FAMILY AFFECTIONS (5)
FAMILY AFFECTIONS (5)
JT It occurred to me, in connection with this reading, that it would be well for us to see that the idea of the family of God is presented in an objective way in Scripture, and particularly in this gospel; so that the message sent through Mary had in view what had been earlier presented to the disciples objectively. I was thinking of the passage in Genesis 22 already dwelt upon; that the young men who accompanied Abraham and Isaac to the land of Moriah would have seen “an only begotten with a father”. Particularly after Isaac was offered up, and they went together to Beersheba. Then in Jacob’s family the ten had the opportunity of seeing Joseph as loved of the father; and in Joseph, not only the true thought of the brother is seen, but he showed what a son should be to a father as well, in his relations and actions toward Jacob. They would see in him the divine idea of a brother and of a son with a father. It is in this gospel we have so often brought before us the relations of the Son with the Father. At the outset it is said, “we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1:14. They contemplated that, and throughout the gospel the Lord refers to His relations with the Father; particularly in His prayer, recorded in chapter 17. The disciples would have, as privileged to listen, an insight into what He was with the Father, and would see what a place they had in their relations with the Father and the Son; so that this message through Mary would bring them into the good of it. In chapter 1 we have the expression, “to them [p. 407] gave he the right to be children of God”. (John 1:12) This message would accord to them the liberty, that doubtless they would now desire, to take that place; for He says, “my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. I think it is well to take it up in this way because we can only learn things aright as we learn them in Christ. The idea of the family must be learned as we see the relation in which the Lord Jesus stood with the Father.
GAT Why does He start with “my Father”? Why does He not say, “my God” first?
JT The family idea is in view. “As many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God”, John 1:12. It is the only place in John’s writings where we have what corresponds with the expression, “our Father”. Elsewhere it is almost invariably, “the Father”, or “my Father”. Here we have, “your Father”, so that we are privileged to enter the circle of relationship, and have the same liberty accorded to us in which Christ is, through this message.
RSS By the way in which several of the epistles begin, do you not get the same thing? For instance, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, ( 2 Corinthians 1:3).
JT But that is Paul, or Peter ( 1 Peter 1: 3), not John.
RSS I see, you are speaking of John’s writings when you speak of “Our Father” in that way.
WB-t “Whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and sister, and mother”, Mark 3:35. The family thought is an all embracing one; much larger than that of the assembly.
JT It is. There are families (Ephesians 3:15), and I think the distinction would arise from the mothers. Compare Galatians 4.
WB-t Not from the fathers?
GWH-n Would it be carrying the type too far to say that Joseph’s sons are typified here? The fruit of Joseph’s toil was the sons he presents to Jacob. The Lord’s pathway was over here, and as the fruit of His toil He says, “Go to my brethren [p. 405] and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”.
JT I think Jacob linked on Joseph’s sons with his family. It was the end of Joseph’s ministry in that sense, in regard to Jacob. He brought an additional element into the family.
GWH-n Would you not say, that of all the fruit of Joseph’s life — his exaltation and ministry, none is so precious as the two sons that Jacob claimed.
JT Well, he says, “they shall be mine”. They were on no less a platform than the others, “as Reuben and Simeon”, Genesis 48:5. The Lord, it seems to me, brings the disciples into direct relation with the Father in this message. That was what He had in view throughout, that they should be brought into this relationship because all must revert to the Father. He comes forth from the Father but goes back with these.
RSS In the beginning of this gospel we have children referred to: they have right to be called the children of God, not children of the Father. Do you get that expression in Scripture?
JT In Matthew 5 we have “Children (or sons) of your Father”.
RSS That is a moral thought.
JT It is, and it is a cognate thought with the children of God as you see them in John’s epistle. They are like their Father. “In this are manifested the children of God”, 1 John 3:10. In what? In the practice of righteousness. That is to say, they are known publicly, as such in the practice of righteousness. It is much like Matthew, “The sons of your Father who is in the heavens”. (Matthew 5:45) They are like their Father, but then in John’s gospel it is that you take that place. How many are able to do that? It takes moral power in the soul to do it. The Lord gave them right to take that place.
HWD You mean faith will not [p. 406] do?
JT The privilege is accorded to you, but it is a great thing to be able to take that place. Immediately following, you have: “who have been born, not of blood nor of flesh’s will nor of man’s will, but of God”, John 1:13. That is the next thing to consider.
GAT “Behold, I and the children which God has given me”. Is that the idea?
JT Yes. You see the taking of the place is an act of your own. The nature that sustains you in it, is the result of God’s work — “who have been born, ... of God”.
