "the holy one of God", it will qualify us for part in the assembly; because it is in that relation the service of the sanctuary opens up. What you find here in chapter 20 is that Mary Magdalene is there early. She has the affection and goes to the tomb, we are told, and she sees the stone rolled away from the tomb, but she does not look into it, whereas the other two do, and they not only look in, but go in. Whilst making full allowance for Mary here -- and she is the principal figure in the picture next to the Lord Himself -- we ought to note the superior intelligence of the two, because it enters into assembly service. It is said of them, "Simon Peter therefore comes, following him, and entered into the tomb, and sees the linen cloths lying, and the handkerchief which was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded up in a distinct place by itself. Then entered in therefore the other disciple also who came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed". I think, while making due allowance for affection in Mary, we ought to

make allowance too for the action of those two brothers. That is to say, they went the whole way in examination, because it is a question of what happened, the resurrection of Christ is a question of a great spiritual transaction, and it is intended to enter into the fibre of Christianity. It stands by itself; and the cloths are brought into evidence in that these two take notice of what was inside the tomb.

H.E.S. Are you suggesting that all the divine activities in John are to the end that there may be not only spiritual affections but also spiritual intelligence?

J.T. Clearly. I think the Lord is helping us in regard to His Person, but what He is as the Minister of the sanctuary and what the sanctuary is, is what is not understood. I think this chapter is to show that full appraisement is made of the affections of the saints, that full value is attached to them, but that they must be accompanied by intelligence.

A.F.M. Is that the reason why Mary addresses the Lord in Hebrew, saying, 'Rabboni'? Would that show where she lacked?

J.T. It shows that she had come to the point wherein she felt the need of instruction: 'My teacher'.

H.M.S. Will you tell us about the grave clothes and the handkerchief about the head?

J.T. It is very important, because it is a question of intelligence taking note of an extraordinary matter -- that the linen cloths clearly lay there as they were around the Lord's body, and the handkerchief separately folded.

A.F.M. Why was it separately folded?

J.T. I think to call attention to headship, for that is the important initial point in the assembly. But then that is balanced in the position of the angels, whom the two disciples did not see. They saw the cloths and the handkerchief folded, but they did not see the angels. Now the position of the angels is to remind us of the headship of Christ, and that the feet of Christ were perfectly in accord with his head: "one at the head

and one at the feet". It is the perfection of headship and the feet in relation to it.

E.R. I suppose it gives the idea of angelic repose. Instead of standing ready to obey, here they are sitting.

J.T. It is a remarkable thing that they are there; "one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain".

Ques. What is the importance of the feet in relation to the head?

J.T. Going back to chapter 12, Mary understood that His feet were carrying Him to death. Now where are they carrying Him? It is not said in John that He was "carried up into heaven" as in Luke, but He goes up. I think we are reminded that He is not only Head, but that He moves, and the assembly is the place of His movements, as well as of His wisdom. Whilst the angels are sitting, which would point to their restfulness in what had happened. He is seen as standing Himself after He comes into the midst. He "stood in the midst".

H.F.N. Would you say a word in regard to Luke where the Lord showed them His feet, but in John it is His hands and His side?

J.T. The position of the angel at His feet suffices, that they are in perfect keeping with His head, and I think it would mean that if we are not with the Lord as Head, we will not be with Him in His movements. The side would call attention to His love. I think the allusion is to Eve, as taken out of the side of Adam.

Ques. Would you mind saying a little more as to the impressions that the two had of the linen cloths that Mary missed? Was there something built into their spiritual constitution as the result of what they saw?

J.T. The impression was that the transaction was spiritual and not physical in the sense of being effected by material things. We are brought into a spiritual realm, and the foundation of it is in the resurrection of Christ. It is a great spiritual transaction. The cloths

remaining as they were, would indicate there was no physical struggle at all.

Rem. Mary only saw the stone rolled away, which was physical.

J.T. Surely; therefore she was wanting in intelligence. But now we are told, "she stooped down into the tomb, and beholds two angels sitting in white garments", which I suppose is needed by her, as part of the adjustment in connection with purity.

Ques. What is conveyed by the two running together and John running faster and reaching the tomb first, but waiting until Peter had been in and then following him in afterwards?

J.T. I think John represents the energy of life. We may have brethren more energetic in the way of life than others, whereas the others may have more intelligence. I think Peter stands for this. The point is, that whilst energy led in the running, intelligence is the final thing, for Peter becomes the leader afterwards. Intelligence is what tells. Life of course, and the energy of life, but the regulation of headship is what tells, and gives you the lead.

H.M.S. Has it any relation to the ministry of those two apostles?

J.T. I think John is put in his place; he is after Peter. It is always "Peter and John". It would be amplified by the position of the elders in Revelation; they are first in chapter 4 but they come in second in chapter 5, meaning that when it is a question of intelligence and experience they are first, that is, the elder brethren, those who have had experience with God necessarily have the lead. But when it comes to action, requiring the energy of life, the living creatures are mentioned first. Chapter 5 is a chapter of action, corresponding with the power of the Lamb. That is, the younger brothers come into evidence, those who have energy, under certain circumstances, and it is the

wisdom of the elders to let them have the first place.

D.L.H. What about going to their own home? "The disciples therefore went away again to their own home". It has been viewed as indicating that they had not spiritual response but that their intelligence had been affected.

J.T. I think that is right. That is to say, one with intelligence may take in thoughts more quickly than persons who are more spiritual, and go home with them; but I think affection would lead you to stay where those things are. While Mary did not take any notice of the cloths yet she stayed around. If we do not get the whole matter, and linger near, we shall get more even than those who are more intelligent.

Ques. Did you say she came into adjustment through the angels being in white?

J.T. Yes. White garments as a requirement refer to us all, but especially to her, considering her history. For, after all, reminiscences are terrible things; she would have to own that seven demons had gone out of her.

Ques. Does not Mary, having affection, become intelligent in carrying the message?

J.T. Yes. She says, "Rabboni"; she owns she had been learning. The others did not say that.

Ques. So she is in advance of the twelve in that way?

J.T. She is. That is the point in the last days. It is a question of affection after all, and it is seen in her waiting about. There is something here supremely interesting. I may not be taking in much, but I linger where the truth is and so I do not miss it.

H.M.S. Like Proverbs: "watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors", chapter 8:34.

J.T. Mary is detained by her affection, and so looking into the tomb, she sees two angels sitting, and they speak to her, and then she turns, as you will observe: "Having said these things she turned backward

and beholds Jesus standing there, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus says to her. Woman, why dost thou weep? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing that it was the gardener, says to him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus says to her, Mary. She, turning round, says to him in Hebrew, Rabboni, which means Teacher". At first she turns backward, but now at His voice she turns round -- the movements are typically spiritual.

Ques. What would be the import of the Lord standing in the midst? Would it be that He might wait upon us to conduct us into the spiritual sphere?

J.T. Linking it up with the angel at His feet, the feet in relation to His head, it is that He moves in relation to His headship, and obviously we are to move with Him. Now Mary is to move with Him. One great feature in these chapters is to bring us into correspondence with the Lord, and if He has entered into a spiritual condition and realm. He wants to bring us into correspondence, and that is what is evidenced in her remark 'Rabboni' in Hebrew.

J.J. Why does the Lord use the two expressions, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God".

J.T. The one gives us our place in the family, and the other gives us our place in the race, the new order of man. The two things run together. In the family Christ is Son, Firstborn among many brethren. He is also 'Leader of a chosen race'.

Eu.R. Is this the fulfilment of the last verse of chapter 17?

J.T. I think so.

Eu.R. Is it complete, or is there any sense in which the Lord does it now?

J.T. It is contemplated as complete: "will make it known". The message here involves that.

H.M.S. Would you just tell us what is in your mind briefly as to the remainder of the chapter? We do not want to lose that.

J.T. The great objective one had in mind was that we might reach the spiritual realm, otherwise we shall not be in the assembly according to God, nor shall we enter into service Godward. The education that precedes our entrance into it is seen in the verses we have been considering; the intelligence in the two, and Mary being brought to it as patiently and affectionately waiting where it is to be found. For after all, it takes us a long time to get the truth, but it is an important matter to know where it is to be found. She says, 'Rabboni', as if she said. You are my Teacher. He calls her by name, and she turns round. There is the idea of movement. The Spirit of God tells us what Rabboni means; we are thus to understand that instruction from Him is the point. Then the Lord, so as to finish our education, says, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God". The links are to be entirely spiritual. Now she comes to the disciples, we are told, and tells them that "she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her". Then, following on that, on the first day of the week, "Jesus came and stood in the midst", where the disciples were, the doors being shut, and says to them, "Peace be to you". So that now they have Him by themselves and in a spiritual way, because He has come in in spite of the doors being shut. It is a spiritual matter, as we have seen.

J.H.T. In Ephesians, chapter 1, the apostle prays that the eyes of their heart might be enlightened. Would that combine intelligence with affection? Then in chapter 3 "might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God",(verse 10) and then the great objective at the close of that chapter, that there might be glory to God "in the assembly in Christ Jesus

unto all generations of the age of ages", Ephesians 3:21. Would that be the line here?

J.T. Exactly. There is a further thought in chapter 3 that we might well finish with. The apostle says: "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named, in order that he may give you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner man" (Ephesians 3:14 - 16). I think that that, added to chapter 1, which deals with the eyes of our heart, constitutes us qualified for part in the assembly, so that there is glory to God in it.

AFFECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF GOD

Ephesians 2:18 - 22, 1 Chronicles 29:3 - 5

It is before me, dear brethren, to speak about the house -- the house of God, bearing in mind that the apostle in his first letter to Timothy specially speaks about it, and of the behaviour that is suitable in it, saying, that thou mayest "know how one ought to conduct oneself in God's house which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The order therefore is "the house", "the assembly", and "the pillar and base". The house involves enjoyment; it involves, of course, that in which God shows Himself in His affections, and in which His order is seen, but it is a place of holy, spiritual enjoyment. The house being said to be the assembly, conveys the idea of intelligent counsel and administrative action, resulting in public support for the truth, this latter involving conflict. I wish to confine my remarks to the house, as such, and in this respect I have also specially in mind the statement of king David as to his affection for it. The word that one would bear in mind as to oneself, and one hopes that all will take notice of it, is the peculiar expression, "affection for the house of my God". Those of you who are conversant with 1 Chronicles will have noticed that David speaks in chapter 22 of preparing for the house in immense wealth out of his affliction ;whereas here in chapter 29 it is in his affection. The comparison of these two words in relation to the house, will help in the understanding of my remarks, for as combined, they present to us Christ, in His affliction and then in His affection.

Before coming to Ephesians, I would remark that the gospels in their four different features present David and Solomon typically, and particularly Matthew, so that you find Christ in the exercise of His service, and

indeed in His whole sojourn here, peculiarly in houses in Matthew. He is indeed presented to us in that gospel, as in a house, in His childhood. Luke presents Him in a manger, but Matthew presents Him in a house, as sought out by the wise men of the East. We are told that the star "came and stood over the place where the little child was" (Matthew 2:9). The place is a larger idea than the house; indeed, that is confirmed in 1 Chronicles in chapter 21:25 where king David buys "the place" in which the house is to be. Now the wise men came to the place as guided by the star. It was the star of "the king of the Jews", Him they sought, showing how they were in accord with the mind of God, being free from national prejudice. No one can reach the house otherwise; so long as national prejudice is in our minds we shall never really reach the house. They came seeking "the king of the Jews", implying that they were to be subservient, that they were recognising the priority of the Jews. The Lord, indeed, insisted on this in talking to the woman at Sychar, and the Samaritans themselves later, had to learn that the Spirit should come through the apostles that were sent from Jerusalem.

So the wise men came to the place under the guidance of heaven. They were deflected in going to Jerusalem, but finally the star directed them "to the place where the little child was" -- a very interesting and touching consideration -- but the star did no more than that. Being at the place, they entered into the house. I would suggest that there is something to be learnt in that, for many are content with the vicinity in which Christ may be, -- but they entered into the house; they entered into the house where the little child was. He was under care; He was with the one who would care for Him best under God at that time, as is always so where the need of care exists. Where could care be found to equal that with the parent in the house, for God has provided in the house such care as all stages of His family require. That is how matters stand in

Matthew: they entered into the house, and they find the child under care. They saw "the little child with his mother" and they worshipped.

So throughout Matthew we find the Lord signalising certain features of the truth as being "in the house", characteristically. To illustrate this, in chapter 13, He entered into a house, and His disciples followed Him. That is another thing. He takes up a position in the house, and persons who are followers understand, and they follow Him there. It becomes a place of exposition and of wonderful disclosures. No one can afford to miss these, the holy expositions of Scripture and of the parables and types in the house; and then the disclosures of hidden things, things that were in the Lord's heart, with regard to the assembly.

Then we find later (chapter 17) the Lord in the house, and Peter would have reduced Him to the level of an ordinary temple taxpayer. Unless we frequent the house in which He is, we shall have wrong thoughts of Him, and shall reduce Him in our thoughts, and words, and ways, to the level of ordinary persons, which the Holy Spirit greatly resents. So that Peter said, his Master certainly paid tribute. But as he came into the house the Lord anticipated him and adjusted him, and brought out the blessed fact that the position was that of sons. "Then are the sons free" (Matthew 17:26). Thus in that house the truth of sonship came out. And so throughout Matthew's gospel in which also and only there, you get the word 'householder' (chapter 13:52). All is to prepare us for the great leading thought, the assembly; that we might be in the world assemblywise. In order to be here in this way we must be in the good of, and enter into the spiritual buoyancy and enjoyment of the house.

So you find the Lord in the house of "Simon the leper", meaning that the public position may be one of reproach, but He is there nevertheless. Many would avoid being in that house; but if He takes up a position

subject to reproach and you avoid it because of that, you will miss the blessing attached to it. You find there the full appreciation of Christ's dignity and service; a woman anointed His head there.

Then later in Matthew, the Lord sends His disciples, as they enquire where He would eat the passover, to a certain one. He says, "Go into the city to such an one" (chapter 26:18), saying nothing about the man with a pitcher of water, or the upper room, as in Mark or Luke, but simply sending them to convey to the man, that He would eat the passover in his house. The proposal indicated that the Lord would be free in that house, that He could eat the passover there with His disciples in liberty and dignity in the house -- not, in Matthew, in the upper room.

Now all that bears on what I have in mind; it prepares us for Paul; indeed, all the evangelists stress the idea of the house. Luke presents it to us in the most attractive way, and I speak now to the young people, because Luke has a peculiar way of gauging the necessities of souls, and he knows that young people love enjoyment. The world knows it too, and strains every nerve to supply the need. So Luke presents the house in chapter 14 as that which is to be filled -- "that my house may be filled" (verse 23); but in chapter 15, as the place of enjoyment; figuratively the most delightful things are going on there -- "music and dancing"; what is presented in the way of music, what is spoken of in regard to Christ, is so delightful, is presented so perfectly, and with such charm, that everyone dances, everyone moves in response. The elder brother had no interest in it at all.

Then John presents the house as the place in which the Son abides; the Son abides in the house for ever. He abides there. He abides in the house for ever; we shall never be without Him, and there we shall be truly free -- a very great fact, especially at the present time.

Then John goes on later to tell us that the house was full of precious odour -- "the house", without saying whose house it was: "The house was filled with the odour of the ointment" (chapter 12:3). The sense of smell is delightfully ministered to in that house; there is nothing corrupt there. You will have noticed that the ointment which Mary used, was not in an alabaster box in John. The alabaster box would allude to the care with which the ointment was preserved from taint, but there is no need of that in John; it is to render tribute to Mary of Bethany, who loved our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption. That is what you will find in the house in which Jesus is ministered to.

Now all these remarks will help us as to Ephesians, because Ephesians presents things in their fulness; not in a hard forced kind of way, but one thing growing out of another, and all coming out of a heart full, by the power of the Spirit. That is what marks Ephesians. The apostle's heart was simply full, and words are employed to denote the excessive excellency and greatness of the divine things presented. So Paul speaking about both Jew and gentile having access through Christ "by one Spirit to the Father", opens up his heart to these gentile believers, as indeed towards all. "No more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God". What a word for us! Some of us have been speaking about the blind man whose eyes were opened (John 9), that he was cast out -- a man without a country, without a family, without a religion; as we might say, even his parents undertaking nothing for him. What is he coming into? He is coming into all this of which I have been speaking. The Lord enquires of him, "dost thou believe on the Son of God?" (John 9:35). The Son of God will give him a country, a family, so that he is no longer a stranger and foreigner, but a "fellow-citizen of the saints, and of the household of God" -- marvellous statement!

