"BEGINNING" (5)
“BEGINNING” (5)
1 John 1:1 - 10; 2 John 1 - 13
JT The second letter is read because it is felt the feminine side should be before us in closing, to see the responsibility attached to it, even to the extent of the exercise of discipline, that there should be balance. But what is mainly in mind, of course, is the first epistle, and, too, the fact that while it alludes to the Lord Jesus as Man, the neuter is used: ‘that’; “that which was from the beginning”, because of the need of substance in all our thoughts and all our enquiries. Luke has that in mind, too, because in alluding to the Lord He uses the words, “holy thing”. He says, “wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 1:35. So that identification is in mind in the thought of substance.
SMcC The beginning that is alluded to now in the epistle — does that have in mind the incarnation, historically, I mean?
JT Well, not in as formal a way as we have it in the beginning of the gospel where it is said, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, John 1:14. The allusion there is to condition; that is, the condition of incarnation.
CHH Does this refer to what occurred after the anointing?
JT Well, it seems as if the Spirit of God would engage us with the Person in this sense; that is to say, the Person as incarnate, without stressing the anointing.
CAM Do you connect this with the verse you alluded to in Luke’s gospel, “the holy thing”? Is that to be viewed in connection with the fact “that our hands have handled”? That alludes to the apostles’ hands. There was something, I thought, concrete that could be handled.
JT Well, quite; and love, too. Simeon may be taken as representative of initial affection in that sense: “he received him into his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now thou lettest thy bondman go, according to thy word, in peace; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation”, Luke 2:29,30. And so as to our brother’s suggestion as to this passage in John being possibly an allusion to the Lord as anointed, it seems to me that the whole Person is in mind in His history. Luke would stress that side, how He was taken into Simeon’s arms, who immediately became a worshipper, for he blessed God; and how the Lord is viewed in Luke as born, and as a boy, which carries with it, because of age, some responsibility. So Mary connects responsibility immediately with her own position. She was really remiss in what had happened. In truth the ark was there, although not named. And so the Lord found His way Himself without having any reference to His parents. Mary said, “Behold thy father and I have sought thee distressed”, Luke 2:48, but He immediately says, with a suggestion of reproach, “Why is it that ye have sought me? Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?” Luke 2:49. So that He is in the presence of the universe already in responsibility, even if that responsibility or measure of it is to be limited in any way, as doubtless it was, because it seems so, by Himself, “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and he was in subjection to them”, Luke 2:51. He is there, we might say, in infinitude. The Person is there. His worth and dignity are already alluded to in our brother’s remarks as to the “holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 1:35. The immediate link between the birth as the ‘holy thing’ and the Son of God is to be noted; because the Son of God is the Person who is to be in full [p. 94] exercise of responsibility, so to say, or at least full administrative charge in relation to God. And so it is said of Paul in view of this that he straightway began to preach that Jesus is Son of God. It is not the anointing but the Person, although Luke would stress the anointing; but the Person is in mind in these remarks.
ANW You are extending the “we have seen” and “we have heard” beyond the apostles?
JT Yes, although we have no doubt to keep in mind that they are particularly in mind. “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which [p. 96] we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life”, and then further, “that which we have seen and heard we report to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us”. That is, the idea of the Son of God, the idea of the Person is there; although the anointing may not be there at the outset and was not, the Person is there; the Person in responsibility, seeing about His Father’s business.
AHP Is that all to add lustre to the greatness of the incarnation? In the end of Luke He invites them to “Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me having”, Luke 24:39. Is there some thought of magnifying the greatness of the incarnation?
