John 1: 14, 16-18; 13: 1, 3, 4; 16: 25-30; 17: 26
Ephesians 1: 3-6
NJH In the service of God on Lord’s day this verse as to God “dwelling in unapproachable light” struck me, and while it relates to what is unrevealed, what the creature cannot take in, we felt power to address God worshipfully, God in His eternal, essential Being, which is beyond us. We acknowledge it that we can only know what is revealed to us. But it immediately opened my thoughts to approachable light. If God is “dwelling in unapproachable light”, there is such a thing as approachable light. It gave me the impression that the Lord would have us to follow up who God is, then His approach manward, and then our approach to God, which must be, of course, based on revelation. So I thought on this occasion we should look at God’s approach as taking into account His eternal, essential Being, One, as it says here, “whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”. I just thought there are so many young here as well that the more we get grounded and get an impression of how great God is, it will erase from our minds the influence of other gods and idolatry which surround us. Also it would be well to remind ourselves that when some of us who are older were young, the truth of God coming in in Christ was bypassed or ignored by the educational system of the world, but now the world is characterised by direct opposition to it. I thought it might be good for us just to consider carefully how God has moved in revelation. We have been carefully taught not to link certain names with the Persons of the Godhead until the incarnation. It should cause us to be careful together, but eager to get some impression of the greatness of God. I noticed in ministry that ’God has stepped into the realm of the purpose of His love, in the centre of which is a Man known as “the Beloved”’, JT vol 33 p194. Think of that: stepping into the realm of the purpose of love, connected with a Man that is known as the Beloved! I think that is very precious. That is how God moved. We cannot go back into His eternal existence, but Ephesians sets out the way He has moved in His Man. Therefore God can speak about “marked us out beforehand”, “taken us into favour in the Beloved”, and so on. These expressions can be used because God has stepped into the realm of the purpose of His love.
I thought in this reading we should look at God’s approaching it from that side and, therefore, it is, as we said, “who only has immortality” and “dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see”. The apostle Paul gives us more in relation to that than anybody else, but John does twice say, “No man has seen God at any time”, chap 1: 18, 1 John 4: 12. We are cautioned as to how great God is, but He has come in, as we have in John 1 that “the Word became flesh”, that is, the movement of God in the Trinity. One blessed Man, our Lord Jesus and in that Man, the Godhead was there, ‘God manifest in flesh’. I just thought we should maybe go over these scriptures together and see if we can get help as to them. Would that be all right?
DBB I am just wondering whether we realise that God has shone into our hearts to give us an appreciation of these things, but then is it a question of us apprehending them?
NJH I think we will come to that, and that is a good thing to speak about, that God had to operate in us to receive it. I suppose that is why “born … of God” comes in before this in John 1 (v 13), but the first thing is God’s sovereign movement from His own side, when nothing existed outside the Deity. It was God. It was the purpose of His will to do so. God moved. Firstly He created the heavens and the earth. Then He waited four thousand years in which He had to do with His creature man, including His dealings with Israel which were generally on a representative basis. Generally it was angelic form that was used. When it comes to the incarnation, God was there in Christ. Now if that could come into every heart, every young heart, as I have said, it would allay the influence of idolatry and the gods that are in the world, and would come down to what God is Himself before our souls.
DJW In the beginning of Genesis God says, “Let there be light”, chap 1: 3. That was a sovereign movement on His behalf, and it involves a certain energy on His part. It involves the movements of love at that point.
NJH The word ’stepped’ has been used. It means there was some movement. We cannot say what was involved. All we know is love was there. And there was, of course, an issue earlier in the recovery as to whether His eternal, essential Being was love, but His nature is love, JT Letters vol 1 p401. We partake of love, divine love, but we cannot partake of His essential Being. That is God. That exists. Even with revelation there is still the essential being of God, which no one is able to see. We have to recognise that. But when it comes to Genesis 1, He speaks. He is entering into what is relative in the creation as I understand it.
GR God was completely sufficient in Himself but because of His great love He desired an object outside Himself, and so He created man?