Now the passage goes on to show what this is, because we need to understand what the house is. And so the apostle says that it is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the corner-stone". Now look at that, dear brethren. You say the "foundation of the apostles and prophets", are they in the foundations? Well, according to Revelation 21 they are, every one of them, for there were twelve foundations, and on each the name of an apostle of the Lamb -- twelve names. The reference is to the quality of the apostles' work in founding Christianity. I am not speaking so much of the foundation itself as the foundation of God; that is not exactly what is in view here -- that is stated in 2 Timothy, where it is necessary to state it, because things are slipping away; but in Ephesians the apostle is speaking in love, his heart engrossed with the greatness of the divine things into which we are brought; he would convey that the very best is there; you cannot admit of anything better than "the apostles and prophets". It is the quality here, not only the sureness of the foundation.

Then, after the foundation, he speaks of the topstone, as if the apostles and prophets were so in keeping with Christ in the laying of the foundation that He becomes the topstone of what they lay. So the structure is bound up with the very best in the apostles and prophets, and then the ornamentation and binding influence of the glorious Person of Christ, the head of the corner! Such is the house as Ephesians presents it, and what a place! How one seeks enlargement of heart to take it in, and to have a part in it, for Ephesians is the excellence of the thing, even from the foundation; and then the ornamentation and the binding influence of the glorious Person of Christ as the Head of the corner. The next thing the apostle says is, that it "increases to a holy temple in the Lord". Though it has the form of a house now, a place of enjoyment for us -- "a habitation of God in the Spirit" -- it also increases, that

is, it looks on to the time when the Lord will be supreme; it increases to a holy temple in the Lord. When He takes up the reins of government in the world, that which we have part in now will be the means in His hands of making His rule intelligible to all, for His reign will not be arbitrary; of course it will be absolute, but it is such a rule as will be intelligible, and acceptable to all. Thus I apprehend the idea of the building increasing to a holy temple in the Lord. When the Lord reigns by and by, He will rule in power, but all will be made intelligible in the temple.

I refer now a little to Chronicles, and what I would draw attention to is the king's words, "in my affection for the house of my God". I want to arouse affection in each of us, dear brethren, for the house; it is such a great commanding thought with God that He would have us not only to seek it as a place of enjoyment, but to have affection for it, and, as having affection for it, to come forward, and to make it as joyful and as glorious in a holy sense as we may. So, as I have said already, we have to distinguish between David's affliction and David's affection, what he provided in his affliction I apprehend to be according to his might, what he had as king, as he tells us elsewhere. As he commanded the resources of his empire he provided in abundance everything that was necessary to the house. And so, as afflicted, he sets forth, typically, Christ in the gospels. But then in chapter 22, in which he tells us that he provided all these things, mentioning the enormous sum of one hundred thousand talents of gold, and one thousand thousand talents of silver, and iron and brass and wood, and everything that was needed in abundance -- in that very chapter you have Solomon. I wish to point out, dear brethren, hoping that the Lord will use it for our instruction, that Solomon in this chapter is Christ as Son as seen in the gospels. It is Christ as the suffering, afflicted David, but He is nevertheless the Son -- "young and tender" it may be. I do

not mean that Christ was that personally, but it is the way in which the idea of sonship is introduced for our apprehension. We have to learn things from the beginning; and so in chapter 22 David, having reached, not the foundation, but the place, which he purchased, begins to tell us what he had provided for the house, and then immediately you have Solomon. That is a matter that deserves our attention, that an afflicted David and a tender Solomon, his son, combined, is the Christ of the gospels. There is no change in the Person, but you have the combination of suffering and sonship -- sonship in its tenderness, but nevertheless sonship. And so the wisdom and the provision and the ordering and the pattern all emanate from David. He represents the suffering Christ, the afflicted Christ. How that touches our heart! We are never to lose sight of that; but then the house is not built under those circumstances; the house is not built by a suffering Christ, an afflicted Christ; for the house was not built until David died. But the two things run together -- the afflicted David and the tender son, Solomon, until they are both reigning together, a very remarkable thing; yet there is no foundation of the house laid under those circumstances: the element of war, the element of affliction, the element of suffering, these do not properly belong to the house. The house is a place of holy enjoyment. I am endeavouring to make it attractive to every one here, and specially to the young people. So when coming to the actual structure, and when Solomon acts by himself after David's death, he represents the glorified Christ. The house is built or constructed, by a glorified Christ -- a Son -- but the Son in heaven. Think of the Son in heaven! You say, 'It is the same Person who was on earth'. Of course it is; as to His Person He is "the same yesterday, and today, and for ever";(Hebrews 13:8) there can be no change in His Person; but a Christ in heaven, is different from a Christ on earth; the Son of God in heaven is different from the Son of

God on earth. You understand what I mean by the word 'different'; the Christ that is in heaven, as raised from the dead went about among His people forty days. Where was He when He was not with them? Who can tell? We are in the presence of His inscrutability when we come to this. We must never reduce Christ in heaven to mere theological terms -- never! We have to apprehend the Person of Christ in heavenly circumstances -- what He is there, but the inscrutable always attaches to Him. He has gone up far above all the heavens, beyond the created worlds. Who can follow Him there? We cannot follow Him there, but He has gone there. He is Christ in heaven, nevertheless; and as the Christ in heaven He appears as the great builder of the church, the assembly. Paul says, "God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me" (Galatians 1:15,16). What a Son is the glorified Christ! Think of the enjoyment going on between the Father and the Son! How He loved to dwell upon the fact, that He was going to His Father. He sends the message to His disciples: "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God" (John 20:17). So, He is up there in all the unalloyed enjoyment of the affection of the Father. Their reciprocated affections are enjoyed in their own sphere. Now all that enters into the formation of the house, as in Ephesians "through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father". So then ye are no longer strangers and foreigners. That is the idea, dear brethren.

When you come to 1 Kings, David is a weak, old man; he thus ceases really to be a type of Christ. The point in Chronicles is to bring out the greatness of Christ in the time of His sufferings, and as He is now in heaven. So the Holy Spirit dwells with great delight typically on the greatness of the provision for the house and its anticipated grandeur.

Coming back to this question of affection. Is it not attractive, this thought of the house? This place of

holy, spiritual enjoyment to which we are called as sons. David says, "In my affection for the house of my God, I have given of my own property" -- "my own property". It was no longer a question of what belonged to him, as the monarch of the empire, in great volume, but it is a question of quality coming out of affection: "three thousand talents of the gold of Ophir" of his "own property", it was that to which he had perfect personal right, his "own property". What this is in the antitype I would leave you to explore; what this gold of Ophir is. As we come to the closing moments of our Lord's life, and His great affection -- and then how it is expressed to us through Paul, His chosen vessel -- and his great affection, it is no longer a question of volume, but of something very special -- "gold, of the gold of Ophir" -- of His own property. Think of what Jesus has in this sense, and how He devotes it to the house! And then the silver: Solomon does not make much of silver in the structure, but David does, and I apprehend that it grows out of the death of Jesus. We must ever come back to that. All consideration of special devotedness, of special service, must come back to the love that devoted itself unto death, in view of all this. So there was the "gold of Ophir" -- what was so special -- but there was also the silver -- the "seven thousand talents of refined silver" -- referring, I apprehend, primarily to the love of Christ in redemption, and how all has been secured on that principle. So that we have the most delightful dwelling-place as the result of the special devotedness of Christ. He loved Israel, but there is something distinctive here, in the special devoting of what was His own property, in securing the thought of God. It is the best kind of gold and the refined silver. It has the church in view.

Then we have the appeal (1 Chronicles 29:5) which I hope will not be in vain, dear brethren. It is to whoever is ready to come forward for the work. The Lord has led the way for us, and we see in Ephesians how the

one specially selected for these things followed Him in devoted energy. In His ministry we get what is special, answering to the gold of Ophir, which David gave. Paul, under the Lord, leads the way for us, in provision and care for the house. So that where God dwells in holy love -- "a habitation of God in the Spirit", is a place of spiritual joy for us.

May the appeal, dear brethren, come home to us so that we may not be wanting in affection for the house.

Pages 137 - 256 "Fixed Principles" Addresses, Britain, U.S.A., Canada, 1932 - 1933 (Volume 114).

FIXED PRINCIPLES

Hebrews 11:30; Genesis 21:8; Acts 2:41; Acts 9:31

These Scriptures are familiar to most of us, if not to all, but what I have to advance on them may not be familiar. And so I ask the brethren to follow patiently as I seek to show that what I have read sets out fixed principles.

In moving about amongst brethren, I see the need of observing, recognising, and maintaining fixed principles, in a practical way. If we understand aright that there are such, corresponding in a way with what exists in the physical system, we shall see that the testimony will go on; for principles do not die with people, and although leaders, those whom we have loved and whose memories we cherish may go, the testimony will go on. It is right that young believers should regard their shepherds and teachers, and love and revere them; but then the Lord is pleased to call one and another to Himself, as He did Paul, Peter and many others, but the principles remain and will remain. They may at times be ignored, but in due course they will assert themselves; and it is well for young ones to become acquainted with them and to look for them as knowing them, and to regard all that militates against them as opposition to God. In this respect it is important for us to accustom ourselves to naming things.

Names of things usually arise from experience of them, acquaintance with them. The idea is brought in early, in that God brought the animals which He had created to Adam to see what he would call them. In like manner He would bring principles to our attention to see how we name them, and it is important that we

should give them right names. As an illustration, we have a fixed order of things after the deluge; it is stated that, while the earth remained certain things should continue, "seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat", and then we have the idea that I suggested in "summer and winter", Genesis 8:22. That is to say, summer is a name given to heat by experience; so that we have something fixed and a name attached to it. Correspondingly, as we become accustomed to the principles that were introduced by the Lord and by His apostles, and which found scope at the outset and acquired a place in the hearts of believers and which they valued, we have things fixed and names attached to them.

The first of these principles with which I propose to deal is in the first scripture that I read. There are many others throughout Scripture, but I speak of salient ones and the first is faith. I selected this verse out of many that speak of faith in this remarkable chapter, because the quality is introduced impersonally. That is to say, it is not attributed to any person or persons. Throughout the chapter you find it is attributed to persons in a wonderful and constructive way, a way calculated to induce admiration in us as we look at what is called the "cloud of witnesses" surrounding us, and the intent is that we should admire and emulate and imitate, so as to "run with patience", as enjoined, "the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God", (Hebrews 12:1 - 2).

Now this verse 30, as I said, introduces faith in an impersonal way, which proves that the thing is established as known amongst the saints. It comes in after the passage of the Red Sea, as you will all notice -- an act of faith attributed to the children of Israel; it is the only one that is attributed to them, they crossed the sea by faith. It is well that this is recorded, for it saves

the people from the ignominy of being without faith -- it accredits it to them. The Egyptians, as set over against them, essay to do the same thing -- as may be constantly noted, people of no faith attempt that which belongs alone to faith, and the consequences are disastrous. The passage of the Red Sea therefore, that is to say, the exodus by us out of the world, establishes in a manifest way the existence of faith amongst us. It is a known thing. Nothing is said of it for forty years. Through all the vicissitudes of the wilderness not a word is said about its existence in the people, but faith was there, and as having crossed the Jordan into the land, the record is that the walls of Jericho fell by faith.

I wish to dwell on this particular point, because it is fundamental. Without faith we must be outside the divine realm in the state of our souls, for "he that cometh to God must believe that he is", (Hebrews 11:6). Without faith we are outside the dispensation of God, which we are told "is in faith", (1 Timothy 1:4), without it indeed we have no part or lot in the matter -- a most solemn position. There are those who pose among the people of God as having faith, like Simon Magus, but the testimony is that he had "neither part nor lot in this matter". (Acts 8:21), a very solemn thing to be said of anyone numbered among the people of God. To have a part is important, but to have a lot is more important, a lot is fixed.

The testimony, as I said, is summarised in this verse, "By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been encircled for seven days". I think it will appeal to you, that this encircling is the evidence of faith in these circumstances. If one has faith he must have part in the encircling, for the encircling of Jericho signifies that the world is overcome -- escape is impossible. "Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5). One who believes that Jesus is the Son of God has part in the encircling. Now this encircling or encompassing for

seven days would seem to the ordinary military eye an unheard of procedure, but then, those who are doing it have the mastery. No one interfered with their encircling the city morning by morning for six days, and no one interfered with their encircling the city seven times on the seventh day; the king of Jericho could not hinder it. It was a peculiar military procedure, but it implied mastery, and it continued to the appointed time, ending in the complete overthrow of Jericho.

I have no doubt it invited scorn from the Jerichoites, just as the saints today in their ways appear peculiar to the world, and incur the scorn and ridicule of the world, yet these ways that seem so peculiar and unmeaning, are victory in themselves. They spell victory to faith, to the spiritual eye, in large letters, and I would invite the young people to consider this; for as older ones are being removed, the responsibility of this encircling will fall upon you, and you are to do it gracefully and in power. We must be prepared for the scorn of the world in our methods. They are very simple methods. The ordinary procedure of spiritual Christians is very simple, but then it denotes that they have the mastery; they can do these things. A mighty hand has moved in order that we should do these things. The door has been opened, and the encircling goes on and the walls of the world come down. There is no power that can interfere with the working of spiritual principles. They are old but ever new. They wear, they stand the test of time, they will go through, and come out victoriously in a public way by and by, but already they are victorious in a moral sense.

I want everyone to let these thoughts sink down into their hearts; because, as I said, the responsibility of this encompassing will come to us if we have not already taken it up. It is a matter of faith, and not faith in any given persons here. It is important to notice that, because we are apt to turn our eyes specially to this one and that one -- not that we should not regard each one

for his works' sake; we should be discerning and measure our leaders if we follow them. It is their faith that we are to follow, as those "who have spoken unto you the word of God", (Hebrews 13:7). The present leaders we are to obey as it says, "Obey your leaders, and be submissive", (Hebrews 13:17). But then it says, "considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever"(Hebrews 13:7,8). So that the encircling, the overthrow of Jericho is not by any special person or persons having faith, it is the thing itself existent, and no one can afford to be out of it; of course it is in the saints, but I speak of its presentation in the scripture before us.

They went round in the most orderly way. First, the general idea was conveyed to Joshua, then the thing is opened up by him; pointing to the importance of ministry. There is what the Lord says to the assemblies, Revelation 2 and 3, which as to words, is in small compass, but the Spirit opens it up to us as needed. So what was spoken by the Lord to Joshua in chapter 6 of his book, is opened up by Him and applied, so that the encircling took a practical form and the result was triumphant; the walls came down.

Now, dear brethren, I repeat, it is a question of the saints in possession of faith, being already victorious. We could not encompass Jericho were it not that we are victorious already. Time was when the world encompassed our Lord Jesus. It could not do so aside from divine permission, but it says, "the Jews therefore surrounded Him", (John 10:24) -- a most solemn matter. When the Jews surrounded Him, for the moment the world had control, and the result was manifest, the Lord was put to death. Primarily, as they surrounded Him, He left them "and went away beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptised"(John 10:40), and there it was that He was recognised as doing many miracles, "and many believed on him there", (verse 42). That is. He went back to first principles,

and although the world surrounded Him, morally He had victory, for He said, "Now is the judgment of this world";(John 12:31) and as risen and glorified He surrounded it. That is what the surrounding of Jericho means. Pentecost shows the victory, the Lord is in control now. Jericho is surrounded, and for those in whom faith is, it has fallen. "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were compassed about seven days". Not six days but seven, and seven times on the seventh day. I apprehend that implies that there is no slackening of energy. You know there is constant danger of the slackening of energy, whereas Israel was more energetic on the seventh day: "It came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day", (Joshua 6:15). That is what the Lord is aiming at, beloved brethren, to induce increased energy amongst us, that there be no slackening. The testimony is to go on and there is to be a triumphant end. It is most stimulating! And then after the encircling comes the "great shout!" One idea of a shout is vigour, it is strength, denoting that there is no slackening of energy. The Lord Jesus was marked by it on the cross; it says He cried with a loud voice. We need not in this sense talk in whispers; the sense of victory enables us to lift up our heads and to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that with a loud voice. The shout of Israel at the end brought down the walls. That sets out a principle that everyone ought to understand, not simply those who are in the lead, for faith marks all. It is a principle already known and established and acted on as if it were the air we breathe.

