CHILDREN OF GOD AND SONSHIP

^[p. 264] CHILDREN OF GOD AND SONSHIP

John 1: 11 - 13; John 13: 33 - 35; John 21: 4 - 8 (first clause); Isaiah 8: 18

JT What is in mind to be considered is sonship from the gospel of John. The passage in Isaiah is intended to bear on the last two scriptures read in John’s gospel, to bring out the bearing of the children which God gave to Christ. The first scripture is intended to bring before us plainly the subject of the children of God; that relationship characterises John’s gospel rather than that of sons; the word is ‘children’, not ‘sons’. It refers to all christians, not in relation to our growth, for which another word is used, but as those belonging to the family of God, born of God. It belongs to the prefatory part of the gospel, showing the end reached through the incarnation, that those who received Christ were entitled to take this place. It might be enquired why sonship is not in mind, in view of chapter 20 where we are said to be brethren of Christ and that His Father is our Father and His God our God. That passage certainly involves sons, not children, for Christ is not said to be a child in the sense in which we are said to be children in this passage. Sonship is by adoption in our case, in His by birth; whereas we are children by birth. So that the answer as to the use of the word ‘children’ here, a dignified word, is that, in the main, the gospel has our present position here, as representative of God, in mind, in view doubtless of the apostasy; at the beginning of christianity, apostasy among the Jews, and now, at the end, apostasy among nominal christians. So that it finds out those who are real. Profession in itself is of no value; there must be the evidence of life, but life in the sense of being born of God, belonging to the ^[p. 265] family of God, so that we are characteristically of God. That is what is in mind, and we hope the brethren will be free to consider it together.

JSB Will you enlarge a little on your remark that those who received Christ were entitled to take this place?

JT Well, the idea of the reception of Christ is condensed in John; we need to go to Luke for the enlargement of it; it is said in Luke that the time of His receiving up had come. God indicating in the record that, whatever men were thinking of Him, there was a warm reception awaiting Him in heaven: He was received up in glory, we are told. Luke also affords examples of the reception of Christ with very little warmth attached to them. John would indicate here that the reception of Christ by those who believed was genuine, accompanied by the work of God, by the divine birth, in the saints who were born, as it is said, “not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. As coming to His own, to what was His own, namely Israel, it would appear that their inability to receive Him must have occasioned grief to the Lord, and corresponding pleasure in those who did receive Him. It would mean, as was remarked, the genuine reception of Christ. There were different presentations of Him as they came to Him and received Him, but it was genuine, as in the incidents we have recorded in the gospel of persons who received Him.

JWS Does that involve the sovereign work of God in the soul?

JT That is what is stated. The idea is that they received Him according to His testimony. The woman of Samaria would be an example: He was to her the Christ, that is, she received Him in that sense according to His testimony and claims; not simply as a person in the ordinary sense, but according to His claims. His rights, ‘What was his own’ (see ^[p. 266] note on verse 11) would mean He had rights there; they were His by right, “He was in the world”, we are told, “and the world had its being through him” — He had rights there too, but “the world knew him not”. What was His own would be Israel, according to earlier testimony, for He was the Messiah and was entitled to reception.

FSM What would the difference be between the thought of receiving Him and believing on His name? Both appear to be our side, whereas God’s side is “born of God”.

JT “As many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name”. I would say that believing on His name would be the recognition of what came out in Him by way of testimony. The signs, of course, called attention to Him; we are told in John 2 that “many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he wrought. But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men, and that he had not need that any should testify of man, for himself knew what was in man”. I suppose that would mean that there were those then, as in our day, who received Him in a merely mental way because of certain signs, but they were not genuine, they could not be said to be born of God. There are many who believe today through the testimony of christianity generally in this same way, but they are not trustworthy; so that believing on His name here would be accompanied by genuineness, as it is said, “Who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will, but of God”. That is how I would take that; perhaps you have more to say about it.

FSM No. I understand that the characteristic features of the children of God would be those two things, one, they believe on His name, and, two, they are born of ^[p. 267] God.

JT Yes. Believing on His name is not enough. So every Scripture has to be read with its context, for believing on His name might be genuine left by itself, but it is not left by itself here, nor in chapter 2. Chapter 1 treats it as genuine by the fact that it is accompanied by the new birth, and that is, of course, a challenge to everyone in christendom now as to whether their profession is genuine.

