THE CHILDREN OF GOD

^[p. 252] THE CHILDREN OF GOD

John 1: 11 - 18; John 21:1 - 14

JT The thought of the children of God is in mind, especially as referred to in the gospel of John. The spirit of the gospel of John is the spirit of grace. The passages read are put together in order to bring out these two things; that is, the children of God and then grace. Grace is seen in the first chapter, and it says, “of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace. For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”. Then, in the last chapter, the principle of the gospel is worked out in grace in the persons who were going astray. Clearly they were persons who had the Lord in their hearts, for the work of God had already taken effect in them, yet, for the moment, they were like the two going to Emmaus, they were on the wrong way. The Lord does not deal with them on the principle of law, but on the principle of grace. He does not say one word in the way of reproof to the seven who had gone fishing. That is in keeping with the first chapter, where we not only have grace set up in Christ, but grace received too, “of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace”. What has therefore been received, in that sense, ought to be intelligible to us. We ought to be able to speak of it freely as received. It follows the thought of the children of God formally, as the passage states, “He came to his own, and his own received him not; but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. The brethren will be aware that the thought of the children of God is more peculiar to John than to any of the gospels. Paul deals with it too, but John never mentions sons, except in Revelation 21. John thus refers to us as in our place down here; we are ^[p. 253] begotten of God and have the liberty to take the place of being children of God. This designation should help us all to think of the variety that is found in the saints. Gideon had that in his mind when he enquired of the men slain at Tabor. He said that they were the sons of his mother. The slayer said they were like him; “As thou art, so were they; each one resembled the sons of a king”, Judges 8: 18. One has been impressed with the variety of brethren here this afternoon, showing what God has on earth, at the present time, both as to assembly service and as to affection drawing us together, and as to actual levitical work too. “Children of God in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation; among whom ye appear as lights in the world”, Philippians 2: 15. Humanity is drifting away from Christianity, especially in the East. It is therefore all the more incumbent upon us, as children of God, to bear that stamp, that is to say, the character of God in Christ amidst the general adversity.

FCH Do you regard the expression, “To those that believe on his name”, as bringing the thought of receiving Him down to the present time?

JT It brings out the character of John’s gospel. It was written late, not simply to bring out what was current, but to bring out what had been, in the way of testimony at the beginning. John’s writings, especially the gospel and the book of Revelation, bear a character suggestive of their being written late, and they bring out the truth as to God Himself. The word in chapter 1 is, “to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. The Spirit of God would bring out what had been, and what had borne the brunt of the opposition against the truth before the final declension came in. Hence way is made for the last days. I should think that there is more in the beginning and the last days than in the middle of the dispensation. The first chapter ^[p. 254] brings out the children of God, those who have the title to take that place. Then chapter 21, which we may call the appendix, refers to those who were astray; yet the defect was shallow, and so the Lord withholds reproach and shows grace. He would bring out the full thought of grace at such a time.

Ques Have you in mind that this is the present counterpart of sonship down here?

JT I think so. The Spirit of God connects the full thought of sonship with heaven, for it is a question of the calling of God. The children are in the place where things are contrary, as we have said, “in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation; among whom ye appear as lights in the world”. Abstractly the epistle of John would bring out what the work of God really is. He says, “Even as he is, we also are in this world”, 1 John 4: 17.

Ques Would the expression, “lights in the world” suggest the thought of variety which you have mentioned? Paul says, “For star differs from star in glory”, 1 Corinthians 15: 41.

JT Yes; the difference is in glory.

Ques I would like to get clearer what you said about sonship in view of the word in Galatians 4: 6, “Because ye are sons”. Whilst the full development of sonship involves glorified bodies like Christ above, is not the fact of sonship extant now?

JT I would say it is a question of light at first. Paul says, in that epistle: “Ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus”, Galatians 3: 26. The light can be regarded as if the thing were substantive. God, I think, treats light in that way Himself, as He said, “Let there be light. And there was light”. The apostle Paul brings that in, and, translating it into the New Testament, he says it is in the face of Jesus Christ: “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. It becomes substantial. I think the light is ^[p. 255] thus regarded in Galatians, because it says, “But because ye are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”. The expression “because ye are sons” is taken up by itself as apart from the Spirit of sonship.

