THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST
[p. 183] THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST
1 John 2: 18 - 27; 1 John 4: 1 - 6; 2 John 7
JT These scriptures treat of what is against Christ in such intensity as to be named antichrist, a term that is not very often used in Scripture; only, indeed, in John’s epistles, bearing on the character of the opposition as against christianity founded in the revelation of God in Christ — the Father and the Son. There were many antichrists, as John says here, “Even now there have come many antichrists” (verse 18), which would show that the opposition was widespread; and then it was intimated that the special character of the opposition was the denial of Jesus Christ come in flesh. Ultimately, however, the antichrist, as remarked, denies the Father and the Son; that is, he denies christianity.
Then we have the power of antichrist in chapter 4. It is a question of the kind of spirit that had to be discerned; “And this is that power of the antichrist, of which ye have heard that it comes, and now it is already in the world” (verse 3). Then again there is deception, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh — this is the deceiver and the antichrist”, 2 John 7. I thought it would be helpful to all of us to scan this section of Scripture and to see how the evil spoken of is to be met by the unction, as stated, “And ye have the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things” (1 John 2: 20), meaning that we are capable of meeting all this opposition and deception as having the Spirit.
ARS The unction from the Holy One would enable us to detect the false teaching of the antichrist.
JT Yes; not only his words but the spirit of antichrist which is operating. Chapter 4 expressly [p. 184] stresses the side of the spirit that we are to “believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; and every spirit which does not confess Jesus Christ come in flesh is not of God: and this is that power of the antichrist, of which ye have heard that it comes, and now it is already in the world” (verses 1 - 4). The idea of a supreme God is more or less prevalent, even in heathendom. In the time of the French Revolution whilst christianity was being abandoned, certain ones held to the idea of the supreme God, ignoring Christ; and it is current, too — a distinction being made between the God of christianity and what is regarded as God by certain ones who would set christianity aside. So that in this epistle stress is laid on “Jesus Christ come in flesh”. That is, christianity being expressed in a Person: “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life”, chapter 1: 1. That is, christianity necessitates humanity — flesh — whether in Christ or in us; so that which is true in Him from the beginning becomes true in us. That is the real testimony against this spirit of antichrist who denies Jesus Christ come in flesh.
CAM Do you think an effort of Satan is to impersonalise man’s apprehension of God through some kind of a notion, so that we should not have the Person at all?
JT Yes; you would not have a tangible Person, so to speak; a Person that could be heard and seen and handled. And that must apply not only to Christ, but to ourselves as expressive of the truth of christianity.
We have the personal idea from the outset. God [p. 185] appeared to one and another, taking on personal form; not only a voice, but a form that would be recognised: “the form of Jehovah” (Numbers 12: 8), for instance; which would not mean in His abstract form, but that in which He showed Himself to men. So that we have the three men that came to Abraham and other such appearings; whether angels, or Jehovah Himself, it was the idea of personal form. Moses was to see it, and on the mount they saw the God of Israel and ate and drank. He appeared in some personal form, the forecasting of what was coming; that is, the incarnation, which was real form taken in manhood, which is the basis of everything. And that is what the spirit of antichrist and antichrist himself will seek to deny. There were many in the apostle’s days, and the opposition had taken a feature from christianity, as indicated in Paul’s statement that the “mystery of lawlessness already works”, 2 Thessalonians 2: 7.
ANW I suppose that explains why John, in setting out the preface of this letter, speaks of what they had seen and handled and heard, substantially.
JT That is what I thought. The epistle speaks of what was from the beginning and of what is true in Him and in us; the old commandment and the new commandment. The first is what was true in Christ, or the reality of the incarnation; “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life”, chapter 1: 1. And in his gospel John says, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1: 14. All that is not the form of God, of course; but it is that which was seen substantially in Christ and is brought into christianity by the Spirit in believers.
The warning as to the antichrists is addressed to the little children as compared with the fathers and the [p. 186] young men; it is especially directed to the young christians, that they might be on the alert as to anything that they come in contact with that is a denial of Jesus Christ come in flesh; that is, what that order of Man is.
