DIVINE PERSONS AND OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM (3)
[p. 233] DIVINE PERSONS AND OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEM (3)
1 John 3:1 - 12; John 21:4 - 14
JT We begin today with children of God in John’s epistle: “Beloved, now are we children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him”, and added to that is, “we shall see him as he is”, 1 John 3:2.
PL What we shall then be in glory being the answer to what we are here in grace.
JT Just so, and we shall see Him and shall be like Him. I suppose that will take place when we are raised, because according to 1 Corinthians 15 He will change us. No doubt all that will take place when the change happens.
AR “He that practises righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1 John 3:7).
JT Quite so. It says, “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God” 1 John 3:1. That is to say we are called that. What we are as to character is of course involved in that, but here the point is the love, “that we should be called the children of God”. There is no other family clearly that has that title. Others are sometimes called sons of God but there is no reference to them as children. Then as to righteousness — so that the thing might be clearly before us — we have in verse 9 the word “begotten”, which is not the same idea as “born” in John 3. Here we are spoken of as “begotten of God”; “born again” is another idea. It is not exactly different but at the same time it is not “born of God”, but “born … of the Spirit”; whereas here what is in mind is “begotten of God”. Then there is the further thought as to children in verse 7, just that John had the liberty to call the saints children at that time.
WWM [p. 234] Is the thought of children here a very dignified thought. The very highest we could have as to children?
JT Well, the word in verse 7 is an affectionate term — a diminutive to call forth affection.
ANW You referred to the fact that we are not called the Father’s children but children of God.
JT These things might seem the same but they are not just the same, The first thought John has in his mind is the Father, and the place the children have with Him, the manner of love He has for us.
RWS We should nestle down in this beautiful thought, for there is another family — an awful family — in verse 10, the children of the devil. “In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil” 1 John 3:10. The wonderful grace that has begotten us to be God’s children should affect us inwardly.
JT It is an awful thought, to think there are such persons in the world as children of the devil. I suppose they belong to the lost. But that only enhances what the love is that we should be called children of God.
LK Is it the manner of love that adds dignity to this thought, children of God?
JT I would think so, the manner of the love. “Behold, what manner of love … that we should be called the sons of God” 1 John 3:1. The word this is taken from is said elsewhere to be a term of endearment, but I think it is more than that here; it is the full mature thought as to the saints, only retaining the idea of children. A man of sixty years of age could be spoken of in this way as one of the children in the family.
JB It says in Hebrews 2:13: “Behold, I and the children which God has given me”. Does that link with this thought of children?
JT It is hardly that here. That is a quotation from Isaiah 8 and is a question of what God gave [p. 235] the Lord Jesus; it comes in with our second thought, children of Christ in John 21. The word ‘children’ here is on the same level as sons, only that the word ‘son’ is not used by John except in Revelation 21. What he is dealing with is the love of the Father in the place the children have, whether they be old or young; he is referring to all the saints.
AR That is important, for John earlier in his epistle grades them as little children, young men and fathers. There is no such thing in this chapter, is there?
JT The term in this passage does not imply the grading thought. The note says, ‘not a diminutive’; it is the full thought of christians old or young, and in that sense is on the same level and of the same value as sons. John uses the term Son in relation to the Lord Himself, but not as to the saints.
WL Would there be a suggestion in this verse that love is characteristic of the children of God? “See what love the Father has given to us” 1 John 3:1; I was wondering if it would characterise the children of God in that way?
JT That is what we have, as if it were a quality that we have. The Lord said, “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”, John 13:35. It is a question of quantity, that is the idea, not just that each one loves but the quantity is there. “Love amongst yourselves”, it is there among the saints.
RWS This thought of children in 1 John 3 does not stand in relation to need and care down here, does it?
JT I think it is more the dignity that attaches to that order. If we were to go over the ground of creation we should begin with angels who are called sons. God is lavish in His gracious concern with His creatures, giving them all that they should have, even Satan himself, who did not, however, retain his [p. 236] place but fell. It was not allowed for the angel to bring a railing accusation against him, for he had had a great place with God. We need to note how God is very lavish in the respect He gives His people.