NJH That is good. That God had a reason: it was His nature, due to His nature, His love, He wanted an object. I like that. That helps. But it had to start with God, and while we cannot go into relationship exactly as to what was before, the Lord does say in John 17, “thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”, v 24. So we know love was there; we have a scriptural basis. At meetings in Barnet in 1929 adjustment came in (vol 29 p 361) as to the matter of eternal sonship; Mr James Taylor clearly said that He was there personally in the beginning, but to go as far to give Him a personal name of designation then is going beyond scripture, but that the Person was there is the great point. Three Persons were there, but applying names to them then we cannot do. It is beyond us. It just says here He dwells “in unapproachable light”. Thank God we can revel in approachable light. God has approached us. I realise it is very deep for all of us but I should just like us to think for a moment what God did Himself. He purposed in Himself. He had no one else to turn to but He had objects in mind for His love.
CKR Could you just open up for us the difference between the absolute and the relative?
NJH You can help us.
CKR I am just remembering that, in ’Divine Names’ (see vol 50 p268 etc.), Mr James Taylor said very clearly and very strongly that there is what is absolute, which he says means one is not related to any person or thing and can relate only to God Himself. But there is what has become relative, which involves the revelation and the opening up of the names of divine Persons in a way in which they were never known before. .
NJH That is very helpful. The absolute side of God remains; that does not change; it is always there; so the spirit of worship should be on our hearts. We acknowledge it, but we thank God that He has moved into the area of revelation. That is what we need, and all I thought is we should get that into our souls. There is nothing like it. Idolatry starts with the devil and he brings it into fallen man. In Isaiah 44: 13-19, man makes an idol and it is himself. It is just at his own level. He cannot look beyond what is horizontal. But God is moving in His majesty from, you might say, the absolute side which remains, coming into revelation in Christ and therefore “the Word became flesh”.
DJW Would the understanding of the absolute side, as far as we are able to grasp it, bring stability into the soul? It would be impossible that God should change.
NJH He is the only One. Of course, the “form of God”, as it is referred to elsewhere, in Philippians (chap 2: 6), exists, except that One came into “a bondman’s form”, v 7. With every other person it would be lawless to change your form, but when Christ came into the place, it was “a bondman’s form”. He did that. That was how divine Persons moved ’usward’, as was said in the old ministry, usward, towards us. He approached man, the objects of His love, and He approached them in His Beloved.
JCG Hebrews brings out that “he that draws near to God must believe that he is”, chap 11: 6. Do you think that that corresponds with the revelation in Christ of the “I am”. It is the continuing existence, is it not?
NJH It is. The “I am” is one of the greatest names, but we know, “that he is” - not that ‘he was’ - who God is, and that we believe. We trust in that.
JAT Could you help me, please, “who only has immortality”, is that unique? You are speaking about what is really unique to God and the apostle says, “who only has immortality”. To my mind, simply, it suggests the uniqueness of God. It brings out that there is only one God to us. To Christians there is only one God. It is the uniqueness of God. I cannot say more but it struck me: “who only has immortality”.
NJH “Man became a living soul”, Gen 2: 7. That was through the breath of God. God breathed into man, and, therefore, we will put on immortality, but only God has immortality. But it is through the breath of God, as I understand it, that “Man became a living soul”, and through that, when death or change take place, we put on immortality in resurrection.
JAT No one gave existence to God. He is the self-existent One.
NJH Exactly. He had no beginning. I know Melchisedec is only a type of Christ “having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (Heb 7: 3), but again with God it is “who only has immortality”. Think of young minds laying hold of that! You think you have life ahead of you. What do you have: seventy, eighty, ninety years? What is that? He never had beginning. God never had beginning. He “only has immortality”. He never has end. That is how great God is.
JTB The fact that He is able to dwell complacently in unapproachable light, which no creature could ever hope to do, demonstrates His uniqueness.
NJH That is good. It is light; it is still light; but it is “unapproachable light”. There is light now, but it is approachable; it is in revelation. Ah the glory of it, beloved brethren, the glory of the revelation in Christ! But to start with I just felt the need for this to be embedded in every heart as to the greatness of God.
RDP-r So when He speaks to Moses, He says, “loose thy sandals from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground”, Exod 3: 5. Are we standing on holy ground today?
