FORMATION OF THE FAMILY OF GOD
[p. 56] FORMATION OF THE FAMILY OF GOD
There are many peculiarities about this gospel that might he spoken of with profit but I want now to confine myself mainly to that feature of it that suggests the formation of the family of God. That we, as believers in Christ have part in the divine family, is one of the most precious facts involved in our position here. I am not speaking of the place we shall have in the future, for then we shall be one family among other families, as we read in Ephesians. Speaking of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the apostle says “of whom every family in the heavens and on the earth is named”. (3: 15) Thus we learn that there shall be many families and that we shall have our place as a family amongst others. I do not intend to speak of that, but of the place that we have now whilst here on earth, as John says, Jesus, “having loved his own who were in the world ... loved them to the end”. This gospel takes account of the saints as here in the world as to our outward position, and it shows how we have this place with God as a family, and that the Lord Jesus is, so to say, Head. He is our Head.
Now I read the passage in chapter 11, in order to show how He, when here, could love a family, not exactly that which was His own, or of which He was Head, but that He could love and did love a family, for although Martha’s, Mary’s and Lazarus’ parents had evidently passed away, the family affections remained; not parental affections or filial affections, but the affections that belong properly to brothers and sisters. The circle at Bethany was evidently a parentless one: a family without parents. No greater calamity can befall a family than that it [p. 57] should be deprived of the parents, and so this family at Bethany afforded an opportunity to Christ to show His affection, and how He could make up for the loss that existed. Luke records, that in the house at Emmaus the Lord took the place of Head; in the margin of our better translation you have the expression ‘House father’. He took that place. He could very readily have disclosed Himself to the two as they journeyed on the way, He could have told them, but He did not: He had other thoughts: He caused their heart to burn on the way, but He waited till the meal was set in order that He should have the opportunity of disclosing Himself in this peculiar function; that is, the function of Head. Now I believe that at the present time that is where Christians are most defective. We are most defective, I believe in the apprehension of Christ as Head, and so He would seize every opportunity to bring Himself before us in that light, for a headless family is obviously not the divine thought. The divine thought is that families should have heads, all working up to the great divine idea that Christ should be Head, and that is the lesson to be read in every household. Adam is said to be “the figure of him that was to come”, (Romans 5:14) and Adam was head but he made a very poor showing, I need not say, in the exercise of his function, and Eve fell in the non-recognition of it. Had she observed the place that God had given to her husband in regard to herself, she would never have listened to the tempter, she would have replied to Satan ‘Adam is my head, I am to get my instructions from him’, but instead of this she listened to the tempter, and so, beloved brethren, Christians generally are exposed to the tempter because of the non-recognition and non-understanding of the headship of Christ.
Now you will recall how Genesis 3 and 4 are both marked by the disaster that flowed from Eve’s [p. 58] disregard of the divine function placed in Adam; she figures in chapter 4, she names the children, and it is one disaster after another: a man, the progeny departing farther and farther away from God, until at the end Seth has a child born to him, and he called his name Enosh; that is, he comes to recognise that the offspring is of a poor failing, dying creature: he accepts the judgment and so it says, “men began to call on the name of the Lord”. There is recovery there: recovery brings back to the thought of headship and so in the next chapter Adam and Eve are formally taken account of; God called their name Adam. God graciously takes into account recovery, and recovery to His original thought. He had never forgotten the principle of headship and He called their name Adam and so in the line of Seth, from the one who is recovered to headship, we have the line of life, and dear brethren, John is the life-line. In Genesis 5 the life-line is seen; in it all die except one, and the exception, beloved brethren, establishes the line of life. One man in that chapter is pleasing to God, and mark you, the pleasure came in when he began to have a family; he begat a son; he became a parent, and from that moment he walked with God for 300 years. Depend upon it, walking with God, as he was a head of his family, he brought the influence of God into his household, and it was said of him, “he was not, for God took him”; God took him! It says in Hebrews “for before his translation he had the testimony that he had pleased God”, (Hebrews 11: 5) he walked with God. It does not simply say that God walked with him, not but that God did help him in regard to his affairs, but Enoch walked with God. That is the point for the present time. It fits in with John.