AMacD Why does John in writing here use the expression “beloved” in speaking to the saints?
JT The word is very much used by him. Paul uses it too, but not so frequently as John. As brethren I do not suppose we use it very much although we use it in our letters. Thank God we do! It used to be, ‘Dear brother’, but now almost invariably it is, ‘Beloved brother’, and thank God it is so, for it tends to endear the brethren to one another.
GAS Does it help to see that this matter is introduced here not exactly as basic, but as something that can be taken account of? “Behold, what manner of love” 1 John 3:1.
JT Just so, it can be seen. “Behold” is a word to notice, but the world does not know us, as it says in this same verse, “The world knows us not” 1 John 3:1. The world does not know us as we are known in heaven, and we certainly should know each other according to these terms.
WSS Do we get that love referred to in chapter 4 of this epistle? It says, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son a propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God has so loved us, we also ought to love one another” 1 John 4:10,11.
JT Quite so. That is really on the level of John 3:16 so often spoken of in the gospel. God so loved that He gave. In John 3:16, however, there is more than that; as it is often said, God not only loved the people of God but He also loved the world. That is a remarkable thing but there is a further thought — not only that they should be loved of God, but that they should have eternal life. So that the giving of eternal life to a believer is a matter [p. 237] of the love of God, that He loves him in view of eternal life as well as of other things.
WSS 1 John 4:9 says, “God has sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him”.
JT That is almost the same thought only that in John 3:16 it is eternal life. So the Lord in John 17:3 says, “And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”. I am only trying to stress how heaven regards eternal life. It was a theme of great controversy fifty years ago and the thought of it became well known at that time, but perhaps it is not so well known now.
FNW I think you remarked earlier that this thought of children is peculiar to our family; and is not eternal life a term that is peculiarly connected with the present dispensation?
JT I think it is; only the world to come, the millennial world, will have eternal life too in its own setting: “these shall go away … into life eternal”, Matthew 25:46. The saved in the millennial world, I think, go into it.
FKC Is this thought of children of God to so affect us that, as has been said, we should nestle down in it and be in corresponding liberty with one another? Is not the dissemination of this love needed among us?
JT That is just the thing that one has been exercised about in these readings, that the brethren might be living, be in life. That would be the solution of all the difficulties and the contrary things that exist amongst us. The trend of all John’s writings is that we might get into life. “These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”, [p. 238] John 20:31.
ASB That is why in John 14:19,21 the Lord anticipates and says, “Because I live ye also shall live”; and, “he that loves me shall be loved by my Father”.
JT That is the chapter in which we are told of the Spirit being given. “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever” (John 14:15, 16). And all that runs on to the thought of the Lord coming to us: “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you” John 14:18. All that indicates the idea of love.
JRH Yesterday you were drawing attention in John 1 to the right we have to take the place of children of God in our relation to Christ, as having received Him and having believed on His name; and then in Romans 8 the conscious joy of the relationship in the Spirit. Is this something still greater, this contemplation of the Father’s love?
JT We have to consider the difference between John and Paul because each has his own distinction; yet whilst they are separate and distinct they compare with each other. Of course now we are reading John, but you refer to Paul. Possibly you will enlarge on what is in your mind.
JRH I was thinking of the matter of title in John 1, of having the right to take that place of children of God, being in happy relations with Christ. In Romans it is being in the conscious joy of it, the Spirit witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God. The enquiry in my mind was as to this beholding the manner of the Father’s love: is it the height of joy in the contemplation of it?
JT I think it is. What you have called attention to is important. In chapter 4 it does not lay down the great thought of eternal life, that is to say, it is not stressed here; but I think we ought to keep it in mind because it was a turning point in the testimony at one time. The great thought as to life was [p. 239] brought to light. Some went so far as to say that eternal life was a Person, which of course is wrong, but the great thought that is stressed is that eternal life is given to us, that Christ is it, that He is eternal life. “He is the true God and eternal life” 1 John 5:20. So it is not simply that we get life, but the thing is seen in a Person. The Lord Jesus Himself is eternal life; He is the true God, but He is also the eternal life.
