THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

^[p. 32] THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

1 John 2: 20, 27; 1 John 3: 24; 1 John 4:1,2; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 5: 6 - 8

JT It will be noticed in each of these scriptures that the Spirit of God is largely concerned that we might know — first that we might be independent of man as regards the antichrist and the many antichrists spoken of in chapter 2; then in the end of chapter 3 as regards God abiding in us, and that we might know the spirits that are current, for evil teaching is not simply by men, but it is wicked spirits using them; then again we have the thought of knowing that we abide in God and He in us, by the Spirit; and finally the testimony of the Spirit as to the water and the blood, that is, the death of Christ. A christian should be intelligent as to all these things; the end throughout the epistle is that things are known; it finishes by saying, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding ^[p. 49] that we should know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ”. The first two scriptures, as will be observed, are addressed to little children; the second at the end of chapter 3 and beginning of chapter 4 is addressed to the saints as a whole, viewed as the family of God, and so is the passage in chapter 5. So that our first remarks would bear on the young amongst us, exposed to the spirit of antichrist in the schools, and current literature. The Spirit is spoken of in this chapter under the appellation of the ‘unction’ or ‘anointing’. In verse 20 we have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things, and then verse 27 says that “the unction which ye have received from him abides in ^[p. 33] you, 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”.

JHB Would you open out what the word ‘unction’ implies?

JT It seems to be the Spirit viewed in this particular setting, introduced as “the unction from the holy one”, “the holy one” alluding to the Spirit, not so much to call attention to Him personally, but in a certain way, as teaching the young. It is “from” Him, “from the holy one” — without stressing the personality of the Spirit; it appeals to us as to something already known, rendering us independent; it is by Him that we know all things.

Ques Would it be seen in principle in the movement of the man in John 9?

JT That is a good illustration of it. Of course he had not the Spirit, but that is the principle, as you say. It developed in a wonderful way into knowledge, so that he was superior to the Pharisees in that sense; he showed himself to be intelligent, as having learned more than they did. Just having received light from the Lord, having had his eyes opened, he used his knowledge in a seemly and courageous way. When he was spoken to by his neighbours, he told them the historical facts, but when he was spoken to by the Pharisees, it was what was then present “now I see”. They did not see. That, according to the Lord’s word at the end of the chapter, brought out the whole position of the Jews, their sin remained because they said they saw.

Ques The man said, “Now in this is a wonderful thing”. Is that what you had in mind in the thought of knowing, the power to take account of divine things?

JT I think that is how matters stand, it helps as the truth is introduced here. It would help young ^[p. 34] brothers and sisters among us, as to the schools and colleges, what they hear there, and in business. This chapter is to show them how independent they may be from the standpoint of knowledge; because the unction is “from the holy one” — the element of holiness is seen. The Lord is declared to be “Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness” (Romans 1: 4), the Spirit of holiness entering into His operations even in relation to death; so that all that obtains in relation to what God is, is holy. The Spirit’s operations are of the same nature, the unction is from the Holy One. It seems to have a bearing externally, emphasising that the saints are superior in their knowledge.

J Is that involved in what the Lord said to His disciples, that they were not to think out beforehand what they would say, but in that hour it would be given to them?

JT That is right; and the Spirit of their Father spoke in them. So that the comments on the Lord were that He had never learned — how did He know these things? And the apostles, too; they were “unlettered”, it says. But our passage deals with little children as peculiarly affected by current teachings. They are all against Christ, whatever form they may take; they may even use His name, but they are all antichristian.

PJB Have you religious books particularly in mind?

JT Particularly so, and much that is taught in the schools and colleges.

AMH Would the “unction from the holy one” indicate that the test as to what we may read or take in would be holiness?

JT Well, I think it is. If you could follow the authors of these books or systems, and hear them speak casually, you would soon detect that the element of holiness was not there. I believe that is the test.