AR Why does he say, in verse 19 of chapter 2, “They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have surely remained with us”? Is he speaking about the spirit of antichrist that was there among them?
JT Yes; they went out. I suppose apostolic power was too great for them, but then Paul warns of them creeping in. John sees them going out, and Paul sees them creeping in, and Peter, too, contemplates them as come in. They may go out and thus expose themselves. They do not generally, however, renounce christianity. They set themselves apart, Jude says. They may go out from us, but they do not go far away outwardly; if they are inside, it is to corrupt us.
ARS It is much better to see them going out than to see them coming in. Judas went out.
JT Yes; if they went out to stay. But Judas came back. That indicates the kind of thing; they come back to do damage. They go out to fit themselves in their own spheres, but they come back. They go out to qualify themselves for the attack.
AR So that what they cannot do among the saints, they go outside to develop?
JT Judas is the prototype of them all. He knew what was inside; and only persons who are inside can be this; they go outside and imitate Christ so as to come back and attack Him, with lanterns and torches and weapons; John 18: 3. Hence, Judas came back also with a kiss. The Lord challenged him: “Judas, deliverest thou up the Son of man with a kiss?” Luke 22: 48. They may pretend affection, but they are opposed to [p. 187] Christ.
FSC Is the man of sin a more developed state of evil?
JT Yes; he has a wider scope. He includes the political side. The second beast of Revelation 13, being a false prophet, represents especially the religious feature, but also includes the political, being an object of worship. The first beast is an emperor, but, as remarked, he also has religious distinction, for he “sits down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”, 2 Thessalonians 2: 4. The second beast of Revelation 13 imitates Christ. He has two horns like to a lamb, but speaks like a dragon. He is an imitator; a man of the earth, one who has great influence on it. No doubt the antichrist of John’s epistles is to be identified with the false prophet of the book of Revelation.
GVD Would Absalom be an Old Testament type of antichrist?
JT Yes; he is a good type of antichrist as he is known today; not the coming antichrist, but his character is seen in many during the present period. Absalom usurped his father’s throne; he is more the antichrist of christianity, typifying what is current in christian times, as seen in the second book of Samuel.
ANW Antichrist himself will be a person; is that true?
JT These antichrists would be persons, too; only representing certain features of the opposition. The mystery of lawlessness covers things, which, I suppose, would refer largely to the Romish system, which is camouflaged by the professed adoption of christianity in toto. That is, it hides the opposition by taking on christianity in its public terms. It is a mystery.
JS Would not that mystery be seen in all the isms?
JT Well, more or less. The Lord presents several [p. 188] forms of the mystery in parables; in one of them it is likened to a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field. It is the least of all seeds, but it becomes a great tree and the birds of the air roost in its branches. That is its developed conspicuousness. I suppose it would take in the whole area of christendom; there is a mystery attached to it.
CAM It seems to do away with true relationship, such as the blessed truth of the Father and the Son, and puts in its place a kind of system. There were no reciprocal relationships of affection at all between Absalom and David, were there?
JT No; David denied him the kiss, in connection with what he did first; then, later, he admitted him into family relationship and affection, but that only gave Absalom more scope to carry out his designs against the true king.
AR He was brought back into favour by one, we might say, that was in fellowship. Joab was nominally in fellowship.
JT Yes. This shows how antichrist has a place in the different religious bodies. There is no power to resist him. He is allowed in by some personal consideration; selfishness at the bottom may open the door to him.
Ques Is there any special thought in John using the expression “the last hour”?
JT I think it alludes to a crisis; a critical time. It involves the whole period of christianity. It is not what we often speak of as the last days; it is the last hour. It alludes to the incoming of Christ and how He is presented here, the Holy Spirit coming down. It formed a crisis in the history of the world, and Satan knew that. Presently he will be cast out of heaven; he knows his time is short. He knows this is the great critical time. Moral questions are being dissolved and settled, because they are settled in Christ Himself. It is a critical time. Hence. John says, “Little children, it ‘is’ the last hour, and, according as ye have heard that antichrist comes, even now there have come many antichrists” (verse 18). So that we are in the battle against him, and the young people are exposed; little children are addressed here. There are “little children” among us here today; they are really in mind, and what they are facing in the schools and in their business lives. The point is, are they able to discern what is antichristian, and how it is to be met?