HPW Do we get help in this matter of receiving Him in Martha and Mary in Luke? Martha received Him into her house, but Mary into her heart. He had a permanent place with Mary.

JT That is the thought, and earlier in the gospel of Luke (chapter 9) the Lord sent messengers before His face to prepare His way and they came to a village of the Samaritans, and they did not receive Him because His face was as though He would go to Jerusalem. That is another important feature in Luke, that the direction of the Lord’s face at that time implied His death; and, whether the Samaritans had that in mind or not, the fact is there, they did not receive Him because His face was towards Jerusalem. And I think that is pretty much how matters stand today; it is a question of whether our faces are towards Jerusalem. If we follow in the Lord’s steps in that sense, we shall not be received either. We are to go all the way, for that is the idea; the Lord was going all the way involved in His mission. If we go all the way we shall not be received.

CEB Was this worked out in the man in John 9?

JT All these cases in John that are presented to us, genuine cases, are examples of this. I believe the man in chapter 5 is somewhat questionable, for the Lord warns him that a worse thing might come upon him; he was not going all the way with Christ; too, the Lord says to the woman in chapter 8, although she seems to be reckoned among believers, “Go, and sin no more”. Persons like those are doubtful, but ^[p. 268] the man in chapter 9 is unquestionable, as is also the group at Bethany. As has been said, Mary received the Lord into her heart, although there can be no doubt that Martha did, too, in a way; John shows us she did, for she is in her own place as the Lord finally comes to Bethany. Then the group at the cross, of course, is outstanding.

EG It says in John 2 that Jesus did not trust Himself to them; what would that imply?

JT It is an important suggestion, because it involves trustworthy persons in view of Christ in testimony. He is not here, of course, corporeally, but the testimony as to Himself is here. The use of the word ‘Himself’ will be noted — “Jesus himself did not trust himself to them”, and then, “for himself knew what was in man”. He personally is stressed there. He had already said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, showing that His destruction was in His enemies’ mind, and that nominal believers would be of no value at all in that sense. Nicodemus represents the kind that could be trusted; although he scarcely comes to much in the gospel. There is what we have in our verses in chapter 1 that establishes trustworthiness. It is an appeal to us as to whether what we profess is worth while, whether we are ready to stand for it, to suffer for it, if need be.

ECB Would believing in Christ here involve all that went before His death in incarnation?

JT I think His name would mean that; it would imply what John presents of Him. You cannot divorce that from the idea of His name; this book establishes it more than any. When He comes out from heaven we are told His name is called the Word of God.

Ques Have we to be born of God before we believe on His name?

JT That is right, only born of God goes a little beyond new birth, though it includes it. Born of ^[p. 269] God implies we receive the full testimony of God; it is a question of the testimony, what God is. God revealed, and how the Spirit affects us thoroughly with that. Born of God goes beyond chapter 3, where it is said we are born of water and of the Spirit.

JS Born of God would bring in the character of God.

JT Yes, we are children. Born of God does not declare us children, but receiving the whole testimony of God makes us known as children of God, that is, we are of God characteristically. The position of children is a question of title, because we receive Christ; it is a peculiar touch as owning Christ.

Ques What does it mean in chapter 3, “He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that God is true; for he whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives not the Spirit by measure”?

JT Well, that refers to what we are saying as to those who receive Him. I think the reception of His testimony, that is, Christ’s testimony, would be that He was representative of God, and setting that to his seal would mean a man is thoroughly committed to the matter. He sets it to his seal — he will not put his hand to anything else — that God is true. It would imply what we are saying that he is one of the children of God, but he is an outstanding person; he has received His testimony, and that implies God is true, for Christ represents God in His testimony. God’s giving the Spirit without measure would allude to Christ, to how Christ received the Spirit, but it also alludes to how the Spirit has come into christianity. At Pentecost He came in fully and wholly, no individual believer could receive Him in that fulness; it is a question, I apprehend, of how He is here in the assembly. So the verse contemplates christianity in the fullest sense, a man having set to his seal the testimony that God is true. I think it brings out ^[p. 270] strikingly what is before us, the representation of God here at the present time in the midst of unreality.