^[p. 35] Of course, it raises the whole question of how the truth is presented; so that when the Lord spoke to the twelve and said, “Will ye also go away?” Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; ... thou art the holy one of God”, John 6:67 - 69. His words were of that character.

JHS What are we to understand by the words in verse 27, “the unction which ye have received from him” — from whom have we received the unction?

JT I think it is John’s way of speaking; whether he alludes to the Father or to the Son, and we might add even the Spirit, the pronoun is used; as for instance, in verse 29, “ye know that he is righteous”, that would be Christ in a practical way, but it is God, too. It helps us at the present time to see that it is God, and how John is so full of the Deity, whether it be in any one of the Persons, or in the whole Three, John uses the pronoun, without at the time being specific. I think that is his way of imparting the thought of the Deity of each of the Persons. What has been remarked as to the Holy One in verse 20 is, I think, important; that underlying all teaching is the holiness of God, and all antichristian teaching is without it, and must of necessity be without it. That is the test.

JHB Would another feature of what is true be that it tends to cause us to abide in Him, as in the end of verse 27?

JT Just so. In verse 20, it is to assert the independency of young christians, they have an unction from the Holy One and know all things. Then verse 27 opens it up more; it is “yourselves” there, calling attention to us in that way. Christians are marked off by that word ‘yourselves’. “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” — that is, the teaching of the unction is to fix us, to impart fixity, because the idea is that we are set up in relation to God in the sense of being in Him, or in relation to Christ, so that one knows where he is, by the teaching.

Ques Is there any divine teaching at all apart from the unction?

JT I think not; teaching is by the Spirit; but the use of the word here is, I think, to bring it home to us as something already known, having external characteristics, so that persons so taught are marked off.

Ques What would be the difference between this and the anointing as in Corinthians?

JT Well, the thought of anointing in 2 Corinthians 1 is to mark us off; it is not a question of teaching. “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God, who also has sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts”. That is a threefold expression of the truth of what God has done by the Spirit. There is not much difference, so far as I understand, between the two words; in either case I think it is what is external characteristically, what the saint is as marked off from others by the Spirit. His public external characteristic is the anointing, and then the sealing is the assertion of divine ownership, and the earnest would be his own portion in his heart. God has done all that by the Spirit. Now the anointing here (1 John) has in mind what is seen in the way of teaching as over against the ordinary teachings of men; and the fact that it is of the Holy One is to stress the thought of holiness.

If John had said, ‘from the Spirit’ in verse 20, it would, of course, be the Person; but it is rather the character — “from the holy one”, the thing emanates from Him.

Rem I was wondering whether the thought in Corinthians was more what was outward in the way ^[p. 37] of testimony, and that here perhaps the formation of subjective features after Christ, the thing that is true in Him being true in the saints (chapter 2: 8).

JT Well, it is that. It is the public characteristic that is in mind in the unction, as marking off a young Christian, for instance, as he sits in the train, or walks in the street, or works in the office; what he does and what he says is distinctive in that way, as over against those who have not the Spirit and are not Christians. The passage in 2 Corinthians to which you refer gives the threefold view: how God takes account of us as in our public character as anointed, dignified by the Spirit, and then as the property of God as sealed, in divine ownership, and thirdly our own portion, satisfaction in what we have heard, in the earnest of the Spirit.

Ques Would you say a little as to the latter part of verse 27, “even as it has taught you, ye shall abide in him”?

JT The apostle returns to the subject, after speaking of the antichrists, exposing what antichristian teaching means, the denial of the Father and the Son; he returns to the subject of the unction, and calls attention to “yourselves” — that class of persons. Then he says the unction which we have received from Him abides in us. All this is characteristic; it abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you — asserting that the saints are independent of man’s teaching. ‘Abiding in him’ would, I think, imply being set up in relation with God in a fixed way; that we know where we are, and can give an account of where we are, and of the fixity of the position, because of the teaching. The passage is to set up the saints, and especially young Christians, intelligently in relation with God in their souls. It is not merely to be thinking on what is said by others, but they are formed by the unction, and abide in Him thus. The unction abiding in me ^[p. 38] gives fixity in relation to Him, and then abiding in Him follows; it is on account of His teaching that we know where we are.