JTJr Is the ‘us’ to be identified today? It says, “They went out from among us”. Would that come down to the present time?
JT I think so. The ‘us’ is apostolic, but it involves, in a certain sense, all that are of God. So that he says, in chapter 4: “Ye are of God, children, and have overcome them, because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. They are of the world; for this reason they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God; he that knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us” (verses 5, 6). The last sentence is particularly apostolic. It is very remarkable how, no matter what it is that comes up, whether it be despised people like so-called Mennonites or, in a larger way, Christian Scientists, or even Salvation Army people, the world hears them and recognises them, but those that are really of God are always in reproach and despised in the world.
AAT Is it not so that in the show of christianity today there are modernistic features that answer to this description?
JT There are many. That is just what I was thinking. They have come in. They are allowed in for certain considerations, and they develop their doctrines. The most barefaced things are said by persons who have suborned themselves to be independent of the truth. It is for young people to see how [p. 190] it is to be met. We have received authoritative teaching such as John speaks of, and we have the Holy Spirit to support us in our stand; that is, christianity is Christ, in character, whether it be in Himself, personally, or in those who have the Spirit.
Ques Does ‘deny’ in our passage mean denial of the actual fact, or does it mean undermining of what is recognised?
JT Generally, it is the undermining side in the antichrists. As soon as the full thing comes out in the denial of the Father and the Son, the discerning saint will see that it is antichrist. The saints will thus be able to detect him. He will come in presently. It is remarkable that the first beast spoken of in Revelation 13, rises out of the sea. That is as if he had no previous public history at all. Well, later, in chapter 17, he is alluded to again, but as having an ancient history: “... it was, and is not, and shall be present” (verse 8). We have to identify that person; how it is that he comes up out of the sea. Perhaps it will be an obscure man rising into power, and yet he takes on the character of the ancient thing that is spoken of. How he synchronises with the ancient empire is an important consideration. But then, the mystery of iniquity, or lawlessness, already works. The ancient thing is involved in the mystery of iniquity. That is, the old Roman system has been taken on by a certain body, in its essential characteristics, religiously. It has come down to us in all western Europe and its outgoings; its laws and methods and military power are recognised; it is a present thing. It is the fourth empire that is seen at the end. Its last form is the worst; it is diabolical. Religiously and politically it has come down to us. Throughout the four monarchies the political and religious are combined. The religious feature runs alongside the political. The Roman Empire was a religious system as well as a political system. The emperor was the high priest of it, and [p. 191] his very title is carried down in the religious Romish system until now. The political system has also come down to us. It was broken up by the Goths, but still it can be traced as existent; it came down to the Reformation, and has been taken on since. Napoleon’s Empire was really a continuation of it, and now there is an effort to revive it again, both in political and religious features. So that we are called upon to face all that now, and how are we to face it? How are the children to face it in schools and in offices? How are we to overcome this system that is now here in character, but is soon to appear as a great empire dominating the whole world? These epistles of the apostle John teach us how it is to be overcome in a spiritual sense.
RWS Is the unction one of the means by which it is overcome?
JT It is the main thing. It is a remarkable word; it alludes to the Spirit, clearly. But it is more a question, I think, of how we are supported in our minds in dealing with the truth, even though we may be young. This word is not addressed to the fathers, nor even the young men; it is to the little children; and it is a question of how they are to face this matter; to learn that they are really of God, and that they have the Holy Spirit.
RS It says that the young men have overcome the wicked one. Is that antichrist?
JT Hardly; it is the wicked one himself. Antichrist is not the devil; he is a man, but the devil supports him. Clearly they are men here; it is a question of human persons.
Ques Would you say the political side in recent times tried to do without the religious, but it did not work? So that at the present time it is revived.
JT The political is not self-sufficient; it has not been so from ancient history right down, indeed from Shinar down; the political is allied with the religious [p. 192] because man needs religion. It is no question of what religion it is. It must be something that has a spiritual character to support what is political.
AR This line of ministry should help us to be heavenly minded, delivering us from what is current. Certain military leaders say that christianity has run its course and has failed; it is now time for something else.