Ques I was thinking of sonship involving the heavenly side, whereas John says, “Now are we children of God”, 1 John 3: 2. The term children seems to apply to us as down here as rightly representative of God. We are born of Him, not of the generations of men; whereas sonship seems to involve God’s pleasure in us as linked with Christ as above. I wondered whether they ran on concurrently at the present time?

JT What I was saying as to Galatians, I think, is helpful and should be kept in mind. Galatians treats the idea of sonship by itself, before the actual Spirit of sonship is viewed as in conjunction with it. Perhaps the brethren might do well to examine that a little more. The light is treated substantially, in order to bring out the truth, and that makes way for “a spirit of adoption [or sonship] whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. But sonship is treated by itself.

CG Is not God’s object in the glad tidings that men should be brought into sonship? He revealed His Son in Paul that he might preach Him in order to secure such.

JT That is right, but I think what I was saying as to keeping the two thoughts relatively each in its place in Galatians is important. I think the idea of sonship treated by itself, and making way for the Spirit of sonship is only found in Galatians.

AB Would the verse in Romans 8: 14, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God”, give a characteristic of the sons of God?

JT “As many as are led”. Just so. But then we are entitled to speak of the element of sonship by itself, as Galatians does. “Because ye are sons”, (not ‘because ye are to be sons’), “God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba, Father”.

ADT Have we the privilege to enter upon it in the assembly service?

JT We have, because we know the Spirit is here now, and is available to us as a Spirit of adoption. He is not only the Spirit in the sense of the Comforter, but a Spirit of adoption. We know He is available to us, and that, in fact, as believers, normally each one has Him. It is not, of course, certain that each nominal believer has Him, because Paul raises that whole question in Acts 19 as to the twelve men at. Ephesus. They were not clear about the Spirit, but still they had the light of John’s baptism.

GWB How does the word in Matthew 17: 26 come in, “then are the sons free”?

JT I would say that would be sonship in anticipation, which we are bound to recognise, because the Spirit had not yet come. The Lord has to treat of the thing anticipatively, and so the idea of sonship is illustratively spoken of as among the gentiles in Matthew 17: 25. The Lord says, “Then are the sons free”, meaning that He Himself and Peter were sons. But then He says immediately, “That we may not be an offence to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up ... and give it to them for me and thee”. That is, Christ and Peter were sons. Of course, Christ was a Son in virtue of His own Person and rights, but Peter was not a son in that sense; he was anticipatively called a son, for the time of sonship had not yet literally come, and that is what Galatians treats of, the time of sonship. It applies the idea of time to the matter of the doctrine of sonship. It is a question of time. The children, it says, were “under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father”. In the Old Testament times, although the principle was there, the actual time of sonship had not yet arrived,

^[p. 257] and that is the point of view taken in Galatians. I would like to make that clear, because it is one of the most vital points before us.

PHH When you speak about the light of sonship being treated as substantial, what do you mean quite by the light? Are you referring to the light of sonship, for instance, as appearing in Christ as Son?

JT Yes, whatever light it may be. God said, “Let there be light”. That was the first commandment. He commanded that light should shine out of darkness, but we cannot just say what the light was. We cannot analyse it until we come to the fourth day, but then we have the greater light and the lesser light in the sense of rule. When you have ruling, then the thing is clear as to where the light is and what it is, but in the first day we cannot tell what it is. At the same time there is something there in the sense of substantiality, because God calls it day. He “called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night”. So that what I was saying I think ought to be clear to us all, that the two things have to be taken separately, the idea of light, and then the Spirit of sonship by itself.

WC When it says “that we should be called the children of God” (1 John 3: 1), is that the naming of what is there? In the first reference you made in John 1, it is that we should be children of God. Does the calling mean that the thing is there, and so God names it?

JT The thing was there, but there it is a question of birth. It is not the new birth exactly, for it is more than that; it is what Christianity in its result had become in the history of the world. So in the verses read, we have what the thing is, “but as many as received him” (that is, Christ) “to them gave he the right to be children of God”. That is, in the history of Christianity, believers had the right or liberty to take that place. It is not the calling of God in heaven, it is what they are down here.

WC It says, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God”.

JT The first chapter would indicate that God had given to them the liberty of regarding themselves in that way, and John’s epistle implies that whoever might use the term, “children of God”, there are persons who are so designated.