AWR Would verse 29 of chapter 4, “Is not he the Christ?” constitute a title to be one of the children of God?

JT I think that is in keeping with what we are saying. She does not quote the Lord’s remark to her that He was the Christ; anyone might say that He is the Christ, as many do now, because Scripture writes it down. The Lord told her formally that He was the Christ, but she does not quote that to the men; she says to the men, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” That is, her preaching was on moral lines, not simply that she would quote a scripture, which is right, of course. Our testimony issues from the effect of the testimony on ourselves; it is that that gives character to our testimony. Hence she calls attention to the fact that the Lord had told her all that ever she had done, which implied she had been a very wicked person, and that she was not hiding it, she was judging it, and hence moral power went with her testimony to the men. So they accepted her testimony, and I believe all that happened about her indicates clearly enough that she is one of those who received Him. She says, “Is not he the Christ?” Her question would not mean that she doubted it; she did not doubt it. He was the Christ to her, and that would mean she believed on His name. She would be much more later, but that is the principle, she believed on His name.

Ques Is the thought of children of God in chapter 1 somewhat higher than being born of God? Verse 12, I understand, could be rendered, ‘To them gave he the right to become children of God’; whereas in verse 13 it is, “Who have been born ...”.

JT I am sure that is true, according to the reading. The right or title to take the place, as it ^[p. 271] says, of children of God is stressed, that is, it is accorded to certain persons, and it is because they have received Christ. “Who have been born ...” is subordinated to that great fact, but is explanatory, showing how genuine they are. “To them gave he the right” is past, of course, and “have been” is past; it is all past from John’s point of view, but he is stressing the idea of the reception of Christ, how God regards the genuine reception of Christ by affording title or right to persons who have received Him to take the place of children of God. The other is subordinate, but it is also a past matter. Being born of God would certainly be an initial thought; the new birth would be a necessity to this.

Ques After the first sign in John 2 it says His disciples believed on Him; is that a further thought than believing on His name?

JT I think, as I said before, we have to read each of these statements by itself, and that believing on the part of the disciples would be additional to or a development of their earlier faith. That is, the first sign here confirms them in their earlier faith, because they are already disciples. That is another thing; it does not mean they were not believers before, but they have advanced in their faith, and that is to be taken into account by all of us, that our faith is confirmed. “This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him”. That indicates the great importance of the signs in the whole book, it is the initial idea which runs through, a question of the manifestation of His glory. He had in mind that they should be real believers, because the signs were manifested before the disciples. Chapter 11 is brought in, written later of course, but referring to the time of our Lord’s sojourn here below. The term “children of God” is used by the Spirit, and they are said to be scattered (verse 52), a very remarkable ^[p. 272] passage! It arose from the fact of the resurrection of Lazarus. Read verses 47 - 52. This becomes a very interesting passage at the present time, because a similar condition prevails, the children of God are scattered abroad, but the Lord died, we are told, to gather them together into one — a very strong word as to the force of gathering. That one man should die for the people is a good example for us now as to whether we love the children of God. If we love God we love the children of God, we are told by John elsewhere (1 John 5: 2) and now that the way is open, the death of Christ having occurred as a basis of gathering, it is for us to take to heart how the children of God are to be gathered. It is evidently a principle on the line on which Christ will gather them, which is by dying for them.

FSM Is the local gathering on earth an answer to this in measure?

JT It is very encouraging that there is something of this going on: every genuine gathering is a testimony to it. The children of God are being gathered; the prophetic word may have a place in that; God is stressing it amongst us. Caiaphas being the high priest that year was able to say this; God’s furnishing such a prophetic word even through a man like that would bring out the importance of prophecy and how ready God is to use anyone who is available at all to bring the truth before us.

Ques How does this fit in with Hebrews 2, “Since therefore the children partake of blood and flesh, he also, in like manner, took part in the same, that through ^[p. 273] death he might annul him who has the might of death”? The reference is to the passage in Isaiah you referred to.