The next principle that I think is important is weaning. And I might have read scriptures that speak of weaning as effected by a person, but the way it is put in this scripture denotes that it was there as a principle. No doubt Sarah weaned Isaac, but it does not say so here. What it says is that he was weaned. Now this weaning will fit in, I am sure, with most of

us here today. It fits in immediately after the principle I have been speaking of, that is to say, we have to learn how to do without the natural. Each has to learn how to stand, as it were, on his own feet. We have to learn to draw from other than natural sources. In other words, we are to learn how to live by the Spirit. "If we live by the Spirit, let us walk also by the Spirit", (Galatians 5:25). This is seen in this second scripture.

It was an auspicious day, and the Scripture says that Isaac "was weaned". There is no explanation as to what the weaning means, it is viewed as a known principle, as I said, a known thing in Abraham's house, in the house of faith. Abraham's house represents the household of faith and there are principles in it, and amongst them is this one. It does not need to be explained. Those who are not weaned, cannot be regarded as standing upon their own feet, they cannot be regarded in their individuality. We must arrive at the sense of individuality and the epistle to the Romans helps us as to this, indeed it is the epistle that propounds and applies this great principle of faith. It is in that epistle we get the remarkable expression, "on the principle of faith" ; it is the translation of the preposition "from", in chapter 1:17. I would every one would take in that expression, "on the principle of faith". It works out in the believer coming to himself. You will all remember how it is said of the prodigal that "he came to himself", (Luke 15:17). That is to say, one reaches experimentally his own individuality, and that individuality is to be regulated by the law of God. Hence the writer of the epistle to the Romans says "I myself". You see, he has come to himself.

I wonder if every young one here has come to himself. You may say, I thought I was to come to Christ; but you must come to yourself if you are to be of any use in the things of God. You must get a name, you must stand out in your own individuality, there is not to be another like you in the whole universe. That is a fine

thought! and so the apostle says, "I myself", He is not content with the pronoun "I", it is "I myself with the mind serve God's law", Romans 7:25. Such an one gets the Spirit, and he no longer draws from the flesh, but will rely on the Spirit of God; he is indeed, born of the Spirit; his nature is spiritual. Isaac was born after the Spirit. No doubt he is a type of Christ, but he is also a type of every true believer. I come to this experimentally, that I have another birth, that the roots of my being are in the Spirit, thus all my instincts become spiritual, and I learn to disallow the flesh, and to live in the Spirit, and to walk in the Spirit, and by the Spirit to await the hope of righteousness on the principle of faith. That is the effect of the truth of Romans. It leads to the realm of spirituality, where I breathe my native air in my own distinctive individuality, and through self-analysis spiritually know myself as having part and lot in the great spiritual system that God has introduced.

Romans thus lays the foundation, and every young believer needs to understand it, to come to himself and to be rooted in his own native soil, that he is not in flesh but in Spirit; he is born of the Spirit. Ishmael was born after the flesh, and Isaac was born after the Spirit. We read that "he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit"(Galatians 4:29), and at this point, beloved young people, you will meet persecution, you will get it from those nearest and dearest to you in the flesh, it may be. It is no longer Jerichoites, or the like, but those who are born after the flesh -- the flesh, in those nearest to me naturally, may become my persecutor. The nature of the flesh is to persecute what is of the Spirit, and hence there is continuous conflict. But then I have an individuality that is to stand, I have a name in heaven, I am in the Book of Life, I have a name that no one else will have, I am to stand out in that individuality, and in it, I drink into one Spirit with the brethren, and I am able to merge with them; I am

living by the Spirit.

The principle in our chapter is that Isaac was weaned, and on the day he was weaned Abraham made a feast; but although he made a feast in celebration of the occasion, he introduced mixed principles -- a most dangerous thing! Nothing is more destructive than mixed principles amongst us, and they may come from the best of us, the most honoured of us. No one was more honoured than Abraham, and yet he introduced and maintained in principle, on this occasion, the elements of the flesh. And hence, what says the Scripture? "Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac", (Genesis 21:10).

After the two first principles are clearly apprehended God can add, there will be addition; that is the next principle. I should not pray for addition aside from these two first features. The idea is that the barren woman keeps house, and keeping house involves these two great principles -- faith and the Spirit. Then the next thing is children, to be a joyful mother of children: that is what Sarah was. It is very fine to be joyful spiritually, as we see the increase, children after the Spirit not after the flesh, see Psalm 113:9. So that Acts 2:41, supplies the next thing, for you will observe it has the same characteristic as faith has and as weaning has, in the other scriptures -- it is impersonal. It is not said that they were added by anybody to anybody, but just that they were added on that day. Now I understand the force of the words as they are set, is that the principle of adding is amongst the saints: it is part of the position, it is a condition amongst us, and we are aiming at it and keeping out of the way of everything that interferes with it. In that day they were added, but who are they? First of all it says they were baptised. And again there is nothing said as to who baptised them. The principle was there. Peter had said that they should be, but then it goes on to say that they

were baptised -- the thing was done. What I mean to convey is that if I cannot do it, somebody will do it, the thing has to be done, it is a fixed necessity.

This word "added" has a unique place in the Acts, and it was befitting, it was the adding time; but this was not before the conditions for it were present. And that is what I plead for -- for the conditions of which I have been speaking -- so that the adding may go on; and that if anything comes forward of an extraneous character there may be that discerning, that "porter" quality, that will say, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter", Acts 8:21. The point in the chapter is that what is added should be in keeping with what is there.

One could speak at length of the conditions that were there, as chapter 1 illustrates, but I wish to refer to that remarkable statement of David to Solomon, "thou shalt add to it"(1 Chronicles 22:14). Acts is, in a sense, Solomon's book; it is Christ in glory setting up the great spiritual system here, and surely adding should have its place there, and should ever have its place. Christ is in heaven and the Spirit is down here and the operations are being carried on in conditions of faith. This ensures addition according to God.

David says of the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, "This is the house of Jehovah Elohim, and this is the altar of burnt offering for Israel", (1 Chronicles 22:1). Then the Spirit of God goes on to tell us that David speaks of Solomon being young and tender, and he recounts how Jehovah had denied him the privilege of building, but that Solomon who should be Jehovah's son was to build; and he says to Solomon, "in my affliction I have prepared for the house of Jehovah a hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of silver", and all kinds of materials that were needed he prepared in abundance, but he says, "and thou shalt add to it" ( see 1 Chronicles 22:14,15). By Solomon there was to be addition. Now that answers

to the book of Acts. I believe there is great instruction in reading the book of Acts from that point of view, and moreover it sets you thinking as to what you are doing: "thou shalt add to it". There can be no doubt that each of us adds something, but we may bring in, as I said, what is extraneous, and has to be rejected, as we read in Corinthians, "wood, hay, stubble", therefore "Let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon", 1 Corinthians 3:10,12. The assumption is that he is to build, but let him take heed how he builds, that what he builds survives the fire.

Our scripture says there were 3,000 added on that day. The great principle of adding became effective and it continues. Later, we read of the Lord adding. I do not speak of that, but in chapter 5 we have a special touch. The numbers are given in chapter 4 -- increased numbers; but in chapter 5 we have multitudes added. The Spirit of God says that "believers were more than ever added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women", Acts 5:14. The assembly requires both men and women. The continuance of it, the maintenance of it, the glory of it and the service of it, require that in its public setting today it should be composed of men and women; that is the divine thought. We must not neglect the "women". We find them in the upper room, and they are to be in the upper room to the end. Multitudes, we are told, were added to the Lord. What women they must have been! 'Added to the Lord' implies the kingdom, that there is subjection. The Lord will not have anything added to Him that is not subject. There must be subjection. He can make something out of us if we are subject, nothing if we are not; and so multitudes of believers both of men and women were added to the Lord, so that there was increase in the material that the Lord requires for the assembly.

Luke in his gospel enforces all this in regard of sisters. Whilst they are mentioned in Peter's ministry they do not get their place with him as they do under

Paul. Yet some say that Paul was very severe on the sisters. Paul regarded them rightly and he would give them every advantage, and so he speaks in the plainest terms as to sisters and how they are to be of use in the house of God. They are to be of use, but I do not dwell upon it, only to mention it. It is very beautiful how Paul speaks for instance, of Lydia, how the Lord had as it were, given him that sister; the Lord opened her heart, it says, "to attend to the things spoken by Paul", Acts 16:14. If Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man"(1 Timothy 2:12), Lydia would say, 'Amen', and she would mean it. If Lydia put a covering on her head she would mean it, to her it would mean subjection. She had listened to Paul. If she did not listen to Paul she would have no place in the assembly practically. Luke brings sisters forward from the very outset in a most beautiful way, to show their place in the assembly. I speak at length of this point because the sisters are not functioning among the brethren as they should. You find in Luke how a sister like Mary, the Lord's mother, was able, so to speak, to analyse herself inwardly; she said "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour"(Luke 1:46,47); she discerned between her soul and spirit, she was introspective in that way, so that she discovered herself, so to speak. Then later, she wondered at the things that were presented to her concerning Him -- hearing also that a sword was to pierce her own soul. How it penetrated -- but what a sister she was! She was committed to John. John took her to his own home, not as the Lord's mother, but as his own mother. In the Lord saying to her, "Woman, behold thy son"(John 19:26). He is referring to John, He is pointing to John the trusted one -- and He delivers her over to him; she was to be John's mother, she was to be in John's house in that relation. What an advantage he would have thus. But Mary was a sister and she is mentioned in Acts 1 as in the upper room.

Well, the last scripture I read speaks of increase. That is the last principle that I wish to dwell upon, and of course it is of a piece with the adding, but the word is not added, but increase or multiplication. It comes in in a very remarkable setting, because the assembly had already become militant and victorious. The Lord had intervened on her behalf. You might say the first great conflicts had been won. The early chapters show us how the enemy attacked, and that the Lord gave the victory to His people. Then in a great champion the enemy attacks "the disciples of the Lord", for he is very bold. We are not to be ignorant of his devices, or his boldness. Sometimes things happen amongst us that cause amazement, the boldest efforts of the devil are put forth in some terrible happening amongst the people of God; it is well to be on our guard lest the enemy should get in thus.

Well, here he attacked the disciples of the Lord through Saul, so that he entered into houses and dragged forth both men and women. What sisters he found, what brothers he found, as he dragged them before the tribunals! They were "Jesus", the Lord speaks of them as Himself; they were characteristically members of His body, and He recognised them as Himself, "why persecutest thou me ?"(Acts 9:4) He said to Saul. What an honour for us to be spoken of thus! Well, all this went on; but it was a question of the Lord and what He would do. I would remind you of the Lord as seen in Acts 9, of the power that is His: He can bring down the mightiest foe, and bring him down in perfect keeping with the dispensation, so as to make him His mightiest servant. And it says. Acts 9:31, "Then had the churches rest". They had rest, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, "were increased". This is another side to adding. It is not only now a question of persons added, but the idea is of increase through certain conditions existing, conditions of peace prevailing after a storm, after a great harrowing

conflict. Some of us have had to do in a little way with that in the history of the assembly. How blessed the thought of peace as nestling under the mighty protection of the Lord, and walking in His fear! There is no room for fleshly feelings in that peace, the walk is to be in the fear of the Lord. And then there is the comfort of the Holy Spirit.

One is moved in thinking of the Holy Spirit in this connection, because the word comfort here stands related to the word "Comforter" in John 14. The blessed Holy Spirit is here present, continuing with us, continuing alongside of us, so as to minister to our souls and pour into them His own comfort. Thus there is increase according to God. The thought of this increase was fixed in the assemblies. It was a present principle, and we must see that it exists.

The Lord is giving us a fine opportunity. He has cleared the air for the moment of certain clouds that had hung over us, and He would have the brethren to take heart, to take courage and go forward in these principles. They will stand. If one is taken and another is taken, still the principles stand. We are to be walking in them, working in them, breathing in them as we breathe the air -- thus nothing can overthrow us!

May the Lord use these thoughts, dear brethren, for blessing.

THE MORNING AND EVENING LAMBS

Ephesians 5:18 - 19; Numbers 28:1 - 8; John 20:19 - 22

It will be observed from the first passage read, that I have in mind to dwell upon the subject of spirituality, implying that we are to be filled with the Spirit. The other scriptures illustrate how this may be maintained, for it is a daily experience representing how our years are to be filled up, and that if the evening is not equal to the morning there is sure to be decline until perhaps there is no morning at all. So I had in mind that we might be helped in considering the morning and evening lambs, the evening lamb being equal to the morning lamb. That is to say, our lives being made up of days we maintain the spiritual level that is proper to Christians in seeing to it that the evening is not less than the morning.

The idea of the day, as you will all remember, came in in Genesis 1, God having worked by the day -- a very touching suggestion. You will remember how Job cursed his day, as if others did not have to do with it, as if God did not work on that day, but He was working then as He is now every day. The Lord said, "My Father worketh hitherto"(John 5:17), not at certain times only, but always, for we cannot think of God being inactive in the presence of sin in this world. Job disregarded that fact as we are all likely to do in our narrowness and pettiness, but Job's folly could not interfere with God's activities.

We have an allusion to His activities in grace in His word to Noah. He says, "My spirit shall not always plead with Man; for he indeed is flesh; but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years". Genesis 6:3. How full those days would be from God's side, every day of those hundred and twenty years; and with no result in the way of conversions as far as we know!

There was testimony -- an important matter. It was not simply the handing out of tracts and the like, but appeals and strivings every day. Man's thoughts were only evil every day, but that did not interfere with God's thoughts nor His activities. They were all God's days and He showed they were His days when striving with men in them, even although there was no result.

Another idea of work on God's part is in Noah sending out the dove. He sent out a raven but it does not say he sent it out from him, but he sent out the dove from him. It is a type of the Spirit, not now as striving, but under the emblem of a dove; well known to some of us, for the Spirit of God came down from heaven as a dove on the Lord Jesus. Matthew tells us the Lord saw the Spirit as a dove descending on Him, and Mark says the same, but John says that John the baptist saw the Spirit coming down as a dove, and Luke says that He came down in bodily shape as a dove, so that there should be no doubt as to what the dove means. But I speak of it now because of its relation to the day. The raven did not return to Noah; but the dove did return "to him". It came to him and he took it in "to him", such were the typically precious relations, as we may say, between the Father and the Spirit, between divine Persons. There was nothing about a day in the first sending out, but at the second sending out it reads "the dove came back at eventide"; that is to say, there was a day's work, but not a fruitless one, pointing to our own times. She brought back in her beak an olive-leaf plucked off, typical of life out of death. Death was still there, the waters had not quite dried up, but there was life as symbolised in the olive-leaf. That is our position as far as I understand. The Holy Spirit today is working by the day, bringing in these results for God, not a floating olive-leaf, but one plucked off, showing that it was connected with its source when the dove found it, and she brought it back at eventide; it was a fruitful day's work; it represented

typically something for God. There was no suggestion of fatigue, but energy, as if the dove would spend the day fully and bring back some result.

In keeping with all that, I want to show from Numbers 28 how God looks for this very thing in the continual burnt-offering. He provides food for us in abundance, and these chapters -- 28 and 29 -- which run together, deal with what he expects -- daily, and weekly, and monthly, and yearly. That is how the matter stands. The last great offering is the feast of tabernacles, which diminishes in the number of bullocks from thirteen down to seven, but not below that. That is to say, the millennial state of things implies that God will have His portion although it may diminish. It is a sorrowful thing to have to admit diminution in our givings God-ward, but God bears with it provided it does not go below the spiritual thought of seven, provided it does not go below what is the outcome of perfect exercise. All above that is excess which God delights in, but I am speaking only of the daily, because if the daily experience be not maintained, the weekly will drop, and the monthly will drop, and the yearly will drop, and in all probability we shall lose our mornings, we shall become darkened. As Peter says, "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins", 2 Peter 1:9. It was because of that very thing, not attending to the daily sacrifices.

So we have a yearling lamb, a beautiful type of Christ. A yearling lamb is not just a little lamb. There are two words for "lamb" in the New Testament, the one indicating a full-grown creature, and the other a tiny thought. It is the former that is in view in the yearling, so that God's offerings contemplate maturity and not infancy. Scripture makes provision for infancy, for God takes care of the infants; the Lord Jesus took infants into His arms, but you can hardly expect an infant to make a daily offering; it has to be cared for.

Offering to God is priestly; it contemplates a certain maturity, and so there are the two yearling lambs, one in the morning and the other in the evening.

