CHILDREN OF GOD (1)
[p. 229] CHILDREN OF GOD (1)
John 1:11 - 13; John 11:49 - 52
JT What John had in mind in writing this gospel was to connect the thought of the “children of God” with the dispensation generally in its inauguration. In Acts the dispensation is inaugurated in connection with the Spirit. In both it is said to have been inaugurated by Christ. According to what John says in chapter 3, the Father “has given all things to be in his hand”(John 3:35); so that John would show that the Lord had in mind at the beginning of the dispensation the thought of a family, and that in view of the last days the children of God which are scattered abroad should be gathered together into one. In John 1 we have the idea of ‘right’ attached to us, the “right to be children of God”. We shall see in John’s epistle that our position as children is connected with the love of God, the Father’s love; but here what is stressed is the right to be children of God, a very solemn word as to our position in the family. Our position cannot be questioned, it is established on a right appointed to us by Christ. The characteristics of children confirm that we are children, but here the right is the great point.
JF In this chapter we get a kind of beginning as to receiving Him on the one hand, and then as to being born of God on the other. Do you think a few remarks on that line might be helpful?
JT The matter is introduced here not only on the line of repentance or new birth, but “as many as received him”. That is what I thought we should take up, looking at each of the items here in order to get the great bearing of our position as children. It is said, “He came to his own, and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave [p. 230] he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name”. This is the great thought of God that is to govern the whole dispensation.
CT In Matthew 10 it speaks of power. Is that connected with the thought of right?
JT It is a question of right or authority as compared with power. It cannot be questioned.
EGMcA Is this to be confirmatory to us?
JT It is to stabilise the position of the family. It is a most important matter that the position began with a family status, and that is to be stabilised; just as one who washes his robes has “right to the tree of life” and goes in “by the gates into the city”. Revelation 22:14.
EGMcA Does that offset this statement that “He came to his own, and his own received him not”(verse 11)?
JT So that it was a wide thought that all who should read this gospel in this late day should be assured of the family status. It is very important as over against the principle of Christendom all around.
HH What is of God in the family is preserved all through.
JT The mere profession of Christianity is worthless, save as what we have in these verses is entered into, the personal right of those who receive Christ to be children, meaning children in a dignified sense. We belong to the family by divine right, for Christ has secured it to us. There are evidences of our being born of God: “To those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God” (verse 12).
JF Does this being ‘born’ refer to new birth?
JT Here it is born “of God”. Chapter 3 touches new birth but it does not go so far as this. Here we are born of God, it is full Christian status. I think if we get the dispensational thought into our minds first, then the matter will be clearer to us, how the [p. 231] dispensation is set up in the family, the family of God; and how we become children, not sons here, but children of God. It is the seed which is to be called. Those that are born after the flesh are not the children of God; it is the persons that are born of God. Here Christ is securing this right for us. The family thought runs right through this gospel.
HH It is going through at the present day, is it not?
JT That is why I read chapter 11 which helps as showing that the scattered children are to be gathered.
EGMcA Do you mean that this gives us a generation that has an indisputable right to consider themselves children of God, distinguished from anything else in the world? We belong to the family by right and it is a company who believes on His name; that is, Christ has become a definite Object of faith.
JT The use of the preposition ‘on’ here means ‘all that own His name’. We are born, not of flesh, but of God; so that all mere outward profession is set aside.
CT Would you say the right is not given to me until there is a move on my part?
JT The question is now whether we are willing to receive Christ; do not forget there are those who do not. It is a question of definitely receiving Him into our minds.
JK It is not only those who receive Him, but that they believe on His name.
JT It is having a definite object for your faith; then we believe on His name.
ABMcC It there a distinction made between receiving Him and believing on His name as progressive thoughts in our souls?
JT Yes; I think ‘His name’ here alludes to the thought of Him as in heaven, but His name is cherished here. The opposers would say, “When will he die, and his name perish?” Psalm 41:5. The genuine members of the family cherish His name; it will not die in their eyes.
CT What is the thought of believing “on his name”? It says elsewhere that we might have life “in his name”.
JT The ‘name’ here corresponds with the place above; it is what He has acquired through His work as John presents it to us.