Ques Is that seen in 1 John 5:11? “And this is the witness, that God has given to us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has life: he that has not the Son of God has not life”.
JT The witness was that God had given to them eternal life; just so, that is a good point to bring up. But it is all finalised in the end of this epistle. That is to say Christ is the true God and eternal life, whereas in John 17 the Father is the true God, showing how terms may be interchanged between the divine Persons.
GAS Is that a feature of the children of God, that they know things, that they know they have life and they know God? Is that an underlying feature in John’s epistle?
JT I think that is good, as it says in 1 John 5:13, “That ye may know that ye have eternal life”.
AR Do we not also know it if we love our brethren? As it says in 1 John 3:14, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren”.
JT The consciousness of the thing lies in the fact that you love, so one challenges oneself as to whether he loves the brethren. The “because we love” is just that.
PL Have you not connected this thought with our taking spiritual soundings in that way?
JT Very good. Tell us about the soundings even if you heard it from [p. 240] me.
PL Well, a sailor tests where he is by his soundings.
JT The shipmaster with whom Paul sailed took soundings as he came to Malta and John’s epistle is very like that. We take soundings, if we continue to use the figure; we not only go by the stars, but we sound to find out how deep the water is or how shallow, and that is what this epistle is like.
WL The matter of contrast comes in here. The world knows us not, as it knew Him not; and then the contrast too with children of the devil. As we have said, we might take our soundings.
JT Very good. The suggestion would really help us all as to these epistles. So that even if we do not have Scripture for a thing we can go by our own selves, that is by the depth of water we draw, as to where we are spiritually, the depth of the work of God in us.
FW Do you think that in John 6 the Lord was seeking to exercise them to take soundings when He brought the matter of life before them and many turned away? Then He spoke to the twelve and said, “Will ye also go away?” John 6:67. But Peter said, “Thou hast words of life eternal” John 6:68.
JT That is a very good passage and will help us. Peter needed it at the time. John 6 is a very long chapter but it had come to an end there, and there were certain actually leaving the Lord. They went away back from following Him, and so He challenges the disciples. “Will ye also go away?” John 6:67. And Peter answers, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words” — notice that, “words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God” John 6:68,69. The words convey the thing, the detail, and it goes with the idea of soundings.
JRH Does the term John uses so often, “Hereby we have known”, imply spiritual [p. 241] soundings?
JT Look into yourself — let us see to ourselves, brethren. We have the Holy Spirit and we ought to be able to tell. For instance, if a believer becomes weak in his mind — and we have to do with such things as that — we can recall to him what he used to be, and what the brethren knew he used to be. We have done it, too, and saved such. That is sounding; he can know by himself that he is really one of the Lord’s people. We ought to be able to tell by our own selves that we are of the Lord’s people. I am not saying it is the only thing; of course it is not, but nevertheless it is one of the features of the position.
Children of God is a term to cover relationship, and that is the point we are on, the relationship of ourselves with divine Persons and with one another. These expressions do not cover gift, or what a man may be in the way of an evangelist, but they are terms that express our relations to God and to divine Persons and to one another; relations of love, in other words.
PL Have we this thought of soundings in Paul’s word in 2 Corinthians 13:5? “Examine your own selves if ye be in the faith; prove your own selves: do ye not recognise yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed ye be reprobates?”
JT That scripture covers what we are saying; one was reminded of it some months back in Australia, as being the scripture that was needed to bring out the actual condition of the brethren at a certain place. And it is seen in that scripture that the apostle made much of truthfulness. That is what the apostle was aiming at there, and he goes further to say he had in readiness to avenge all disobedience when their obedience had been fulfilled. This, of course, would work out in love.
PL Mr. Darby points out in the note that it is not, ‘yourselves know’, but ‘know yourselves’.
RWS The matter is so real in 1 John 3:9: “Whoever has been begotten of God does not practise sin, because his seed abides in him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God”. I would like a little help on that.