Now, dear brethren, this is intensely practical, because unless we attend to it our special convocations must be impoverished and God denied His part. "Will a man rob God?" it says in Malachi, which is, as you might say, the evening book of the Old Testament. It is a challenge. It is a sorrowful thing to be classified with robbers. "Will a man rob God?" "Wherein do we rob thee?" "In tithes and heave-offerings", (Malachi 3:8) is the answer. We do not want to be classified thus. To meet that situation God urges them to bring the tithes into the treasure house and He would open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing that they could not contain. It is contingent on bringing the tithes, so that we may not be found robbers of God. We may not think of it as serious, but it is equally serious to robbing men, for God has rights, and His rights surely come first. So that the morning lamb denotes how we begin the day. I desire to be simple, because what I have in mind is that we should be filled with the Spirit, and that this should be maintained, and if it be maintained, the evening lamb will be equal to the morning lamb. As I said, God requires a yearling lamb, with a meat-offering mingled with beaten oil, and in addition to that a drink-offering. The word "strong drink" is found in this passage. How do I begin my day therefore? What have I, to speak reverently, to stimulate the heart of God? This is what is meant by strong drink. It was not for man; it was for God, and it was to be poured out in the sanctuary. If we go back to Exodus 25:29, we will find that the table was furnished with vessels with which to pour out. The believer has something for God in the morning; he has his lamb and what accompanies it, denoting that he is appreciating the Lord Jesus.

One could say much about that. It is not simply a living creature, but the kind of humanity as indicated in the oblation -- fine flour measured. We are far too loose in our relations with God and with one another, as if any measure will do, but God requires a certain measure. What we get here is that everything is to be in proportion, that it is not simply a matter of light, not simply a question of what Christ is objectively as offered up in death for me, but the kind of humanity, which is of course what I should have. The relation between the lamb and the fine flour is what Christ is as offering Himself in death, and what He is in the holy nature of His humanity in which believers partake. It is of the divine nature, as seen in Christ that we partake. Then the oil is in proper measure, that is to say, the recognition of the Spirit; all to show that I am spiritually proportionate, and then the strong drink which means that if God is to be affected I am to be affected. Think of God being affected by my being affected, that my attitude of heart in regard of Christ affects God!

To illustrate what I am saying, I might refer to Mary of Bethany. You will remember the difference between her and Martha. We often compare them, but in John 11 they are brought near together spiritually. Martha met the Lord outside the town; she went out to meet Him, but she did not move anybody. Nobody wondered where she went. An unspiritual person is not likely to influence people Godward or Christward. Yet she was going out to meet the Lord, and she did meet Him and she got light from Him. She said, "Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world"(John 11:27). She got that light from the Lord, and immediately she goes off to her sister. She was affected; her spiritual stature had increased, and as our spiritual stature increases through our acquaintance with Christ this will be manifest to the brethren. She went off to her sister; but there is no

idea with her of assuming to know more than Mary. The measure of my stature is seen in the way I regard the brethren. She went to her sister secretly and said, "The teacher is come and calls thee"(John 11:28). That is very beautiful in Martha's case. She grew rapidly; she is not complaining now; had she been fleshly she would have said, I am more ardent than Mary; I came out to meet you, she did not. But, no, she went off and told her sister secretly, and said, "The teacher is come and calls thee". Scripture does not say the Lord told her to say that, but she did. Then Mary moves, and those that were present move too. They said, "She goes to the tomb that she may weep there"(John 11:31), and they went after her. That shows the influence that a spiritual person has; but what I am coming to is this, that when she came to where the Lord was -- and He remained where Martha met Him -- she fell at His feet, and said partly what Martha said, but she wept, and the Jews wept, and when the Lord saw her weeping and the Jews weeping. He wept. Now that illustrates what I was saying, that God is affected as I am affected. If Christ commands my heart so that like Himself I rejoice in spirit, that affects God too.

That is what I understand to be the typical meaning of strong drink; it is what affects God, His people are so affected that He is affected. Can any one doubt it? His delight and our delight is in His beloved Son! That is what He is looking for. He has brought His Son in here, and He has indicated from heaven His pleasure in Him, and now He is waiting for us to indicate ours. That is what is going on, the Holy Spirit bringing us to the appreciation of the Lord Jesus so that we are affected. One could illustrate it in many ways, how people came to the Lord throughout the gospels and were affected, and every time they were affected God was affected. God is delighted with our delight in Christ and that is what goes on normally in the assembly.

So that there is to be strong drink in the morning, and I would suggest, dear brethren, that our morning family readings require these things, that they are not mere routine or perfunctory matters, but that Christ comes before us so that we are affected. God is pleased with that. We begin the day thus; we are yielding to God, for God has His part in it if we have ours. It is intended to yield to God. But how often the wear and tear of the household duties and the business -- I need not enumerate them -- tend to diminish, or it may be, to efface altogether the impressions of the morning, and that is where the enemy works; if possible he will catch away every impression that strengthened you and made you happy. The drink-offering is to be poured out, it says, in the sanctuary. Numbers 28:7. This is priestly service. It is not fleshly effervescence but holy appreciation of Christ, and God accepts it. It is part of His day. God enters into the days, but what is seen here involves the assembly.

Well, as I said, the wear and tear of the day's work are sure to affect us, and the point is, can I maintain my spirituality in spite of these adverse things? God has provided that I may. That would lead me into other channels of truth, but in the wondrous system into which we are brought we are baptised to the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and divine Persons are active on our behalf, and that activity extends throughout the whole day. The provision is that the spiritual level should be maintained until the evening, that there should be no diminution. It may be that something happens to disturb you and affect your conscience. Some things do happen and you are not released of them until the evening: "He shall be unclean until the evening" (compare Leviticus 11). That is, you have to go through the remaining part of the day in a certain sense of bitterness, but there is relief in the evening. The allowance of the flesh involves that you go through a certain process for cleansing, but in

the wondrous system into which we are introduced there is relief; there is the water of purification, there is the Priest, there is the confessional (compare 1 John 1:9 and 2:1). There is nothing lacking that is requisite for our maintenance spiritually. Everything is available so that the spiritual level should not be dropped, and when I come to the evening I offer to God what I offered in the morning, the same yearling lamb, the same oblation with the oil, and the same drink-offering. The level is maintained, and if that level be maintained during the six days, you may depend that on the first day of the following week there will be wealth. Mark that in making the weekly and monthly offerings, we are never to omit those two offerings. It means that I keep up the level of spiritual power in all circumstances. So that we are to be "filled with the Spirit", as the scripture which I read says, "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and chanting with your heart to the Lord; giving thanks at all times for all things to him who is God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ", Ephesians 5:19 - 20.

In closing I want to draw your attention to the evening of John 20. It is a special record; it is not a repetition of any of the others. It is by itself, and it stresses what happened in the evening, and the word is said to mean that it was late in the evening, that is, when we might be worn out or fatigued. I want to show how the Lord sets the example here of the maintenance of spiritual vigour. It was a busy day, but a wonderful day for the Lord -- the first day of the week. It is mentioned twice in the chapter. It was the day on which the Lord rose, the day of the "hind of the morning". That is the heading of Psalm 22 as you will know. It is a feminine idea, so that it was not only Christ's activity but the activity of those who loved Him. Of course He was active, but it is to bring out the activity of His lovers; that is, it is for us. Mary

Magdalene is the example; she is very early there and she runs, but the chapter is to show that on that day which began with the "hind of the morning" the activity of the morning is there in the evening.

What I think the chapter indicates among many other things is that it was a heavy day's work for the Lord -- for I may so speak of Him -- and certainly a heavy day's work for the disciples, for events that affect our minds tax us as manual labour does. It was a day of great events. Peter and John had run to the tomb, as you know. It was a long day because the movements began very early, and now it is late in the evening. I am seeking to show you that the chapter confirms all I have been saying, that the evening is in keeping with the morning; the "hind of the morning" is the hind of the evening, that is, the agility and the energy are still there. There is no criticism, not a word of reproach in the narrative as regards the disciples although Thomas was absent. In this section it is a question of the saints being looked at as spiritual. There is no reference to Simon's sin here; it is the disciples and where they were. It is a question of what they are to Jesus, and He came in, the doors being shut where they were, and stood in the midst and spake peace to them, and they were glad. They were not drooping; they were not depressed; they were not perturbed; there is nothing of that kind in this record. It is an abstract view, no doubt, but it brings out what is possible, and what God looks for, that the evening is equal to the morning. It is not here an individual matter, but an assembly matter, and one may go so far as to apply it to the evening of the dispensation, that God will bring out the vitality and the energy, however obscure, that marked the morning. I believe He will. I believe He is doing it, and we do not want to be out of it, and if we are to be in it there must be the maintenance of the daily sacrifices, as I have been saying. The morning family reading and prayer and what may

come in in the evening to correspond are of the greatest importance, because if we neglect these things we shall be impoverished in the special convocations. But if we do not neglect them, when we come to the sabbath and the other feasts, speaking anti-typically, we shall be enriched and have all that is required for the service of God.

That is what I had on my heart. I believe you will recognise its importance, and it is very beautiful in this section of John to notice that the Lord said, "Peace be to you" twice, and they are glad when they see Him. The spirit of holy buoyancy marks this occasion; they are all awake and on the alert, and ready for what the Lord brought in. The conditions were so suitable that He could speak peace twice; for after they rejoiced He says, "Peace be to you" again, and He has such confidence in them that He says, "As the Father sent me forth, I also send you", John 20:21.

He cannot trust us if we are not spiritual; there is no one really reliable who is not spiritual, and alas! We have to admit that all are not. The apostle says to the Galatians, "Ye that are spiritual ...", which plainly intimates that some are not spiritual. The Corinthians were not spiritual. It is the spiritual that are reliable, and so the thought of the Lamb's wife refers to what is spiritual. She is His wife; it is the evidence that she is trustworthy: "The heart of her husband confideth in her", (Proverbs 31:11). The Lord here says, "As the Father sent me forth, I also send you"(John 20:21), and then He breathes on them and says, "Receive the Holy Spirit"; thus they were rendered trustworthy in view of the great service committed to them.

Well, that is what is needed. If there is to be a representation of Christ it is a question of spirituality, and that maintained. May God help us as to all this!

CONFORMATION TO CHRIST

Romans 8:29; Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18

You can see, dear brethren, from the first Scripture which I have read, that I purpose to say something about conformation to Christ, the fact implying that God's Son is the divine Model for all those who are the called according to purpose; He represents, in that sense, the end in view in regard to the divine formation of believers. There are two ideas brought before us: formation and conformation; they are of course, allied thoughts, but conformation lies in full accordance to the Model. It is thus stated that we are to be conformed to the image of God's Son, that He should be the firstborn among many brethren.

His foreknowledge enters into this -- "because whom he has foreknown, he has also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son". Foreknowledge alludes to a time prior to the formation of the world, showing indeed, how important believers are in God's mind -- they were there before the foundation of the world. Christ as Man was in the divine mind, for it is to Him that we are to be conformed. He, a divine Person becoming Man and known as the Son, is the Pattern for the "many brethren". This verse therefore, is on the platform of eternal counsel, in which man had part and place. Ephesians 1:11.

God, in the course of the creation had man in view. I am not now speaking of the six days of Genesis 1, but of verse 1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" -- that is beyond our computation as to time. Scientific men seek to probe into the mysteries of the creation, but there can be no finality in their conclusions. Scripture gives no clue as to the length of time since "the beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1. It states only, that "In the beginning

God created". Then we are further told that chaos ensued, and then that the Spirit was brooding over the face of the deep, evidently intent upon bringing order out of chaos, so that the scene should be prepared for the habitation of man. Then finally man is created who was a "figure of him that was to come"(Romans 5:14), showing that Christ was in the mind of God before Adam. It is not that Adam was a pattern for Christ, but that Christ was the pattern for Adam.

In John 1, we read of "The Word", who was "In the beginning", and that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed as one of the divine Persons in the deity, yet He was in counsel as a Man, so that He existed before Adam in every way; as John the baptist said in that same chapter, "he that comes after me is preferred before me; for he was before me", John 1:15. He is always first! Again in relation to Melchisedec, the "priest of the Most High God" -- he is brought before us as "assimilated to the Son of God"(Hebrews 7:3), that is, he is patterned from that glorious Person. Then later, in Exodus, we have the well-known pattern of the tabernacle given to Moses, again reminding us of the divine idea as being always in the mind of God. The only man who saw the pattern was Moses, and the only one who could construct the tabernacle, was the one who had seen the pattern. So important was this point, that he was instructed to see that everything was made according, to the pattern showed him in the mount; the whole structure in every part of it was to be according to the divine pattern.

We can see, as having these facts brought to our attention, that God has been working all the time with Christ in His mind, and further, that He has taken us up, in that connection, that He might bring about in us, conformity to Christ. He will keep on in His patient way with each of us, in view of bringing about perfect conformity with His own Son. One of the greatest features in Scripture with regard to God,

is His patience; but in waiting on us, if our wills are at work, and we do not submit to His way with us, we shall not have a happy time, for He will never give up His will. Happy that man who sees it at the beginning and places himself in the hands of the divine Potter. No need of the rod then; he will have a joyous time as in the hands of God for His will, that there should be in him conformity to Christ.

You will remember that Moses as having been in the mount with God, coming down with the tables of the covenant in his hands, finds the people already given up to idolatry, and he casts the tables down and breaks them. But God never gave up His thought as to the tabernacle as shown in the pattern, neither did Moses, but before it can be set up the most painful experiences had to be gone through in the camp. Moses cried, "Who is on the Lord's side?" "And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side", (Exodus 32:26 - 27). And the levites went through the camp with the sword, and three thousand were slain. After this Moses takes the tent and pitches it outside the camp, and it becomes a question for all who are on the Lord's side, of going out to Him there.

This question is raised for us individually in Romans 7, and we find it there worked out as an inward process -- a process requiring spiritual discernment and discovery. So that at the end of the process we say, "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell",(Romans 7:18) -- that flesh has been discovered in its true character, it is not on the Lord's side. It is a most humbling discovery, arrived at by the most minute analysis of what is within. Well if that is the true character of my flesh, is it to continue active? No, for by that same process of analysis, I have discovered something else, and that is, "I myself", and I determine that I shall "with the mind serve God's law", Romans 7:25. Thus I am "on the Lord's

side". What about the flesh then? Chapter 8 of Romans teaches us that God supplies me with a power by which that flesh can be kept inactive. I have come to the knowledge of Christ as my Deliverer for I can say, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord"(Romans 7:25); my conscience no longer condemns me, for I can say, "There is then now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit"(Romans 8:1 - 4).

Now you see I am free in my conscience and have power to serve God's law. It is not anything I have done, God has done it to His own glory in the cross of Christ, so that this new power enables me to fulfil the righteous requirement of the law, and I prove myself "on the Lord's side". I am prepared to use my sword. The levites girded every man his sword upon his thigh, they rallied to the Lord's name, and consecrated themselves to the Lord that day even though it was by every man slaying his brother, his companion, and his neighbour; Moses said to them, "bring on yourselves a blessing today". (Exodus 32:29). God's word to us is, "Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters"(2 Corinthians 6:17,18). Unless there is this subjecting of the will to God, I shall know nothing of this blessing.

All this being true in us, God's work of formation and of conformation proceeds. He is appealing to us to submit ourselves in His hands, so that He can make something of us. He had it in mind for us before the foundation of the world. He had the most glorious

Model before Him -- the Son of God -- and He is going to conform us all to His image. We cannot afford to be out of this! When we are young, as the Lord said to Peter, we gird ourselves and go whithersoever we will, and He says to him further, "but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not"(John 21:18). This speaks of resignation to the will of another. Let us resign ourselves therefore to the will of God that we may become subjects of His blessed work of conformation to Christ. Jeremiah in chapter 18, speaks of a vessel which was "marred" in the hands of the potter, and then of his making another vessel "as seemed good" to him -- it is a vessel formed after Christ which pleases God, a vessel according to the counsels of God. Let me appeal to you, beloved brethren, for this resignation to the will of God.

In chapter 12 of Romans and in verse 2 the apostle entreats believers not to be "conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind". If this world is before the heart, and a man desires to shine in it, he is not in a position to prove the will of God. The world has its ideals, it makes its appeal, and so the apostle warns us here, "be not conformed to this world". We are told elsewhere that the world "that then was" -- in the days of Noah -- perished, being overflowed of water; and again, there is the world that is now which is reserved unto fire awaiting the judgment; but then there is the world which is to come -- "that world", as the Lord calls it -- and in view of our part in it we must be "transformed by the renewing of the mind". This goes further than a resolve of mind to serve the law of God (Romans 7:25); this verse serves to assist us as to the use of our minds; and here in regard to them we have this significant word "renewal". This word expresses what is common to this epistle, for we have the same idea in "newness of life" and "newness of spirit" -- it means an entirely

different thing from that which is current; so that by the renewal of our minds we begin to think differently from other men. You do not get this from reading a novel, however "innocent" -- none of them is innocent -- neither do you get renewal of mind from reading what may be regarded as legitimate in connection with ordinary affairs.