NJH Yes. I was going to say greater ground because He says He is “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”, v 6. But now we are speaking really of Christ’s God. I know Christ is God, but it is relative now to the revelation of God; and that is a tremendous thing.
TDB I was thinking of the scripture, “If he only thought of himself … All flesh would expire together”, Job 34: 14, 15.
NJH That is right. That should bring solemnity into our souls because if God thought only of Himself, He would withdraw our breath and all flesh would expire. Our lives are in His hands. All of us have been young, but we might not all be old. We might not all actually see old age, either because of the coming of the Lord, or the Lord taking us. Life is so fragile: “whose breath is in his nostrils” (Isa 2: 22); that is man. But just think for a moment of the greatness of this One, as has been referred to already, “dwelling in unapproachable light”.
RHB It was never sufficient for God to be unseen and unapproachable, which is why He has come out in the incarnation. I was thinking of Him dwelling like that, unknown and unknowable really, but it magnifies the grace of the fact that without any other reason than the reason of His own heart, He should come out in incarnation so that He should be seen: “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14: 9, and He should be approached by such as the woman in Luke 7.
NJH Yes, “dwelling in unapproachable light” means He could have remained there. There was never a beginning to that. That was always the condition in which the Deity remained, “unapproachable light”, but, as has been said, His nature desired an object. You think for a moment that He wanted something outside of Himself, as has been said, that He can open up His heart to, and to be seen in a blessed Man, “in the Beloved”. How tender God’s feelings! How He has worked in patience and love!
But for this reading I thought we should keep to these scriptures. We should maybe just cover them because there is quite a lot in them. We have often referred to “the Word became flesh”. It was not ‘made’ as Mr Darby’s translation helps us in. He “became flesh”. I think that is something special to lay hold of. It took tangible form, that He could be seen.
BWB There was a remarkable expression years ago as to ‘the dip into time’, JT vol 54 p103. That is what is in this verse, is it, “the Word became flesh”, the glory of descending love, and so near that man himself should draw near to God?
NJH That came into my mind when I came across that article referring to Him stepping ’into the realm of the purpose of His love, in the centre of which is a Man known as “the Beloved”’. It is a parallel thought and I think equally good that ‘dip into time’, that God came into time, and He came in in a tangible blessed Man to secure persons, but at the moment it is God‘s approach I want to keep to.
QAP Paul, in opening up the glories of the Person of Christ in Colossians, says that He is “image of the invisible God”, chap 1: 15. Does that bear on this, that the image is what we can take account of?
NJH That would enter into it. These are all deep expressions, and we have to be very careful. The glories are so precious relating to God, the three Persons, that we have to be very careful, but I think that does link, that He is the invisible God, but we see Him there in Christ.
JCG Say something as to the fact that the Lord became Man. Hebrews indicates that “he does not indeed take hold of angels by the hand” (chap 2: 16), but there is something in relation to God’s pleasure and purpose in men that the Lord became incarnate. Help us as to that, please.
NJH Well, that is a deep matter. We know little of angels. (When trade union power spread in Australia and New Zealand it was said we were not supplicating the Lord for angelic help, JT Letters 2 p398.) But, while other creatures breathe, the breath of man is special. Breath is not said to relate to angels in this way as far as I am aware. God breathed into man - that was special. Then breath is one type of the Holy Spirit, Ezek 37: 9. God took account of that. I think it shows where His will was relating to man and therefore one of the Godhead came into manhood.
PJH Does that show that God was yearning? I was thinking of Isaiah, “Come now, let us reason together”, chap 1: 18?
NJH Yes, He started with man, but He did not start with Christ, but Christ was in His mind. When God breathed into Adam, He was thinking of Christ. He would bring Him in, the Man of His purpose.
PM Does God find pleasure in making Himself known in One who could display what His heart is? An angel could never do that.
NJH That is exactly right.
PM The yearnings of the heart of God lay behind the incarnation, that He should make His heart known to man, and the secrets of that heart were manifested in One who was here because He became flesh.