Ques Does John’s epistle make a difference in that it says, “Beloved, now are we children of God”, but immediately adds, “what we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”? Is the full development of that involved in sonship?

JT I would think so. When it says, “we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”, that is sonship. That is not the thought of children. “We shall see him as he is”. It is not as He was, but as He is. It brings out what is referred to in Philippians, that we are to be like Christ and like Him in His body of glory.

EAE Does that correspond with the passage in Romans 8: 21, where it says, “the creature itself also shall be set free from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God”?

JT The creation is to be brought into the liberty of that; not into that, but into the liberty of it. It is what shines out, I would say; “the liberty of the glory of the children of God” would be the glory of sonship.

AB Would the presentation of the truth in Hebrews 12 help as to that practically? The matter of discipline, which we normally associate with children, is linked there with sons.

JT Quite so. It shows that God is preparing us, through discipline, to be in the light of it now; in the good of it too, and in the practical expression ^[p. 259] of it.

ADT The footnote in Mark 7 says, ‘”children” in the sense of being born of the family, used by John to signify this relationship in Christians, as born of God’.

JT John’s epistle contemplates Christians as children, and so does John’s gospel, and chapter 1 of John’s gospel treats of what had come about in the history of the testimony; those who received Christ had liberty to take that place; God gave them that liberty; they were not children by mere profession, but as born of God. They were before the universe, I would say, as having that place, for God had given it to them, and John’s epistle supports it.

PHH Do you regard it as significant that all these references to grace in John 1 follow the matter of the children of God? We have “full of grace and truth”, and then “for of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace”, and then “grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”.

JT The idea of grace is brought out in the section from verses 14 to 18, “For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”. The word subsists is singular, showing that the two things are combined in Christ and this brings out the character of the dispensation. The children of God have liberty to take that place as born of God. The liberty is given to “those that believe on his name; who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. Here, in chapter 1, is not simply the new birth by itself as in chapter 3, but the full thought of Christianity. The word sonship is omitted carefully to bring out the right belonging to those who are children, which God had graciously given the saints, in this day. They can take that place, and have full liberty in taking it too.

Ques As we take that place, is it incumbent upon us to maintain the spirit of grace that has come out in Christ?

JT That is the thing, I think, and, of course, we ought to see that it is necessary, especially in discipline.

^[p. 260] The idea of discipline has in mind that we are to get on together; it is not simply that we should be excommunicated from each other’s company, but that we should be kept together. The word in Galatians 6: 1 is, “if even a man be taken in some fault, ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest thou also be tempted”. The meaning of the word restore is to set up the person where he had been, so as to function in the position and to shine in it.

AMcG Would the reference in 1 Corinthians 1: 10 bear on that where it says, “That ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united”, and so on. The note to united says, ‘Where all the members have each its own place, or make a whole; or, if broken, are restored to one complete whole, as, “mending”’.

JT It is to bring out the idea of restoring the brethren. It is not to get rid of them. The principle is, as Paul said, “That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”, 1 Corinthians 5: 5. The fact is that that man was restored long before the day of the Lord, for he was restored here on earth. The Corinthians were too slow to set him up again, but the idea was to set him up so as to function where he had been.

PL A dispensation so great, as is this one, calls for such an elevated relationship in the saints to give character to it.

JT That is the thought. God would have Christianity according to what was in His mind. At the time of John’s writing, the great failure had begun, and the book of Revelation, of course, makes that clear. At the same time the full thought of God should be maintained, and John’s gospel is to help us to maintain it, and to keep things on their proper level. However few we may be we should see to that. So the principle of grace is stressed in the first chapter, and illustrated in the last chapter. Although there was failure in the seven who went off fishing, there was not a word of reproach. The ^[p. 261] evidence shows that the failure was shallow; the Lord knew it was not deep, and so He invites them to dine, after saying, “Children, have ye anything to eat?”.

AM Would it be right to say that grace is the principle of supply as over against the principle of demand that had previously operated?

JT I think the man in Corinth must have felt that there was the principle of supply in the assembly. I would say he soon came into it. The word firstly was, however, “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”; however short the time would be that that should take place. The facts are that he was restored long before the day of the Lord; he was restored in Corinth, but they were slow to restore him.