JT The passage alluded to is Luke 24 and what is in mind is His identification as in the midst, who He was; so that it is the full Person (I am using that word just for the sake of stress); He is there. He was invisible for a while for He did not emerge from Emmaus immediately into the assembly at Jerusalem. The mystery side is left open. Where had He been? He had vanished but where had He been? Late in the day He is seen standing in the midst of them; not anywhere but in the midst of them. The result [p. 95] is perturbation, and the Lord quiets them; for it is not a time of rebuke. It is a time of reality in them, and what they were to Him, and how soon they can be used; how quickly He can render them useful to Him in the testimony. And so He is seen standing in their midst. It is not said that He came; where He was is left open, as if we are to be reminded of inscrutability even there.
APT This morning we were speaking of “as many as received him”, John 1:12. Simeon received Him in his arms. Is that characteristic of the family entitled to be called children of God?
JT You are stressing the fact that they received Him and as having received Him they are recognised as children of God?
APT Yes; in connection with the Person; not His anointing, but Him.
JT Well, quite so. It is just a question now of the resurrection of the Person. Everything must hinge on that; the identification of the Person.
NB You just mentioned inscrutability. I would like to ask if these ‘thats’ involve inscrutability in the Lord’s Person or whether they do not go that far.
JT Well, the neuter being used, I suppose, is to stress reality. The word ‘thing’ had already been used — “the holy thing” which must mean reality and, too, substance. So here it says, “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”. I am not sure that inscrutability is necessarily stressed; I think it is rather that reality is there. There is no mistake about it; the real Person is there.
CAM Is it right to say that what is stressed is a Person who is so infinitely great as He was, yet within our range, within the faculties we have to apprehend?
JT Yes; and He can be seen as the apostle says, “which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life”. There He is reachable and touchable; and you might say, familiar in His relations with them. As the narrative goes on you see how much it was so; because Christianity must be founded on reality; a real Person in the relation testified to. The enemy was just ready to deny God; Matthew stresses that.
SMcC If I gather rightly from what you say you carry this beginning right into Luke 1 and 2?
JT I should say that; and if it be a question of reality, well, it is important that there is a real Babe and a real Boy and a real young Man, speaking with the greatest reverence; a Man of thirty years of age. All that is most important as regards reality. Christianity is not like any of the Eastern or other religions; it is founded on fact, incontestable fact.
JTJr The Father’s voice saying, “In whom I have found my delight” would mean it would point all the way back to His birth. His delight was in every movement of His.
JT Quite so. What a time it must have been, and it is a question for each of us as to the Father and His feelings; these feelings of the Father and the Son and the Spirit of God. Some of us during the past six or eight years have gone through experiences never gone through before by us or even by Christians, and we have found God in them. In the most remarkable instances, the most remarkable occurrences, we have found God in our circumstances. It is to strengthen our hearts and make us real, both in regard of one another and in regard of the service of God and the testimony in general.
SMcC In these expressions in relation to what we are saying, “the eternal life, which was with the Father”, would you carry that into the state of Babehood and Youth and Manhood that Luke brings out in such a way in the opening [p. 97] chapters?
JT What we have already said about it is that suitable conditions and provisions are made; suitable, seemly conditions; swaddling clothes are there and suitable clothes all along, suggesting right feelings. That is to say, in persons who are the subjects of God’s work, in whom this should be seen. And so Luke 1 and Luke 2 is of the utmost importance as to what happened; first, as to the incarnation; as to the conception and the incarnation and the babehood and boyhood of the Lord, and how He is spoken of; how Elizabeth speaks of Him; how she speaks of John, the unborn child, moving in the presence of Mary, the mother of our Lord. These are all facts that are of utmost importance as to the reality of Christianity.
SJH Is what you are saying so necessary in the way of substance with John that what he closes with is that we might have a conscious knowledge of it all? He closes the epistle with a conscious knowledge of it.
JT Yes; and ending with the wonderful fact in the first epistle: “He is the true God and eternal life”, 1 John 5:20. He has that glorious Person in mind and yet inscrutability; for He is God. Yet as to what was said a moment ago as to what the Father might not, or might have found in the babe days of our Lord, in the early years of His life, what relations there might be — it seems as if the Spirit of God would show us that things were seemly, not fantastic or extraordinary in any way. They were seemly. It was a real babe, needing all the attention of a babe. Seemliness is expressed in the testimony of God in Luke, that things should be so.