Ques Is it not rather important that the effect of the teaching is that an objective is produced?

JT Young christians, and maybe all of us, are very poorly fixed, very uncertain in our minds as to the state of our souls; and the apostle is aiming at setting us up in certainty and intelligence by the teaching of the unction. It is not exactly the teaching of the Scriptures, or of those who have ability to teach, but the teaching of the unction.

JHB Is the point not so much as to what the unction is, but as to whether we are conscious of being brought under divine teaching? I mention that because one is not exactly clear as to what the unction means.

JT Well, it alludes to what the christian already knows. The apostle is not treating of something new, but of what is already known to the persons addressed. So in coming back to the subject in verse 27 he says, “yourselves” — he throws us in upon ourselves as to who we are, are we in this class of persons, marked off in this way? So that if we have received it, we know what is meant, we know what the apostle means, it is that by which we are taught; it is the Spirit of God, of course, but it is the teaching, how we have been taught by Him. If John had used the word ‘Spirit’, or ‘Holy Spirit’, of course it would be the Person; but he is alluding to what is already known, what is experienced. The saints are addressed as already having this, it is not something new, but what we have already, and it abides in you, and according to its teaching, you abide in Him.

PJB Have you in mind in emphasising “yourselves” that the trend of religious teaching is to destroy the distinctive character that belongs to the ^[p. 39] christian, and to link him with the religious activities that are current?

JT Yes. It is not simply that we are to be in fellowship; that is a nice phrase, and good in its own way; but “yourselves” means a known class that have taken on this teaching. The enemy would obliterate its distinctiveness, and young people are so exposed to that, that they are just like others; the point is that the distinction is to be maintained. “Yourselves” have that distinction, ye have received the unction, and He is able to abide in you, and you are to abide in Him, to be fixed in that position and not to be moved away from it.

Ques Does Psalm 4: 3 touch it at all, “The Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself”?

JT Yes, it does. The passage in 2 Corinthians that has been cited implies that He has sealed us, we are His property, He has set us apart.

AMH Would the epistle help to develop certain spiritual instincts in the saints whereby they would know all things?

JT I think that is what is meant; and how pleasing it is for heaven to see brethren marked off in this way, not merely by the profession of certain principles or a creed, but in the unction, the real thing from God, the Holy One. Not only that the saints are relatively holy, but holy in the way we understand and speak of things.

AMH Do you think that can be damaged? David said (Psalm 51: 11), “take not the spirit of thy holiness from me”; that was after his sin. Do we need to be thus on our guard?

JT Yes, and to avoid all light reading; the more such we read the more we are damaged, instead of maintaining the spirit of holiness.

CWH Does 1 Corinthians 14: 32 enter into this “And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets”?

JT The allusion there is to your own ^[p. 40] spirit.

Each of us has a spirit from God, and the ‘prophet’ represents, as it were, the proprietor of it. Romans 7 brings out “I myself”, that is yourself, not your spirit. “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. I think that underlies what is said about the prophets; the prophet, as ministering, has under control all his faculties, and even although he has received an impulse in his spirit, he does not need to get up and speak at once; he can control that. The prophets are to be balanced in the part they take in the assembly, not to be carried along by impulse, but to be governed by intelligence. So Paul says earlier (chapter 14: 15), “I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also”: that would allude to the faculty of control.

CWH I was thinking of the detection of what is external, and that if the antichristian element appeared, it would be refused.

JT Well, when we come to chapter 4 we shall see the kind of spirits that are at work, and the Spirit of God is attributed to the christian as confessing Jesus Christ come in flesh; whereas those who do not confess Him come in flesh are governed by evil spirits. The passage in chapter 3 treats of how we are to know that He abides in us; and chapter 4: 13 is how we are to know that we abide in Him and He in us. These passages are intended to settle us as to where we are, and that we are intelligent as to our state, and what we enjoy — all is by the Spirit.