PHH Would you say that there is evidently to be a balance in our minds between the assembly acting in discipline and this priestly matter having in mind the restoration of the person?

JT It seems to me very remarkable that it should appear in Galatians. It is as if the Galatians were short of the supply, as our brother has just suggested.

PL The oil and the wine were not there.

JT Quite so. The Samaritan had the oil and the wine. The oil, I suppose, is to anoint. It also appears, for that purpose, in the recovery of the leper. The wine would be to stimulate, which is a great matter. If a brother is to be restored, he must be stimulated, and stimulated on right principles.

AB Would Galatians 6 contemplate an isolated act and 1 Corinthians 5 rather a course?

JT 1 Corinthians 5 was a course; one of the worst courses of sin we can get. On the other hand Galatians contemplates priestliness in the saints, in having to do with each other, particularly in regard of failure. I have no doubt there were some who were priestly in the assemblies in Galatia, because they are treated of as assemblies; it is not one assembly. Undoubtedly there were genuine men there, and so the apostle says, “Ye who are spiritual”. They were to “restore”. This implies that the erring one is set up again where he had been, and set up to function. The act of putting away or excommunication at Corinth did not suggest that the man should be set up for recovery at the present time, but rather that he should be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; not saved for the testimony here, that is not the point. Galatians, however, has in mind that the person should be restored at once. There is no idea of being excommunicated, but restored.

PHH The same apostle who wrote to the Galatians about this restoration, has also written to the Corinthians about excommunicating the person.

JT I am sure it is right to observe the two sides. No one would be quicker to recognise the need of excommunication by the assembly than the man that was under discipline. The apostle carefully speaks of what was going on in the man’s mind as a result, and how he might be overwhelmed. He also speaks of what was going on in the minds of the Corinthians themselves; “What revenge!”, he says; but it was not fully applied, for the man had not been really restored by them.

FVW Is it important to see that it was the priest who went to observe how the leper was getting on? It was not the rulers, although they were existent at the time and had their function and authority.

JT Quite so. The priest was the leading man in Israel at that time. Although there were rulers, the general position at the beginning in Israel was a priestly position. The high priest was in power. But then it is not the high priest that is in mind in the recovery of the leper; it is just the priest. He is never wanting; he is supposed to be there.

FVW The priest would have holy tender feelings which would exalt his thoughts about the leper, in contrast to the regulation that marks the ruler. Perhaps we have sometimes gone in the spirit of the ruler, rather than in the spirit of ^[p. 263] the priest.

JT The power really lies in the priesthood.

AB In a case where the matter may warrant excommunication, is your thought that the ministry of mending as in Galatians 6 in a sense should be brought to bear immediately on the person so that there might be recovery without the excommunication, or did I gather that you said, the excommunication of 1 Corinthians 5 must take place?

JT Not necessarily. The two epistles are to be treated separately. They would, of course, fit into each other, but 1 Corinthians is one epistle and Galatians is another. Galatians contemplates that the person taken in the fault could be restored back into fellowship; there was power there to restore him. There is no need of going through disciplinary procedure if the man is restored. The thing is what the priest can do, and there is much that he can do, and does do in Leviticus 14. It may be a question of what is inward in the man, and if he is restored inwardly there is no need to publish what he has done. The thing is to set him up suitably so that he can function in the assembly.

FCH You make room for repentance and confession and contrition in these matters.

JT Yes. They might take place one after another.

JSE Does the scripture in Luke 17: 3, 4 have a bearing on this practically? First of all it says, “if thy brother should sin, rebuke him; and if he should repent, forgive him”. Then it goes on, “And if he should sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven times should return to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him”. Does the first remark have any bearing upon what you are saying, as showing that there is the ability and necessity to forgive immediately the element of repentance shows itself?

JT If the element of repentance is there, the work is really done and the finish will come. The priest will know what to do. Repentance is the basic thought, and Luke makes much of that. The Lord says elsewhere,

“^[p. 264] I say not to thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven” (Matthew 18: 22), showing how intense the idea of grace is.

GWB In Leviticus 14 the complete reinstatement of the cleansed leper depended upon a long detailed process of priestly service. What is the significance of that to ourselves?