NJH That is beautiful. And you think of these thirty years, speaking simply, the eyes of the Father looking into the eyes of Christ, every day, every morning, manhood at its choicest, according to the heart of God. He looked on that Man; God was manifest there. It was from the outset that “the Word became flesh”. God was there. It did not come in in the anointing as some have said. It was there. All that He was in His Person beforehand, He brought into manhood. That is a blessed truth.
JMcK Can you say something as to the expression “flesh”?
NJH Please, on you go. We want to help each other.
JMcK It does not say He became man; so His infancy is included. This is a reference to the condition, and the infinite lowliness that that involved is touching.
NJH That is very good, and then we have part. We come in and have part in it. I am glad you have said that: it involves the condition. It is tangible. It is presented there. It is the Word that is referred to.
DJW Were you connecting breathing into us as a means of giving us capacity to appreciate His thoughts.
NJH You mean in breathing into His own, or do you mean the man at the beginning?
DJW At the beginning I was thinking.
NJH Well, the spirit of a man is his link with God, but, of course, that link was morally broken immediately by sin, but man is spirit, soul and body, and there is a capacity, and it must be the means of recovery and I think we will have that later, maybe tomorrow if the Lord directs us, as to how He would secure that, so that there is man‘s approach to God. But you have something more in your mind.
DJW We have spoken about love, but “Word” is not love; Word is communication. Have you something in mind in that?
NJH No, again it is a name that is mentioned in chapter 1: “In the beginning was the Word” (v 1), and we have been taught that the disciples came to that. They came to that Name, that description of that One who came in and has expressed everything. Angels could not do that, but the Word could. What was to be revealed would be revealed entirely in the Person of Christ. We should never go outside the Person of Christ. Revelation is there.
MJW Would you distinguish between God being in the light and God being light? Being in the light obviously involves the coming into manhood of the Lord Jesus. Please distinguish these two things for us.
NJH You mean the reference to “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”, 1 John 1: 5? Well, I do not know if I could tell the difference, but you give us some thought. You have been thinking about it. I suppose in the light must relate to His operations. What do you think?
MJW I thought of it at this point because it relates to the coming into manhood of the Lord Jesus: man is now in the light. But the other expression is a little different, that “God is light”.
NJH “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”. It is over against darkness, I think, that God is light. That is what He is, you might say, His Being. But “in the light” (1 John 1: 7), as you say, suggests the incarnation; I think it is operational. It is the Trinity operating.
GR Would you say that God is bypassing angels so that He can have Christ and the assembly? Angels do not marry.
NJH Yes, He has great thoughts in mind in man. His greatest thoughts relate to manhood, and it is blessed to get into our souls. We need to lift the level of our thinking and get some impression of how God wanted to move as He did, move into revelation, move into time. God had a reason for it, and that has to lay hold of us and hold our souls in relation to that truth.
PM Does the expression “the Word became flesh” relate to what goes through eternally? It is not exactly flesh and blood here, and I wondered if it related to the fact that all we shall ever know will be in this blessed Person who became flesh.
NJH Absolutely. That is where we will see God. He will be in Christ. What a privilege! We have that beforehand. Israel did not know that. No other family knew it, but the assembly is formed really by the revelation of God.
BWB We need a bit more help about that matter of flesh because in the risen condition it was “flesh and bones”, Luke 24: 39. Scripture, of course, often associates flesh with what is sinful, “sin in the flesh”, and so on. We need to distinguish, do we, that the corruption is sin in the flesh, not flesh in itself?
NJH No. Flesh there is a moral thought. We speak about the flesh in us but that is a moral thought. It is not what we see about the physical condition. It is a moral thought in which, we may remember, Christ stands apart. He was sinless: in Him sin was not. But manhood goes through, and that blessed humanity will be a delight to the Father eternally, and, by extension, in the saints. Glorious matter!
JW You are referring to the fact that the Father is implied in this, is He not? It is the character of the Lord’s glory, “as of an only-begotten with a father” and then “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”. That bears on the revelation of God, does it? I wonder if you could help us.
NJH That is very helpful because we need to go on to that. We will find that in chapters 13 and 16 but here, as you say, it is “who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. I understand declaration is like a universal court, announcement, declaration, established in the universe, that is declaration. Revelation is a different thought. Declaration is something brought out which you could not have had otherwise. The veil exists. But revelation is something more, but you have more in mind.