RSS Does the thought of children involve moral likeness in life and nature?
JT I think so.
WB-t In Luke 3 it says, “which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”. (Luke 3:38) It contains a different idea, but would you throw a little light on it?
JT Adam was “of God”, as the passage should read. God breathed into Adam’s nostrils and he became a living soul. Genesis 1 speaks of living souls swarming. They are such by the word of God, but Adam was made a living soul by the breath of God, and in that way became His “offspring”. Paul says, “Being therefore the offspring of God, we ought not to think that which is divine to be like gold”, Acts 17:29. That is, one ought to determine from oneself what God is. So that man, through Adam, had a wonderful place in the creation, but then in John’s gospel one great point is that you take the place of children, and this passage (chapter 20) lets us into the light and gain of it.
GWH His activities in chapters I and 20 were to enable them to take this place.
JT That is it. Chapter 1 lays down the thesis, as it were: “He came to his own, and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them (whoever they were and wherever they were)
gave he the right to be children of God”, John 1:11,12. Then the gospel opens the subject up.
RSS Your thought is that it requires courage to take the place of the children of God?
JT It does. It takes holy boldness, which God would encourage in us.
RSS You have confidence and ability to appropriate what God places within your reach.
HWD His death and resurrection come in between chapter 1 and our passage.
JT Yes, and then all the unfolding objectively of the parental idea in Christ, and what sonship is as seen in Him, because the next thing is, “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.
Then, in verse 14: “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only begotten with a father”, John 1:14. They could speak of that, it was something contemplated, into which they are admitted in measure in this message.
WCR Our title in chapter 1, to take the place of children of God, we see effectuated in chapter 20. The family comes into view there.
JT That is it. Having in view the sending of them out. “As the Father sent me forth”, He says, “I also send you”. After saying that He breathes into them. They are in that way, I think, constituted fit representatives of Him, for they received His Spirit, and are now regarded as trustworthy. John develops that side.
WCR He links them with the Father in chapter 20 at once. If the family comes into view that relationship must be recognised, and for the first time He speaks to them of His Father and their Father, His God and their God. He brings them into that relationship now, and gives them His own Spirit, that they might enjoy it.
GAT Is that the “power” we get in chapter 1?
[p. 408] JT It refers to that, I think. He lifts them into that position. This message is a sort of Magna Charta of the family. We must never let it go. It is the ground of our position. “To them gave he the right to be the children of God”, John 1:12.
GAT On the simple act of believing, is that the idea?
JT It is said of those that receive Him. It is not simply believing, but receiving Him.
GAT How would you explain that?
JT “As many as received him”. He is presented to be received, and those that receive Him prove that they are born of God. He is the test, and those who value Christ, answer to it.
WB It all turns on that. The reception of Christ, or the place He has in the affections, is really the proof of work of God in the soul.
GAT Zacchaeus received Him into his house is that the idea?
JT Yes, he “received him joyfully”.
RSS Would “As many as received him” not refer to the remnant in Israel that received the Lord when He came? If one of these recognised and received Him he would be given the right to take the place of the children of God. Of course, the same is true of everyone who receives Him, and we may each inquire. Have I received Him? The passage adds, “to those that believe on his name”, John 1:12. The gospel of John is distinct from the other three in its character; it presents to us the revelation of divine Persons.
JT Yes, and that is the basis really of family relationships.
RSS Exactly.
JT So he says, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only begotten with a father”, John 1:14. That is the kind of glory contemplated. If we can understand what it is to be an only one with a father, that is what they saw. The reciprocal affections [p. 409] between a father and an only one were seen. And you can understand how, in contemplating those affections, the desire would grow to have part in them.
RSS It is wonderful to have an inlet into what is revealed in regard to divine Persons.
JT Yes.
RSS How great the thought is!
JT One could hardly define how they saw the Lord in this way, but they did. They contemplated Him thus. That is, they must have seen Him in certain exercises and movements outside of ordinary affairs. For instance, in John 17 they were undoubtedly present when He prayed, and we know from Luke 11, that He was praying in a certain place and one of them said, “Lord, teach us to pray”, Luke 11:1. They would have seen Him in that attitude and it would affect their hearts. The word ‘contemplated’ shows how they appreciated the thing. It was no passing event with them; the effect of it remained.
RSS It was the way the Lord prayed that affected the thief on the cross, I am sure. “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, Luke 23:34. I suppose it was that which broke his heart.
GAT Do you think they were so impressed by the way He prayed that it created in them a desire to pray in like manner?