JT It is a question of the levitical book, the third book, coming in after Exodus, and it shows what God had provided in the priest and how fully the priest would look into things. The man is thus set up inside, and finally oil is put upon him so that he comes out anointed. We get details even as to which hand the priest is to use for the oil, which brings out the full thought in the mind of God in Leviticus and indicates the provision God has made to help His people to keep moving together as His people in dignity. The detail is remarkable and is to be studied in relation to the whole Pentateuch, because it is a question of the economy of God in the Old Testament. But then it may be looked at as figurative too, and the figurative side is the thing to lay hold of. That side is surely more than the actual legal side at the beginning.

AWGT Does the full answer to what is set out in Leviticus really require the present dispensation?

JT I think it does, for it contemplates Christianity. You cannot get the full truth of the Old Testament without Christianity. The Spirit brings the truth out.

JJT So that forgiveness is one thought, but is not the final recovery a moral course?

JT Well, it shows how patient God is, and what a world we are brought into, a world of priests! We are spoken of as “priests of God and of the Christ”, Revelation 20: 6. It is to show what we are brought into as Christians, a world of priesthood! That is the skill of keeping the law and conveying the mind of God at any time. It says “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth they seek the law”, Malachi 2: 7. It is the priest’s mouth.

^[p. 265] WH Everything is done for the man to be restored on the part of the priest at first?

JT Just so. Everything is to be done for him. There is no hospital in the world that will apply such care as the spiritual hospital. That is to say, what God has provided for the preservation and carrying through of His people.

WC When it says in 1 John 1: 9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”, would you bring in, so to speak, mediatorial service there?

JT Quite so, “and to cleanse us”.

WC That might be through the brethren?

JT Quite so. It is what we are here today, and what we are able to do as priests of God and of Christ. We are priests to each other too, for we are to serve as priests to each other.

PH In Galatians 6, “ye who are spiritual” seems to be stressed.

JT That is to bring out the priestly state, which is the spiritual state. The word “priestly” is really not a Christian word; it is a word borrowed from the Old Testament, but it is a forceful word, and we rightly use it.

Ques Is it not brought in there as in contrast to the general legality that marked the place?

JT I suppose so. There were a number of assemblies apparently in Galatia. The apostle is not saying, ‘If there are priests’, but “ye who are spiritual”, that is, those who are priests, “restore such a one”.

ADT Is that power seen affecting Peter before the Lord died? “The Lord, turning round, looked at Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord ... and Peter, going forth without, wept bitterly”, Luke 22: 61, 62. “When once thou hast been restored”. Is that the position of restoration?

JT Quite so. Peter was thus ready, so that when the Lord went back to Jerusalem from Emmaus, Peter ^[p. 266] was there. They were speaking about him too, saying, “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”. It shows how quickly things can be done, and yet they are done. They are not partially done.

ECM Would it be a question of our discerning and keeping pace with the work of God in such a one? I was thinking of Luke 15: 20, “while he was yet a long way off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell upon his neck, and covered him with kisses”.

JT I would say that.

RSW Regarding the recovery of Peter, would the Lord’s dealings with him in John 21 be the finishing work?

JT That is a John picture. It is not a Luke picture. It is in keeping with what we have in mind, how John at the end is in keeping with the beginning, in recording how the Lord treated those seven erring ones; the very best and the leaders were among them. Peter himself was there, and James and John, I gather, were there, and yet there is not a word of reproach. But then the Lord went through the thing, for when He had finished what He had in His mind, we come to Peter. We have Mary Magdalene, and we have Thomas, in chapter 20, but then in chapter 21 we have Peter. The Lord has Peter in His mind, and He is not going to finish the matter unless Peter comes into it. It says in verse 14, “This is already the third time that Jesus had been manifested to his disciples, being risen from among the dead”. Now all that we have already spoken about, this third manifestation, was finished, and then it says, “When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?”. The Lord takes up the matter of Peter, not to upbraid him with going off fishing, but to bring out love among the brethren, and whether Peter loved according to his claim, that he would do more than any of them in love. The Lord wanted to bring that out. He had more ^[p. 267] the thought of that, than simply to say, Well, Peter, you know, you led the others wrong. There is not a word about that. It is a question of Peter’s love for the Lord.

RSW Is that in view of his status as a servant?