JW I was thinking it is really the way God has revealed what was in His heart that one divine Person should come into manhood and be in this relationship, “in the bosom of the Father”.
NJH That is very blessed. When you think of the tenderness of it, He was loved by the Father before the foundation of the world (chapter 17: 24), but here He comes in as Man into the receptacle of the bosom of the Father. Now that is an immense matter if you think about it.
JW It has been said, has it not, that we know what was in the heart of God because He has had an Object for it?
NJH That is exactly what we are trying to get at. We need help from one another to be careful, and yet to grow in appreciation of the revelation of God in Christ, the One that has come into the bosom of the Father.
CKR “The Word became flesh,” but then “and dwelt among us”. That is beautiful.
NJH Tabernacling. He came into the bosom of the Father, and then He tabernacled with His own. He was alone there; we would have to say that is special to Christ. John lay in Christ’s bosom, but Christ, the Son, is in the bosom of the Father. Think of the tenderness, the beauty of affection, that must have circulated in that atmosphere!
CKR Later on in the chapter He says to two disciples, “Come and see”, v 39.
NJH Yes, that is good.
CKR That is really what we are being attracted into in this reading in one sense: “Come and see”.
NJH That is right. They must have conveyed something of it, and that is what we are trying to touch now. We want to get into nearness to this Person who is in the bosom of the Father. That is that blessed Man in the affections of the Father. I think that brings us very close.
RDP The absoluteness of God is not weakened by the approach or changed. It remains unchanged. We always remember that, do we not? Does that always colour and affect our response and the way we are together in relation to God, that He is?
NJH Yes, exactly.
RDP When men change their approach to things, what has gone before is changed irrevocably, but there is no change in God.
NJH I am glad you have referred to that, because I think we should have liberty to recognise that unchangeable character of God remains, the Deity. We are even short of expressions, of course, but then there is the revelation of God and that is in the three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That would be primarily in our thoughts in the service of God, the portion for the Father, and then touching the end of the service as to God. Is that what you had in mind?
RDP So in that scripture you get references which search you out. The way that God is approached brings in wonderful liberty, and has opened up the area of honour and homage and understanding; but then you get expressions sometimes such as “God is not mocked” (Gal 6: 7) as if we need to remember at all times, young and old, that He is still God in an absolute way.
NJH Yes, there was a development obviously from the footnote of Genesis 1, from what Mr Darby refers to, the absolute, and what Mr James Taylor brings out, that in the absolute sense He is unrelated to anything, even the creation. The absolute side of God is that it is without relation to anything outside the Deity, and that side exists. but God came in, “by whom also he made the worlds” (Heb 1: 2), for instance. The One we know as Christ was the One acted in a mediatorial way in the creation; but now we come to the Word becoming flesh. That did not alter the equality of Godhead. Think of that move! That was the greatest move. That was greater than creation, the Word becoming flesh. That was a greater thought that God was going to come in and dwell and be near to man so that, if the Lord will, we will look tomorrow at man being near to God.
JAT So it required one divine Person to take another form. I was thinking of the wonder involved, one glorious Person.
NJH Yes, exactly. I find that the safest thing when it comes to these deep and holy matters is to keep as far as we can to the word of the fathers of the recovery. That is the safest. Our brother has referred to ‘Divine Names’. Young people should read it. It is not easy; it is deep; but read a bit and then add to it, and you will develop an appetite for it, and light will come into your soul. Mr Raven said, ‘Nothing could affect the unity of the Godhead’ (vol 3 p52), but, as you read through John’s gospel, you will find that the Trinity was there, God was manifest in flesh.
HTF Would you say that we cannot apprehend these things by applying our minds as such to them, but it is by faith, and when we come to the Lord Jesus there, He is the particular Object for faith?
NJH Yes. I think it goes back to what we said about light.
JAT It is uncreated light as well as unapproachable light, so that what is creation is distinct from what He is dwelling in. Created light and uncreated light are two different things.
NJH Hymn 20 refers to uncreated light. There must be a link. We cannot go outside what is created, nor can we go outside what is revealed. We are governed by these things in holy respect for God, and must remember we will always be creatures.