PW Would being “born ... of God” be the position of even the youngest believer in the Lord Jesus?
JT The youngest believer is said to be “born again”, but “born ... of God” is that I become developed in the knowledge of God so as to be marked by divine characteristics. As you believe on His name you receive Christ; you believe on His name; you are born of God; not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God. That is the statement here.
ABMcC Is this matter of receiving Him in the light of the presentation of Him in the opening of the chapter?
JT Just so, over against those who did not, those who refused Him; that is the Jews. So that this is a world-wide thought establishing Christianity as genuine through men being born of God. This was written long after Christianity had been inaugurated, so that it is intended to establish the matter on family lines.
PG Would you say that there are those who would not take advantage of that right?
JT That is the point in our reading, that we might be established on the principle of right.
JF The Jews here were seeking to maintain their right as children of Abraham. The Lord had to tell them that they were of their father the devil.
JT Paul’s statement in Romans 9 helps as to what is maintained in the seed. It says, verse 6, “Not however as though the word of God had failed; for not all are Israel which are of Israel; nor because they are seed of Abraham are all children: but, In Isaac shall a seed be called to thee. That is, they that are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned as seed. For this word is of promise, According to this time I will come, and there shall be a son to Sarah. And not only that, but Rebecca having conceived by one, Isaac our father, the children indeed being not yet born, or having done anything good or worthless (that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not of works, but of him that calls), it was said to her. The greater shall serve the less: according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau”(Romans 9:6 - 13). So that this is a very solemn matter at the present time. The seed of Esau is said to be hated. God is saying that about mere profession now, “I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau”.
HH Profanity comes in on that side at the present time; things are held in a very profane way with many. Esau was Jacob’s twin brother and yet God says, I have hated him. Esau was a profane man with no spiritual touch in his soul.
JT That brings the matter out very solemnly; you are hated or you are loved. It is a terrible thought that will come out some day that one may be hated of God! Esau despised his birthright. Some day those who continue on that line will be hated; they are already hated really. So that I think we shall get help if we see the bearing of this as coming out after Christianity had been established in the world, that from God’s point of view the persons believing on His name have family status as children of God.
[p. 234] Rem This right, if entered into, will show on my part a public expression of the work of God. One born of God will be seen exercising this right as having entered into it.
JT Well, that is it. You value the presentation in the opening up of the gospel; God gives you a right to be one of His children.
EGMcA What dignity the children have in being the children of God, because of the One who gave them the right, shown in the presentation of Christ in the first part of this chapter!
JT I think that is right, according to what is said later, “The Father loves the Son”. Who is doing this? He is no less than God. He is securing for believers who own His name the right to take the place of children of God. It is a very very important matter for young people to take up this right, because it is the Lord Himself that is doing it. All that is said of Him earlier (because this passage is just introductory, a few words of the great position of Christianity) brings out how the Lord Jesus has given this right to believers on His name.
Rem The Lord asked the man in John 9, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?”
JT This is just a preliminary statement which is to be opened up in the remainder of this gospel.
CT All I have to do is to accept this right. Is that the thought?
JT It is a question of receiving Christ as presented in the gospel, and to him that receives Him He gives this title, the right to take the place of children.
Rem The way He is received seems to be linked with the way He came.
EGMcA Do I understand that the receiving of Christ in this way is receiving Jesus as my Saviour so that the character of children of God comes [p. 235] out?
JT Luke spoke about the time of His receiving up; he begins this thought in chapter 9 of his gospel: He was received up in glory, that is heaven’s estimate of Him. Those to whom He came refused Him, they were not in accord with heaven; then there were others who were receiving Him. John’s gospel was written later.
ABMcC Would you say that the place of superiority had been with the Jews?
JT The Jews refusing Him, the gentiles came in because they received Him. The Jews put themselves out and the gentiles came in because of this.
JK I like what you say in regard to receiving Him. It is not merely the matter of receiving the Lord but it is a question of holding Him as an Object so that we are governed by it.