JT That is usually what happens. Mohammed was the first claimant to power based on apostasy from christianity. He made much of religion, but apostate religion. The very title of prophet which he carried, shows that his character was religious, but the sword was the conquering power. Well, that is dying out. There are millions of Mohammedans, but they are spiritually dead. They have lost their virus. But now we have something else. The next system which arose was the French. But throughout christendom’s history, we have this spiritual mystery of iniquity, active day in and day out, for sixteen or more centuries. The thing is going on ever since apostasy set in, and all these men that have arisen have borrowed from christianity. So that we have to see how we are set; whether we can overcome these things.
JS Is the attack on Christ in manhood here?
JT It is the undermining of christianity. The antichrist would generally say something that would undermine the truth of Jesus Christ come in flesh; not merely humanity but that kind of humanity; a humanity that is unique, it is Jesus Christ come in flesh.
JS The Man set out in the four gospels?
JT That is where you get it. The epistles present Him, too.
ES Would Bar-jesus be a type of antichrist?
JT He is very like the antichrist, because the antichrist will stand related to what is Jewish, rather [p. 193] than to public christianity as it is today. So that Bar-jesus is like the antichrist. He is said to have sought to turn aside the deputy from the faith. And Paul says to him, “... son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness”, Acts 13: 10.
ES It says, “But Saul, who also is Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit ...” (verse 9).
JT That is a good passage to bring in, because that is just how it is to be met.
WB-w Men tried to meet the antichristian system with Protestantism; by protesting.
JT That is right. There was a certain amount of deliverance from it, but very mixed; and the Protestant element has been absorbed, you might say, in the false religious systems.
WB-w Protesting did not work; it did not go far enough.
JT It is at best only negative. Christianity is not negative; it is positive.
WB-w They did not make room for the Spirit, and did not have power to stand against the evil.
CAM Would the word ‘unction’ imply something inward? In the world of mere profession, people want some sort of outward indication.
JT Yes; the word is remarkable; it is not ‘anointing’, it is ‘unction’.
CAM The word ‘anointing’ seems to involve meeting some evil matter.
JT Yes; I think it is invariably a public thing.
WB-w Whereas unction is more inward?
JT I think so, but bearing on the mind; because the apostle says, “Ye know all things” (verse 20). The Holy Spirit is, of course, referred to. As to the original words for unction and anointing, the former seems to imply a thing applied, and the latter adds the means (rubbing) of applying it.
ANW The anointing, in relation to the Lord, shows itself in Luke 4, when He comes out in public [p. 194] testimony. The attack in Psalm 2 is against the Lord and against His anointed. There seems to be no attack against Him until He came out in public testimony.
JT The anointing is public. Antichrist is against the anointed One. The word ‘unction’ relates clearly to the power of knowing; discerning; so that we are not deceived. As soon as we name a thing or person, we know how to act. But we must name it correctly first.
WR Was this thing working in Corinth and Galatia? The apostle Paul warned of those who might preach another gospel.
JT That would be to bring out that they were justified by the law; to bring in the first man again, and set aside Jesus Christ come in flesh.
WR Paul says that Christ would profit them nothing in such a case.
AAT It says that the mystery of lawlessness was working: “For the mystery of lawlessness already works; only there is he who restrains now until he be gone”, 2 Thessalonians 2: 7. Is that restraining power in persons?
JT There are two restraining powers. One is “that which” and the other is “he who”. The one is an allusion to ordained governments; the four monarchies, I would say; but especially those that God is with to set aside, or neutralise, the antichristian power. So that it is a question here of certain powers being used. The “he who” would undoubtedly refer to the Spirit of God, but active in the saints. Therefore, our prayer meetings, and indeed all our meetings, bear on this matter; although that may not be recognised openly, by the powers that be, yet the power is there in such meetings which are held in different parts of the world, and I am sure God has ordained that they should exist to check the evil. But He uses other things, too. He uses the powers [p. 195] that be, and their armies and navies and the like. So that it is “he who” and “that which” restrains — the “that which” being clearly something besides the Spirit. So that we are free to pray for the authorities in this regard.