In John 13, “Jesus, knowing that his hour had come that he should depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end”. I left out everything negative in this scripture. We just want the impression that He is going out to the Father. Then in verse 3, “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came out from God and was going to God”. The Spirit of God gave us that. He knew what was in the mind of Christ. At this point the Spirit of God is telling us what was in the mind of Christ. When we come to chapter 16, it is becoming light available to His own. In chapter 16 He says, “I came out from God”, v 27. Then He says, “I came out from the Father and have come into the world; again, I leave the world and go to the Father”. Now that is light. He is speaking openly here. That is the desire of God, not only to enter into revelation, but to convey that to His own. He was not telling the world; Judas, as representing the world in its most awful form had gone out; and in chapter 16 Jesus is now speaking openly to His own.
PM How much it must have meant to His heart that He was going to the Father!
NJH Tell us what you understand by coming out from the Father in chapter 16: 28. He does not say that in chapter 13; He says it in chapter 16. It says He “came out from God and was going to God” in chapter 13, and that is still true in chapter 16. I wondered if it related to the actual revelation of Himself. He was not sent from heaven; He was sent as here. In other words, for these thirty years He was in seclusion. Apart from the time when He was twelve years old, He was in seclusion with His Father, and I wondered if there was not a touch there as He came into the world of testimony, especially to His own, and all these chapters, particularly 14, 15, 16 and 17, are to bring the knowledge of the Father to His own, and then He was going to return to the Father. But I would like to know if that was how you viewed that.
PM I think that is helpful, and does the utterance from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight” (Mark 1: 11) give character to that coming out?
NJH That was the difference. The idea of eternal sonship which came up in that reading we have referred to was taking that relationship in which He is as man back into the form of God, which could not be because the form of God implies equality, but His sonship is a relationship taken in manhood and, speaking simply, when Christ came into manhood and took up sonship, the Father had His place in relationship. Is that right?
JMcK Have we not been taught that the Lord moved into this relationship in view of revelation?
NJH Exactly. That is good. He immediately moved as coming into manhood. On you go. That helps.
JMcK I was thinking about the word “with” in chapter 1: “with a father”. That relationship does not reach backwards into a past eternity. It is something that He came into and continues in. There is a degree of mystery about it because it speaks, does it not, of “the Son of man who is in heaven”, John 3: 13? From one point of view He never left that.
NJH Exactly, and, as I have said before, we are indebted to what is on our bookshelves, but do not leave it on the bookshelves! Read a bit, and you will acquire a taste for reading. If you wait for a taste for it, you might be a long while. Read a bit and delve into these ministries! We are so privileged. Most of our brethren have not taken up - I am speaking about our brethren in the world, not walking with us - that glorious privilege of the heritage we have in the books. These men of God worked out the truth in relationship with Christ and can carefully guide us through, and that is a bulwark to your soul, not to tread on error, which is very easily done.
GR Mr Darby does refer to the eternal Son, but the Lord has made the matter clear now.
NJH Well Scripture is final. The canon of scripture is the final writing, but ministry is cumulative. If you look back on Mr Raven, what he was often bringing before the brethren was the eternal personality rather than the eternal relationship.
JCG Do you think that these chapters from 13 onwards bring out the heart of God? The Lord is illustrating that He is intending us to approach Him in love. It speaks about “the Father himself has affection”, and then “ye have had affection for me, and have believed that I came out from God”. The indication is that the source is in mind that we should enter into what love is.
NJH That helps, and it comes back to what we said that the principle of revelation was with God in His relationship with Israel, but it was limited. To the individual, as we know, it was the Almighty, and it was covenant relationship. The name of Jehovah came in because He wanted it, but He had to wait for the beloved Son to be here, the Beloved, for the Father to be known, and that involves relationship of love. As you say, “the Father himself has affection”. It is love that is there, and it had to be in this One.
GCB Do you think that while what we have in John 20, “my Father and your Father” is wonderfully distinctive, we should value more than we do what came out in what the Lord uttered to his disciples before His death?