JT Receiving involves some action on my part; there is some definite action on my part in receiving Him. Martha received Him into her house but she criticised Him as soon as He was there. Well, that is not what is in mind here. There was nothing about her then that marked her as one of the children of God. She criticised both the Lord and her own sister.
Rem In the last verse of John 17:26 it says, “That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”.
JT That is pretty much confirmatory; He has a place in our hearts. “I in them” would be that.
Ques Would it go further?
JT It is definite. Long after the dispensation was inaugurated at Pentecost the apostle is seeking to bring out that it was inaugurated on family lines. It is a question as to whether we are going to take what is available; there is great dignity afforded to us because we [p. 236] receive Christ.
EGMcA The receiving of Christ in this way impresses the idea of an immediate result in me as corresponding to that dignity, to that relationship.
JT Quite so. And it implies some movement on our part. It is not simply that you assent to what someone says to you about being the Lord’s. In Lydia’s case the Lord opened her heart to attend to the things spoken by Paul; she received Christ into her heart and then she opened her house. She did not criticise Him as Martha did. Paul says to the Corinthians, “Receive us: we have injured no one, we have ruined no one, we have made gain of no one”, 2 Corinthians 7:2. You are doing something that shows that the Lord has a place with you.
Ques Would you say a word about the right to take that place? If we do we shall be supported in it.
JT The other side is inauguratory and would bring out the state; it is the Spirit that is emphasised in Acts 2, but here it is a question of the right given in the inauguration; John is saying that in this inauguration Christ gave them the right to take this place. Then you would see the place the family has in the inauguration. We have the right to take the place of children of God, the very highest place as you might say, and this requires that they have not only the right but the characteristics; they are born of God. This term “children of God” is unique; it applies to saints of this dispensation. It is a very distinct word applying to all real Christians. It would not apply to angels; they have their own place. Paul refers to every family in the heavens or on the earth and this is a unique family. It is Christ who gives the right.
EGMcA Does Paul touch this in Ephesians 5:1, “Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children”?
JT What one is seeking is that we might get into our souls the magnitude of the dispensation;
[p. 237] the scattered children of God are to be gathered into one; Christ died for that purpose, that they should be gathered into one.
EGMcA “Into one”, is that the family?
JT That is the idea, that there is nothing incongruous between us, we are of the same nature, as it were.
CT Does the thought of ‘family’ bring in the thought of nearness?
JT What is in mind now is that everyone should lay hold of the fact that he has a “right”. It is a definite right given by Christ to those that believe on His name and that name eclipses all other names. The name of Christ is to eclipse every other name in our minds. We are among those who believe on His name; it is a definite matter as an object of faith represented in the expression, “his name”; it is a glory that is acquired through redemption.
HH That sets out the thought of a characteristic believer, something distinguished in each one.
JT It is how we talk of the Lord Jesus and speak to one another and to men about Him, what place He has in the witness of His name.
HH It stands out against all the reproach; the support of the Spirit is with the children of God, so that what you say is important. It brings in the thought of the Bridegroom.
JT If you are speaking about that name all others are eclipsed; their names are of no value at all. The word in Revelation 11:13 says, “And seven thousand names of men were slain in the earthquake”.
HH It is interesting that at the end of Revelation 11 the ark is seen. This line of things goes through.
JT Quite so. It is said that when the ark was put into the house that Solomon built there was nothing in it save the tables of the covenant that [p. 238] Moses put there. That is the bride’s thought of Christ in His power. He is seen and the ark is seen in Revelation 11; seven thousand names of men are slain but Christ remains seen in heaven.
HH It emphasises the importance of receiving Him and all that is true of Him, all that His name covers.
JT What is going on today is that great persons are distinguishing themselves, whereas the children of God are marked by definite believing on the name of Christ as an object of faith.
EGMcA Mr. Darby’s footnote in 2 Timothy 1:12 would include confidence in the believing: “I know whom I have believed”, Paul says.
JT We were talking about the seven thousand names of great men. So many things are being done now that history would be full of names that are intended by the devil to appeal to the young; whereas the children of God are occupied with one name. To believe on that is a faith matter.
EGMcA Chapter 11 speaks of Jesus dying “for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad”.