WB-w In chapter 2: 22, it says, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” Who is meant by “the liar”? Is it the same person?
JT It is the same person. Such a denial is supreme lying. You might say that the whole idea of lying culminates there. The devil is the father of it. But it is working out in men. And then it goes on to say, “He is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son”. The one who denies is the liar.
WB-w That is denying the anointed One?
JT Denying what the gospels present to us — the anointed One — that is, “that Jesus is the Christ”.
WB-w In chapter 4 he denies Jesus Christ come in flesh.
JT That is another side of the position; but that He, personally, is not the Christ, the anointed One, is part of the terrible lie. People try to make a mere man out of the Lord Jesus. That is what Mohammed did. He did not entirely disregard Christ. He recognised Him in some sense.
Ques Would the denial of the humanity of Christ also involve denial of the incarnation?
JT Just so. It is that kind of humanity, really. The world wants its own humanity. Hence many of the great men in history were deified; as if they suggest the kind of humanity that is acceptable to men, whereas Jesus Christ come in flesh is the only kind of humanity God recognised, as answering to His holy claims.
Rem The denial of that unique humanity would offset God’s way of salvation.
CAM You can talk about God to most men, but [p. 196] you cannot talk freely about Jesus Christ come in flesh. Few men will listen to that.
JT Such expressions as ‘God be with you’ and ‘God bless you’, are common. But who is the God of whom they speak?
FNW Is there a suggestion of this in Daniel? The image which Nebuchadnezzar set up was a combination of power and religion.
JT Yes; and he became identified with three witnesses who were maintaining the mind of God. Daniel’s prophecy involves very great things. So that the other witnesses knew Daniel; they knew the mind of God through him and they overcame the fire. That typifies a different kind of humanity, because there was not a smell of fire on them. Ordinary humanity, in such circumstances, would smell of fire quickly enough. It is the extraordinariness of the humanity there. It is anticipative of Jesus Christ come in flesh. He did not see corruption. He was unique; distinct. He was liable to nothing that attaches to ordinary humanity. That is the humanity that Satan hates and the antichrist hates; and those who are not true believers do not care for it. They want the humanity that goes to the theatre and the dance-halls, and seeks greatness in this world.
WR Was the crucial test put to the disciples in John 6? The humanity of the Lord Jesus is stressed there, and it says, “From that time many of his disciples went away back and walked no more with him” (verse 66). But Peter seems to be moved by the unction; he says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God” (verses 68, 69).
JT That is a beautiful finish to that long chapter. It was the humanity of Christ, as set out by Him, against which they murmured. “How can he give us this flesh to eat?” (verse 52). Many of His disciples [p. 197] went away back; they could not stand that. If you press people, you will find they do not like that humanity — Jesus Christ come in flesh. Paul says, “For other foundation can no man lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 3: 11.
RWS Then the teaching here is by the Spirit? We do not need that any man should teach us. It cuts at the root of all theology. The believer is shut up to the Holy Spirit and needs nothing else.
JT That is it. That does not mean I do not need to go to the meetings, but that the power lies in the Spirit; and how that power works out. It makes us independent of all this antichristian teaching. The youngest believer has the Spirit, and it is for him to make way for Him; develop what is in his own soul — go on with what God has given him. It includes all the meetings, and the reading of the ministry, the reading of the Scriptures, and prayer. It includes everything that builds you up in Christ.
JS Is the unction seen in the man in John 9?
JT You can see how it worked out in him, so that he is ready for the opposition when it attacks him. You may say to a young believer. Well, have you confessed the Lord? and he will say, Yes, not long ago. Well, what about breaking bread? Oh, I am not ready for that yet. Such an attitude appears constantly, and it is miserable. I am not ready for it — keeping the Lord waiting. When the Lord found the man in John 9. He says, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” (verse 35). The man might have said, I would like to wait and go into the matter; but no, he was ready. “I believe, Lord” (verse 38). It is one of the greatest things to be ready when a divine proposal is made. That would imply that I have moved with the light, so that when this great thing is afforded to me I am ready for it.
