SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE (2)
SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE (2)
JT It will help us if we keep in mind the type that has already been alluded to in 2 Chronicles, comprising the two pillars which stood in front of Solomon’s temple, the altar, the sea and the ten lavers. If we do, we shall be able to take in more easily the teaching we have here.
It is God’s purpose to bring about in those who hear the testimony that which is presented in the vessel through whom the testimony comes. In chapter 1:1 - 4, we have life in a substantial or concrete way. Then we have the message; and in the end the means of cleansing, the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son; also forgiveness through Christ on our confessing our sins. Then in the beginning of chapter 2 we have the advocacy of Christ with the Father, and Christ being the propitiation for our sins. Thus we have from God’s side the sure means of being brought into conformity to the vessel through whom the testimony comes to us.
Ques Do you mean that conformity is to be brought about now?
JT Yes. That is the point. It is God’s thought that there should be conformity in a moral way at the present time; in the future it will be literal, for “we shall be like him”, seeing Him as He is, (1 John 3:2). The testimony first came through Christ Himself, and then through the apostles. In this we get the complete thought of testimony in unity. John says that their fellowship was with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ. Doubtless the apostles were specially kept, in order that this might be true. The use of the preposition ‘with’ is very noticeable in John’s writings, whereas fellowship as Paul presents it is ‘of’ — “the fellowship of his Son”, (1 Corinthians 1:9), etc. John also speaks of “eternal life, which was with the Father”, (1 John 1:2).
Ques What does the use of the preposition ‘with’ imply?
JT In John the Spirit of God emphasises the idea of persons, things are said to be had with persons. Whereas Paul emphasises the character of things. He uses the genitive, implying proceeding from; for example, ‘the body of Christ’, ‘the blood of Christ’. ‘With’ suggests nearness and equality; this latter forms a very definite feature of John when divine Persons are concerned. So in the gospel he presents the Word as having been with God, and speaks of having contemplated His glory, “a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, (John 1:14). It is the relation of divine Persons to one another. And it is the Lord’s desire to have us with Himself, as it is said, “where I am, there shall also my servant be” (John 12:26), and also, “that where I am, there ye may be also”, (John 14:3). Love would always have it that way; it ever seeks the company of its objects.
So John speaks here of “that eternal life, which was with the Father”. Eternal life is thus lifted up to a plane far higher than that on which it is presented in the Old Testament, to the plane of the relationship of divine Persons with one another, that of the Son’s relationship with the Father. That is a plane by itself, so to speak. Of course it is the Son as Man, not the relationship that existed between the Persons as in the Deity — before incarnation. Then follows, “Our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”, (1 John 1:3). This is clearly a step lower in the matter of fellowship; it is the fellowship of the apostles in relation to the testimony. It is important to see that the reference to the “eternal life, which was with the Father”, does not refer to what Christ was eternally, but to what He was as Man here. It involves the Son becoming Man. Similarly in the gospel, John says, “we have [p. 219] contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”.
Ques In becoming Man did the Lord take up a subordinate position?
JT Yes. We must bear in mind that revelation contemplates the Son having become Man, and having thus taken a place of subjection.
In chapter 1:7 the apostle introduces the means of cleansing. This is most important, enabling us to enjoy what is presented; through it we are brought into accord with the revelation and maintained in it. In these verses we have the blood of Christ and the advocacy of Christ.
Ques Do you understand there is a difference between fellowship with the Father and fellowship with the Son?
JT No. I think it involves one idea here. The reference is to the testimony, the Father and His Son are united in this. The eternal life was with the Father. That was true of Christ exclusively. The idea of the apostles’ fellowship has to be taken by itself: it was with the Father and the Son. Think of the greatness of this! The Father and His Son Jesus Christ and the apostles were all engaged in it. But as to the saints, they were to have fellowship with the apostles. Then as walking in the light as God is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. That is, we are maintained by it in the fellowship.
Rem The apostle presses the thought of the abiding character of these means of cleansing.
JT Yes. It is the abiding value of the blood. Then the expression, “If we say” occurs three times here. I am thus searched and tested as to where I really am.