JTJr Great care is taken in Luke’s gospel at the beginning in connection with the kind of persons who had to do with the Lord.
JT So it is the little Child and its mother, not its father. The Magi found Him with His mother,
[p. 98] which is seemly and what we might expect; with all the instruction and knowledge she received that she should be His caretaker. She was eventually made the mother of John the evangelist, showing that she was usable in the Lord’s hand, and thoroughly subject, although there were exceptions, of course. At the same time she says, “Behold the bondmaid of the Lord, be it to me according to thy word”, Luke 1:38 showing that everything was perfect in that sense and heaven looked on. We have touches in the prophetic word, of course, such as Samson’s mother, Hannah and other mothers that we may transfer to Mary, for God would not stint what is mentioned in that way or in any way in the measure in which it might contribute to the glory of Christ. Any incident that might contribute in any way to the glory of Christ would be mentioned.
SMcC It would be right to say that Mary was but the vessel connected with this unique matter of the incarnation. The Lord took not one single thing from her in regard of what we are now dwelling on, did He? He took nothing from Mary.
JT Yes, quite so; that is, in His humanity; although it might be said that she was His mother and His humanity came through her, but it will not do to say that, because God is His Father. He is the Son of God and His humanity in that sense must be attributed to God.
JRH The incarnation would be like the unleavened cake of fine flour mingled with the oil seen in the oblation.
JT That we might devote ourselves to the priesthood so that we might take up things rightly. The Spirit of God just says enough in Luke on these points to illuminate and to enlighten us as to the Lord. There is much, of course, that could be said as to Mary’s feelings, and Joseph’s feelings and Simeon’s feelings and Anna’s feelings. This would be a priestly [p. 99] matter; those who were touching and seeing and handling the precious Babe would all be priests. And it is necessary that we should so regard it; that in Christianity this should be enveloped in all that is needed to guard the Person involved.
RWS We should take time to contemplate. It is not only seen with our eyes but that which we have contemplated.
JT I am glad you mention that because it suggests that affection and intelligence are called for, when you bring in the idea of contemplation into such a matter. What could not a person like Anna say, and Elizabeth, and John’s father, Zacharias, as restored fully and able to speak? What would they not say? There would be a conversation suitable that you might expect from them. All that enters into Christianity.
JAP Would you link up the contemplation with the beginning of Luke where Mary kept all these things in her mind and pondered them in her heart?
JT Just so.
ANW Is there any distinction between the contemplation in the first epistle and the contemplation of His glory in the gospel?
JT Well, I have no doubt there is a certain selection in the language in the epistle here and the gospel, in the idea of contemplation. It is said in the gospel: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father)”, John 1:14. The word is ‘tabernacled’ meaning that there would be room for the display of what might be there in the way of adornment in the Person. “And we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1:14. The word ‘with’ there is intelligible to all of us. There is a note as to it: ‘(para, with a genitive as here, means’on the part of’,’from with’gives the sense. But this must not be understood in the sense of’with’merely)’. The word ‘with’ — the idea would be that we are on a common level, so to speak; that there is a platform on which divine Persons can be contemplated; not that the Father is seen displayed visibly in the sense in which the Son could be, but there is the thought of contemplation, and the ‘with’ would link the Father and Son together. “As of an only-begotten with a father, full of grace and truth”. And then, “for of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace”. I think that paragraph from verse 14 to 18 of John 1 is to add to the whole matter as to what Christ was in relation with God as His Father, and what movement there must have been; what holy movements drawing out the Father’s affections there must have been.
GMacPh Would hearing and seeing go together? Hearing involves teaching. Contemplation and handling and seeing involve the substance.