I think that chapter 5 places before us the opposite of what the apostle intends to present to us in that [p. 59] regard; that is, the pool of Bethesda. The pool is a stagnant water which is the opposite to what John would present to us. You have meetings, that are only moved as an angel comes, so to say, and such a meeting as that is not in life. John would bring about life. “These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”. (John 20:31) A meeting of Christians in the light and good of John’s ministry is not like the pool of Bethesda. The principle of the pool of Bethesda was that an angel came down at a period and it required some power to get the benefit, the poor man was moved, but he had no power, no energy, hence the pool of Bethesda is not the principle of John. The principle of John is rather running water, living water. He brings in living water in chapter 4, it becomes in the believer a fountain; that is, it moves of itself, it is the Holy Spirit. Do not wait for external influences; there are such and of the best kind, but the principle of John is what is internal: he presents to us the truth of the Holy Spirit as a self-acting power in the heart. Let us learn to wait, in the exercises of our soul, for the movement of the Holy Spirit; and I ask you, Are you ever conscious of the movements of the Holy Spirit? John says, “it shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into eternal life”. (John 4:14) Do we realise that the Holy Spirit is verily in us. If we do not, let us wait before God about it. As the apostle says, prove your own selves, see if Christ is in you. It is well to do that; that one should prove in one’s own soul the reality and the presence of this self-acting power, the fountain of water, the power of living water springing up into eternal life, and then, as you have it in chapter 7, there are rivers flowing out for the benefit of others. These are suggestions as to what John presents to us; as I was remarking John speaks of [p. 60] movement. The spring is the Holy Spirit. You are to move, that is the fundamental principle of Christianity, viewed as a living order of things down here, and I again repeat that everyone of us should find out, in his own soul, whether he has this self-acting power, and if you have not realised it, I would seek to urge you to turn to God about it. It should be acting in you, that is the divine thought.
I have thought of Caleb’s daughter, she asks her father to give her springs of water, and he gave her the upper springs and the nether springs, and I would especially commend to you the nether springs, the Spirit of God in the Christian acting of Himself in your affections so that they might spring up, and move towards God. In chapter 4 they spring up, in chapter 7, they flow out. The Holy Spirit gathers the affections of the believer and fixes them on Christ in heaven, but then, as I was remarking you have to move. I have to move. You find in this gospel, as the Lord comes into touch with souls, and as they come into touch with Him, each one is moved. Now to give you a well-known passage in chapter 1, John stood. It was on the morrow, he had been working, but the Lord comes to him, and he says, “He it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit”. Now John stands, as if to say ‘the one who baptises with the Holy Spirit is on the scene, my work is done’ and now he stands and looks at Jesus as He walked. What movement! What a walk that was! Enoch walked with God, but here is the walk of the Lamb. Think of the intelligence, of the affection, of the purpose and devotedness, think of all that entered into those holy steps of Christ, the Lamb of God. John saw that: the two that stood by apparently did not see it, but they heard him, they heard what John had to say. How important it is to listen. And they followed Jesus. They heard [p. 61] John speak, and they followed Jesus; there was movement after Christ. The Lord says, as if to test what you have in your heart, in your movements, “Whom seek ye”. They say, “Rabbi (Teacher), where abidest thou”, and He answers, “Come and see”. The principle is movement throughout, it is not a fixed state of things that John is presenting. The saints whilst down here are to be in the movement or energy of life, so He says, “Come and see”, and they came and saw where He dwelt and dwelt with Him that day, and they began to move. Andrew finds Peter his brother, Philip finds Nathaniel, and in each case there is movement. Nathaniel is dubious about the Lord, and asks, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth” and Philip replies, “Come and see”. You have to move, the principle is movement. And now the Lord seeing Nathaniel coming to Him says, “Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile”, and Nathaniel says to Him, “Whence knowest thou me”? and the Lord answered, “before Philip called thee, when under the fig tree, I saw thee”. He replies, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”. What results if we are prepared for our opportunities, and the opportunities are here in our midst.