JT Yes, “Lord, teach us to pray”. (Luke 11:1) It says, “He was in a certain place praying” (Luke 11:1), and again, “He was praying alone”, Luke 9:18. It does not appear that He ever prayed with them, but they were privileged to see how He prayed, and to see in prayer His peculiar relations with the Father, and they were affected by it.
RSS It is very striking how He taught them. He gave them a form of words, but enlarges on it by giving them an indication of the character of God in what follows: “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?” etc.,
and then, “How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Luke 11:11 - 13) — the greatest gift of all. I think the idea was to teach them the character of the One they were addressing in prayer.
JT And then to know how to be with God as Father and how to be with men as brethren. I think Joseph helps us as showing what a son should be with a father, for we see in him what a true son is. And he taught his brethren what a brother should be.
WB-t In chapter 20 the Lord says, “My Father and your Father”. He brings them into the conscious knowledge of the relationship on their side, does He not?
JT Yes. It would be an exercise now, I judge, for the disciples as to how they were to be with the Father. If you are to be admitted to the presence of a great personage the exercise would be, How am I to be suitably with him? Applying this to ourselves, we have to learn how the Son was with the Father. If I do not know that, I shall not know how to be with Him. It must be learnt from the Son.
WB-t Is that connected with the work of God in you?
JT It is, but you see, the thing is to contemplate.
WB-t I was thinking of what you were saying about the Lord praying, and the disciples desiring to be taught to pray. They desired to know how to address God; but here there is the added thought — “My Father and your Father; my God and your God”. There is a distinct advance beyond being taught to pray.
JT What would come into their souls, and what should come into ours is, How am I to be with the Father? and then, How am I to be with the brethren? I have to learn both these things through Christ; this was how the apostles learned. “We have contemplated”, they say; this would bring the idea [p. 411] into their souls, and now, through the message, they are admitted, into that which they contemplated.
WCR Is there not a suggestion, of this in our chapter? Mary does not quite understand how to be with Him. She could touch Him, but He says, in principle, You must be with Me on entirely new ground now.
JT That is it.
HWD The disciples rejoiced upon seeing the Lord. This would be because they had Him back in resurrection, but I gather from what you are saying that their joy would be enhanced because of having been admitted into the same circle in which they had contemplated Him.
JT It would, in as far as they were able to apprehend it then.
HWD That would give them immense joy.
JT It would, as far as understood. One would like to get clearly the thought of contemplation, because that is what enables you to be in the family relationship. If you do not contemplate how Jesus was with the Father, how can you be in that relationship? You must learn from Him.
WCR Does that not bring in the thought of the holiest?
JT In a way it would. I was thinking of that. You go in there to contemplate really, and as you apprehend the Lord with God you know what to do. I believe only those who frequent the holiest know how to act in the assembly, because it is in the assembly we come into family relationship and privilege, and as apprehending what Christ is with God; you know how to be with Him also. One feels that one knows little about being with God. Paul says, “For I, through law, have died to law, that I may live to God”, Galatians 2:19. But if he lived to God he must live according to Christ. What God has before Him is that we may be brought up [p. 412] to that standard.
RSS Our brother asked if knowing how to be with the Father involved, a subjective work in us. Contemplation is not exactly subjective, it is rather objective; but are not both found in the end of 2 Corinthians 3, where it says, “We all, looking on the glory of the Lord, ... are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit?”, 2 Corinthians 3:18. That is, you get the objective and the subjective there.
JT Yes, you do. The work of God necessarily underlies everything — that which God effects in me sovereignly, and there is that by which I am affected through my intelligence. There is also that which He effects through my intelligence, which gradually takes form in me as I contemplate.
GAT Is the thought of contemplating of which you have been speaking akin to choosing the good part?
JT Pretty much. Mary sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word, but we learn from others as well, you know. It is God’s way of teaching us by presenting things objectively to us. Now if it be a question of the family with which we are engaged, we have to learn how to be in it from the Lord, and John’s gospel brings that before us.
GAT If we take the place of being children of God, as having the right to do so, God will look down and expect from us the manners that belong to the family of God.
JT He does. That is one thing I believe the Lord would especially emphasise — family affections. It is for these He looks.
WHF It is in the holiest, is it not, that these divine instructions are given? It would therefore be a question of the individual entering the holiest, and of the light Christ presents to us there. I understand the holiest to be a moral thought, it is really [p. 413] Christ now, and not a material thing as in the days of Israel.