NJH Well, He came, as we have said, into the Father’s bosom to make the Father known. That is what John says. It is very helpful, to make the Father known. He did that in John 20. “And “will make it known” in John 17 obviously relates to John 20, what He would do: “my Father and your Father”, but that relationship stands in its integrity, the Father and the Son, throughout the gospel.
EOPM Behind all we are saying is the fact that the Father and the Son knew exactly what was involved in that revelation, involving how that love was going to be made known.
NJH That is very good; so not only was it the purpose of His love, but the counsel was involved too, His counsel, and the Father, the Son and the Spirit were in total unison that this was going to take place according to God’s eternal purpose. I just thought in chapters 13 and 16 coming out from God reveals how great this Person is in manhood, and then going back in chapter 17: 5 to that place and presence. Coming out from the Father, I thought, related to the realm of revelation, chap 16: 28. He comes out from the Father and returns to the Father, and He is bringing light into the souls of His own as to who the Father was, and they would learn who the Father was in Christ. In John 17 He says, “And I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”. Is that not beautiful?
BWB Yes. It brings out the glory of a Man here who was intimately in touch with his Father in every detail.
NJH Yes, exactly. Mr Darby says in his Synopsis vol 3: p380 (footnote) that ’He has brought this love (of which He was the object) down into the bosom of humanity, and placed it in the heart of His disciples’. Just think about that! Is that not beautiful? He was the object of that love and He brings it into the bosom of humanity - that would be in Himself, and then He lays it, He places it, in the affections of His own. Brethren, that is happening today, and should happen in this meeting. If anyone has a taste for the Father‘s love, Christ would make it known to you today.
DBB I wondered if that was the force of “will make it known”. That is current.
NJH Well, it took place in John 20; we should allow things to be brought into our souls, and we need to be brought into it as well.
RMB “I have made known to them thy name” would cover His pathway on earth;
“and will make it known”, would be John 20. There was a complete revelation of the Father before the Lord ascended, but your point is that from time to time the Lord would bring the Father into our minds and give us a distinct impression of Him.
NJH Would you agree with that? The revelation was complete in Christ. I am glad you have said until He ascended. But the light of the revelation is that He values it so much that He wants all of us to be brought and He brings the light of all that came out in Himself to come into our hearts.
CKR Would you say also that then He sealed it with the gift of the Spirit to retain it there at the height and level of the way it has come through?
NJH I am glad of that. Help us more, please.
CKR Between John 13 and John 16 you have the Spirit of truth referred to who “shall guide you into all the truth”, John 16: 13. I just thought there was a beauty about the service of the Spirit that would retain it in our affections at the height and level that it has come out.
NJH The Spirit comes from with the Father; so He is bringing out, speaking reverentially, the full knowledge of the divine Person, but He witnessed the relationship of the Father and Christ when Christ was here, and then in glory the ten days, and the witness the Spirit brings is as from with the Father. He saw that blessed Man in the presence of His Father. I think we have said a lot. Ephesians 1 is the result of God coming out from His own side, moving as He has done and adapting it to our creature condition.
RDP I was just thinking that John 17 is a completed work, “I have completed the work” (v 4), but then the bulk of the chapter is concern as to those that would remain. He uses a remarkable expression in verse 18: “As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world”. He links the sending forth of the saints with His own sending forth.
NJH That is good. You can see the need then for the inbreathing taking place and then the Spirit coming upon them in the Acts as a company. You can see all the wealth that was in mind that nothing may be lost. I think the Spirit of God would be urgent that nothing of the revelation of God in Christ will be lost. It will be stored in hearts. If not mine, it will be stored in the hearts of the saints.
RDP-r Do we get a sense of a purpose? I was thinking in John 17 it is “that” and in Ephesians it is “that we should be holy and blameless before him in love”, chap 1: 4. I wonder whether we see God’s purpose in the way that He has moved out in this way.
NJH Yes, you can see it written across the pages of Ephesians 1. I just noticed when it says, “marked us out beforehand”, Mr Darby says, ‘When applied to persons, that to which they are destined is always added‘ (note ’d’). We are marked out beforehand for sonship. It is too deep for all of us, but let us take in something of it for the glory of God.
Birmingham
29th October 2010