JT I am glad you bring that point up. In the section you read we have the idea of “begotten of God”, and the seed is a question of what is there of God. It is an abstract thought, that the man cannot sin. Let us just think of that, “he cannot sin, because he has been begotten of God”. Now this is a puzzle I am sure to many, that there should be certain persons of whom it says they “cannot sin”; but it is to be remarked that in the interpretation of certain scriptures we have to introduce the word ‘abstract’, and these scriptures we are now quoting from are abstract scriptures. They refer to the work of God viewed by itself in the believer; and what that work will be eternally it is now. I would commend that to the brethren, because it is a great rock under the feet of the believer that there is such a thing as one who cannot sin. That is to say he is begotten of God, and abstractly he cannot sin as he is viewed as begotten. The word is not ‘born’, actually it is God Himself begetting a christian. It is His own right, an absolute work, and it is just as valuable now as it ever will be.
JTJr Would you say the Spirit of God would keep us on that level, as children of God?
JT Well, if we are to be in John’s writings, to be in liberty so to speak, we are to be on that level. It is comforting, the idea that God has given us the means of moving in this world sinless. It may seem impossible, for it says earlier in the epistle, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” 1 John 1:8; but John is speaking of the abstract idea and from this point of view we are to learn to be in a sinless [p. 243] condition. I mean to say, we are to learn to walk apart from sin.
JTJr Do you think Rebecca would answer to this in Genesis 24? There was no idea in herself of rejecting what the servant was proposing. She really sets out the idea of this side, that she is sinless.
JT I think that is very good, that we should look into the matter of Rebecca, because she is a great figure at the present time; and as we examine her case there is nothing at all to say against her. She is in every way approved as typically the spouse of Christ. There is not a thing that can be brought against her.
JS She is in every way suited to the man.
JT Suited, just so; it is a supreme case, for she must be such. In the idea of Abraham she must be this. Hence the pains he takes in charging the chief servant of his house, leaving with him the selection of the camels and what was needed; leaving it all with the man who is looked at as a type of the Holy Spirit. And so all is perfect in that type.
JKP Does the thought of manifestation link on with what you were saying as to verse 9, of the work of God in the abstract and viewed from the divine side?
JT 1 John 3:10 says, “In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil. Whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, and he who does not love his brother. For this is the message which ye have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another: not as Cain was of the wicked one, and slew his brother; and on account of what slew he him? because his works were wicked, and those of his brother righteous”. So we have the great principle of righteousness in this verse, and it is seen in the brother who loves. The manifestation is in love, I would say. So wherever you turn you find that the end of things, the solution [p. 244] and finality, lies in love. Some of us were saying today that if the Lord goes on a journey — as He does in Psalm 19 in the type, as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a strong man to run a race — well, what has that race ended in? It has ended in the assembly. The terminus is there, and so the terminus is where love is. We move there and it really amounts to eternity; it is what God has in mind for us. The end of things, the terminus and finality, will be seen in the new heavens and the new earth, and all this is now realisable in the presence of the Spirit in the assembly. The Lord would stop there. If He comes to any company, as He has to many today, it is to be there, not to go away again. The principle is that He is to be there. Where He is we shall be too. There is such a thing as a terminus even with divine Persons.
JTJr According to the gospels the passover cup is brought out as referring to something amongst ourselves, that is, prior to the Supper, and would make way for it. So there is love amongst us at the beginning. I am referring to Luke 22:17 where the Lord says, “Divide it among yourselves”. Although we do not have the passover we should have what answers to it, that is love amongst ourselves in our local companies and during the week.
JT Just so; it was Jewish, but 1 Corinthians 5:7 would say, “Our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed”. The question is as to the cup of the passover and I would think there were more than one; but the thing culminated in the cup of the Lord’s supper of which there is only one.
AR So the first thing we have in view as we come together is to meet the brethren. Is not that important, how we love one another?
JT That is the first thing I would say, and the Lord would say. Are you satisfied with them? If you are I will be with you. So we come in amongst [p. 245] the brethren, we pass the emblems round and look at them. We should look at them, and we look at each other. They are our brethren and we are supposed to love them and they love us too. The whole matter is related to the Lord coming in. He is running a race, but there is a terminus to that race, an end to it, and that is the assembly.
FKC Is it laid on each one of us to become lovable in that sense?
JT I think that is right. You would not like to go to heaven if you felt you were not lovable.