JHB What is the difference between our abiding in Him, and the thought of God abiding in us?

JT Well, I think God abiding in us (chapter 3:24) is that He is complacent in us; a very great thought, that God rests in His people as complacent in them. Abiding in us means that there is nothing to disturb Him; there is fixity. The dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and returned to the ark, to Noah. I think that would suggest how God by His Spirit ^[p. 41] finds restfulness in His people as He found it in Christ. The dove came down and abode upon Christ; there was nothing to disturb it. The Spirit now enables us to understand that, that God is restful in us. Then we have the additional thought in chapter 4:13; we are to know that we abide in Him and He in us, that is, He secures our hearts in restfulness in Him, so that there is a fixed state of things between God and His people, and all maintained in the intelligence of His people by the Spirit.

Rem You get the word ‘abiding’ in regard to the Spirit descending and abiding upon the Lord.

JT There was restfulness there, in the dove coming down and abiding upon Him. There was nothing to disturb Him; and I believe that is the thought here; God abides in us, there is nothing to disturb Him, and then He secures us in that we abide in Him, we are restful in God, the Spirit making all this intelligible to us.

Ques Is this to have an effect upon the saints in every sphere, and in our movements in the world generally?

JT John is dealing with us in that way; whatever the circumstances, I think this applies, the sense of God being restful in you, and you being restful in Him, and being intelligent as to it. John’s ministry has often been spoken of as abstract, as it is; much would come in to modify this, but these are basic thoughts and are intended to make us stable in an intelligent and conscious way; it is all by the Spirit, not merely by doctrine, but by the Spirit.

Ques I was wondering whether this was preparatory to John 14, where the Lord says that if a man love Him, he would keep His word and His Father would love him, and They would come to him and make Their abode with him. Is not what you are speaking of essential if we are to know anything of a divine ^[p. 42] visitation?

JT Quite so. If His commandments are disregarded, as they have been, the keeping of them brings us back to this position (John 14:23.) All this fits into this, I think. It is to make real Christians out of us, we are to be in possession of things by the Spirit, not merely by doctrine, but by the Spirit.

Ques In chapter 4: 15 it is a question of “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God”. This wonderful result comes about as the effect of confessing that He is Son of God. In Romans 10 salvation is realised by confessing Him as Lord; what is the difference?

JT Well, confessing Him to be Son of God is a further thought. The verses we have read speak of the Spirit, and that is what we are dealing with, to show the place the Spirit has in this epistle, and how essential He is to our practical enjoyment of fixity of our Christianity. Many other things, of course, are mentioned in that verse; and then again in verse 16, “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him”. There is much that works out of these verses by the Spirit, but the point is that the Spirit is the actual power to make it all effective in us, to make it sure to us, giving us the consciousness of it. Then as regards the teaching that is current, the beginning of chapter 4 speaks of the spirits, we are not to believe every, spirit, but to prove them, as to whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. “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”. So that it is the incarnation that is in mind — Jesus Christ come in flesh; not has come, but is come — it is the present fact; and every spirit that confesses that is of God. It is christianity essentially, as knowing ^[p. 43] Christ.

Ques Do you refer to His glorified condition now?

JT “Come in flesh” includes that. It is not what He was, but that He is come in flesh.

CWH The witness of the Spirit makes that clear, as coming from Him in glory.

JT I think so; every spirit that confesses that is of God, so that I suppose it includes what the Lord is at the present time, as in a new condition, but still in flesh, so that we have part in it. Christianity implies that we have part in it. Chapter 5 shows that He came in relation to cleansing, so it says He “came by water and blood”; that would be coming in flesh and blood, as at the beginning. But I think that “come in flesh” would cover Christ as He is, and the Spirit coming down witnesses to that.

Ques Do you mean that the “water and blood” refers to the incarnation?