JT That is to bring out, of course, the humanity of Christ; it is quoted in Hebrews for that reason, but the Spirit does not confine Himself to that. He goes on to deliverance from Satan: “That through death he might annul him who has the might of death, that is, the devil; and might set free all those who through fear of death through the whole of their life were subject to bondage”; it is, “who has the might of death”, not ‘who had it’, a very solemn matter, but the death of Christ has made a way for deliverance and it enters into what we are saying, the children of God are scattered abroad and the prophetic word would lead up to our being gathered.

FSM Would the gathering be in view of God being represented by those who are so gathered? Is that why the title, “children of God”, is used?

JT I think so; we are representative of God, viewed in that light. He is very concerned about it, for the Spirit witnesses with our spirits that we are that, in Romans, and in Philippians: “Harmless and simple, irreproachable children of God in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation; among whom ye appear as lights in the world”. So that we are viewed as representative of God, as the stars, you might say.

FW You referred in your prayer to the necessity of being watchful as to the tactics of the enemy, do we see them emphasised in this 11th chapter and yet this thought of oneness comes out? It says they immediately took counsel that they might kill Him. Do you think what the Lord had indicated aroused enmity on the part of the enemy, and do we need to be watchful lest there be any such attack now?

JT It is remarkable how frequently that is seen in this gospel, and in this case it is said, “Jesus therefore walked no longer openly among the Jews, but went away thence into the country near the desert, to a city called Ephraim, and there he sojourned with the disciples” (verse 54). The position is clear enough; applying to our own times, the attack has been made. It is most distressing in this land, which is often spoken of as the most favoured, as it is, how ^[p. 274] rapidly apostasy is coming in, which is really an attack on Christ. His action is to escape from it: He “walked no longer openly among the Jews”. The Lord speaks of those who say they are Jews and are not; that is the class of people, I think, who are to be feared, judaisers. He “went away thence into the country near the desert, to a city called Ephraim, and there he sojourned with the disciples”. Earlier, when He was attacked and the Jews surrounded Him, in chapter 10, He “departed”, we are told, “again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptising at the first; and he abode there”. That is, at that time He returned to first principles, which in our day would mean that we have been enabled to leave aside all that men have brought in as innovations in the service of God and return to first principles. “Many believed on him there”, it says, that is, where John was baptising at the first. But here things are getting worse; we have greater testimony to who He was in the resurrection of Lazarus and the opposition is increasing, there is no recognition of the signs at all, but He took His disciples with Him and He went into the desert, which I think is a suggestion for the present time. Safety is in keeping near the desert, not in keeping where the world has its pleasures and interests; the desert is the opposite of that, it affords nothing for the flesh and that is our safety, as we were saying last night here in this city. The Lord pictures the closing days, as the coming of the Son of man is imminent, that it would be as it was in the days of Noah; that is the social side of the position: they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. That is the dangerous thing, and they were all destroyed; that is the social side. Then the commercial side is as the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded, these things went ^[p. 275] on until the very end. And I believe the Lord here is showing how to avoid the judgment by going to the desert, keeping in the desert parts. John the baptist, it says, was in the deserts until the day of his showing to Israel. Our safety in these circumstances is in keeping in the deserts as to our outward position.

FW Have you any reference to make as to the city of Ephraim?

JT What had you in mind?

FW I thought it might be connected with fruitfulness for God.

JT Yes, we are about to come to that as to what it means. We are now coming to the children God gave to Christ, that is the next part of our subject, and that comes into it. The first reference is in chapter 13. The passage in Isaiah brings it before us, how the thought of Christ seen there actually appeared, how He regarded the disciples as children. He could address them thus, not exactly children of God, but He uses this term as indicating at this particular juncture a parental position on His part. I think it is intended to be comforting as affording shelter and peculiar affection on the part of the Lord, so that Joseph is the first type of Christ in this respect, both as to Manasseh and Ephraim. He tells Jacob that these two were the children God gave him here, that is in Egypt; they did not belong to the land in that sense. That alludes to our position as gentiles; we have accrued to Christ here while He is rejected by Israel. And Manasseh would mean God had made him forget his father’s house in the land of his affliction, that is, forgetfulness of all this Jewish position. God had made him to forget; it was a state he had reached, and, in spite of that forgetfulness, he was fruitful in that land. So that Ephraim here may have some allusion to that. The next type of Christ in this respect is as to Gershom ^[p. 276] and Eliezer; they also were given to Moses by God, denoting his strangership, and that God was his protector and deliverer, so it seems to me the connection with Isaiah 8 brings things down to ourselves and is very comforting, the meaning of names written across the family of Christ. He is taking a parental care over us and these names are written on the family, as it were.

