BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 12TH, 1932
BROOKLYN, N.Y., DECEMBER 12TH, 1932
Beloved Brother, — I am still interested much in your enquiries and shall gladly lend all the help I can in answering your letter of the 9th ult. I have been in the West, attending special meetings, or I should have written earlier.
As regards unholy marriages, as you say, each has to be [p. 375] viewed by itself. If a brother or sister is warned and in spite of this contracts marriage with an unconverted person, I have no hesitation in saying that she disqualifies herself for Christian fellowship and should be excluded from it. While “unbelievers” in 2 Corinthians 6: 14 refers immediately to persons who made no profession of Christianity, the force of the word within the sphere of profession would be the absence of faith and what accompanies this.
Marrying a person known to be a believer, but not recognising fellowship is different, of course, but under certain circumstances not very different. If the person has had the light presented to him and persistently refuses it, such a union could not be “in the Lord”, and so would call for discipline. The discipline might bring out a state of rebellion which could be met only by withdrawal. There is always an underlying condition in such cases and the Lord will expose this if the saints are faithful in dealing with them. One faithful step after another, as seen in Matthew 18, leads to a result according to God.
As to John 18: 16, of course Scripture does not say “the other disciple” was John himself, nor does it say definitely that he wrote the gospel; but internal evidence in the gospel indicates both, especially the latter. If chapter 18: 16 said, ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, the evidence that it was John would be the same as chapter 21: 24 affords as to his authority of the gospel.
What is to be specially noted is that “the other disciple” followed Jesus with Peter (verse 15); besides the article (’the’ ) points to a particular or known disciple and this is in view in John’s references to himself throughout the gospel. Although Judas is mentioned in chapter 18 it is as betrayer, and it is utterly unlikely that the Spirit of God would call him here ‘that other disciple’ or say that he followed Jesus with Peter. The omission of the Lord’s love for “the other disciple” in this passage corresponds somewhat with chapter 21: 2, where he is just one of Zebedee’s sons. The connections in both instances did not admit of the mention of this love, whereas, it is mentioned in connection with John discerning the Lord (chapter 21: 7).
I hope above remarks will be of service to you. With love in Christ to you and your house and to the brethren, I am,
Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.