Now chapter 2 is occupied with John’s children, the children of the testimony, as we may say. Later we have,
“the children of God”, (chapter 3). These must be carefully distinguished. The apostles had fellowship with the Father and His Son. Then the saints generally have fellowship with the apostles, as it is said, “that ye also may have fellowship with us”, (1 John 1:3). There is testimony, and in chapter 2 are brought forward John’s children, the children of his testimony. That is the point here.
There is a reference to the person in whom the testimony was presented. “My children”, the apostle says. In His testimony God begins from the top. He begins with Christ; presenting in Him His ideal, and then the apostles. Peter said to the lame man, “Look on us”, (Acts 3:4). But then God has the means of bringing believers into conformity with what He has in His mind. There is the advocacy of Christ with the Father, and He is the propitiation for our sins. In connection with these God works in us, so that what is true in Christ is true in us. Chapter 2 brings out what has been effected in us by this presentation in testimony. It begins, “My children, these things I write to you in order that ye may not sin”.
Rem What God presented in chapter 1 would be the same for all.
JT Quite. And in chapter 2 one can determine where one is. It is a question of being children of the testimony. Their growth is graded: fathers, young men and little children. But in this chapter we have the means of detecting those who are false. So we see here that we take a certain attitude in what we say, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him”. But as answering to the presentation, we become, as it were, begotten of the testimony. So Peter says, “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers”, (Acts 3:25). Those who receive it take on its character. Thus he that saith he abideth in Him [p. 221] ought to walk as He walked; and the new commandment is said to be “true in him and in you”.
Ques Is it that we present the character of the testimony in ourselves?
JT Exactly; we become conformed to the One through whom it has come to us. It is therefore not only a question of what I say in the presentation of the truth, but also of what I am. The Lord Jesus makes a point of that. He said He was altogether what He said, (John 8:25). We may present a thing rightly in words, but are we what we say? If I heartily receive the word of God I become formed by it; and thus in my measure I represent in myself what I say. Here we have, “whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected”. I think the apostles were generally kept on that level, they were what they said. They were kept in the fellowship of the Father and the Son. It is God’s mind that we should not rest merely in being saved, but should go on to what the two pillars suggest. They were beautifully ornamented and suggested what was behind — what was inside the house. “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”, (1 John 1:7). This is the basis of all, and so the altar in 2 Chronicles 7. It is to keep me in fellowship in the light, to keep me clean as to my conscience in that position. It does not cleanse me simply from sins, but from all sin. That does not mean that sin is completely eradicated from me, but that my conscience is kept perfectly free of sin. There are those who speak of the total eradication of sin, but they lie and do not speak the truth. In saying either that we have no sin or that we have not sinned we lie. Those who say these things are liars. But God has made provision that we can be in fellowship in the light, as He is in the light. The means of cleansing keeps us in it. Notice that it is put in the present tense, ‘cleanses’, not the past tense. This presents the continual efficacy of it. It never [p. 222] ceases to have that value. Then as to sins, we must not be slow in confessing, for forgiveness is as we confess. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”, (1 John 1:9).
Ques Is the testimony thus perpetuated in John’s children?
JT Yes. In the anointing spoken of at the end of the chapter we have the dignity of the position we are brought into in this respect, corresponding to the thought of the two pillars. And the anointing belongs even to the little children. All are brought into that dignity. We are not taught on human principles or by human methods, but by the Spirit of God.
Ques Why are the children of the testimony first presented, and then the children of God? Why in that order?
JT Well, I think you must first have what God has in mind as a testimony and then you become formed in His nature. What God would effect in me is seen set forth in the vessels through whom the testimony comes to me. Then in turn I am brought into the sphere of testimony to be a witness. Chapter 2 gives the power of the testimony — what it effects. What is all around us in this respect is mere travesty. Those in the place of vessels of the service and testimony of God are not in keeping with the truth as it is “in Jesus”, (Ephesians 4:21). In the service of God we must be what we say. This is what marked Christ and we must seek to be in keeping with it.
Rem Timothy was an exemplification of this.
JT Yes. Paul sent him to Corinth to represent him, as he said, “who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ”, (1 Corinthians 4:17). The principle is that those who minister the truth ought to be the thing themselves. So Luke speaks of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. There is the doing [p. 223] and the teaching and they must be in correspondence.
Rem “My children” gives one thought, and the “children of God” another. The former refers to the children of the testimony.