JT It is a question of whether Peter loved more than the others did. If Matthew’s thought of him is to be maintained, where it says, “First ... Peter”, then he must be first in love or he is nothing.

PHH I suppose he would be greatly affected by what had preceded. There was the great multitude of fishes and then what the Lord had prepared. Is there a basis now, in Peter’s soul, for the Lord’s last appeal to him?

JT I think so. We really need to look into the whole chapter, at our leisure, to see how Peter’s case is taken up, because it is an appendix really. It is the end of the matter, and it is as if the Lord were to say, This matter of the disciples must come up and their love for one another and whether there is any rivalry amongst them. Reading from verse 21 we have, “Peter, seeing him, says to Jesus, Lord, and what of this man? Jesus says to him, If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me”. That is the end of the instruction to Peter; he is to be set right, clearly, and set right as following the Lord. He is not to be occupied with his brother, or with anyone that might perhaps have a status as good as his, or nearly as good. The Lord says, “Follow thou me”, meaning ‘Keep your eye on Me’. It is a question for each one of us, in this critical time we are in now, as to whether our eyes are on Christ. John writes in verse 24, “This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things” — John is thinking of himself, because the Lord had given him this place — “and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written”. That is John’s tribute to Christ’s glory and greatness.

Ques Does not the word, “Follow thou me”, being emphatic, remind us of what Paul said to Timothy? The emphatic thou goes through his epistles, and the word comes down to every one of us.

JT Each one has to take it home to himself.

AB Are those like the individual loops of the net, so that it will not break however many great persons there are in it?

JT I think the power of the net really refers to the Spirit, for it is a question of the dispensation of the Spirit. Of course, if each one keeps his eye on Christ, he would be a link there. What is written in John’s gospel makes allowance for the dispensation of the Spirit. “The Spirit”, we are told, “was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified”, John 7: 39. The time has come now and the Spirit is here and all hinges on that in this dispensation.

GP Referring to the grace of the dispensation, would the rebukes be those of love?

JT Yes, where there are rebukes; but we have only a mild one here in the Lord’s remarks to him, “Lovest thou me more than these?”. There is no doubt an allusion there to the claim that Peter made, but still the chapter is full of grace, and I believe, it is in keeping with chapter 1.

AH Does the word in chapter 11 have any bearing on what you have been saying as to grace, “that he should also gather together into one the children of God who were scattered abroad”? Is this operation of the Lord, in chapter 21, the maintenance of the gathering?

JT I would say that. The word is, “Yet will I gather others to him, with those of his that are gathered”, Isaiah 56: 8. That is a comforting word. It is a great thought in John to keep in mind, that the name of Father, whilst, of course, it is literal as to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is yet generally used to express grace in Christianity.

^[p. 269] PL Would the gathering power of grace both in relation to the sea and the land in this chapter suggest the wide scope of the Lord’s operations at the end of the dispensation, their universal character? The fish from the sea, and then grace operating on the land as regards Peter and so on. Does it mean that no realm is excluded from the scope of grace, so to speak, at the end?

JT Quite so. The Lord was operating Himself. Think of what was there: “Jesus says to them, Come and dine. But none of the disciples dared inquire of him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus comes and takes the bread and gives it to them”. I think that is grace. It is the fatherly care that Christ has toward His children. We have had it already in the idea of the children of Christ, and Himself as the Father of the age. I believe this chapter brings it out in this word children. It is not simply the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is more the fatherliness of Christ; fatherhood was there in Him. Look at the tenderness with which He cared for them; “Jesus comes and takes the bread”. He does it Himself. Who cooked that bread? Who prepared it? We have to assume the Lord did it. But then He says to them, “Bring of the fishes which ye have now taken”, as much as to give them credit in spite of their waywardness. He allows them to take the fishes; He accredits them with having them. The number is given too, showing that the whole position is to bring out grace, and how it acts even in the way the Lord provided the dinner for them, and then the dignified word He uses, “Come and dine”.

PH Are we to expect this care of the Lord right through, He being “the Father of the age”?

JT I think so. Even if we may fail, be sure and get right terms, dignified ones, in the service of God. We are dealing with the greatest things and must have terms suitable. So the Lord Himself uses the word ‘dine’ here.

^[p. 270] Rem The apostle ends most of his epistles with, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you”. We have resources in the Lord, and they are to be made use of; “of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace”.