JT Yes. Of course the holiest is a wide subject and includes more than what Christ is in family relations; indeed, it is on a different line and involves what He is as the One through whom God effects all His will. It is really the apprehending of what He is with God, and the instruction obtained in the holiest you bring into the assembly. Apprehending Christ in this way enables one to come out in increased power in relation to the things of God here. No one knows what it is to be in the assembly, or to be in the Lord’s service really, unless conversant with the holiest.
WHF And I suppose it is the impression the soul gets from the Lord in the holiest which enables him to minister for the Lord in the assembly. Would you go with that?
JT I think so. There is something about it that is distinctive.
HWD Is John 1 rather an indication of what is in the holiest?
JT It is a similar idea; it refers to what Christ was with God.
GWH-n Would you say the Lord’s service in John’s gospel is pretty much the declaration of the Father’s name: “I have made known to them thy name?” (John 17:26). That is, He was setting before them what the Father was, and what they should be to the Father with Himself in their midst. “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, Hebrews 2:12. The disclosure of what the Father was to them, fitted them for this response.
JT Yes, quite. “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, (Hebrews 2:12) would involve what we have been saying. They had contemplated His glory as an only one with the Father, and have now been brought [p. 414] into it themselves, so that He is in their midst. It would be well to note that what we get in this chapter has largely in view what they were to be here. “As the Father sent me forth”, He says, “I also send you”. They were to be here according to what He was.
GWH-n Seeing that He was going to ascend.
JT Exactly. He was about to ascend, and they were to remain here, and in saying that He breathed into them to the end that they might be here according to Himself.
GAT Is this not really the carrying through of what God had in His mind in connection with Adam? He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”;(Genesis 1:26) and having formed him, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”, Genesis 2:7. Here the family is seen in His own image and likeness and He breathes into them.
JT Yes, He had in view that they should have His Spirit. I think the children of God, as sent into the world, are patterned after Him. “He breathed into them” and sent them out with His Spirit.
GAT He has thus secured for God what was in God’s mind at the outset, that He should have men down here morally like Christ.
JT Yes, “My Father and your Father” refers to our private relations with God, or privileges, but “As the Father sent me forth, I also send you”, is our public service.
GWH-n In the beginning of Acts 4 they are publicly seen to be of the same Spirit as Jesus. Is that the idea?
JT Yes, quite. “Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, which is the ninth hour”, Acts 3:1. They represented what the Lord left here. That is to say, Peter is the administrative side and John the family side. These are the two features of our position — administration [p. 415] in Peter and family affections in John. If these are found together you have Christianity; that which the Lord intended to represent Him in this world.
GAT And would bear testimony.
JT Yes, so chapters 3 and 4 of the Acts are what you might call “Peter-and-John” chapters; they are marked by Peter’s and John’s relations to each other, as if the Holy Spirit would set out in these two men, at the beginning, a delineation of the dispensation. The one representing administration in a spiritual way, and the other the family of God. These two things should go hand in hand, so that Peter says, “Look on us”. They characterise the present dispensation. Then we see the fruit of this in the healed man holding Peter and John. What a sight for the people!
WHF Having “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9), would answer to the Lord’s breathing into the disciples here.
JT It would; they are constituted of Him by His breath.
GAT You spoke of the man, who had sat at the Beautiful gate, holding Peter and John. How would you apply that to the Christian today?
JT Well, every Christian should hold them — hold the administrative side and the family side.
GWH-n You hold both Peter and John.
JT Yes, “Open” brethren make a great deal of the family — of the brethren, but they do not hold Peter. They are lax on the administrative side, i.e. the order of the house of God. We want both. You cannot have the former if you have not the latter.
GAT It is remarkable that this man makes such progress in so short a time, when many who have been on the way for years, have not even seen what Peter and John represent.
JT If you look at those chapters, the healed man was with them all through; and it says, “Having [p. 416] been let go, they came to their own company” (Acts 4:23), and he, doubtless, with them.
GAT Peter and, John could point to him as a testimony to the healing power of God in the soul.
RSS He was a living witness.
JT He was indeed.
GWH-n Peter and John were maintaining what the Lord presented here.
JT That is what one was thinking. Breathing into them He set them up in this way, and in representing Him they know what to do.
GWH-n The family is for the Father’s heart; but administration has to do with outward order and blessing.
