p310 [G Biava] [From the French.] BELOVED BROTHER, - I have just received your letter, and thank God from my heart that He has strengthened you, body and soul. He is ever faithful, ever good. We can always reckon upon Him, whatever the case may be. His love changes not, and He is always thinking of us - wonderful it is, but true - and He numbers the hairs of our heads. Surely it is wonderful that the God of glory enters into all the details of our lives, and ever with our blessing in view - "He withdraweth not his eyes from the righteous" - but He does enter into them, and "all things work together for good" to those who love Him. Remember me very kindly to Mrs. -: may God bless your little one too. It is a care, surely, in such a world as this, but a care which God, if we trust in Him, can take, does in fact take as an occasion for fresh proofs of His faithfulness and His goodness. May God grant that you may both be faithful and may know how to bring him up for Him.

With regard to the - matter, I look at it in a rather different light from the way in which it was told me, at least. Our dear brother F. told me a little of what had passed. I do not look upon the position of those sisters as excommunication. The assembly alone could excommunicate them; but when they said, to J. and others, that they did not wish to come, he was free to say, as his own opinion - and that of others, if they authorised him to say it - that that was their opinion. I do not say that it was a wise thing, or according to God, but that they were free to express their opinion as their opinion. If the flesh produced that opinion, it is clear that it was not according to God. But I do not think that a brother or sister has a right to withdraw, and return at their own pleasure. The assembly must have its word to say about it. It might be that the person who had withdrawn had committed all manner of sins during his absence. Therefore, if any one stands aside, the assembly must say whether it can receive the individual when he may wish to return. I hope, and I will say I have good hope, that this will be so, that the assembly will be blessed and re-established by grace. If it goes on in humility, and in a spirit of dependence on grace, it will be so. If grace works in the hearts of these sisters, they will judge what has been of the flesh in themselves. Perhaps -, having been accustomed to rule, may have shewn, on his part, a want of spiritual savoir faire. I am sure that your own part is to labour according to grace, and to communicate to souls what God has given you for them, at the same time feeding your own soul. Besides, that is what is far the best thing for the assembly itself.

I doubt its being God's will to deprive a soul of the Lord's Supper because it is in a bad state. The word says, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat." But if I saw a soul in a state as to conscience which sin had produced, and if he did not know where he was, I can, it seems to me, suppose a case in which I might advise a person to keep away until he was clear; but as a general rule, one cannot exclude people provisionally; it is only in peculiar cases that I could give this advice. Pastoral care is the remedy for a soul in a bad state, not temporary exclusion. This care is sometimes rather wanting amongst brethren, and instead of this expedients are used.

I think the "strangers" (3 John 5) were people who did not belong to the place, principally brothers (perhaps others), towards whom they exercised hospitality, and especially labourers for the Lord. Diotrephes would not have it. You can see that the second epistle warned the elect lady not to receive those who did not bring sound doctrine concerning the Person of Christ; the third encourages Gaius in his hospitality. I think that these were in general Christians - at the same time approving his hospitality as a whole (compare Heb. 12:2) - on account of what follows. Diotrephes would not have it, wishing to have the assembly to himself, and to break the link with the apostle and all the brethren.

As to the word "Gentiles," Diodati writes the words "have gone out from amongst the Gentiles." But this is not received by many, still there are very respectable names which accept it. I think John, like Peter, was still much attached to the Jewish cradle of Christianity; thus in 1 John 2:2, "our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." Paul himself does this very often, as in Galatians 3, where he uses "we" (Jews) "you" (Gentiles) "we" (Christians). I think it is rather a question of believing Gentiles than of unbelieving, but it may well be that they did not wish to take anything from their relations. The apostles considered the Jews (even the unbelieving ones) as brethren, not in the Christian sense, but in the national. Paul does this in his preaching. The Gentiles were only Gentiles, and it may be that Diotrephes would not receive labourers from among the Gentiles; and that these labourers were to be received (it was their title - amongst Christians, Jews by race) just because they would not receive anything from the Gentiles, their relations, unbelievers or otherwise. … Good-bye, dear brother. May our good and faithful Father, full of love, be with you, encourage you, and keep you near to Himself; and in the enjoyment of the love of Jesus one is always happy, always encouraged.

Your affectionate brother.

1861.

[51182F]