JT I think so; He came in in that connection He came to die.

AMH Coming by water and blood would be to sweep away everything before Him, and “come in flesh” would be that He abides.

JT I think that is it. Chapter 5 is His condition here; but He Himself remains, and we have part in His humanity now.

Ques Would the blood and water coming out of His side in the gospel bear on this?

JT The allusion is to that. The water is first here; it is second in the gospel. I suppose the epistle stresses the great need of dealing with our state; the blood deals with our guilt, our sins; the water deals with our state, setting aside all that would hinder us having part with Christ in a new condition. The Spirit is the witness to that.

Ques Would chapter 5 also have a reference to His having come by water and blood into His present ^[p. 44] position?

JT Well, it takes in the whole position; but the point is to bring out that He came in that connection. You get it predicated of Him. In chapter 5: 6 it is “he that came by water and blood”, but in chapter 4 it is “come in flesh”, to stress the present time; the other is past, the Spirit having in mind His coming to deal with conditions that were here.

Ques Does it suggest that the Lord Jesus is not available to men in His life here apart from this, His coming by water and blood?

JT All His service had that in mind; there would be no point in His service if He did not come by water and blood; what would His teaching and miracles have availed aside from this fact, that He came to deal with the things He was exposing, and to deal with them to God’s glory?

JHB What is the difference between verse 6, the Spirit bearing witness, and verse 8, where they that bear witness are three, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and they agree in one?

JT The water and the blood by themselves are in relation to the death of Christ in the two aspects; you may say, speaking reverently, that the water and the blood are subdivisions, for the sake of teaching, of the great fact of His death; the water dealing with our condition, man’s condition, as seen in Romans 7 and 8, and the blood dealing rather with the earlier part of Romans, the question of our guilt. It is simply the teaching of the death of Christ subdivided as touching these two great phases of man’s condition, his guilt before God and his state before God; both have to be dealt with on the basis of the death of the Lord Jesus. The Spirit bears witness to it; the ministry of the twelve, and particularly of Paul, deals with our state as well as our guilt, and I think the witness of the Spirit would refer particularly to Paul’s teaching, which the Spirit is constantly ^[p. 45] pressing upon us now. In the historical account in John 19, the blood is first, because, I suppose, the guilt of man is the first thing that is dealt with, and then the state man was in. Here it is the state first because the guilt question and its settlement had been generally accepted amongst the saints, but not so much the water as dealing with their state. “It is the Spirit that bears witness, for the Spirit is the truth”. I suppose the meaning of that would be that the brethren were not receiving the whole truth; they were receiving forgiveness, and enjoying it — the truth that relates to our guilt; but the Spirit “is the truth”, that is, He would set out the full truth, as in a man like the apostle Paul, a man who went the whole way, he would set it out in a positive way, being a man who had been delivered from his sins and also from the power of sin in him. So that in verse 7 “they that bear witness are three”. Part of verse 7 in the Authorised Version is not scripture at all — the reference to the Father witnessing in heaven there is no point in that. It is what is down here, there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three agree in one. The point is a threefold testimony that cannot be broken; it is a complete testimony.

Ques In connection with the words in chapter 4: 3, “come in flesh”, would you connect that with the end of Luke’s gospel and the beginning of the Acts the Lord in resurrection? He said, “a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me having”, Luke 24: 39.

JT Yes, it is what He is now. He is come; not ‘has’ come, but He is come; so that it bears on His present condition. That is christianity. It is His humanity in a new condition in which the saints have part; that condition did not exist when He was in flesh and blood here; He was alone, there was no man ever like Him; it was a wholly distinct thing; no one before or since ever could be like Him.

“^[p. 46] Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit”; so that we are of His kind, there are many like Him now: that is really christianity. So it says in Hebrews 2, “For it became him”, (that is God) “... in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings. For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”. They are all “of one”, of one kind. That is the truth that really exposes modernism — christianity in the true sense of it, in another Man.