JT Yes. “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard”. That alludes to speaking, “which we have seen with our eyes”; which would imply the means of contemplation and the scope of contemplation; “that which we contemplated, and our hands handled, concerning the word of life”. And then the bracket which enlarges on the matter: “(and the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us:) that which we have seen and heard we report to you, that ye also may have fellowship with us”. The idea of report is immediately added; that is, what could be reported in the sense of eternal life.
CHH Would the expression, “that which we have heard” be an advance on Luke? That is, what the apostles had contemplated would go beyond what is contemplated in Luke.
JT [p. 101] I do not suppose there is anything more than what John says here; “which we have contemplated”.
I do not suppose there is anything more in it than that fact; they were witnesses. They were full competent witnesses, and of course, that is necessary, because they were apostles, and the idea of fellowship is suggested here, that they had something of their own which is called fellowship.
ANW That is the basis of this report. We cannot say we have seen what they have seen, but we have attended to their report.
JT Quite so.
NB Is there a relation between the eternal life which was with the Father, and the Word which was with God?
JT Well, there must be; only what John is putting down here is his own competency and the competency of the twelve — the eleven and himself, to bear testimony; that there is ample, full, complete competency in the testimony rendered; and John is concerned about that.
ANW Would not the latter be in time and the former in past eternity? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God”, John 1:1. Would that be past eternity, before time?
JT Yes, quite so. What can we say except what is said, that He was with God? I mean to say, the Spirit of God does not give us anything more, any terms as to the Deity in its infinite attractiveness, save that They were there; that divine Persons were there, there intelligibly with each other.
ANW Would “with the Father” involve time and incarnation?
JT Well, quite so; I should say that, too.
SMcC In the conflict over eternal life, the attack of the enemy was to make eternal life a condition that existed before time; but the Scriptures do not present it that way.
JT No, they do not. What they do present is the Person who is the subject of the testimony, and [p. 102] while that is carried back to eternity, yet there is nothing to indicate what the actual relations were; but when the testimony is rendered, then we have to consider the anointing, showing what was there and then the power of the apostles, too, because they were anointed, too. They were rendered capable of bearing testimony to what was there.
AR Is there anything in the holy Scriptures to tell us what was before time?
JT We have the statement, of course, that “the Word was with God”, John 1:1. That is a fact. The mere word ‘with’ involves some association. It conveys the idea of association, because it is carried through to the Paraclete, to the Holy Spirit. But He is with the apostles in a real sense so as to be understood. The Father and the Son, or the divine Persons, to leave it just as it is, were with each other. This, of course, is something that can be positively stated. Why we should proceed further I do not know. I think there is much opened up to us to fill our souls, and perhaps we should not be too much desirous of having something spoken because it is so delicate a matter. It is always dangerous to say anything but exactly what Scripture says. And what Scripture says is, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, John 1:1.
JRH The Lord spoke of the glory that He had along with the Father before the world was.
JT That is an allusion to this. I am glad you mentioned that. It comes where you expect it to come, in John 17, where we should expect a full revelation of what He would have us to see. The veil is lifted away for us to see in, but it is rendered very obscure; we cannot say much.
FNW “For thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”, John 17:24.
JT That is the same idea.
GMacPh Reading John 1:2 may be instructive:
“and the life has been manifested”, but in speaking of the report he says “the eternal life”. Is that what they saw here on earth?
JT Quite so. Therefore it is “concerning the word of life”, that is to say, what the eyes saw and the hands handled was concerning the word of life; not exactly concerning God and the Father and the Son, but concerning eternal life. That was the great issue in the controversy alluded to, but it is the point all the way down; what can be spoken of in the sense of eternal life.
RH Would the forty days the Lord was on earth after His resurrection have a bearing on this?