Ques Would you open up what is the distinction between the ‘commandments’ and ‘word’ spoken of in verses 3 to 5?
JT I think there is an important distinction. As an example of the commandment we may refer to Genesis 1. There everything is on this principle. The commandment is imperative. It must be obeyed, even if there be not the understanding of the significance of it. Whether this be true or not, it compels obedience. But this is not so with the word. The word carries with it the significance of the thing spoken — its meaning. As it is said, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God”, (Hebrews 11). That brings in the word. So here it says, “we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments”. Ninety-nine out of every hundred believers could hardly say they know Him on the ground that they are keeping His commandments. They are found in associations and affiliations not according to the divine will; hence they are not keeping His commandments and so cannot be sure that they know Him. Consequently there is much loss as to the divine mind. All this is very practical. We come into assurance through keeping His commandments; and then in keeping His word, the love of God is perfected in us — that is another thing. We become inwardly clear of what is contrary, and so we become a fitting dwelling-place for the love of God. It is like a right setting formed for a precious stone. In Romans 5 the love of God is shed abroad in the heart, but here we come into a formation inwardly wherein that love fits perfectly. Thus it says of the Colossians that they had love towards all the saints. That would be through keeping His word. They loved like God.
Ques What is meant by the ‘word’? Does it involve an expression of all that God is?
JT Christ is said to be the Word. He has expressed the mind of God. In love He takes us into His confidence and unfolds to us His word, His mind. John had close access to the Lord and was thus specially fitted to give His mind. But the Lord took all the apostles into His confidence, saying to them, “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you”, (John 15:15). His servants submit to His commands, but those who are taken into friendship are known of Him and they know Him, they have His mind. If we cease keeping His commandments, darkness soon ensues, and of course serious consequences quickly follow. I think in John, in general, the commandments separate us from what is contrary to the mind of God, and the word, which is positive, brings us into the divine mind. I must obey the commandment even if I do not understand; the word makes all plain. In John 14:21 the keeping of the commandment ensures a manifestation of Christ, whereas he who keeps His words secures what is nearer: the Father and the Son love him and come and make their abode with him, (verse 23). The commandment is not arbitrary, but is the outcome of love, nevertheless we may not understand it. So we should seek, while keeping it, to get past the commandment to the word; this implies more intimacy, and there is the unfolding of the divine mind. The commandment is the barrier of safety. There must be the commandments, and there must be the keeping of them. I am thus in a fortification, as it were; inside there is the unfolding of the mind of God and the unspeakable blessedness of the Father and the Son abiding there.
Ques What is the difference between the old commandment and the new commandment, spoken [p. 225] of here?
JT The old commandment refers to the ministry of Christ here in flesh. The new commandment refers to what is now; it is what is true in Christ and in us, and so depends on redemption and the presence and work of the Spirit in us. Take John 13:14, for instance — the Lord says, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”. This was that there should be a continuation of Christ in those who should be left here after He was gone. Then chapters 14 to 16 most beautifully unfold the provision made for His own, so that there should be this continuation. Thus “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked”. His commandments are not grievous. So He says, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”, (chapter 14:21). The commandment is thus beautifully blended with all that lies behind it, the affections and mind of Christ. It thus develops into the word. The new commandment involves our having part in the life that is in Christ by the Spirit. Thus what is true in Him is true in us in a substantial way, and so the true light now shines. We may profitably connect Psalm 119 with this. One could scarcely commend a more profitable study than that psalm. From the beginning to the end it is occupied with Jehovah’s laws, commandments, words, precepts, judgments, statutes, etc. An exercised saint would be concerned as to all these features of the divine mind. He desires to be quickened in relation to all these things, to love them, to delight in them. He would then be entirely free to go up, as is presented in the Songs of degrees (of ascension, as we may say) which immediately follow. He would be completely adjusted inwardly. It is an alphabetical psalm, which would convey how language is taxed to express the exercises of the godly man as to the law or commandments of God. That is, what conveyed the mind and will of Jehovah; and was “the law of thy mouth”, (verse 72); it was thus living and fresh and so was to the devout psalmist “better ... than thousands of gold and silver”. The whole Hebrew alphabet is represented here. The Lord said He was Himself the Alpha and the Omega. All the divine speaking and writing is through Him. It shows what language is for, and how saints tax it to the uttermost to unfold their thoughts. We see thus the value of language as divinely provided.