This is to be understood spiritually; so we read in 1 Corinthians 2:12, "We have received ... the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which have been freely given to us of God". Believers have the Holy Spirit, who instructs us in regard to all things. In Isaiah 28, we read of the farmer, that "his God doth instruct him" -- If God will thus instruct a farmer in his work, will He not instruct us as to the renewing of the mind? Let us therefore ask the Lord for this knowledge: speak to Him about this renewing of the mind, and He will show us what He means by it: indeed we are told that the Lord will give us understanding in all things. This renewing relates to another world -- it is looking on to the world in which Christ is everything and which had its conception before the foundation of this world.

The school of God is the oldest school in the universe; it has turned out the greatest men that have ever been -- the deepest thinkers, and it will abide when all the other universities, colleges and schools of this world are passed away. In His school we learn to "prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God".

Then chapter 3 of the second epistle to the Corinthians gives us another feature: "we all looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit". The word "changed" in the authorised version is really "transformed" -- that is, metamorphosed, as often remarked; that is, it is changed, not merely externally, but completely. We have the

same idea applied to the Lord Jesus Himself; it is a complete change; not that the word in itself always connotes that what you are changed from is something less worthy, but whatever you are, as transformed, you become something entirely different. It is a question of what God has in His mind. In relation to the Lord on the mount of transfiguration, Matthew and Mark say that He was "transfigured" -- but Luke says that He "became different" -- here we are in the presence of what is inscrutable. We are to be "like him" when we see Him as He is, and that is enough for us. We have it in expectation as to the manifestation, but this transformation here is to go on now. The apostle is speaking to the Corinthians of the new covenant, and showing that their hearts were the tables on which God was writing Christ; he is treating of the new in contrast to the old; he speaks of it as "not of letter, but of spirit". (2 Corinthians 3:6) It is typified in the second giving of the Law to Moses; for although this was literally a renewal of the first, we may use it as figurative of the new covenant of which Paul was an "able minister".

When Moses came down from the mount and had broken the first tables, and after all the painful process of dealing with the camp had been gone through, he entreats to be allowed to see God's glory and God accedes to his wish in the most tender gracious way. He says, "I will do this thing also that thou hast said"(Exodus 33:17), and from this point Moses becomes more expressly typical of Christ as the Mediator -- more like Jesus. God has taught him more of Himself, and so He directs him to go up to the mountain again; and the terms on which Moses is to be there show that he is more than ever pleasing to God, as more like that One of whom God can say, "Thou art my beloved Son in whom I have found my delight"(Mark 1:11). So here He says to Moses, You make the tables -- "Hew for thyself two tables of stone like the first",(Exodus 34:1) -- and bring them up in your own hands, and Deuteronomy adds a further word, that he

should make an ark of wood, speaking of Christ Himself in manhood -- the Conservator of every thought of God. God said to Moses as it were, I will do the writing; you bring up the tables. So here in 2 Corinthians, the Lord has brought these refractory Corinthians back to Himself; they have humbled themselves; they have regarded the words of the apostle in the first epistle as the "commandment of the Lord", and now here they are found as suited writing material for the Spirit of God. The Lord has brought it about: He has got the saints in His hands for the impressions which the Spirit of the living God makes. Paul himself was a "competent" new covenant minister; he was in keeping with Christ, his competency being of God.

So Moses went up the mount a second time. Exodus 34, and God came down and stood beside him there. Then it says that "Jehovah passed by before his face"(Exodus 34:6) think what an impression of God that would make upon him! What follows is that God tells him that "after the tenor of these words"(verse 27) He has made a covenant with the people; that is what we have here: "The Lord the Spirit", -- it is not the covenant in letter, but in Spirit. That is Christianity. It is impressions of God in Christ. The Lord Jesus has His people in His hands here; He enforces the love of God in our hearts. He instructs us in it. What a service! We can understand the expression in verse 10, "the glory that excelleth"; it refers to this wonderful ministration of the new covenant, so that we take on divine impressions. We leave none out of this blessed ministry; all believers have their part in it. Those who have necessarily taken a separate path are often spoken of as narrow and sectarian, but in truth they are broader than any people in the world, for in their affections they take in all saints. So here it says, "we all" with unveiled face looking on the glory of the Lord; it is all -- no Christians are left out. The face of the Lord Jesus is not veiled, it is to be looked at by those who have the Spirit. If you

do not know what it means, ask the Lord to teach you; we have to learn what it is from Himself. And so "we are transformed ... from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit". It does not say that we should be changed, but that those who look at the glory of the Lord are changed; the process is going on, and no Christian can afford to be out of it. Beholding the glory of the Lord we are changed; what is in the heart of God for us is that there should be a real, substantial, and complete change in us, so that there might conformation to the image of His Son.

DIVINE APPEARINGS, BEARING ON SERVICE

Acts 26:16 - 18; Acts 22:17 - 18; Acts 16:9 - 10; Acts 27:22 - 26

These Scriptures speak of divine appearings which bear on service. The first divine appearing spoken of in Scripture, having in view the disposition of the world, was to Abraham. He was to be impressed with what should fill the world, for the world should be filled with God's glory. Thus, "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia", (Acts 7:2).

The glory of this world fades and disappears, but God had in mind that there should be a world filled with His glory, and so we have that remarkable expression in Revelation 11:15, "The kingdom of the world of our Lord and of his Christ is come". The kingdom of it will guarantee the subjection, or removal, of all that would interfere with the spread and display of the glory of God. Abraham was to be impressed with it: not indeed, that the glory shone, it does not say that, but the "God of glory appeared", which is greater. We have also the expressions the Father of glory, and the Lord of glory; whether it be by God as such, or by the Father, or by the Lord, the glory will be caused to shine and to fill all things. I mention all this at the beginning of what I have to say, that our hearts may be attuned to it. As unconverted, we have no response at all in our hearts toward God. As born again and as having the Holy Spirit, as redeemed, there is that which answers to God; and so the thought of divine appearings will appeal to us.

From Abraham's time onwards, the great thought that there was glory which belonged to God, filled the mind of faith. All else fades, but the glory of God is fadeless. It shines now in the face of Jesus; it is intended

to be perfectly intelligible to us in the face of Jesus. It is brought within that compass, and so it says of believers: "we all, looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face", (2 Corinthians 3:18). We "all" -- that is a very inclusive word but also an exclusive one; we Christians -- all true believers characteristically -- look on the face of Jesus. I wonder whether we have all looked at the face of Jesus; there is nothing repellent about it; it is most attractive. All that God is in love towards us, dear brethren, shines there.

Paul tells us in the passages I read of appearings to himself, and I wish to speak of him in this connection in order to set out what I have in mind with regard to service. Having spoken much of the sufferings that he endured in his service, he says, "I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord", (2 Corinthians 12:1). How full his heart would be as he wrote those words! Dear brethren, let them not be altogether foreign to us! If we have not already done so, let us begin to think of the possibility of getting into the realm of revelation. Amongst the records of Solomon are "the visions of Iddo",(2 Chronicles 9:29). These would bear on the glory of Solomon in a peculiar way, as "visions and revelations of the Lord" bear on the glory of Christ. It is needful for us, dear brethren, to pay attention to this because we are so prone to live and move and have our being in relation to what is material: is it not so? The famines of which we have spoken, having their reflection in what is current today, would bring out where the people of God are, and how affected we are by what is material; whereas God would use what seems to be very adverse, to direct us to the sphere of revelation.

The apostle says, "I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not, God knows;)"(2 Corinthians 12:1,2) It was no dream; it was nothing imaginary; it was a reality, the experience not simply of an apostle, but of a man in Christ, which

term applies to every true Christian. In religious circles, people speak of seeing this and that -- sometimes the very worst suggestions of links with the devil; but they are not visions and revelations of the Lord. Unless we can bring the Lord into the things we see -- or fancy we see -- they are of no value whatever; they should be renounced as evil.

In order to amplify what I am saying, I would refer to Paul's list of those to whom the Lord appeared after He arose; and I would direct your view, beloved, to the forty days of the Lord's sojourn here after He arose. It is inscrutable, but full of spiritual instruction. Unless we understand something of those days, we are scarcely equal to the assembly or to its privileges. The apostle, in bringing forward this list, was endeavouring to allure the Corinthians on to spiritual lines; and that is what I have in mind, dear brethren, that there is a spiritual realm -- a realm of visions and revelations. The Lord "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to about five hundred brethren at once, ... Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to me also", (1 Corinthians 15:5 - 9). And then with what beautiful humility he speaks! "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called apostle", verse 9. That would never be my judgment of him; but he said it, and this sets before us a truly humble person. He said, "I am the least of the apostles"; and not only does he say this, but also, I am "less than the least of all saints", (Ephesians 3:8). This corresponds with Psalm 16, in which our Lord in spirit expresses His lowly mind here: "My goodness extendeth not to thee", verse 2. We bow as marvelling at such words, but He uttered them, and they are surely intended to imbue our minds with the humility seen in the service and testimony of our Lord. The Lord Jesus said further, "To the saints that are on the earth, and to the excellent thou hast said. In them is all my delight"(Psalm 16:3),

That is how He spoke, and so the apostle speaks of being the least of the apostles -- not fit to be called apostle, "because", he says, "I have persecuted the assembly of God", (1 Corinthians 15:9); but yet he says, "he appeared to me also", verse 8.

I go on to the passage which records this appearing in his own words -- in the apostle's speech before Agrippa and Festus in Caesarea. It is in the presence of "great pomp"; for we are told that the king, Bernice, Festus and the great ones of Caesarea were there. How wretched that show of worldly glory must have been to Paul! Not that he despised official dignity, for he addressed them with respect -- "most noble Festus", and "king Agrippa". That is an important matter too, for the powers that be are ordained of God; but mere worldly show was nothing to Paul. His eyes had seen the King, the Lord of hosts, and one view of that glory dissipates all this world's glory. And that is what the Lord would bring us to, dear brethren -- to view the glory of this world, as Paul did. The Lord would bring us down; in fact, He is doing it now through reduction in our circumstances -- little by little; but this makes for inward expansion; and the Lord would take us aside and give us a view of His glory.

In Paul's account of the first appearing, he tells us that the Lord said to him, "stand on thy feet". (Acts 26:16). That is a significant word. He had fallen to the ground, which was right in its place; but the Lord says, "stand on thy feet; for for this purpose have I appeared to thee". I urge upon all, especially those who are serving, to get some idea of an appearing -- if not an appearing, some direct contact with the Lord with regard to our responsibility here in the service to which we may be called. He is available. He said to Paul, "stand on thy feet". That expression is used several times in Scripture, and it means that one stands up in the sense of responsibility, and in the sense of

power too; and it also implies balance, that one does not need to lean upon another. One great idea seen in the levite is that he stands on his own feet. In Mark's gospel, which is the servant's gospel, in chapter 3 you will find that the list of apostles is not made up of 'twos', but that they are listed singly. Now that is a matter of importance. I do not deny that two are better than one, and that Matthew lists them in twos, but Mark would put upon each servant the responsibility to stand on his own feet; then there is the thought of a special impression made on him by an appearing; and then that he is to be sent. Look at the Lord's own words to Paul, which he cites here: "for, for this purpose have I appeared to thee, to appoint thee to be a servant and a witness both of what thou hast seen, and of what I shall appear to thee in", verse 16. There are to be further appearings; one will not suffice as the Lord said -- "and of what I shall appear to thee in". The Lord intimates to him that the gain of the first appearing is to be sustained. The Lord sustains, and a sustained person maintains himself; that brings in his responsibility.

We find here that the apostle is delivered from the people and from the nations. The Lord knew how strong the pull of national feeling was with this great servant. He loved Israel, and could say that he had wished he could be accursed from Christ for Israel, Romans 9:3. That is an extraordinary thing to me; but Paul speaks in the past tense, thus the wish to be accursed from Christ was not continuous with him; but what he says brings out the strength of his affection for Israel. Too much of it, as we see elsewhere, would hinder him in his service; so that the Lord said, "taking thee out from among the people, and the nations, to whom I send thee". (Acts 26:17), implying that if we are to be able to serve people, we must be delivered from them. If people influence me by natural things, I cannot serve them truly or effectually; I must be

delivered: and then I am sent to people from whom I am delivered; thus, I am free. Paul asserted that he was the servant of all. "For if I announce the glad tidings, I have nothing to boast of; for a necessity is laid upon me; for it is woe to me if I should not announce the glad tidings", (1 Corinthians 9:16). "For being free from all, I have made myself bondman to all, that I might gain the most possible", verse 19. "To all I have become all things, in order that at all events I might save some", verse 22. That is how the matter stood.

I read the passage in Acts 22 to show how all this was amplified later. The apostle is now speaking to his own people in Jerusalem, and he says, after recording the first great appearing to him, "when I had returned to Jerusalem, and as I was praying in the temple", verse 17. Now that is a fine thing -- praying in the temple. That is how he speaks about himself to the Jews in Jerusalem. The first commendation that occurs about him is, "behold, he is praying". (Acts 9:11). I should like to be able to say that of every young woman and of every young man here -- "behold, he is praying". Is it so? I believe the leading feature of Paul's whole life and the secret of his success -- both as a Christian and a servant -- was that he prayed. He says, "as I was praying in the temple, that I became in ecstasy". Maybe some of us have never thought of that word "ecstasy" which is one that stands out in the vocabulary of Scripture. It is not mentioned as something that is unobtainable, but as something that is. "I became in ecstasy, and saw him saying to me. Make haste and go quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me". Now you see the bearing of what I have said -- "taking thee out from among the people, and the nations". If I am held by national feeling, I shall never be able to serve according to God. I must be wholly free from all that, for God has given it up; although He will return to it

by and by. It is in His purpose with regard to the earth, to have a nation; and that is coming in presently, but not now. The assembly cannot be made to fit into any nation; it is a universal thought; accordingly, brethren, if I am to serve effectually, I must know something of this experience of prayer and ecstasy, and of the Lord's saying in effect. Leave your national setting -- do not halt any longer; they will not hear you. How well the Lord knew; they did not even hear Him, but said, "Away with this man". That was their judgment -- the judgment of the most favoured, the most religiously cultured nation the earth has had. Today apostasy is fast laying hold on all the so-called Christian nations. They are turning away from Jesus and are looking for another, whom they will get. All these nations will be in it -- let us not be deceived. They will all acclaim that man and wonder after him -- the beast. See Revelation 13:8.

With reference to the third scripture, while it is not an appearing of Christ, it is a divinely ordered vision. It is the impersonation of a Macedonian man in a vision, which is an action of heaven. The servant is not now in Jerusalem; he is away, near to Europe; and he is not sure as to his course; but he is a dependent servant. What a model he is! -- so near to Christ that the Spirit of Jesus could say to him. Do not go that way. The Spirit of Jesus forbade them to speak the word in Asia; where then was Paul to go? The true servant asks. What am I to do now? where am I to serve next? This, dear brethren, applies to the smallest bit of service. Isaiah stands out in this respect. In answer to the divine enquiry, "Whom shall I send?" he says, "Here am I" (Isaiah. 6:8). That is the attitude of a waiting servant -- one ready for orders. He will be directed, for the work is very extensive; servants are needed in all directions. The nearer we get to the Lord, the more we shall discover how great the need is. I believe that voice "Whom shall I send?" is to be

heard all the time. The answer is, "Here am I". It was from Isaiah. He had just seen the glory. "In the year of the death of king Uzziah, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple" (Isaiah 6:1). John refers to it later: "These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him", John 12:41. That is the clue. It is the man who says, "Here am I, send me"(Isaiah 6:8) that was sent. I am persuaded of this, that servants are not taken on save as they see the glory. How can we serve effectually save as we see the glory?

Paul saw this vision "by night". I do not know just what this may mean; although you get it several times. I suppose there is a stillness and hence opportunity for abstraction in the night, and the Lord takes advantage of this. In the vision of which I am speaking the man of Macedonia says, "Come over ... and help us" -- what an appeal that is! Selfish considerations must not intrude in the presence of it. That man was thinking not of himself alone, but of the Macedonians. There are many such calls, and the Lord will stand by everyone who really serves Him in answering to them. Paul answered immediately, and went into Macedonia, but, oh, what suffering this service entailed! At Philippi he was thrust into that inner prison and scourged, and his feet made fast in the stocks. All that lay between the vision and the man of Macedonia, but he reached the man; that is the point. A true servant will never stop short; he goes forward and reaches his objective. The jailer, you may say, was the man; and he asked for lights. We have now to do with very hard soil. People come to our meetings and listen to the truth, and you wonder why they are so unimpressionable; but this man was impressionable, although he must have been a hard kind of man, for he was a Roman jailer. But now he is respectful and hospitable to the Lord's servants, showing tender-heartedness and impressionableness. He is manifestly a subject of the work of

God. He is material for the assembly -- a man who asks for lights wants the whole truth.