‘There no stranger-God shall meet thee —
Stranger thou in courts above! —
He, who to His rest shall greet thee,
Greets thee with a well-known love’. (76:10)
That hymn would help us as to getting into the realm of love.
JLP This matter of love is brought down to a very testing basis. It seems to be a matter between us as individuals, involving more than what has been said as to love for the brethren in general. “He who does not love his brother” — I might speak in general terms as to loving the brethren, but how am in my relations with my brother?
JT I would direct you to Matthew 5. If you go to the altar, which in our language would mean we go to the assembly, you go with a gift. But when you reach there you remember your brother has something against you and the Lord’s word in Matthew 5:24 is, “Leave there thy gift before the altar, and first go, be reconciled to thy brother”. That is to say you would have to see him alone I would think, for you to be able to speak to him in freedom and he to speak to you. Reconciliation takes place, and love is the continuance of reconciliation, and so we can all go and take part in the service. The Lord’s supper is to be a time of love and we come [p. 246] there as those that love one another and love Christ and are to all join in it freely and happily.
ASB Love flows and the service of God goes on very happily.
JT Very good. How glorious the situation is, how glorious the atmosphere is, how glorious the sense you have of the sphere of love!
JLP As to Cain and Abel being brought in here, would it be right to regard them as of different origins? Eve said, when Cain was born, “I have acquired a man with Jehovah” Genesis 4:1; but Abel comes in whose name means ‘breath’. Would you say there is the type there of the two origins of men?
JT I would say the crisis had been reached in Adam and Eve themselves, but now it is reached in the family and won in Abel. He is a righteous man; that is stated here. We have to reckon with the solution of things and it will be in the evidence of righteousness.
I think we should turn now to John 21. The point there is to bring out — not only children of God of which we have been speaking and could say much more — but children of Christ; as it says, “And early morn already breaking, Jesus stood on the shore; the disciples however did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus therefore says to them, Children have ye anything to eat? They answered him. No” John 21:4,5. That is to say, He calls them children.
JS The note says it is a term of affection. Has the Lord taken over here to provide for them?
JT Well, He says, “Children, have ye anything to eat? They answered him, No. And he said to them, Cast the net at the right side of the ship and ye will find” John 21:5,6. We have already remarked as to the context of this passage that speaks of children and we might enlarge on that, how the Lord shows His thought for the children in the sense of material affairs, as He says, “Cast the net at the right side of the ship … 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. Simon Peter therefore, having heard that it was the Lord, girded his overcoat on him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the sea; and the other disciples came in the small boat, for they were not far from the land, but somewhere about two hundred cubits, dragging the net of fishes. When therefore they went out on the land, they see a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread” John 21:6 - 9. I am trying to show the parental thought in the Lord for His people. Undoubtedly in the early morning at the sea it would be cold, and they see a fire of coals and fish laid on it, that is, there is food ready, ready for erring children we might say, for they were disobedient. One had said, “I go to fish”, and the others had said, “We also come with thee” John 21:3; but there is not a single word of reproach from the Lord. It is the love of one for his children in that sense, and should be an example for us for our children too. So the Lord says to them, “Bring of the fishes which ye have now taken” John 21:10; that is, the Lord provided food for them. They had taken these fish under His direction and He tells them to use them. It says, “Simon Peter went up and drew the net to the land full of great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three” John 21:11. Now that is remarkable, that he should have counted them, and though there were so many the net was not rent. The Lord did not say to them, I told you so. He is not reproving them. He is just taking the thing as it was in grace. He treated the children in absolute grace at this particular time, and none of the disciples dared enquire of Him, “Who art thou?” knowing that it was the Lord. “Jesus comes and takes the bread and gives it to them, and the fish in like manner” John 21:13. Look at the grace of that, treating the disciples as little children (as the note says, ‘a diminutive thought’), treating them in love, and surely it is that we should be taught how to love one another. “Jesus comes and takes the bread” — notice this — “and gives it to them, and the fish in like manner”. Look at the grace of that in the Lord dealing with them while in a certain sense they were walking independently! And so He increases in grace and sets them down to eat as He says, “Come and dine” John 21:12.