JT That is just what one had in mind. John represents the family, and the administrative side subserves it. The family abides, but there will be no need for administration, in that way, in heaven. Peter’s line is a provisional one. “The elders which are among you I exhort”, Peter says. “Who am their fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of the Christ, who also am partaker of the glory about to be revealed; shepherd the flock of God which is among you”, 1 Peter 5:1, 2. That is what Peter was exercised about, and you can see that it would subserve John’s line, because if they are shepherded and cared for, the family affections would have liberty of action; so that John is closely allied to Peter at the outset, because the Spirit of God would, I think, present to us the full idea of the dispensation. Therefore, John drops out of view after chapter 4; then it is Peter, and later you get Paul and Barnabas, but the primary thought is to present the dispensation in these two apostles, Peter and John.
RSS Would you say that Joseph set forth both Peter and John, especially after his brethren came to Egypt? He was lord in Egypt, and yet he occupied the place of lordship and headship to them. Lordship [p. 417] has to do with administration and headship more with what you have been speaking of as family relations, has it not?
JT And what we have already considered, that the children of Machir were born on Joseph’s knees; this would be John distinctively. “I write unto you, little children”, (1 John 2:13) John says. He also writes to the “young men” and “fathers”, showing his affectionate care for the family.
RSS It is very remarkable that we get in the Old Testament these wonderful descriptions of New Testament truths. There could hardly have been a more unlovely family than Jacob’s at the time they cast their brother into the pit, and then sold him as a slave, and sent home and told their father a lie in regard to it; and living that lie for about thirteen years. You could hardly imagine a more unlovely condition in a family than that — the deceit all the time in their hearts. Now the striking thing that takes place is the way in which Joseph deals with his brethren, so that he brings them to that wonderfully interesting point where Judah reminds Joseph, not knowing who he was, of what he had asked them, namely, “Have ye a father, or a brother”. (Genesis 44:19) It is not Joseph saying it now, but Judah; he had now learned what fatherly and brotherly affections were. It is perfectly marvellous that God should have taken up a family in such a condition, and have brought about such an absolute reversal of it. How like God it is!
JT And would you not think that John is like Joseph in that way, reflecting the Lord, of course? In Revelation he writes as a brother. He is a “brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation”, Revelation 1:9. The family had become deranged again: Ephesus had left its first love, and more serious conditions followed, but John’s ministry is effectual in recovery, so that at the end of Revelation it is, “He that overcomes shall [p. 418] inherit these things, and. I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son”, Revelation 21:7. That is the end, the overcomer is brought back to the family privilege.
GWH-n When administration broke down, then John revives the family.
JT Quite so. I think that word, “I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son”, (Revelation 21:7) reminds us of God’s primary thought; that, after all the failure, He reverts to what was originally before Him.
GAT Do you not think the secret of Judah coming to the point he did was that he had already confessed that “God has found out the iniquity of thy servants?”, Genesis 45:16.
RSS Quite so, because it is confession that clears the ground.
JT It is an immense thing that God has recovered us to the light of the family; now it is for us to come into the benefit of the true Joseph’s adjusting ministry; and, as having adjusted us, He would perpetuate the family feelings and instincts, as we see in Joseph in the way he saw the generations of Israel, and how that the children of Machir were born on his knees. The book of Revelation, I believe, corresponds; it is, “I, John, your brother”, (Revelation 1:9) who writes it, and he would bring the brethren back to the recognition of family relationships and affections.
“He that overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be to him God, and he shall be to me son”, Revelation 21:7.
GWH-n Is not an administrator one who exercises authority on behalf of and for another? And it is really the authority of Christ in the house of God that is exercised by those who have His authority.
JT Just so. The Lord said to Peter, “Feed my lambs”; “Shepherd my sheep”; “Feed my sheep”, John 21:15 - 17. He gave him that definite commission. Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, and what of this man?”, John 21:21. That is, John. And the character of John’s service was well known to Peter afterward, for he and John went up to the temple together.
GWH-n “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?”(John 21:22) John is to continue, as it were.
JT Quite so.
SWP Should everyone possess administrative ability?
JT I think there ought to be a sense of responsibility in that you cannot suffer sin upon your brother. If you know of that which is inimical to the house of God, or interferes with its activities, you ought to make it known. A sense of responsibility is a great thing, and everyone should accept it.
HWD Would affection make you administrative?
JT I think it would. In a family one child helps another. One has noticed it often, the care an older, child has over the younger. That, I think, ought to characterise every Christian.
GWH-n And in that care for a younger child it is parental care delineated.
JT It is learnt from the parent and carried out.
GAT Then we are to bear one another’s burdens.
JT You want to see everyone right.
GAT If you saw something wrong going on would you report it?
JT One has known of cases where things were known to others and it was not made generally known, and the sin developed. The sea of glass denotes transparency underneath; everything is open; you do not want to keep anything hidden. Transparency is a great feature in the house of God.