AT What is the link you had in mind between children of God and sonship?

JT I thought we ought to get this thought at this juncture of the sons God gave to Christ in view of His hiding His face from the house of Jacob. He says, “I and the children that Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel” — an additional thought to what we have had before. It is particularly important, I believe, for the brethren to have before them what we are as set for signs and wonders in Israel.

FW Is it compensation to the Messiah for the loss of Israel? They refused the waters of Shiloah which flow softly, and rejoiced in Rezin and in the son of Remaliah, and He gets these sons as compensation.

JT That is how the matter stands there. It is Jehovah dwelling in Zion, too, so the testimony is to go on. He is not simply receding from view because He is rejected. He is going on with the testimony and bringing in greater testimony because He and they are for signs and wonders in Israel; and it is in relation to Zion, meaning that whatever men do or say in regard to Christ, the testimony is to go on, and Zion, the centre of everything, is in view. Zion is brought in in verse 18. God is not at all altering His position. He is going on with His testimony, but He has these children and they are for signs and wonders ^[p. 277] in Israel.

FW Has it reference to what is about us today in the way of spiritism, and so on?

JT It is very remarkable the signs we get here, “The virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel”, that is the strength of the virgin, it is not put down as God’s act, but hers, what comes in at such a time as this. Then they are children directly given Him by God, and therefore for signs and wonders in Israel; first, Immanuel, God with us, and, secondly, what the saints are in relation to what God is doing.

Ques Would the verse in Isaiah fit in with Philippians in our day, in the midst of breakdown. God securing what is trustworthy and pleasing to Himself?

JT It is a question of the signs that come out. These necromancers and such like things are all around us; how are these things to be met? They are met in this way, “God with us”. That is the cry of the remnant, but this is a further thought. He is Immanuel, God with us, but He also has children and we belong to those children; but where are the signs and where are the wonders? I have no doubt they are seen in a little way in our position as brethren and the way God is helping us in these meetings, and the like. People do not understand them at all. What are these people? Where have they come from? We are not merely peculiar people, in the way people are called that, but a known people. In a little way there are signs and wonders about us as different from any, and that would mean we are spiritual, God is among us.

FSM Does the title ‘children’ in John 13 carry the thought of the affection with which we are held in the heart of Christ? It is noted as an affectionate term. Is it more than the representation of God and a testimony to unity? Is it also a testimony to the heart of ^[p. 278] Christ?

JT That was why I suggested all these scriptures to be read. He says, “Children, yet a little while I am with you ... By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”. There is representation of Christ in us in our little gatherings here and there, we have love amongst ourselves.

Ques Does Isaiah 8 in regard to the continuance of the testimony precede the reference in Hebrews 2?

JT It is an additional thought to confirm the humanity of Christ. It was said earlier that “both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2: 11); that is, He is with them as Man and they are His brethren; but it goes further and says — another quotation to confirm that — “I and the children which God has given me”, that brings out what the death of Christ involves as to the children, namely, that Satan’s power is broken, a very important matter in our present position. He who has the might of death is annulled; he still has it in that sense, but we understand the position, there is power to resist him.

HPW In so far as we really are a living issue and in that way come out in the features of Christ, the power of the enemy is demonstrated as having been broken.

JT Exactly; there it is, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up”, the Lord says, and what follows brings out that all that it speaks about as to resurrection and eternal life would mean the saints are a testimony to Him. Satan is against us in that position, peculiarly so, as it says, but He has given us power and what He stresses here is love among yourselves. One has felt lately, and others have, too, how the small gatherings in the rural districts of the world are tending to die out, not because there is unreality in those who form them,

^[p. 279] but because many are moving away to the cities and also because these gatherings are not visited by those who can help them. One thought that this passage as to having love among yourselves — it is the quality of love, love among yourselves — would ensure the continuance of the testimony in these places, for love never fails. Gift comes along and helps, of course, but this is the thing to rely upon, and there is representation of Christ in the gatherings, however feeble or few outwardly, on this principle.