JT Well, there is something there to think of, because a good many of them were there. There were forty days. Luke tells us that in Acts 1, “having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up; to whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs; being seen by them during forty days”. So that there was a good period of time in which they could take account of the Lord. Doubtless He was not always visible to them, and the inscrutable side would be, no doubt, in evidence. But it goes on to say, “and speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God; and, being assembled with them, commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which (said he) ye have heard of me. For John indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit after now not many days”, Acts 1:3,4. So that I think we can, in a holy way, visualise something of what went on during those forty days. Luke does not mention it until this chapter, and surely he now mentions that to verify further what he intended by the Spirit to further disclose, and the treatise embraces the whole book of Acts. What things there must have been! And so Paul in his time in his [p. 104] writing sees it is needed to mention that the Lord had been seen of Cephas, and of the twelve, and of five hundred brethren at once, and of James, then of all the apostles, and finally as Paul said, “last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to me also”, 1 Corinthians 15:8; showing that what Paul saw was just added on to the general position; what had been seen during the forty days before the Holy Spirit came down, and then what was seen as the Holy Spirit came down. Paul’s experiences were just added to that, showing the full thought is there as to the Lord as He is now; what is to be apprehended now until He comes.
RRT Would you say that would be included in verse 3, “He presented himself living after he had suffered, with many proofs”, Acts 1:3? It does not enlarge on what the many proofs were, but it would contain a lot.
JT I suppose the King James Version translators felt the need of putting ‘infallible’ in there so as to enlarge on the thing; but it is just “many proofs” really. We are not told how many, but much must have preceded.
WMcK Is this matter of reality to help us as to a clear knowledge? In 1 John 2:13 it says, “I write to you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning”. That is a matter of reality to help us in regard of knowledge.
JT Well, what we are saying together now is to help us increase our knowledge and, of course, we are to increase our spiritual power and knowledge because the Lord is surely aiming to increase our knowledge, to make persons fit for the testimony out of us. And so this chapter in the Acts becomes of first-rate importance, because it seems to be almost a second thought of Luke’s; not that he would speak of it in that sense except to make the idea clear. The first treatise was left unfinished. We do not get a complete finish. Luke says, “And he led them out as far as Bethany, and having lifted up his hands, he blessed them. And it came to pass as he was blessing them, he was separated from them and was carried up into heaven”, Luke 24:51 Well, that is how the matter is finished, and we can see that Christianity can hardly be left thus. Heaven would not leave it thus. The Lord would not leave it thus. The Spirit of God as come down from heaven would not leave it thus, and hence much time must have elapsed in order to bring the truth out, extending to Paul’s times and to Paul himself. Hence, perhaps we have not thought of it as we are now mentioning it, that much time had to be expended from the divine standpoint to bring out the knowledge needed. That there should be real knowledge, too; not merely things written down, but real knowledge amongst the disciples. And so Christianity is a real thing, or has to do with real things, and the things mentioned just now are enough to prove it was real.
JMcK It is a matter of what we have. Paul preached Jesus as the Son of God. In 1 John 5 we find, “that God has given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has life; he that has not the Son of God has not life”. What we have brings us to what you have in mind. God has committed to us certain things that we have received.
JT Just so; and that is completed in the sense that He is the true God and eternal life. You might say it is a separate statement at the end of this epistle to ascertain that the Lord Jesus is known here in testimony and in the assembly as coming in and going out among us; that He is the true God and eternal life and it should make us worshipful. It is intended to.
ANW I presume the handling would include Luke 24 and possibly exclude Thomas’ handling?
JT I would not mind letting all the handling come into it. There must have been much. The appendix to John’s gospel lets us into much; that is, the three manifestations.
CHH Would Mr. Darby’s note to ‘handle’ referring to Luke 24:39 help? “Handle me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me having”. That is the reference.
JT Showing how real the matter was; and now that He is actually in the assembly, we have the facts given. There is a difference between flesh and blood and flesh and bones. The condition of blood is not carried through; it is flesh and bones. That is to say, humanity in that sense, Christ as risen. And so John’s epistle would say, “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” 1 John 3:2; as if the seeing Him and our own translation, our own change, would synchronise. It is a question of what we see. We shall see Him as He is, and also, we shall have bodies like His present one; like His own glorious body; that is the kind of body we shall have.