Passing on to the last scripture, I want to show you how the servant comes in for an appearing in times of great doubt. The ship was about to be broken up, and Paul was on it. Dark days, when neither the sun nor the stars appeared, preceded this incident, and the ship was rocked by the waves; there was every evidence of the ship's foundering, but he said, "And now I exhort you to be of good courage, for there shall be no loss at all of life of any of you, only of the ship. For an angel of the God, whose I am and whom I serve, stood by me". (Acts 27:22 - 23). I would that I could use that language as he did! "Whose I am" brings in the divine right to us; no one can be independent. Paul belonged to God; he was a levite of God. "Whose I am and whom I serve". There is nothing said of Paul's actual service as on the ship, for he, as a prisoner, was on a ship bound for Rome from Caesarea, and there is nothing said as to what he may have done on the way, but you may be sure that his hands were not idle. How much he could have done. Some of us know how much can be done aboard ship. There is no need for idling at any time, and no true servant of God will idle. Time is relatively one of the scarcest things I know of; and you may be sure that the apostle used the time profitably. He does not say, Whose I am and whom I have served, but "whom I serve", and we may be sure during those dark days on the Mediterranean, he spent a great deal of his time in prayer, and the angel stood by him.

You may ask why it is an angel, for this is the only recorded occasion of angelic relations with him. Distance is implied as under the extraordinary circumstances; it refers to the history of the church. It is a prophetic position; defection had already set in; the ship -- the external church, as we say, was breaking up; God was not pleased, but He continued to care for

His people and His servant, and He sent His angel. As of old, when the angel of Jehovah left Gilgal and went to Bochim, that meant a change in the state of the people; and so, in these circumstances, prophetically, at least, there was a change. It was "an angel of God", who was in full sympathy with heaven and in sympathy with Paul, and he stood by him that night. What a cheer it must have been to the apostle to have an angel standing by him speaking to him! We must not think, dear brethren, that the angels are far away from us. I do not wish to be visionary in the ordinary sense, but spiritually so. They are not far away from us; they are ministering spirits sent out to minister on account of us; they are active agents here. They are "sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation", (Hebrews 1:14). Paul says, "And now I exhort you to be of good courage, for there shall be no loss at all of life of any of you, only of the ship. For an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood by me this night, saying. Fear not Paul; thou must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted to thee all those that sail with thee. Wherefore be of good courage, men, for I believe God that thus it shall be, as it has been said to me". (Acts 27:22 - 26).

As I close, I want you to ponder this position -- a servant standing up in such circumstances in the sense of having been spoken to that very night by an angel from heaven. What freshness and power there would be! He was not speaking of something that happened years before. He was speaking on the deck of a sinking ship, not in platitudes, but in the freshness of a very recent experience with God. "Fear not, Paul; thou must stand before Caesar, and behold, God has granted to thee all those that sail with thee", verse 24. Why should that be said to Paul? -- because he was a feeling man -- he was a man of affections. He did not wish one on that ship to be lost, and the angel assured him that nothing should be lost, save the ship. He would feel the loss

of the ship, as understanding its significance, but what we are concerned about now is not any more the salvation of the public body; we accept sorrowfully the loss of that, we are concerned about the safety of the members of Christ, that if the church in its public character is lost, it stands in the counsel of God; for the heavenly city remains and will come down from God out of heaven. Nothing will be lost; it will come out, having the glory of God. John supplies all that. John, therefore, so to speak, stands in the outward ruins of Paul's structure, and presents what cannot be ruined; he presents the heavenly city coming down from God out of heaven, having the glory of God. That is what John sets before us, an angel having shown it to him. Revelation 22.

Paul said that all the passengers would be saved, and it is put most beautifully: "all those that sail with thee". I want you to take that in, beloved; it is a question of sailing with Paul -- all that sailed with him were given to him. I often think of this passage, believing that if we really value the saints, in spite of the public breakdown, the Lord says, I will give them to you. Every person that sailed on that boat arrived on the land safe. All that is prophetic. There is much instruction in this chapter, and in the next one, as to church history, but the point now is that there is a man serving under these circumstances to whom an angel speaks, and who speaks immediately in the power of it, and his word has effect. He really became master of the ship. There is power with him.

Well, what I have presented has in view that we might become spiritually acquainted, in our service, with the realm of revelation.

UNITY THE BASIS OF GOD DWELLING WITH MEN

Psalm 133Psalm 68:15,18; Exodus 3:1 - 6; Exodus 34:29 - 30

I have before me to speak about unity and the divine dwelling, and I wish to connect what I have to say with the idea of a mountain. This idea in Scripture is largely symbolic, mountains being a feature in the creation, like many others, that God designed to use in this way as a language. They represent conspicuousness, but conspicuousness in stability and power. To be conspicuous aside from power is mere show. I mean, power in a good sense, for mountains are also used in Scripture to symbolise power in a bad sense. Conspicuousness in power is indicated in the initial epistle with which indeed we all need to be conversant if we are to be here in the fibre that is according to God; that is Romans. The literal term "mountain" is but little used in the epistles, for they deal not with symbols, but speak in the direct language of the Spirit, "communicating", as Paul says, "spiritual things by spiritual means", 1 Corinthians 2:13. Mountains are scarcely mentioned at all save in the Jewish epistles, but what they convey spiritually is touched largely. In Romans you have it contemplated, as the result of the gospel, that is, power here in believers -- power in the sense of good by which evil is overcome. That is what I have in mind.

Anyone essaying to be conspicuous aside from these features is sure to meet with a fall, and the higher we go without these features the greater the fall. Satan had the idea in leading the Lord up the mountain -- the first mountain in Matthew. Matthew is the great mountain gospel indeed, because of the place designed for the assembly here -- not in the future, but in this world now as a witness. He led the Lord up there,

and then he led Him too to the pinnacle of the temple. Satan will promote that sort of elevation, and this involves serious danger for us. The Lord allowed it to happen for a testimony, but we have to be on our guard against such dizzy heights; they are dangerous. Over against this, what God has in mind is moral power, power great and conspicuous in that sense; by it there is the overcoming of evil with good. Now the Psalms bring out the truth from the experimental side, as I suppose we all know more or less, and that is what I want to lead up to, for aside from what is experimental, divine things must be distant, whereas, as the corresponding state is promoted they become nearer and nearer; there is thus agreement between what is presented objectively and what is wrought in the believer, so that he expresses in himself the divine thought conveyed in a mountain. In the Psalms we have this latter, as I hope to show, but the first mountain in Exodus is more the abstract idea. It is "the mountain of God", Horeb. The moral element is there, presented from the divine side; it is the mountain of God I am brought to here. It is to Moses' credit that he came to it. Romans, as I said, is the principle of it. God shines out in that relation.

We have three mountains mentioned in connection with the shining out of God in Deuteronomy. We are told, "Jehovah came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; He shone forth from mount Paran", (Deuteronomy 33:2). These are great spiritual thoughts; they are not material. God shines out in relation to His rights over us, and His rights over us now are based on redemption; they are the rights of love. Sinai represents God's rights, the rights of His love in the death of Jesus. Then He arises from mount Seir; He arises from that direction unto us, as if He were to say, The land which I designed in love for you, is not far away, only eleven days' journey. In that very passage we are told He loved the people: "Yea, he loveth the

peoples", Deuteronomy 33:3. Let no believers doubt this, for it is infinitely attested, and nothing can "separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus", (Romans 8:35 - 38). In Deuteronomy 33 we have reached the end of the wilderness journey; and thinking of God according to what He has been to us, we can say this, "Yea, he loveth the peoples". Then Paran is on the way; whatever the wilderness may be in that short period of eleven days, it is to be illumined with the love of God; He shines there.

Well, that is the mountain setting at the end -- how God comes to us in relation to the ideas conveyed. But we have to begin in Exodus. The difficulty with most of us is, in our not going back to the beginning of things, but making a short cut without the moral element entering into the roots of our being. Exodus 3 presents a lone man in the wilderness looking after sheep. They were not his own; he was looking after them unselfishly, a fine touch for young believers. He led them, we are told. Eliab said to David, "with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart"(1 Samuel 17:28). Moses had no such thought, nor did David have any such thought; it was the imputation of a jealous man. We may be sure that if we attribute naughtiness to the heart of a devoted follower of Christ, it is in our own hearts. Moses had no such motives. Had he desires of seeking great things in this world he would not have led the sheep to the backside of the desert. He would have kept near the town where he could see something of the world. The seaside affords much for the gratification of the flesh, and we have to be on our guard as to this. Spiritual instincts will not lead us in the direction of the world; they lead us to the backside of the desert; but the mount of God is there, in later years renowned for the divine disclosures made there, renowned for the covenant, and the general testimony to the love of God -- the well-known Horeb. Moses found himself

there, and he learns at this mountain that God has a great power in this world; it is His mountain, there is none like it. As we read in Psalm 68, "As mount Bashan is the mount of God, a many-peaked mountain, as mount Bashan". It is a great thought. God would impress upon us at the very beginning that He has something in the way of power here that is beyond anything of this world.

There is no ascension on it yet, nor does God appear on it. There is no thought of ascension, it is rather God coming down, for there can be no ascension till God comes down. There must be the descending first; so He says, "I have come down"; it is the touch of love: "I am come down to deliver"(Exodus 3:8); but then, what Moses saw was a thorn-bush, an insignificant bush as regards human thoughts, but it was burning; the fire was in the bush. It is a most important lesson if we are ever to go to the mountain of God, where the idea of ascension is found, where Jesus ascended on high, that this great idea should be here upon earth; we have to learn the coming down into this smallness. Moses turned aside to see. That is the first thing to notice on his side in connection with this subject; he turned aside to see. What did he see? It is not a question of the height of the mountain here, but what was there in a thorn-bush -- extreme lowliness. This is never to be forgotten. This great appearing to Moses is to enter into the fibre of his being, in the very roots of it, and never to be lost. It is He that descended, and there is the fire. Moses turned aside to see that, and God indicates that there is virtue in that movement, when He saw that Moses turned aside. He honoured him by calling his name twice.

This is the beginning of his instruction and experience in regard to the mountain of God. He has to learn much here. He has to take off his shoes from his feet, to learn that even the precincts of the divine appearance are holy. That is an important lesson. Then another

thing that comes out here -- there are many things, but I cannot touch on them all -- God says, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". This seems a very simple thing, but the Lord Jesus refers to these words, Luke 20:37 - 38, and we get the true import of them from Him. They refer to the resurrection; God is not the God of the dead; He is the God of the living. All live unto Him. As having to do with God we are to be impressed with this. We are to be among the living. These are great thoughts, seen at the beginning; thoughts that we have to be brought back to in the experience of our souls. At the outset I have the light of them. What a volume of instruction enters into this incident! The Lord said, "Moses showed in the section of the bush"(Luke 20:37) -- one of the finest sections of Scripture. What occurred was small outwardly, but it stands out in connection with the revelation of God as He who raises the dead.

Now I want to show how the idea of a mountain is developed in Exodus, so that we may understand it as in the Psalms. I may say here that the Psalms comprise five books, undoubtedly corresponding in some sense with the Pentateuch. The Psalms present the experience of the saints, and the Pentateuch God's side. The latter is the great objective idea in these mountains. Whether it be in connection with Moses as a believer, or Moses as mediator, a type of Christ, the great idea of the mountain is developed here in Exodus, and also in the other books of the Pentateuch. The principle is followed up in the Psalms, on our side, and it results in practical unity among the saints and a dwelling place for God. These are two great thoughts, and the more we take them in, the more we shall seek to correspond.

The next thing that I would notice is that the mountain of God denotes resources, it is the place of divine provision. That is what the believer needs to understand, following on the earlier features, that God has

that here in which there is provision. The great principle is laid down in connection with Abraham, that is, when Christ arose typically, "On the mount of Jehovah will be provided". (Genesis 22:14). And now Exodus is to show it, and the first great provision of the mount is a brother. You can see at once that it is not the literal idea of a mountain; it is the spiritual one. What a great support a true brother is! He is said to be born for adversity. The Lord Jesus sets out this great thought above all. Not that we call Him brother -- no reverential person will do that -- but He acts the part of one and calls us brethren. Moses, you will remember, said that he could not speak, and Jehovah says to him, "Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother?"(Exodus 4:14) It is a great matter to have a brother, but especially if he is a levite. He is called "the Levite", as if he represented that thought, and Jehovah said, "he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart". (Exodus 4:14). That is very precious. Where did he meet him? He "met him in the mount of God"(Exodus 4:27).

Moses would understand -- if not then, in later years -- how beautifully this meeting with Aaron fitted in with the mount of God. We cannot do without the brethren. If there is anyone here who has any thought of independency, any thought or suggestion in his heart that he can get along without the brethren, he is mistaken. We cannot get along without the brethren; they are a provision. Aaron represents this. A true brother comes to meet us, and when he sees us he is glad in his heart. Love is in him; he makes no demands; he brings love with him when I may not have much. What is the use of assuming to be a brother if I cannot bring love as I go to see a brother? When Aaron saw Moses he was glad in his heart, and he met him in the mount of God.

Well, as we all know, the people of Israel were led to mount Sinai. It is an immense subject, but I only want to touch on the points in Exodus. Whilst Moses

is alluded to as going up earlier, he goes up definitely in chapter 24, but he does not go up alone. When the Lord ascended up into heaven, in principle. He took the brethren with Him, He ascended to His Father and their Father. Ephesians teaches that as quickened with Christ, we are raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Him. The saints go up together. I should not like to go without the brethren, if you understand me. I am not speaking now of departing to be with Christ which is far better than present conditions here; I am speaking of the purpose and work of God, as seen in Ephesians, and also of the rapture as seen in 1 Thessalonians. All go up together; love in Christ and in us will have it so. The Lord went up in relation to the brethren, and He will come again and receive us to Himself. "I ascend". He says, "unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God", John 20:17. That is the connection in which He went up. This is an immense thought and it enters into the idea of conspicuousness of which we are speaking. The heavenly is to enter into everything here; so that in Exodus 24:1, God says to Moses, "Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel", that is to say, the saints go up. You can understand how Moses would regard the people as thus to ascend with him. Not only am I to have brethren here, but I am to have them there. The Lord will have them there; He is to be the Firstborn among many brethren. Thus Moses is to go up with the representatives of the people. They all went up in the light and power of the covenant, Moses, and Aaron, and Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel.

One loves to think of the brethren going up. It is Ephesians now -- the rapture as in Thessalonians presently -- for Ephesians says that we are raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies, chapter 2:6. This is a source of unity and strength

down here. How different the brethren become in my eyes, to what they may seem outwardly, when I view them thus! I am to live eternally with them, and I should not be at home without them. We shall all be there, like Christ, He the Firstborn among us.

At Sinai they went up, and they "saw the God of Israel", it says, and "upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand"(Exodus 24:9,11). They are up there as nobles. Social conditions up there are very different from what they are down here. The nobility up there is not the nobility in the world's esteem at all, and it is what is up there that is to remain. "On the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not His hand"(Exodus 24:11). God is going to lay His hand presently on this world with all its graded greatness; He will lay His hand upon it in the most drastic way, but not on the nobles of Israel; they have a place with God. But I am speaking of the brethren, and as I get a view of them according to Ephesians, I see that they are worth loving; they are worth living with.

Well, that is the position in Exodus 24, but then the mediator must be distinguished. The Lord associates us with Himself as His brethren, but He must always be pre-eminent. Moses goes higher than the people. It alludes to the pre-eminence of Christ. He has gone up in His own way. We do not go just that way; we are caught up; He ascended up in His own right and power, and so Moses is displayed before the eyes of Israel in the presence of the glory. The glory of Jehovah was like a consuming fire on the top of Sinai, and Moses went into that in their sight. Christ was received up in glory; He has entered heaven having a personal right there, but He has also gone in as representing His people. There is precious teaching in this chapter in regard to the assembly; it is to build up in our souls the idea of greatness involved in our place in heaven, coming out here on earth in conspicuousness in power for good.