JT It says in verse 47, “The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man does many signs. If we let him thus alone, all will believe on him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation”. Well, that is the idea. The devil is against believing on Him: “All will believe on him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation”. There is a great deal of that going on now, nations being taken away; that is what they were afraid of and it happened. So it goes on, “But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, Ye know nothing nor consider that it is profitable for you that one man [p. 239] die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish. But this he did not say of himself; but, being high priest that year, prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (verses 49 - 52). I think that last clause is from the Spirit of God; that is what the Spirit had in mind. Of course today the scattering is very extensive, and as we carry the thought of the death of Christ in our hearts let us remember that His thought was to gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
EGMcA Would you think that that part was spoken by the Spirit of God, not by Caiaphas?
JT I think so. He had said before, “Ye know nothing nor consider that it is profitable for you that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation perish. But this he did not say of himself; but, being high priest that year, prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation”. I think that latter is the Spirit adding to what he said.
HH God provided every word in the mouth of Balaam and the people were blessed; “He hath blessed, and I cannot reverse it”(Numbers 23:20), he said. His words were in line with God’s thoughts of His people.
JT Yes. I think it ought to affect us concerning our brethren who are children of God scattered abroad, that the death of Christ involves their being brought together into one. The high priest would hardly have in mind the idea of the children of God; he would have in mind the nation of Israel, that Christ should die for that nation.
Ques Is that why the thought of the nation is brought in in connection with the family thought here?
JT It is brought in in the mouth of the high priest and I think the Spirit pursues the thought in verse 52, “But that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad”. It looks as though the Spirit of God would put these last words into the mouth of the high priest, but it is the Spirit saying it.
JF It is remarkable that the Jews understood that if all believed on Christ it would undermine their nation.
JT They were just beginning to realise what we have all around us now; and we know that that nation has been taken away, as the high priest said, that the Romans would come and take away both their place and nation. That is exactly what they did. But Caiaphas was able to prophesy that Christ would die for the nation; then going beyond his words the Spirit says it is that the children of God should be gathered into one.
HH I remember a remark being made that what would help in our local difficulties would be for one brother to die for the meeting.
JT How much is in mind when you think of God speaking by a man like Caiaphas — how God can use men who are not really converted at all to convey His mind! It ought to assure us as to what God can do; how He came in here to meet a crisis, because Christ was hated of the chief priests. “What do we? ... . If we let him thus alone, all will believe on him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation”. They did not suggest that the Lord Jesus had power to save their nation. Jesus was going to die for the nation; the Spirit of God gives the interpretation of what the high priest said. Caiaphas meant that it is better that Jesus should die than that the Romans should come and take away their place and nation; but it is a question of the children of God, that is the whole point. The matter of Israel as a nation is left; that will come in later. God put this into the mind of the [p. 241] high priest. It is remarkable how much there is in scripture of God’s dealing with men in this way. In regard to Abimelech(Genesis 20:6,7), God says to him, as it were, I know your integrity but, you know, this man is a prophet that you are dealing with. God can operate in men who are in authority in favour of His people. “The children of God”, that is the word for us now.
JF That is the condition now, that the children of God are scattered. We need to look around and see if there are the characteristics of such.
CJ There is so much scattering! But the provision that they should be gathered into one is the death of Christ; He died for that purpose.
JF So that the Lord said, “I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me”, John 12:32.
JT It brings out the different phases of the death of Christ; this is one of the phases, to gather together the children of God; there are many more but that is one great phase.
CT It does touch our hearts to see His great power that those who are scattered are being gathered.
JT What a great family they are, and what a sorrowful thought is their being scattered abroad!
ABMcC What is the force of the word ‘one’?
JT One nature. We have a similar word in chapter 12 when the Greeks came up, “But Jesus answered them saying, The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit”(John 12:23,24). Paul says to the Hebrews, “He that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one” (Hebrews 2:11); it is the same idea.
EGMcA How does that passage in John 17:22,23 fit in, “And the glory which thou hast given me I have [p. 242] given them, that they may be one, as we are one; I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one”?
JT One in nature, in affection, and there is nothing to cause division among us; bound into one, meaning of the same nature according to God.