JAP What would the Lord mean when He says to Thomas, “Blessed they who have not seen and have believed”, John 20:29? Is that our position?
JT Well, that is to bring out the superiority of Christianity to the millennium when they will believe what they see; but the Lord is saying that Christianity is superior because we do not see, yet we believe. We believe-it is belief on the basis of our faith; not what we see but our faith.
JAP Does this chapter then cover a greater matter than the report in Romans 10 — faith comes by report?
JT Yes, I think so. This is the apostles personally making the report and so they are to be viewed as a class or group of persons morally fitted for these great things; that is, to make this report. The twelve had this service, to make this report; that is, the report of eternal life in the sense in which it is spoken of here. It is to greatly enhance the idea of [p. 107] eternal life, and it gives us instruction as to the great conflicts already gone through about sixty years ago; terrible strife it was, but the Lord stood by the brethren and the truth of eternal life was asserted, and the truth continues. The brethren are able to speak of it now.
CRH Was there any expression of eternal life before the economy?
JT You mean of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the present economy? It is on this basis the gospel is preached and it is preached for the obedience of faith. “In full assurance of faith”, Hebrews 10:22. That is the basis of Christianity. We are not able to say much in the sense of what we see, but what we understand by faith.
RH Peter in his address to Cornelius’ house says in Acts 10, “This man God raised up the third day and gave him to be openly seen, not of all the people, but of witnesses who were chosen before of God, us who have eaten and drunk with him after he arose from among the dead”, Acts 10:40,41. Would that be like this?
JT Very good. How important it was; the twelve were not all there but there were six persons there with Peter, showing the keeping up of the thought of the importance of witnesses; that Christianity is attested to by accredited witnesses.
Ques Is that why in chapter 2 in relation to chapter 1 which you are suggesting as a basis on which to work it says, “I write to you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning”?
JT Showing how important they were. There are three grades of persons: fathers, young men and little children. The fathers have first place because of their experience and that experience involves knowing Him that is from the beginning.
JRH The Lord in speaking to the disciples says, “Ye too bear witness, because ye are with me from the beginning”, John 15:[p. 108] 27.
JT That is a good point to bring in here, because it fits in there in John 15 with the break in the gospel, in the whole book; that is, chapter 14. It is chapter 13 really that is the break. Chapter 14 introduces the Spirit. He is called there “the Comforter”; and the twelve “ye also”. The Lord means by that that they had a peculiar place. Therefore it is said here, “that ye also may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is indeed with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ”. They are the only ones in that. We are admitted into it and others are admitted into it, but there is no such fellowship properly now they have gone. There are no such men as these twelve men up to that time.
JMcK Do you get in Acts 1 the expression of the intelligence of the disciples in choosing one to take Judas’s place?
JT Yes, and so they did what was needed, and it shows what comes out in John 15, following chapter 14; that is, the presence of the Comforter. The twelve apostles are seen as standing alongside of the Spirit. They have a place by themselves, and the Spirit has a place, of course, by Himself; and it is said that He proceeds from with the Father, stressing the word ‘with’. That is, He is with the Father and has that position with the Father. He apprehended what the Father’s thoughts were when the Lord Jesus went into heaven. That is where the Lord Jesus went, into heaven, and He comes from that point, too.
JMcK I was thinking more on the line of witness among themselves. It says, “It is necessary therefore, that of the men who have assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up from us, one of these should be a witness with us of his resurrection”, Acts 1:21,22.
JT [p. 109] Just so. That is the period that had taken place when the gospel of John was written, so the twelve were there; the total number was there, and they stood alongside the Spirit. “Ye also” alludes to the place that they have and none will be by them. That is treated of in our chapter in 1 John. The twelve had a place none others had; a fellowship by themselves. They were competent to bear testimony to what they had seen of eternal life, and to the end that the saints may have joy. That it might be a real matter, that their joy might be full.