JT Grace is to be shown. If the grace is to be brought out, it is from the Father; we go back to the source of everything. It is the Father, as in Ephesians. I think John has that in mind in the use of the word ‘Father’ in his gospel.

EP In Ephesians 4: 32 the apostle says, “Be to one another kind, compassionate, forgiving one another, so as God also in Christ has forgiven you”. And then in chapter 5, “Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children”.

JT I think, at such a time as this, when the brethren are together from different parts, and their variety as children of God is seen, we have to get to Ephesians. We are not to forget John, but we are to cleave to Paul. Paul’s ministry gives the full divine thought for the saints, and I believe when it is a question of grace, we must go to the Father for that, and this comes out in Ephesians.

Ques As to the question of grace, it has been thought that where a person has been on a course of sin, exclusion is necessary even if they are repentant, on account of the Lord’s name being involved. Does that conflict with this thought of grace and restoration which you have been referring to?

JT I think we would have to go by circumstances in that case. If the thing has not happened openly, if there is nothing public causing discredit on the testimony, then it might easily be settled privately, because grace is grace, and it “subsists through Jesus Christ”. We cannot say there was any action taken as to Peter and yet his sin was very serious. I mean it shows what can be done and how God can ^[p. 271] do things.

JSE I think this was in the mind of a brother earlier when he was speaking about Galatians 6 and enquiring as to whether such a case necessitated what we speak of as a meeting of assembly character.

JT It is a question whether it does. The brethren ought to know what to do. The Lord gives us understanding, as it says, “the Lord will give thee understanding in all things”. If therefore we are with God, we are not driven to the wall; we know what to do in every case, whatever it may be.

Rem So that your first reaction to a matter, however grave it might be, would be to have Galatians 6 in mind. If the person proved to be adamant and not susceptible to the grace that was bestowed upon them, either in the Lord’s dealings or in the dealings of the brethren, it may come to a case of 1 Corinthians 5.

JT That is what I would say.

WC James 5: 19, 20 says, “if anyone among you err from the truth, and one bring him back ... he ... shall save a soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins”. Is it a question of discerning as to whether that is possible?

JT Just so. The Lord will not allow us to be driven to the wall in the government of the assembly. He would give us wisdom in every case. Therefore the expression, “Ye who are spiritual”, must surely have a place in the care meetings. It is not only those that are old, but those that are spiritual.

AMcG Does the thought of bringing back the sinner from the error of his way suggest that we are to move in such wise with the scripture in mind, “ye who are spiritual”, so that the man is helped to judge himself, and be brought back?

JT Quite so. The influence of the priest would lead him to that. Normally that would be the effect of it.

ALRT In Leviticus 14 it speaks of “the day of his cleansing”. Would that imply that there is a time to be looked for, for ^[p. 272] restoration?

JT There is. That is a very good point, because chapters 13 and 14, which run together, contemplate the man’s recovery from the very outset. They contemplate his being brought inside from being an outcast, first to remain at his tent door and then, as one might say, to get in touch with his family, but ultimately, the priest sets him up in dignity, so that he can function in the assembly.

JSE Is there any significance in that we have elaborate instructions in the book of Leviticus about the matter, but when the concrete case comes to light in Numbers 12, it only took seven days to deal with it?

JT Well, but that seven days was a dispensational period. It would refer to Israel in the future. She will have to stay for a while, but she will be brought back as it says, “all Israel shall be saved”, Romans 11: 26. God has never given that up.

PH In regard of the lapse of the seven disciples in John 21, you did not think that it amounted to the same seriousness as leprosy or even Galatians 6?

JT Well, it did not. There are grades in the divine way of dealing with things, and, of course, John 21 does not contemplate such things as are spoken of in Paul’s writings, such as 1 Corinthians 5. We get nearer and nearer to heaven, so that we will be like heaven and those that are going to heaven are going to heaven, as it were, in full sail. It is a very wonderful thought that the Lord is bringing us near to the time when we shall go up, and it is a question of letting that light have effect on us now, so that we shall be ready to join in the throng of those who are to be translated. It is said of Enoch, “Before his translation ...” and that would apply to us too. It is now before our translation, so then let it be true that we have this testimony that we please God.