What comes out in chapter 34 is that Christ becomes clearer to us. You know, we are very vague in our thoughts of Christ, even viewing Him as the Mediator. The normal instruction in the book of Exodus from our side ends in chapter 24. All that follows has to do with the tabernacle, the dwelling of God and the service in it. Terrible breakdown came in as recorded in chapters 32 and 33, which we do well to take to heart, but through the faithfulness of God it worked out in material for His dwelling. One result was that Moses became greater. As we truly judge ourselves, as sin occurs, Christ will become greater in our eyes. That is as sure as anything can be. So it comes out here that as Moses comes down the calf is being worshipped, and he goes up to God and says, "if thou wilt forgive their sin -- but if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book"(Exodus 32:32). That is the spirit of Christ; that is the Mediator going into death in principle. It is only a shadow, but it is there, and Moses, from that point, rises in the estimation of God. In chapter 34 He directs Moses to hew two tables of stone and go up with them to the mountain -- he is to go alone. The Mediator thus stands out in increased vividness before us. Jehovah says, "Hew thee two tables of stone ... and I will write upon these tables"(Exodus 34:1). It is Christ bringing us with Him; that is the principle. He brings us up, as it were with "fleshy tables of the heart". In this He becomes more and more glorious, so that when Moses comes down his face shines. Jehovah came down and stood with him on the mount, and then passed by in covenant glory. The covenant is not now a question of what is literal, but "after the tenor of these words", (Exodus 34:27). It points to the new covenant in which there is liberty, and in which we "looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit", (2 Corinthians 3:18). That is what is going on. Are we in the Lord's hands in this sense? There can be no practical

unity without this. It involves the bringing in of the love of God into our hearts by the Mediator and the glory that goes with that, the ministration of the Spirit, so that we look at it. It is the glory of the Lord.

In Psalm 133 we have all this brought down to practical results: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity". It is a challenge to every heart. At times we thrust in before God what we know is not suitable. Abraham said, "O that Ishmael might live before thee!"(Genesis 17:18) He would thrust Ishmael in before God. A disunited meeting does not suit God, although He bears long with us. "How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity". That is what heaven looks for. A meeting in practical unity is a pleasing sight for heaven; it is "good" and "pleasant". We are told what it is like in the psalm. It is not a human arrangement, such as agreement to differ. It is not that. It is "like the precious ointment" -- note that word "precious" -- "upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard". It is Christ in heaven. The allusion to the beard is personal adornment. It was plucked off down here, but it is His beauty. The ointment "ran down to the hem of his garments". It is a finished matter. This would be implied in the hem. Every garment should be finished. There is nothing loose, no world borderings. This precious ointment, coming down on the beard, flows down the garments to the hem, but not beyond that.

Then it is like the "dew of Hermon". Hermon is a high mountain, and I suppose the idea is that it penetrates the clouds and catches all that comes down from heaven. No doubt, it is a type of Christ in His personal greatness and dignity. He reaches up into heaven. Indeed, He said when here, "The Son of man who is in heaven", John 3:13. It is inscrutable, but we can understand how all the personal greatness implied in this enters into His mediatorial position, and this affects the unity of the saints. Unity among brethren corresponds

with this great thought. Then it says, "there the Lord commanded the blessing" -- that is, there are conditions here to which a divine command can apply as bearing on the world in testimony -- eternal life.

I pass on to Psalm 68 to show that the divine thought of selection enters into this subject. The hill of God is "a many-peaked mountain, as mount Bashan", and it is envied. You may be sure we shall be envied in these circumstances, but then we are protected in spite of the envy in this world. The next verse says, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, thousands upon thousands, the Lord is among them"(Psalm 68:17). Who can touch us, those chariots being available? And then: "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive". You see power thus in Christ. And "thou hast received gifts in Man". That is how it should read. He has received gifts in Man, that is, a Man in heaven, and He gives them down here, and "even for the rebellious". What for? That the Lord God might dwell among us. That is the idea.

It is not a mere provision here; it is the place of power, and conspicuous too, but conspicuous as the habitation of God by the Spirit. And so the gifts are here. From the twelve, down to the present moment, every gift has come down from Christ in heaven, and what for? To make a dwelling place for God in that holy mount which He has chosen to dwell in.

May God help us in seeking to enter into these great things.

A MANIFESTATION OF JESUS

John 21:1 - 19

I hope I shall be able to speak briefly and concisely, having in mind to show that the Lord Jesus always reserves to Himself the mastery of every set of circumstances in which the testimony may be, or in which His people may be, and shows that in crises it is not simply that He comes in for deliverance -- He does, but it is not simply that; He shows also that He has a positive end in view in what happens; blessing is always in view in what He does.

You will observe here that the passage begins with a suggestion of a manifestation, not simply an intervention. If we get the thought of a manifestation of Christ into our souls, we shall think it worth while to go through certain exercises and processes and sufferings, so that it may be a verity to us. How great is a manifestation of Jesus! A manifestation is not simply that one passes before you; but it is intentional. In Canticles the Lord is presented as showing Himself by certain movements that would make Him attractive, "shewing himself through the lattice"(Song of Songs 2:9), behind which was His lover, but whose love was somewhat cold and uncertain. There was a movement to attract her attention so that she might move from where she was and come to Him. The Lord shows Himself through the lattice, that is in spite of something that is between your soul and Him. Very easily we allow some such thing, but in spite of it He would manifest Himself to us.

Manifestation stands at the head of this passage, not merely at the end, though it is there too: "This is already the third time that Jesus had been manifested to the disciples, being risen from among the dead", verse 14. He might have been seen by anyone on the

street before He died; as He walked through Judaea and Galilee anyone might have seen Him. He assumed no special garb. Scripture says He took His place "in the likeness of men" -- not any special class. That is to say. He was ordinary outwardly. If He were in this city He would hire a house or stay with a saint, taking His place in outward humility and simplicity. He left Nazareth and went and abode at Capernaum; so that you might have been His neighbour. You might have seen Him go in and out of the house in which He lived every day. That would not be a manifestation. Some saw more than others, of course, as John says, "we have contemplated his glory", John 1:14. There were those who watched more closely and saw beneath the exterior. They "contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth"(John 1:14). But here in John 21 it is a manifestation. He would have them to see it. That is what heads the account: "After these things Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he manifested himself thus".

Now we come to the dark shadows of the picture. There were together seven disciples, more or less in unbelief, but they are called disciples. They are dignified in that sense in spite of the sequel about to be related. There were there Peter and Thomas. Peter is usually linked with James and John, but Thomas is put first here after Peter. And then there were the two sons of Zebedee, and Nathanael of Cana of Galilee, and two others whose names are not given. Now these seven disciples are mentioned here but not as in the full expression of discipleship. They are not in the world either. They are in territory well known, hallowed by the footsteps of Jesus, by the sea of Galilee, but they are not in the circumstances of discipleship. One says, "I go to fish"; the others say, "We also come with thee". It is leadership, but leadership misused. Peter was a leader, we learn this in Matthew, who greatly

enlarges on Peter: "first Peter". He is the leader not merely by appointment but in fact. A man is what he is, not only by official appointment, but characteristically. In God's ordering official position is sustained by moral worth. Here Peter has turned aside from this principle, but the Lord soon brought him back to it.

This little bit of precious divine history has this heading -- it is a manifestation of Jesus. That is in view. If it were to be entitled, coming in as it does as a kind of appendix, that would be the heading. It would not be Peter's failure. The title is a manifestation of Jesus; this begins and ends the narrative of the fishing expedition. Peter's failure comes in between two manifestations. The first manifestation is in verse nineteen of chapter twenty, the second is eight days after, and the third is here. These manifestations are spiritual history, because they came in after Jesus rose from among the dead. Think of what spiritual impressions were imparted! Think of a risen Man showing Himself in His own divine way, so that the word manifestation applies! The point is, dear brethren, that the Lord is supreme in every set of circumstances or every circumstance in which His testimony or people may be found. It is as if He said, 'I am taking advantage of this sorrow; terrible as it may seem to you, terrible as the storm may be, I am in charge. It is my affair, and I am going to bring out something for myself and for you greater than you could have calculated'.

These disciples go a-fishing; they have a leader and they follow him. You can see that he is a leader, so he says, "I go" and they say, "We also come with thee". They did it immediately. That is proper in its own place; if we are taught in the Lord's school of discipleship, we shall do things at once if they are to be done. The word immediately is a characteristic word in Mark. "Cursed be he that doeth the work of Jehovah negligently" (Jeremiah 48:10). That is a solemn word, but then we may act disobediently also in a

hurry, and that is what they did here. There is no hesitation whatever in the decision to go with Simon.

Well, they got nothing that night. You can understand the Lord had the manifestation in His mind; His heart was full of it. He wanted to show Himself to these who were really His lovers and whom He loved. He would say, as it were, 'I intend to show Myself to them as they never saw Me before'. It is a new thing altogether and it comes in at the end when you might have thought the Lord had finished, but it brings out a new feature, which shows what the whole dispensation is. It is a dispensation of variety. There is no limit to what the Lord can be to us. There is no lessening in the power or in the variety of His service. Indeed there is more care expended on this, more design, than in any of the manifestations in this gospel.

In the morning they had nothing. That is a solemn matter; they had nothing. It is a night matter, a sleepless matter; there was toil in this expedition. Peter was a man who liked his rest; he went to sleep on the mount and in Gethsemane. He was a fisherman, and fishermen usually like their rest; but this was evidently a sleepless enterprise. Although there were no fish caught, the morning brought out the great and glorious fact that Christ was on the shore, on sure ground, as supreme as in the first verse in the Bible where it is Elohim, the Supreme. Genesis 1 presents a dark picture as to the earth; there was no footing for a creature. It says, "In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"(Genesis 1:1,2). There was no solid ground, for the earth was evidently submerged, but the Spirit of God was there, doubtless feeling deeply as to the chaotic conditions, and also as to the possibilities of the scene. So here, it is the Son of God, One not less in Person than the Spirit of God, -- there is the night of nothingness and nakedness, but Jesus

is on the shore. Beloved, the Lord would bring Himself into our souls in the supremacy which is His, as Ephesians presents Him -- gone beyond all the heavens. Who can tell about the uncreated sphere? No creature can go there, Jesus has gone there and from thence He fills all things; He is supreme. That is His position, and He would assure us that He is thinking of us. Indeed that very passage in Ephesians says, "Having ascended up on high, he has led captivity captive, and has given gifts to men ... who has also ascended up above all the heavens, that he might fill all things; and he has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to the work of the ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ"(Ephesians 4:8,10 - 12). In His exaltation up there He thus cares for His own; He provides for us, as in the scene of the wind and the waves, as He says to His Father, "I am no longer in the world, and these are in the world ... . I do not demand that thou shouldest take them out of the world ...", John 17:11,15. It is enemy's territory, but the Lord is supreme; He is on the shore, as it were, and furnishes us, so that we should correspond with Himself.

Now who is going to be the next leader? Peter was the leader, but for a little while it is to be John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. He comes into it through greater spirituality. John says, "It is the Lord". Peter is second now. John is first; not that John retained that place; he is generally second, and in this he is an admirable example for us of one who happily and efficiently takes the second place. Unless one can serve after another he cannot succeed in the Lord's work. The man who says, "I will be king" meets with God's stern resistance, but John comes into the lead here as recognising the Lord before Peter, and Peter takes his place and moves in the light flowing from his brother's discernment. That is a principle in the assembly. It is the prerogative of the Spirit of God

to put another forward at any time. For instance, if I am speaking in the assembly and a revelation is given to another sitting by, I sit down, 1 Corinthians 14:30. Why did the Holy Spirit pass me by? It is His prerogative, and I bow to it; and in this way the Holy Spirit maintains balance in the assembly. Peter moves in the light John furnishes here, raising no question. In this way we are on the line of recovery, Christ coming into view as on the shore.

Peter casts his fisher's coat about him and casts himself into the sea. He is leading again, for John does not do that. I do not say that was his motive, however. "Simon Peter therefore, having heard that it was the Lord, girded his overcoat on him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea". What for? To get to Jesus. How affecting is recovery in a believer who has strayed! It is here the effect of Christ manifesting Himself.

The disciples reach the land and now what appears is that the Lord has been doing something. There is "a fire of coals and fish laid thereon and bread". How simple divine Persons are in their relations with us! How we do feel the chill occasioned by our own wills! I may have been naughty; but there is the fire and food on it. Was Gabriel or some other angel there? There is no evidence. This was the Lord's own service. How touching that He thus provides for us even in our waywardness! I believe the Lord Jesus in the days of His flesh, did the most menial things among His disciples. He says, "I am in the midst of you as the one that serves"(Luke 22:27). There is no limitation. He would do anything for their comfort, as He does now spiritually for us. There was "fish laid thereon and bread". It was the Lord's doing. Then He says, "Bring of the fishes which ye have now taken" -- as though He would say. In all this you have been doing something after all. "Bring of the fishes which ye have now taken". How did they take them? At his direction.

He is supreme over the fish. He is the Creator. The fish of the sea are put under Him as the Son of man. But He is the Creator. It is not here a question of the "deep", as in Luke 5. It is a question of the right side of the ship. Why should not the fish be on the left side? The principle of the right side is power. Jesus is not at God's left hand. He is at His right hand. Thus the Lord said, "Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find". Power was needed -- "cast". When Peter was directed earlier as to his nets it was to let them down. This would be by gravity, but here it is a question of power: "Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find". What did they find? Of great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three. And the net did not break. The Lord is now risen, and so there is no breakage.

The Lord regards the disciples as having caught the fish. I think it is wonderful grace that the Lord accredits them with this catch of great fishes. It is not merely a large number, but individually great persons, in keeping with John. "Bring of the fish which ye have now taken". They are now looked at as in service, they have part in what He is doing. He had fish already, but now they are to bring of what they had just taken. What have I that I can bring? What He is doing as the supreme One He would bring us all into. "Bring of the fish which ye" (the seven of you) "have now taken". Then He says, "Come and dine". One has often dwelt on this word "dine". Why did the Lord use it here? They are cold and hungry. Would "eat" not be more appropriate? Ordinarily it would, for hungry fishermen take food without much ceremony. The Creator says, "Open thy mouth wide and I will fill it"(Psalm 81:10). What volume of food of every description there is today! The great bounty of God is seen in this, although poor human administration prevents it reaching all. The word here is not something to eat; the disciples are asked to dine. They are to eat in dignity. They have part in all this

now on the land. "Come and dine". The word children here is in keeping with this. They are regarded as in the family. They are not mere needy ones; they are the Lord's dignified companions in spite of what has happened. After all this, the passage says, "This is already the third time that Jesus had been manifested to the disciples, being risen from among the dead". They never had a manifestation like this. It is an entirely new chapter in their histories. The Lord would lift them out of the feeling of shame and smallness occasioned by their conduct, in thus preparing for them and inviting them to dine.

Then the Holy Spirit goes on to say, "When therefore they had dined Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" Has anyone here been comparing himself with others, assuming to have exceeded them in love for Christ? I have heard questions in that form which were really intended to convey the thoughts of the person asking them. But the Lord meant Peter to answer all His questions, and a conclusion is reached. The first time Peter answers, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I am attached to thee"; the second time, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I am attached to thee"; the third time he says, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee". According to the New Translation the word "knowest" in each statement except the last refers to what is called conscious knowledge. Peter appealed to the Lord's conscious knowledge. 'You are conscious that I love thee'. But in the last case the original word conveys objective knowledge; it evidently implies that in Peter's mind there was something in him which the Lord could see that showed that he loved Him. This conveys an important principle -- that one who has to commend himself should not appeal to divine knowledge as such only, but also to the evidence of the work of God in him; something, in his movements and words, that shows there is love. And the Lord does

not deny Peter's intimation. There must have been something in his words or manner that showed that he was after all a true lover of Jesus, and the presence of Jesus was bringing that out. What else could be the result of such a contact between Jesus and Peter, but to bring out what was in Peter? One has often heard from persons under a cloud, 'The Lord knows'. Surely He knows, but if there is something in me evidencing the work of God I can let it speak for itself. It is pure gold, which normally the brethren will recognise. In Peter's case it might have been just a movement of the eye, a gesture or an emphasis on a sentence, but something that could be seen; that is testimony; that is treasure, and the Lord did not deny it.

There is a gradual establishment of confidence on the part of the Lord with Peter. He says, "Feed my lambs". The Lord could not have given anything more precious than what He committed to Peter at that time -- His sheep and lambs. It is a question of the establishment of confidence, Peter's answers entering into this. Jesus had already expressed His confidence in John. On the cross, as He saw His mother standing by. He said to her, "Woman, behold thy son. Then he said unto the disciple. Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"(John 19:26,27). How is she to be in his home? Doubtless many of you have thought of John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, taking the Lord's mother to his own home. But in what relation? As the mother of Jesus? No, as his own mother. The relations would be those of a mother and son. What holy converse they must have had! What that mother could have told him about Jesus! Can we doubt that the wonderful worth of John's ministry is due somewhat to the holy converse of the mother of Jesus with John in his own home? No one else could have told John what she could of Jesus, and the Lord constituted that relation which in itself gave to the loved disciple an advantage which no one had but he.