AMH The thought of Jesus Christ “come in flesh” as including all that He is now is so important, otherwise we shall be taking Him in the way that the unitarians do, and the Oxford Group, where there is no thought as to what He is now, they only have an attempted imitation of what He was on earth.

JT True christianity is Christ as He is in heaven, and our having part with Him there by the Spirit. It is of the very last importance to keep that before us, because that is the only thing that stands against the current evil. “Such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones”, 1 Corinthians 15: 48.

PJB Is that why it emphasises “not by water only, but by water and blood”?

JT It is the complete thing; there is not merely a witness, but the Spirit “is the truth”. Christ was “the truth” when here, and the Spirit is now the truth; and the truth implies the two great thoughts of the death of the Lord Jesus in its application to us, and it involves another Man in another place and another condition, and our having part in that. “Is come” is a continuous thought.

Ques Would His being anointed with oil of gladness above His companions fit in?

JT Yes, it does, only that is to bring out ^[p. 47] His distinction above His companions; but still they are His companions. The Lord always has the pre-eminence.

Ques Would not the witness of the water create in us a spirit of self-judgment, so that we might be able to get the gain of the unction?

JT Quite so. Then this witness leads us to the great thought of eternal life; that amplifies what we are saying as to Christ being in another condition now. Eternal life has been referred to as an out-of-the-world, heavenly condition and relationship and being, that is the humanity in which we have part — He, of course, always retaining His personal distinction and deity, that can never be touched, but this is what He is as Man.

Rem So that the youngest believer in Christ, when presented with that, would instinctively feel as to whether other teaching was in accord with it.

JT That is the point, I think. The spirits that are in current literature, what are they? Literature or teaching or whatever it is that confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; that is the test for us.

COB Would you link up the way the Spirit is referred to? First the “unction from the holy one”; then “the Spirit which he has given to us”, the “Spirit of God”, then “his Spirit” and finally “the Spirit is the truth”.

JT That is a good enquiry. What was said at the beginning, I think, is understood by us, what the unction means; it alludes to the teaching of the Spirit, known already, but enlarged on; then in the last verse of chapter 3 we are to know that God abides in us. Surely that is an important question; it is known “by the Spirit which he has given to us”. In chapter 4: 13 you will notice that it is “of his Spirit”, not simply that He has given us His Spirit, but He has given us “of” His Spirit. I think that is ^[p. 48] a most intimate thought, that we are sharing with God in His Spirit; it is a sharing thought; I do not think you get it elsewhere, but it is a very precious thing with God that we are sharing in His Spirit. It is not so much the Person of the Spirit, as that which God shares with you. Then “the Spirit is the truth” is manifestly a question of His testimony down here, the whole truth is in the Spirit; Christ is the truth objectively and the whole truth lies in the Spirit, subjectively now here in the saints. Then there is the other thought, in chapter 4: 2, the Spirit as regards what is of God, as over against other spirits; He is known by the confession of Jesus Christ come in flesh, and I think that opens up the great thought of our part with Christ and eternal life.

COB I wondered whether they were progressive thoughts, culminating in what the Spirit is.

JT I think that is so. He is the truth — the whole truth, as here in a subjective way, because the Spirit is really in the saints, He is not outside of us; and, of course, that extends to what we have in what is known as the canon of Scripture. The canon of Scripture is what has been arrived at as the effect of the Spirit, by the consensus of spiritual instincts in the people of God, not by ‘church councils’. In the revision of 1611 they included the Apocrypha in the canon, but they would not do it now. The Spirit is the whole truth; there is that here which has a clear testimony to everything, there is no doubt about it, so that the saints of God know things. This epistle is to bring out that the saints of God should know things. It implies that there is power here in the Spirit. Young people who have need of getting certainty will get it there and nowhere else; so that the epistle ends: “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us an understanding that we should know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life”.

COB The Lord when here could say, “I am ... the truth”, John 14: 6.

JT The Spirit is the counterpart of that; it is the same expression exactly.