I have been thinking today of the word the Lord uses, “say not lo here or lo there, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you”. (Luke 17:21) It is a mistake to be looking for something special: the thing is to use what is available and what is available is the kingdom of God, and it is in you if you have the Holy Spirit. So the Lord says to Nathaniel, “Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou. Thou shalt see greater things than these, henceforth ye shall see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”. What encouragement there is! There is no end to what He presents. Henceforth: the Lord holds [p. 62] out before us a vista of glory! Thou shalt see greater things than these, and so right on. Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night and says to Him, “Thou art come a Teacher from God”. (John 3:2)_ He recognises Jesus come from God and so too the woman, as I have remarked, as the Lord spoke to her, she left her waterpot and went away into the city and the reason why she left her waterpot is remarkable instruction. We might say she might conveniently fill it and take it back with her. There is a spiritual significance: she acts in accord with the light the Lord had presented to her. She went back to the city and says to the men “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done, is not this the Christ”. (John 4:29) Again there is movement: she moved and urged them to move and they moved. It says they came to the Lord and they said, “Now we believe ourselves”. Throughout you have this principle of movement, not the energy of the flesh, but the movement that is the result of the work of God by the Holy Spirit in the souls of His people.
Now coming to the family, the Lord shows in chapter 2, that He can have sympathy in what we might call a family affair, a marriage. He has His disciples there. It says He was invited and His disciples. He can be there and He is there in connection with His own family. Evidently the Lord had a place in this circle, so His disciples were invited and the result was that He became pre-eminent in the scene and His disciples believed on Him. He had in view the formation of His own disciples and the result, as I said, was He manifested forth His glory and His disciples believed on Him. So they became as one may say the Lord’s portion. I do not stretch the scripture when I say that He calls them children, and to my mind this is a precious thought. We belong to the household of Christ. We are His household, but He shows in regard to other households [p. 63] how He can love them, and is it not an encouraging thought for those of us who have households, who are heads of households, that He can love them? He can love a family, He has a peculiar delight in a family that is rightly ordered. Where the parents are in the affections of His own relation to the assembly and where the children are brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. He delights in a family like that. He never takes it as His family, it is always yours, and so in the circle at Bethany, He loves the household. You may ask, Why do you say so? Because it says He loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus. It does not say He loved Mary, Martha, and Lazarus: He loved Martha, she was the owner of the house. I see in that the Lord graciously recognising her as the parents were not there. Now the Lord loved her, and her sister, and Lazarus; Mark says He loved her sister. He can love a household. But then it is all to lead us over to the side of His household, that we might have part in that, and so in chapter 11, Caiaphas being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation and then John the evangelist adds, and not for that nation only: he had in mind the family of God, he had in mind that the children of God should be gathered into one.