JTJr Should not the young people have the sense of being cast out? Young people should have [p. 198] no place in the societies that are in the schools and other such associations. They would be cast out, in that sense, and so they are not fitting into them.
JT That is a good way to put it. If a young person takes up that ground in the school, as one who cannot do this or that because it is not right, and he is frowned on or despised, the Lord will see it, and He will find that person, as He did the man in John 9. We want to be findable; to be ready for the Lord when He wants us. He said to the man, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” He was ready for it.
Well now, these verses before us will bear much investigation; they are all addressed to little children, following on the word to the young men and fathers. It shows that the youth among christians are in the Spirit’s mind in this paragraph, which finishes with the word ‘yourselves’. That casts you in on the saints. This epistle opens up what the saints are. They are of the same nature as Christ. What is true in Him is true in them. It is that continuance of humanity that has come in in Jesus Christ come in flesh; “... and yourselves the unction which ye have received from him abides in you” (that is another beautiful thought) “and ye have not need that any one should teach you; but as the same unction teaches you as to all things, and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him”, chapter 2: 27. So that we come to fixity through the teaching of the unction. This is not simply that individual saints have the unction personally, but it is the way it works out amongst the saints. All the teaching elsewhere as regards the Spirit and the assembly must be kept in mind in this.
JS The footnote says that the idea of little children has reference to growth.
JT Yes; the original word used for little children [p. 199] suggests the idea of growth. But then in chapter 4, the apostle does not say ‘little children’, but “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God” (verse 1). This contemplates what preceded in the epistle. We are tested as to whether we can tell what is of God in persons with whom we come in contact.
GVD Does the man of John 9 fit into chapter 4 of this epistle in that he confesses Jesus Christ is of God? He says, “If this man were not of God he would be able to do nothing” (verse 33).
JT Just so.
CAM Bearing in mind the apostle’s part in the opening of the epistle, it is beautiful the way he addresses the saints, “Beloved”. The great difference between what is genuine and what is spurious, in a world of mere profession, is this personal matter.
JT We have to keep the saints in mind. We need them. We have been speaking of the young people; but now it is general, and we are addressed as Beloved; lovable people. John is well fitted to use that word, because he was beloved by the Lord Jesus — “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. And so he says, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God”. It is not that the spirits speak directly to you. It is more what is exemplified in persons in the gospels. The spirits speak in persons. Some persons have a great deal of religious talk, but if you bring in the humanity of Christ they do not like that. So that it says, “Prove the spirits, if they are of God; because many false prophets” (note the word ‘prophet’ here) “are gone out into the world”. The world has become christianised by this sort of thing. “Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God” (verse 2). That is not simply by form of words, but by the way he speaks; the way he puts thoughts together, you can see he recognises Jesus [p. 200] Christ come in flesh, and you come to see he is a real christian.
ANW This “beloved” is addressed to the whole family. It includes the fathers, young men and little children.
JT I would think so. In chapter 3 we have, “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God” (verse 1). “Children of God” implies the full family status.
RWS Do you believe that persons today in so-called christian countries have these evil spirits just as they did when the Lord Jesus was here in the days of His flesh?
JT Demoniacal possession of persons, as seen in the New Testament, no doubt exists in heathen countries, but general conditions in christendom hinder gross manifestations of it — at least as far as can be observed. The enemy works in methods that would find general current acceptance and hence we have what is more decent and refined; more spiritual efforts are in evidence. Persons possessed by demons, marked by gross physical manifestations, would not serve Satan’s purposes as spirits working in false prophets and imitating, for wicked purposes, what is of the Spirit of God. These are contemplated in John’s epistles.
AR How do you work out the fact that in John’s epistles there are but two families? Persons are either children of God or children of the devil. He says that in chapter 3: “In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil” (verse 10). With such a variety of persons around us, is it right to say that they are either one thing or the other?