Peter has the lambs and sheep to feed. The way he distinguishes between young and old believers in his ministry is beautiful. "Feed my lambs ... . Shepherd my sheep", the Lord says. It might be asked, Can sheep not take care of themselves? No! they go astray. Peter himself was an example. The lambs follow the old ones. If we can keep the old ones right, the young ones will be right. First it is, "Feed my lambs"; then, "Shepherd my sheep", and then, "Feed my sheep". Can any charge be greater than that?

What I have said, dear brethren, is to show how the Lord is supreme in all circumstances, and how thus the desired end is reached. The closing verses show the perfect result in Peter, which would take years. The Lord says, "When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst where thou desiredst"; that is what marks young people, will, "but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and bring thee where thou dost not desire". What was the Lord alluding to? The scripture says "he said this signifying by what death he should glorify God". What a fine result! We have the whole picture of Peter and that he would pass out of this world in perfect abandonment of his own will for the will of God. He would pass out glorifying God, in a death that glorified God.

DIVINE FEELING

Matthew 27:45 - 50; John 11:43 - 44; John 7:37

These scriptures are, doubtless, familiar to us all. I have put them together in order to speak of feeling -- feeling as it expresses itself in Christ -- having in mind that the people of God are very lacking in it. We are callous with regard to what causes God to feel things, as expressed in Jesus. This feature in God came out early. The early Scriptures speak of the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters. "And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters". (Genesis 1:2). Before there were any men to feel the result of sin, the Spirit of God felt it. He was hovering over, ready to come in as the time arrived; for everything was timed by God. Yet before the intervention, there was, obviously, feeling -- the Spirit of God was there. The Spirit of God is a divine Person, but He is the Spirit of God, and brings in here divine feelings. He is God Himself come near, so we find in the scriptures, that the Spirit is near-by, being in a position to acquire, so to speak, first-hand knowledge of things; so He felt the chaos that came in, and hovered over the face of the waters. The "face of the waters", as covering the earth, was not what God had in His mind in the creation; but He was hovering there: He felt the condition that had come in.

As man fell and developed sinful ways, in the antediluvian times, it grieved God that He had made man. It says, "it grieved him in his heart". Genesis 6:6 -- so familiarly is He presented to us; and our God would not have this affecting feature eliminated from our knowledge of Him. Being His "offspring", as it says in Acts 17:29, we should understand that He feels

things, in a certain sense, as we do. God was capable of being grieved in His heart, and in that grief, as we may say. His Spirit came near -- so near as to strive with men as indicated in Genesis 6:3. Striving cannot be at a distance, but implies nearness; as in the case of the wrestling of Jacob; but God would impress us with the idea that He feels things; and so, throughout the scriptures, there were those who, in sympathy with Him, had feeling. We should be a feeling people. If one hears of a sorrow among the saints, and turns away as if it were an ordinary item of news, he is unfeeling, and not with God; for God feels all these things. The Spirit of God is extremely sensitive, as represented in the dove; and so may be grieved. If there be occasions of grief. He feels them; and if I am in the Spirit, I feel them, too. Sometimes, feeling unto tears pleases God -- He has a bottle for such tears!

As I said, the men of faith were always marked by right feeling, and thus reflected God, and set an example for us. You will find weeping in both Genesis and Exodus. In the Old Testament, the man who had most to do with divine service and administration, wept, as a babe. There are special features spoken of as in babes, especially of Jacob, Moses, Solomon, and John the baptist. It is not recorded of Moses without intent that "the boy wept". (Exodus 2:6), and it gives character to his ministry. He could never have acquired the place he did, in the house of God, were he not a feeling man. God could say: "Not so my servant Moses: he is faithful in all my house", Numbers 12:7; he would enjoin us as to all God's house. In men with faith, such as Timothy, you find "genuine feeling" and care as to how the saints get on. If he heard of any sorrow -- any outbreak of sin -- any worldly things among the saints -- Timothy would feel it. He would feel it even to tears: for the apostle says, "remembering thy tears", 2 Timothy 1:4. Timothy's tears were treasured by the apostle -- treasured in heaven, too, for God put such

tears into His bottle. The apostle shed tears also; he says, I "tell you even weeping", Philippians 3:18.

Throughout the New Testament, we have the thought of feeling, especially in the Lord Himself. At the end of His ministry as our Lord drew near Jerusalem and looked upon that city. He wept over it. How touching! It knew not the day of His visitation as the Lord said, (Luke 19:44), and He felt it. The Lord would have us think of things in that feeling way, when looking abroad upon Christendom as having now taken on the garb of apostasy; for that is the garb it wears. We cannot but feel this, if we are with God.

Now with regard to this family at Bethany, the power of death was over it; but how the Lord was moved by what He saw! Such is His wonderful humanity that He could be influenced by the tears of another. He saw Mary weeping, and He wept; but more than that. He groaned, and was troubled in His spirit.

The fact that He cried, is to be noted. He cried on several occasions; the first one to which I refer, is related by Matthew. Only Matthew and Mark speak of the Lord being forsaken. Mark reiterates what Matthew says in this connection, and they both give the profoundest expression of feeling. There could be no greater depth. It is immeasurable -- the depth of feeling that lay behind this cry of Jesus. "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour; but about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Matthew 27:45 - 46. I want to enlist your sympathies as to this. These are the very words uttered by our Saviour; their meaning is given here, but they are the original words He used. The Holy Spirit would put the feelings of Jesus into our hearts in the very words employed by Him. Let us open our hearts to let in those feelings! Those words, as you know, are a quotation from Psalm 22. That Psalm

is the greatest suffering psalm; and, yet, a remarkable thing about it is that it has a feminine heading -- not a masculine one -- "Upon Aijeleth-Shahar" meaning 'according to the hind of the morning'; that is to say, the Lord in the depths of His suffering had in mind the feminine result. It ought to touch our hearts. This thought is seen in Mary Magdalene; she represents the feeling side, over against Peter and John, who were intelligent men. They saw, by the position of the clothes in the sepulchre, that the resurrection had happened, and believed; but Mary felt things. The more feeling we have, the more light we get. Mary received the Lord's message for the disciples; and she was the "hind of the morning", we may say: she ran.

This remarkable incident is not forgotten in heaven, that a woman had run to bring the disciples word. God is seeking to promote in us an ever deepening sense that what is ministered, is not to be merely a "lovely song", see Ezekiel 33:32, but something from Himself that is received and treasured. So that the Lord's utterance on the cross, given to us first in the suffering psalm, is expressive of the depth of the Lord's feelings as forsaken of God, when having to do with sin. He had to do with it from the outset of His creation, but never as He had now to do with it -- as on the cross. No one ever had to do with it in this way but He, and He never had to do with it in this way before. The experience was new, and it was no feigned experience. It was His actual experience here; that He was the Sin-bearer, and that God turned away His face from Him. That was certainly new, and was felt; and was expressed in the utterance, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is still "my God", although the holy Sufferer was forsaken; but never was that word "why" used with such power before. "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Surely, dear brethren, the Lord would bring us into the understanding of this, to deepen the sense that we may have as to sin -- what it is

in this world. The Lord had knowledge of it, of course, but never before was He in a position like this. He was being made sin. Think of the feeling that went with that! All this feeling entered into Psalm 22, which He quotes: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Some, who stood by, thought He called on Elias; such was the poor hearing around; there was no sympathy in that. The Lord would remind us of the need of hearing, when such wonderful thoughts are brought before us. Those who heard Him were callous and ignorant, thinking that "Eli, Eli" was Elias, but the words are not the same. It was the hearing of the flippant, persecuting, natural heart. We need good hearing. Then the Lord cried again, and delivered up His spirit; that is to say. He left the scene in power -- feeling things, but in power. Well, that is the first cry. We can get nothing, dear brethren, more profound than that, in the way of feeling -- it was infinitely real. Now, the Christian, as having to do with sin, should see it as it is before God; and what it is in himself, and should deal with it with authority, for he has the right to. Having the Holy Spirit, we can put to death the deeds of the body.

The next cry is with regard to the resurrection of the saints -- surely, a matter of great import. Martha spoke of the resurrection as a sort of doctrine -- an orthodox item of faith; but there was no feeling in that. "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection in the last day", (John 11:24) -- she put it off. She was not a Sadducee, but a believer in the resurrection as a doctrine; yet without sensibility as to it; whereas, the Lord has feeling with regard to our resurrection. Is it nothing to Him that myriads of His own lie under the ground? It is a great deal to Him. He is sensitive as to what affects them. Is it nothing to Him when we bury our dead out of our sight, as Abraham did? We may have wet eyes, but the burial of a saint is much more to Jesus than it is to the nearest relative on earth.

He says, "Lazarus, our friend", he was one of His friends; and the Lord also loved the other two of the family -- Mary and Martha. First, we read that Lazarus was sick; and then the Lord said that he had fallen asleep; and, finally, "Lazarus has died". There is nothing unreal about that. It was a reality to Jesus; He looked at things as they were. It was something to Him, that Lazarus had died. And when He had arrived, both Martha and Mary said: "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died", verses 21 and 32; but the brother had died. The Lord had also said, "Lazarus, our friend, is fallen asleep" John 11:11; viewed thus, a saint is unconscious as to current events here. The Lord inquired, "Where have ye put him?" verse 34. It was something to Him; but Martha again intruded, saying, "Lord, he stinks already, for he is four days there", verse 39. The Lord said, "Did I not say to thee?" verse 40. How quickly we forget what is said to us! I own that, beloved brethren, because I find that things slip away so quickly. A most important statement evidently had slipped away from Martha. "Did I not say to thee, that if thou shouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?"(John 11:40) The Lord said, "Where have ye put him?" verse 34. He was in a tomb, and the Lord felt it. He saw Mary weeping, and He saw the Jews weeping. It does not say that Martha wept; but the Jews wept, and He regarded their tears, too. They were influenced by Mary. "Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, was deeply moved in spirit, and was troubled, and said. Where have ye put him? They say to him, Lord, come and see. Jesus wept", verses 33 - 35.

That is what you get here, dear brethren. It is a well-known scripture, and one that always yields. When He came to the place, it says, "And Jesus lifted up His eyes on high", verse 41. The Lord would direct our eyes, in that way, on high. There is hope up there, and He says to the Father, "but I knew that thou

always hearest me", verse 42. How beautiful that is! -- an unbroken communion existed between the Father and the Son; as down here, the Father always heard Him; but He says, "on account of the crowd who stand around I have said it", verse 42. Are we not among those that "stand by"? The Lord does things because of those that stand by. In Zechariah, we have persons given honour to walk amongst them who stand by, see Zechariah 3:7. Is there anyone here, who is a mere spectator, casually listening to the word of God? Or are you standing by what God is doing, knowing that He is about to unfold His glory? It is wonderful to have part in this. It was the Lord's thought that those who "stand by" should believe. He says, "that they may believe", John 11:42. John, in his record, always presses home the idea of faith -- that we should be believers.

And then it says, "he cried with a loud voice", verse 43. His holy sympathies entered into that cry. The saints are in His mind, and in His heart. In the apostle Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, we have: "for the Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel's voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first", (1 Thessalonians 4:16). How much holy feeling there will be in this shout! When that moment comes, the Lord will come exultingly to raise the sleeping saints, and change the living ones. I am speaking especially of the resurrection of the saints -- a wonderful and glorious transaction -- "the first resurrection". This, of course, is only a sample; but it indicates how the Lord's feelings enter into the resurrection of those He loves. It is said, "Blessed and holy he who has part in the first resurrection", (Revelation 20:6). The Lord Himself descends from heaven with an assembling shout, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; and then we are told, "then we, the living who remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet

the Lord in the air; and thus we shall be always with the Lord", (1 Thessalonians 4:17). I want to press what the resurrection is to Him. He "cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And the dead came forth", (John 11:43).

The third cry I wish to speak of is in John 7. Without what is involved in this cry, the others must be unintelligible to us. We must have the Holy Spirit. There is hardly any truth less understood, or less accepted practically, than the truth of the Spirit of God as present here now. That is what this chapter deals with, and it says "the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified", John 7:39. It refers to the wonderful day of the Spirit here on earth. Did that not occasion feeling? Yes! He looked forward to that day, the like of which never had existed, and I may add, never will again exist; for the millennium is not equal to this. The Holy Spirit will not be here then, as He is now. This is a peculiar time, and it is a matter of deep feeling to Jesus. Is it this to us? The Lord would raise the question with us, as to whether we have the Holy Spirit? as to whether any of us thirsts? There is a great deal of thirst. So that in the last day of the feast -- the great day -- it is very evident there was thirst. The Lord knew it. On the last day, the greatest day. He stood and cried. How He felt the need! -- as He saw the Jews from all parts of Palestine, and the provinces of the Empire, congregated there to celebrate the feast of tabernacles. It was a feast that was intended by God to be the expression of love for brethren, dwelling in nearness to one another in booths. It is a question of being near one another. There was nothing there then of this holy joy of dwelling together in divine love, and the Lord knew it. He saw the thirst that was there -- it prevailed about Jerusalem that day, as it prevails about this city today; but the Lord is inviting: "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink", chapter 7:37. With a feeling voice. He invited His hearers to

come and drink; and the same sympathies are here now.

Let us not think that these things are in the distance, that these people are dead and gone, Jerusalem having been laid in ruins for centuries. The invitation is the same today -- Jesus cries and says to us, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink" John 7:37. He gives the living water. He fills the unsatisfied hearts of men in this world; and He would have us join with Him in it, as having drunk ourselves. We shall never be evangelical unless we have sympathetic hearts. And then the passage goes on to speak of the magnitude of the thing -- that it should be in the belly of the believer, flowing out as rivers of living water, verse 38. A wonderful thought! No one, who has not the Spirit, can understand it. The magnificence of the thing is stressed -- rivers of living water flowing out of a believer in Christ. Then it adds: "But this he said concerning the Spirit, which they that believed on him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified", verse 39. Well, that is the third cry. It is regarding the Holy Spirit, without whom all that goes into the first two must be a dead letter to us; because it is only by the Spirit of God that we enter into these things. Christian knowledge is only by the Spirit of God. Mere 'theology' is truth made to fit into man's mind; and so, however well meant, it cannot rightly convey divine thoughts. "For who of men hath known the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? thus also the things of God knows no one except the Spirit of God", (1 Corinthians 2:11).

There are two other scriptures of which I could have spoken: one of them is in this chapter (John 7), which gives us the pros and cons of the world in regard to Jesus -- what this one says, and what that one says; and it corresponds with the present world where modernism prevails. What do you say about Jesus? There are some voices lifted up more or less favourably, but

one says: "But as to this man we know whence he is. Now as to the Christ, when he comes, no one knows whence he is", verse 27; and when the Lord heard that. He cried. Does the Lord not feel this modernism; about all these things that men are saying? Yes, He does, and He would have us feel it. He says: "Ye both know me and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye do not know", verse 28. This is the antidote to the current of modernism. He is One sent by God; and whatever they may say, and pretend to say or believe, down in the bottom of their hearts the leaders are conscious of the power of Christianity, and that Christ is a divine Person, come from God.

Then in chapter 12, where the public testimony is over -- the testimony to the Jews -- the Lord cites from Isaiah 53"who has believed our report", verse 38, and then He says, "On this account ... Esaias said again. He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart", verses 39 - 40. After that, the Lord cries and says: "He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me; and he that beholds me, beholds him that sent me", verses 44,45. It is to bring out the greatness of the testimony. What are people rejecting? They are rejecting God! "He ... that beholds me, beholds him that sent me", John 12:44,45. He is no less than God. He is divine, and the Father was there in Him doing the works. It is wonderful how the holy Trinity is combined in the operations of Jesus. By the Spirit, He cast out demons, and as He said, "the Father who abides in me, he does the works", John 14:10. It is a perfect unity. He says. What are you rejecting? What you are rejecting is God Himself. "He that believes on me believes ... on him that sent me; and he that beholds me, beholds him that sent me", (John 12:44); and He closes the chapter by saying that the Father's commandment is life everlasting. God in grace is commanding the great blessing of eternal life, and men are rejecting it!

Well, may God help us, dear brethren, to right feelings about these things! God is giving us a wonderful opportunity now to finish up the history of the assembly here, and He would have us to be feeling. As affected thus in a spiritual way. He can employ us to express Himself.

THE DIVINE CIRCLE

Mark 3:34 - 35; 1 Samuel 7:15 - 17; Acts 14:19 - 20