Now our chapter shows how we arrive at things subjectively. In verse 7 the old commandment is not John’s; it was the commandment they had from the beginning, the word which they heard. But the new commandment John was now writing. It was for the perfecting of the saints. He was the vessel through whom the light was coming. He says, “Again, a new commandment I write unto you”. The old was not enough; it was wonderful, but it was not sufficient. It was objective, which was presented in Christ as from the beginning. We must also have the new. This is what came out from Christ in heaven. It is the finishing thing. It brings the saints into life in correspondence with Christ as He now is, for “as he is, so are we in this world”, (1 John 4:17). It involves walking in the truth. So that what is true in Christ becomes true in us — “which thing is true in him and in you”. What was true in Him alone is the old commandment; the new is what is true also in us. Thus John, as a true servant, will not rest until he has the saints in correspondence with Christ, as He is, in the light. “The darkness is passing”, refers to us — to the saints. In that sense alone it is said, “the darkness is passing and the true light already shines”. It is not passing in the world as such; that awaits the millennium. But in principle God is already beginning to clear away the darkness, so that the true light already shines. It is so refreshing in the midst of all the darkness around. The new commandment involves life and hence, “the true light”. In John 13:34 the Lord says, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another”. The saints thus come out in new colours; the blessed character of Christ, active love, marks them. In keeping with this we have here, “He that loves his brother abides in light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him”. But he that hates his brother remains in darkness.
In verse 12 the apostle says, “I write to you, children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake”. All are thus brought on to the same platform. This is a very practical consideration. The elder and the younger are alike included. This touches the heart and has a similarising effect. All are addressed as children, and all have the forgiveness of sins for His name’s sake. This is leading up to chapter 3, where we have the family of God.
Ques What is involved in the expression, “for his name’s sake”?
JT It brings in what is due to the Lord, “his name” implying what is set forth in Him. The result accrues to all, young and old. It is the starting point. “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less”, (Exodus 30:15). The same price is paid for all; all are thus on the same footing objectively.
Then we come to the degrees in the family, involving growth. Some have been affected more than others. John writes to the ‘fathers’ twice, saying, “Because ye have known him that is from the beginning”. This could not be said of all. The fathers are developed in experience of the knowledge of Christ. If we look at a natural family — there is the father, and those that are regarded as in manhood, but young, and then the little ones. That is the figure used here; fathers, young men and babes. The fathers had had experience in the knowledge of Christ as from the beginning. They had [p. 228] experience which the other grades could not have. Having to do with the younger ones, they would care for them in a fatherly way.
Rem There is a great difference between knowledge and experience.
JT Quite so. Young men may have knowledge but matured experience marks fathers.
Ques What is implied in knowing “him that is from the beginning”?
JT We must notice that it is not now That, but Him that is from the beginning. It is the Person now, Christ as seen in the gospels. And it is not merely what He said and did, but also what He was and is. We must grow in His nature — as the well-known hymn says, ‘And with adoring fervour, in this Thy nature grow’. Here it is from the beginning, in John 1 it is in the beginning. Here it is His whole history as Man that is in view. It is within the range of all to know Him thus, and the gospels are to this end. The knowledge of Him that is from the beginning — the holy nature, life and ministry of that Person — is a very wonderful study. It involves what He was every moment of His sojourn in this world, and of course what He is now. Think of what John and the other apostles saw! On this account they were competent to witness. And He is available also for us to reach and know. There was a certain receptiveness in Christ, and John took advantage of this; he was “in the bosom of Jesus”, (John 13:23).
Rem Though we have never actually seen the Lord, we may also know Him in the same intimacy.
JT It is open for us. As to His Person He is unfathomable, for “no one knows the Son but the Father”, (Matthew 11:27), but we know Him as become Man.
John writes to the fathers and young men twice. He first says, “I write to you”, and then, “I have written to you”. Thus the thing is now left with them. He honours [p. 229] the fathers, as knowing Him that is from the beginning. He does not rebuke or exhort them at all. His word to them implies unmixed commendation. It is very fine when there is everything amongst us which God can approve, without there being any need for exhortation. There was nothing to rebuke or reprove with the fathers. John’s writing to them thus was intended to establish them amongst the brethren as men of weight. It is very easy for young men to neglect the experience of those who are older, although this is often done quite unconsciously.