JT Abstractly that is so, only there are modifications, because of the restraining effect of the light of the gospel professedly owned generally. We cannot classify professors of christianity as children of the devil. Although many are not born again, Satan’s [p. 201] work in them is modified by what they hold as doctrine. They are usually very shallow, and have very little thought about anything religious, but if they are pressed to the wall you will find that their real state of opposition to Christ will come out — devilish traits. But the characteristic children of the devil are persons that are active in saying devilish things; like Bar-jesus. Paul says, “son of the devil”, Acts 13: 10. He is one of the best illustrations. The Lord said to the Jews when they were openly opposed to Him, “Ye are of the devil, as your father”, John 8: 44. That is, I think, the guide for us when we come to name things. I would not say of an ordinary man who is unconverted, that he is a child of the devil. But as the great general apostasy becomes effective, the position will be different. “The strong delusion” sent by God will be effective, the man of sin being in control, demoniacal power and possession of men will be prevalent. The continuance of the Holy Spirit here in the assembly has an immense effect in checking Satan’s work.
JS Would the statement “Many false prophets are gone out into the world”, contemplate christendom as it is today?
JT It contemplates the way christendom has developed, because persons have taken on things which pertain to christianity. But then, it is more than that. Mohammed said he was a prophet, as if he were from God, like Balaam; persons take up a position of teaching, introducing something of their own. John’s epistles have this character of evil in mind.
RS Would it be like the word in 2 Timothy 3, “Now in the same manner in which Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, thus these also withstand the truth; men corrupted in mind, found worthless as regards the faith”?
JT Just so; their names are given there; it is [p. 202] just what we have been saying. They represent a kind of opposition that has come down to us over a period of centuries. Their names are not given in Exodus. It is a remarkable thing that they had been carried down to Paul’s time. And so it is that Paul can name the opposition to Moses in Egypt. And it is with us in our day.
JS Would king Saul prefigure the antichrist?
JT Absalom is more that, because Saul was really anointed of God. He would be an opposer in a different way. I think Absalom, acting in David’s time, is a type of antichrist, or antichristian principles, during the history of the assembly. Antichrists are not anointed by God; they develop from the natural man; the man of the earth.
CAM The Lord used the expression, “Ye are of the devil, as your father”. They developed, but their origin was clear.
JT The evil thing is carried down; it is said that the devil sins from the beginning. Whatever the opposition the saints have to do with, is not new. There is nothing new, really, in that sense. It is all carried down. So that if you want to see evil at its source, you must go back to the devil. The devil sins from the beginning; the serpent of brass represents that; it is evil dealt with in its source. As regards evil principles coming down, the old empire that has come down to us is one example. It exists and will be here presently, literally and formally, in its worst features, even as Jannes and Jambres are here. They have come down. The thing they represent is here; their names are given only by Paul.
CAM That helps; would you go as far as to say that a person is born of the evil one somewhat as one becomes born of God? In presenting the favour of God towards men, you take the ground that all are responsible to God, but the devil appeared as a rival.
[p. 203] JT He gets in; and we are concerned as to how he got in. The important thing now is to keep him out. We see, in some, how he gets in; but he goes out, too, in some cases. That is the comforting thing. You cannot always say that a person who is under the direct power of evil is a child of the devil, because you get persons — Mary Magdalene, for instance — out of whom there went seven devils. How they got in is not said, but that they went out shows that the position was rendered untenable. If you get a person who has come under Satan’s influence, back to the light he had, or get the light of God into his soul, then the position is untenable to evil. That is an important point as regards devilish influence. But Bar-jesus and the Jews in John 8, who were called children of the devil, are true examples.
CAM So that the expression “son of perdition” would relate to a final condition or state?
JT Quite so; showing what kind of man Judas was. What opportunities for blessing he had! The opportunity was there all the time he was in company with the Lord. But he is called the son of perdition.
AR I think your reference to Numbers 21 is very helpful. Satan did not enter into the children of Israel like he did with Judas. The serpents bit them. They came under satanic influence.
JT That is it. The serpents were biting them, but the serpent of brass lifted up was the meeting of the thing at its source. So that he who looked lived. It is a question of whether I can look at that serpent.
JS Tracing false religion back to its source would bring us back to Satan?
JT Yes; but religion as James speaks of it, is good.
FNW Is there a difference between Jesus Christ come in flesh and coming in flesh?
JT The come is an actual fact, but coming is the form of it. Coming in flesh implies the activities involved.