EAL “And these things write we to you that your joy may be full. And this is the message which we have heard from him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”. Then several verses following bring in the ‘we’. In this way do we have to see that in this personal report the apostles are stressing that they personally have to be dependent on the Lord?
JT Verse 5 is the general position of Christianity; the earlier verses contemplate the twelve and what importance they had in establishing the truth of Christianity. “And this is the message which we have heard from him, and declare to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not practise the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin”. So that the position now with the saints generally from John’s viewpoint is established in this message, whereas they remain in their place and had a fellowship of their own. And the ground of the testimony, therefore, is incontestable because of these twelve men so accredited and so formed and set down beside the Spirit Himself, as witnesses. But then the Spirit would come down in addition to all this. He proceeded from the Father to witness of the Father’s affection shown thus as the Lord Jesus went into heaven. He would carry on and tell the saints generally what He could tell them. All that would be included in the gospel.
RRT Would you say that the witness we are speaking of now of the twelve would be the same as what we referred to in chapter 5? “If we receive the witness of men”,1 John 5:9. Is that the witness we are speaking of?
JT Quite so, showing what God had done. The epistle of John would bring out incontestably the pains God had gone to to bring in a testimony to men. “This is the witness”, John says, and he tells the kind of thing that had been witnessed.
RRT But then he goes on to say the witness of God is greater. “And this is the witness, that God has given to us eternal life”, 1 John 5:11.
JT That is good and goes on to our own formation; how the witness should affect us as having received eternal life. How does it affect us? What a witness it is! Therefore, there is a little word to be said about the lady, the elect lady; having brought the twelve, the apostles, into evidence in what is stated in chapter 1, especially as to righteousness and the confession of sins — a most important matter for us as Christians. But now we come to this elect lady. “The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the 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”; a remarkable statement. I do not know if you get it just this way elsewhere. And then, “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”. And then to follow up with what has been already said as to discipline, and how a sister can be used of God in the exercise of discipline, it says, “For many deceivers have gone out into the [p. 111] world, they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh — this is the deceiver and the antichrist. 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 anyone 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”. I thought it would be worthy at the close of our meetings that we might have this sister who is called a lady by the apostle John-that we might have her before us as illustrating what sisters can be in our day in faithfulness to the truth in regard of their children and their local meetings, and in regard of anyone that might come and prove to be unreal and might introduce bad doctrine. How we are to be protected from all this.
LES Why is the feminine side stressed here?
JT Well, we have it mentioned two or three times, and we have another one mentioned, whoever she is, who is worthy of note: “The children of thine elect sister greet thee”. Therefore, we have two sisters, two women, women of note, in the ordinary sense, of worth. They are reliable persons who can be trusted in our localities and responsibility placed on them. It seems to me it would be a great asset to our position now if our sisters would awaken to what is possible in the sisterhood.
JRH Is your thought that we should gather something of what we had in the beginning in Genesis, taking on basic ideas so that we might be sound and established and faithful in the doctrine?
JT Just so.
JWW Would Sarah’s judgment of Ishmael be on the same line, the sisterhood in discipline?
JT You mean, “Cast out the maid servant and her son; for the son of the maid servant shall not [p. 112] inherit with the son of the free woman”, Galatians 4:30. And it is called Scripture, showing how the sayings, the words of a sister can be ennobled and have a place in the testimony, a unique place, because it is called Scripture. What she said to Abraham about Ishmael is called Scripture.
LES Would all this offset the power operating in system in regard of Jezebel?
JT Yes; quite so.
CHH Would John have in mind here what Paul is speaking about in saying Satan beguiled Eve?