Ques In writing to the young men the apostle says, “Ye are strong”. What is to be understood by that?
JT That is peculiar to the young men; God recognises their actual levitical capacity. A man of thirty is at his prime physically, and it was the levitical age for their taking up the burdens of the testimony. It shows what is normal to the believer as a young man. But such are in great danger from the world — they are especially exposed on account of their youthfulness. And if a man is married he has added exposure to the world through his wife. The world is the greatest snare for a young man, we know this through experience; and thus the need of standing firm against it. We should study to show ourselves approved unto God. Timothy was exhorted: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed”, (2 Timothy 2:15). Thus young men may overcome, as in service, the handicap of youth. “Let no one despise thy youth”, (1 Timothy 4:12), would mean that Timothy should give no occasion for this.
Ques Would it be right to say that in Romans, Colossians and Ephesians we have what answers to the three grades, babes, young men and fathers?
JT Yes, in a general way.
The section from verse 18 to the end of verse 27 is to be specially noted. It is spoken to the “little children”,
[p. 230] and it is most applicable in the present day. The danger for the little children was the spirit of antichrist. There was great danger from antichristian influences. They had heard that antichrist was to come, but already there were many antichrists; the persons are in view. Their existence proved it was the “last hour”.
Ques What form would that take today?
JT I think it is found very much in the schools, and especially in the high schools, where much dangerous error is taught. The young are confronted by men of learning; their fame affects the young minds peculiarly. They are compelled to read their books and hear lectures by them. The result is that men begin to acquire a great place in their minds. It is a source of great danger to young brothers and sisters. It paves the way for the reception of antichristian principles of which the schools are full. John says, “Even now there have come many antichrists, whence we know that it is the last hour”. The young people are thus reminded that they have to do with antichrist, with men in that character. This is what is going on now. Let us be warned about it. Then what follows is very solemn — “They went out from among us”. They had gone out from christianity. They were apostates.
Rem Our safeguard then would be to move on in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.
JT Yes. Then the apostle adds, “And ye have the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things”. This implies an area within which we should move and in which we are safe, and in which we have no need that any man should teach us. We are rendered independent by the unction. It is not only that they teach error, but we do not need what is outside the Spirit. Young christians do well to note this, for the influence that men of the world have over the young is very great.
Then we have the denial of Jesus as the Christ. This is peculiarly the Jewish attitude. John was an apostle [p. 231] of the circumcision, and there are certain Jewish touches in his writings. It was the form of Jewish denial, but nevertheless forms part of our instruction for today. There is persistent opposition to Christ personally, but he who has not the Son has not the Father. There are those who pretend to own the Father but deny the deity of the Son; the antichrist denies the Father and the Son. He has not yet come.
The contention of the antichrist spirit of today is on the lines of development, of evolution. But what is insisted on here is what was from the beginning. The young greatly need the care of the old. The influences of the schools and offices are most deadly.
Ques Is to know Him that is from the beginning a greater thought than to know the Father?
JT It is, in the sense that implies more experience and growth. The knowledge of the Father is a question of revelation. The result is that we say, “Abba, Father”; hence the “little children”, “have known the Father”. Your child could call you father, but yet know nothing of you as you were from the beginning of your history. The one is based on relationship, the other on experience. Of course we grow in the knowledge of the Father too, but we begin by the knowledge of the Father as in the relation of sons — known by the Spirit. The recent convert says, “Abba, Father”. He is in the family; but he does not know Him that is from the beginning. This is not a question of Christ’s eternal existence, but involves that we are able to know what is knowable, that which came out in Him as Man; although what He is divinely gives character to all; and the true believer ever keeps this in view.
The youngest christian has the unction. It involves the presence of the Holy Spirit here. Thus they did not need anyone to teach them, that is, no man as such, man as we hear about him in the schools. The unction here refers to intelligence; it makes even the youngest [p. 232] independent of these men. What the little children have exceeds all the knowledge of this world. The elder brethren should see to it that the younger ones are warned against antichristian principles coming out in men.