I want to call particular attention to the place that part of the truth holds in chapter 11. The evangelist adds immediately “and not for that nation only, but that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad”. Let us beware of national feelings; “not for that nation only”. The principle of Christianity is that the children of God everywhere should be gathered. The house of God is a universal thought, not a national or international, it is universal, it embraces all the children of God and the Lord did [p. 64] not only die for that nation, but that He might gather together into one; it is a remarkable expression, “the children of God scattered abroad”. In chapter 13, the Lord, as I apprehend it, is acting as the Head of His family, having loved his own. Beautiful thought! Could anything in a way express His care more than that for “His own”. You have an expression in Acts 20:28, very similar in regard to God’s affection for Christ; “the blood of his own”, without saying who “His own” is. Jesus loved His own. Think of being amongst those whom He so regards! And then it adds, having loved His own who were in the world, for He takes account of us in that position, He loved them to the end. I am convinced that the Lord at the present time which is the end, as one may say, is bringing about family affections and I believe the Supper with all that is contingent upon it is the centre of those affections. It is not mentioned here in this chapter, but it was instituted at the same time, the same night of which this chapter reads. This chapter gives us more of what was going on in the Lord’s heart than any of the other evangelists, and above all this expression that He loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. Then He expresses that love in the service that follows. I do not dwell on that. I am concerned only to show how He brings about family affections. He serves them, and then He says, “if I therefore the Lord and Teacher have washed your feet ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”. You are to be without a head as regards your outward position in this world, but in spite of that you are to have the principle of mutuality amongst you: you are to wash one another’s feet. It is not Peter should wash John’s feet, or John, Peter’s, they were to wash one another’s feet. It would be mutual. Do you understand there are mutual obligations in the [p. 65] household circle, and that no one is immune from them. These obligations rest on every member of the household, “one another’s feet”. He addresses them by His parental expression of children, and it is an expression on the part of the Lord that is taken little notice of. But it is only one who is in the position of a parent literally, or in a moral sense, who can employ such an expression, and so He says here in chapter 13:33, “Children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me ... ... I say to you also now”. This intimates clearly that He was to be elsewhere and they were to be left by themselves.
I am not ignoring what is said in chapter 14, that He would come to them, but this passage intimates plainly that they should be in circumstances and He should not be with them, “as I said to the Jews, Where I go ye cannot come, I say to you also now”. Now what? “A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another as I have loved you”. That is how it reads. His commandment takes the place of Himself. Do you understand? How the commandment tests us! We are here, and He is there, but the commandment is here, and it is a new one. In other words, it is one that has special reference to the family circle. It is a commandment that implies mutual obligations; that is the best expression I know for the passage, it is not only mutuality, it is mutual obligations and I would press obligations. There is no Christian immune from obligations, and let us be on our guard against assuming to be a body of believers, to be a family apart from all the children of God, it is false and not according to the mind of God. One would say to any believer, whatever his position, ‘You have obligations, the same obligations as I have. The new commandment is for you as it is for me, and His commandment is, that we love one another as Christ has loved us’. That is the essence of family affections, feelings or sentiments. We learn from our Head to love. That ye love one another as I have loved you. And, how did He love them? You say the Supper tells us. He loved them in adverse circumstances: that is how He loved them. He never had any other kind of circumstances, as one might say, but adverse ones. At the institution of the Supper, He had to say, the hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me at the table, and that did not alter it. What circumstances! Hence He says, “as I have loved you”. Dear brethren, it was love in adverse circumstances, it must be, for there are no other as regards our outward position. We cannot allow for any other, they are the very things that bring out the love of Christ in us. A brother is born for adversity. Christ came into the world for those in adversity, and He has taught us how to love in adversity, and the thing is to learn from our Head: we love one another as He loved us. And then He adds, “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”, that you are of the stock of God’s children. How testing it is as to what we have! As I remarked elsewhere, the Lord says, “Have ye here any meat?” (John 21:5) I would change the expression and say, Have you here any love, brethren? It is a question of what we have in our locality, amongst ourselves. Have you got it? All the love of God in Christ and the love of God is in Christ, but it is to be in our hearts, it is shed abroad there by the Holy Spirit, and God looks that it should work out in us. What He proposes objectively is worked out in the way of fruit. It is so in material things, and it is certainly so in spiritual things. They are presented objectively in Christ, but have you it among yourselves, and is it the kind of love that God has expressed to us, the love in adversity. The Lord would have us to show [p. 67] it in loving one another. The testimony is that we are His disciples in that we have this love. We are in that way a family giving a very real testimony to our Head who has taught us how to love, love in adversity.
May the Lord bless the word, and may the thought of a family be impressed upon us, that we are the family of God, and that the Lord is Head.
Pages 68 - 116 - “Spiritual Movement”, Belfast, November, 1919 (Volume 45).