HPW Will you say a little more as to that, for it applies very much here, there are small gatherings and the population tends to drift into the cities? Do I understand you to say that the brethren in the districts round should visit such small meetings?

JT And care for them peculiarly, for the tendency is for them to die out; we need to have love amongst ourselves for there is warmth in love and that edifies; so, though there be no gift, there is power there and there is representation, as here: “By this shall all know”, says the Lord, “that ye are disciples of mine”, that we do not belong to any party; we are not a sect at all, we are disciples of Jesus — “if ye have love amongst yourselves”.

Rem Love in that way is an evidence of life.

JT Yes, love is really life in activity.

JSB The gathering at Bethany seems to have been a very small one, but it was very attractive to the Lord because love was there. Would that illustrate this?

JT It illustrates it fully. And not only was there love there but the highest intelligence; Mary represents that; it filled the house.

Ques Would the thought of, “Behold, I and the children” involve the thought of care as well as testimony?

JT It is very beautiful how it appears here. It was the time Judas went out, and the Lord regards ^[p. 280] that fact as implying His death, for He says, “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God ... shall glorify him immediately”. He is speaking of His death in these wonderful terms. The exit of Judas meant he was going to betray Him and bring about His death, but the Lord is speaking of it as glory. The glory that shines in and around the death of Christ is most affecting, and this passage is to bring it out. Now, He says, Children, you are to be with Me and these conditions are to be continued — but how? In the presence of love. It is glory in the gatherings really, what belongs to the house of God.

EJMcB Is your thought that the children are related to God in the first passage and they can count on God as being His children; and then related to Christ and in His affections in the second passage, so that we can have the conscious sense of the link because of our affection for Christ, making way for the third passage you have in mind?

JT Yes, we are in the Lord’s affections, as has been pointed out, we are so regarded by the Lord. The Lord is pleased elsewhere to say, “Fear not, little flock”, and here “children”, and that the glory is to be with them. We are not behind in what belongs to the house of God because of love amongst ourselves, not only right doctrine, but love amongst ourselves. That is the testimony that we are disciples of Jesus; we are no sect; persons in this state are no sect, they belong to the universal thought of God, namely His house, and they have love amongst themselves.

Rem Deborah says, “The villages ceased in Israel, ceased until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel”, Judges 5: 7. Would that involve love in activity and care?

JT Very good, a mother in Israel.

Just a word as to chapter 21. The disciples were fishing, they were on their own; there is defection,

^[p. 281] but they have not yet forfeited their right to be regarded as Christ’s children. They are a bit out of their orbit, but we are entitled to consider they were recoverable. In the Lord’s mind they had not forfeited their rights, and He would convey to them that they were to Him what they had been. He was going to make Peter fully a lover, for indeed he was a lover, but He would bring out fully that he was a lover and admit that Peter would die for Him. I think this is a beautiful passage as restorative in view of some turning away from us, perhaps not openly giving up their privilege, but about to do it, or thinking of doing it; the Lord would reassure us of His love and interest in us. So He approaches them to bring out what had resulted in their little detour. It says it was early in the morning, for the Lord is on the alert for recovery; He stood on the shore and the disciples did not know it was Jesus, and Jesus said to them, “Children, have ye anything to eat?” I think that is a fine word where there is defection in any way, that we have not got anything to eat really, and the Lord would bring that out; they had gained nothing from the night’s fishing. “They answered him, No. And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find. They cast therefore, and they could no longer draw it, from the multitude of fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved says to Peter, It is the Lord”. That is the beginning of the end for recovery.

EJMcB Do you not think the great test in these days is whether we have any meat or not?

JT I think it is; the Lord intended to bring out that they did not have any. In Luke 24 He brought up the same question, but they did have some for they were going on with the assembly themselves together, but here they did not. There is not one of these independent companies that have moved ^[p. 282] away for years and years that has anything to eat; wherever there is uprightness they admit it, too.

AM Chapter 1 says, “Who have been born, not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor of man’s will”. I was thinking of what John says, “It is the Lord” — do we have to be brought back to a sense of His rights?

JT Quite so: he is the disciple Jesus loved; that word would mean it. He belonged to the first class, the sons or children of God. He is a genuine case, he quickly says, “It is the Lord”.