AR So the Lord is exemplifying what is in John 20:23, “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them”.
JT Quite so. It is the grace side in John 20 and John 21. Chapter 21 is really an appendix, but I believe it is largely to show how gracious the Lord can be with independency.
FW Is that not a good example of how love works?
JT Yes, how love works with persons who are not just right in their manner and ways, and how it breaks down the independency in grace. “Come and dine” John 21:12; that is a remarkable word for this section. He had provided the coals and He says. “Bring of the fishes” John 21:10, those they had taken under His direction, and then He says, “Come and dine”.
WWM Does it show that instead of making demands we are able to have a supply?
JT Quite so. The Lord has a supply and that is the comfort we have. If there are wrong things, and, alas, there are many wrong things among the brethren just now, the thought is grace; and the grace is with God, with Christ, and with the Spirit, so that we may know how to behave in a crisis.
FKC You said once that the Corinthians were defective in visions and revelations of the Lord; there were so many painful exercises among them. The solution really lay in persons who had to do with the Lord in this kind of [p. 249] way.
JT Just so; as it says here, “This is already the third time that Jesus had been manifested to the disciples, being risen from among the dead” John 21:14, because if He comes to us now we see Him — as Paul says — “raised from among the dead”, 1 Corinthians 15:20.
JRH Does this show how one who had given a wrong lead is affected by the Lord’s grace?
JT I will read it: “That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved says to Peter, It is the Lord. Simon Peter therefore, having heard that it was the Lord, girded his overcoat on him … and cast himself into the sea” John 21:7. Now what is your thought?
JRH It is quite evident that Peter had given a wrong lead to the others, but he must have been greatly affected by John’s word as to the Lord, and affected by the grace that had been shown.
JT It is the melting pot, so to speak. They were hard in their ways and independent, but they came into the melting pot of love. That is the idea.
FNW “There is nothing hid from the heat thereof”, Psalm 19:6.
Ques Would you say the Lord’s manifestations are not confined to the morning meeting? He may be free to come at any time?
JT Quite so; who knows that He is not here now? I think He is, and would touch us on the principle of grace, the softening, melting influence of grace. That is what it is.
GAS Would that expression in John 21:12, “knowing that it was the Lord” — as the note says, ‘Conscious knowledge’ — be arrived at by the way the Lord ministered to them?
JT John says, “It is the Lord” John 21:7, and Peter accepts that; and the comment after it is. “This is already the third time that Jesus had been manifested to the disciples, being risen from among the dead” John 21:14; the final [p. 250] time.
WL Would you say the Lord would have a special word for one like Peter who had led them astray? In John’s epistle it says, “Children, let no man lead you astray” 1 John 3:7.
JT I would not be so hard on Peter, though. “Let no man lead you astray” is a severe thought, whereas in John 21 the Lord is dealing with His own and calls them ‘little children’, an affectionate thought. He is not even saying, You are naughty; not even suggesting it. Here it is grace and that is what we are all to get into now, the Lord coming in among us to impress us with that idea.
WL So His word to such a one is, “Lovest thou me?” John 21:16 Simon Peter is still at his work in John 21:11: “Simon Peter went up and drew the net to the land”.
JT Yes, he could do it, though he has one hundred and fifty-three great fishes. There is something to think of in that! It would point to the present time, the remarkable size of the fishes; not a large mass of persons of little account, but large fishes; the importance of the persons who are caught, as it were, coming into the fellowship.
PL You have them in John 4 and 9 and 12 anticipatively, have you not?
JLP You have these same feelings with the apostle Paul in writing to Philemon. He speaks of “my child” Philemon 10. He sends him back using that mighty lever of love, “yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee” Philemon 9. He elevates the one who had been wrong and brings him into the family as one beloved.
Rem In John 13:33 the Lord says, “Children, yet a little while I am with you”. What grace was displayed there in the presence of what was about to take place!
JT That is another evidence of this question the children. Chapter 13 is really more a love [p. 251] chapter, but chapter 21, is an appendix to the book, where Peter and the six others are exposed; yet the Lord has not a word of reproach for them. He is setting out love, as it were, in finishing the gospel of John.