JT That is the same line. Something has come to one’s notice lately as to the place Jehu has in the testimony of God. Certain things have been said of him as if his position in the testimony is somewhat discredited; but in truth Jehu is seen to be a continuous testimony running through two dispensations, showing how a man can be used of God in two dispensations. So we have something like two chapters about Jehu in the second book of Kings and some small bit of testimony to him in the book of Chronicles and the question arose as to whether we do not need to be careful and give witnesses their full scope, whoever they may be. It is a matter of giving them the scope God gives them. And so, while Jehu was a fast driver, let God have His way and let God say what He will about Jehu and let us see how God is pleased to carry the testimony as to Jehu right down to the book of Revelation and give it a great place involving the destruction of Jezebel. That is the idea of his ministry, to destroy the house of Ahab and that runs right down to the great Romish system now.
ANW “Come ... and see my zeal for Jehovah”, 2 Kings 10:16.
JT Just so.
AB Why is it the elect lady and her sister?
JT Well, he is speaking at the end of the epistle about her sister. “The children of thine elect sister greet thee”. That is, she is called an elect lady.
AB What is in mind in relation to ‘elect’? Is it because of the rarity of this quality found amongst sisters?
JT It seems as if the word ‘elect’ is a first-rate word in the vocabulary of the testimony. I would think it fits in with the Colossian epistle. I think we shall find it operating in relation to the epistle to Colosse, in a vital way, and it is intended to encourage sisters. What is opened to sisters in the sense of importance in the testimony; not a matter of personal importance or distinction, but importance as to these matters because of its value, because heaven appraises it in that way. This sister, who is doubtless well known to the elect lady, is there, and both of them have children which would indicate that God is attaching value to the children of sisters who have a place in the testimony, and that they must not be neglectful of them. Their care of them is only to enhance their place in the testimony.
EAL The footnote to verse 9 referring to the beginning is interesting. “Whosoever goes forward”, the footnote reads, “What is called ‘development’: he does not abide in what was from the beginning”.
JT And the note means what is called Darwinism. I believe God is aiming at that, and it is creeping into schools and is taught in the schools by women teachers especially, teaching it to young children. It is a great matter that the sisters be watchful over their children; and that is the point John makes to the elect lady and her children, to cling to the truth. If this bad teaching is brought up in the schools the children with their little voices come forward and say that it is not Scripture and God would honour them for it and support them in doing it.
APT The teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses is [p. 114] very close to it. They attack the truth from house to house.
JT It is a terrible effort of the devil, this house - to - house matter. It is for us to withstand them. Some of us know the history of that thing and it is well to have it. Of course, the doctrine commenced with a man called Russell in Pittsburgh and later changed their name under a man called Judge Rutherford and now it is Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is positively wicked, that they should dub themselves that. In the first place Jehovah is not the point now. It was the same with the woman with the spirit of Python at Philippi. She followed Paul and said, “These men are bondmen of the most high God”, Acts 16:17. They have branded themselves in that way, in bringing forth a testimony that belongs to the millennium and making it the testimony for the present time.
BH I met such a man the other day and asked if he believed that the Lord Jesus was a divine Person and he said, No.
JT I know. Christian Science is in the same class.
SMcC It is important in regard of what you are saying as to clarity in regard of doctrine; not only in relation to the meetings and the ministry but in relation to our houses. Let our sisters know the doctrine in view of these great errors.
JT Yes. We would not wish to whip the sisters because they cannot strike back, but at the same time there is a great sphere for sisters. We have alluded to the matter of the daughters of Philip several times, illustrious persons, who prophesied. That is to say, they did the work, and the question is whether sisters are working out the truth in their own experiences, so to speak, and answer people at the doors, or whatever it may be, and say the truth; or the schools — young people rejecting certain things. They say, I cannot accept that; it is not [p. 115] the truth.
RRT The elect lady here is suitable to greet the apostle.
JT Quite so.
ETP Would you say the great preservative feature in us in this matter is holding the truth in love as we count on the Holy Spirit?
JT Quite so; holding it in love.