[p. 204] The second epistle of John confirms what we are saying, but it is remarkable that it is addressed to a lady, as it says, “The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not I only but also all who have known the truth, for the truth’s sake which abides in us and shall be with us to eternity. Grace shall be with you, mercy, peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love” (verses 1 - 3). You will notice how John brings in the economy into which divine Persons have come. This sister was coming into the good of it. Then he says, “I rejoiced greatly that I have found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received commandment from the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as writing to thee a new commandment, but that which we have had from the beginning, that we should love one another. And this is love, that we should walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, according as ye have heard from the beginning, that ye might walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh — this is the deceiver and the antichrist” (verses 4 - 7). There he is viewed as active; it is not a static position; it is not simply a person sitting down; it is his action. I think John’s gospel has that in mind. He presents the Lord as walking; John the baptist saw Him walking, coming to him, and he named Him the Lamb of God: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, chapter 1: 29. There is something to impress one in the manner or gait of the Person. That is, He is coming to die — a most wonderful fact to dwell upon. The movements of such a Person coming to die are most affecting. He talked about those movements on the mount with Moses and Elias. So that John sees the Lord walking; it does not say where He was going, but as He walked. John said, “Behold the Lamb of God”. So the lady mentioned in this epistle, no doubt represents the idea of the assembly. The assembly is charmed with the movements of Christ, as the Song of Songs suggests. How charmed the feminine side is with the movements of Christ! That is, you are drawn to Him like the woman of Luke 7. I think His feet are directly mentioned seven times there — the feet of Jesus. She is attracted by those feet. It is the incoming of Christ; those feet brought Him to the woman.
John speaks of the elect lady with great respect. She was a woman he loved in truth. He had the Lord’s own mother in his house and he learned how to love a woman like that in truth — in that relation — with infinite purity. Sisters and brothers, “with all purity”, should love one another. This short epistle is to be noted in that connection. Then, as we have noted, it says, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh — this is the deceiver and the antichrist”. That opens up what the foolish woman in Proverbs is; and the man who speaks froward things. It is the humanity that makes up the world; it is not Jesus Christ come in flesh. It makes room for the deceiver and the antichrist; and there are many.
CAM The fact that the elect lady is brought in, shows that there is a wonderful triumph over the power of the enemy, for Satan is especially set against the glories of femininity because of the glories of the assembly. That is where we see true femininity.
JT We see how Satan deceived Eve, and of course the assembly has been damaged similarly, but John sees her — unblemished: “Coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”, Revelation 21: 2.
WB-w Is that why he warns this lady not to receive the deceivers into her [p. 206] house?
JT Quite so; because the feminine side is peculiarly exposed to such influence. It represents a feature of humanity; “male and female created he them”. The feminine side is exposed to evil influence more so than the male, and that is why Satan selected that side of humanity at the outset, to deceive it. And so here, the word ‘deceiver’ is used.
WB-w False prophets are referred to as having gone out from us, but here it is deceivers. Is there a difference?
JT It fits in with the feminine side; so that he says, “See to yourselves, that we may not lose what we have wrought, but may receive full wages. Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God. He that abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not; for he who greets him partakes in his wicked works” (verses 8 - 11). I think that is all very instructive as to the assembly, because it underlies this epistle, addressed to the elect lady, and pointing out the power of deceiving influence. So that we are not to allow persons into our houses if they do not bring the doctrine of Christ. We are not even to greet one of them, “for he who greets him partakes in his wicked works”.
CAM This matter of deceiving is carried right down from Genesis.
JT That is what I was thinking: “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft, so your thoughts should be corrupted from simplicity as to the Christ”, 2 Corinthians 11: 3.
WB-w The third epistle is to the beloved Gaius, “whom I love in truth”. We can receive him into the house. He was Paul’s host. The second epistle refers to those whom we cannot receive, but the third epistle would show whom we can receive.
[p. 207] JT It is a great general advantage to the assembly and to him who is marked by it, to show hospitality. But the right kind of people should ever be in mind. They should abide in the doctrine of Christ and bring it.
JTJr I suppose that would be seen in Lydia on the one hand, but at the same time there is a female slave; Satan was acting in that kind of woman.
JT Quite so.