READINGS IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (8)
READINGS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (8)
Matthew 14: 23 - 36; Matthew 15: 29 - 39; Matthew 16: 13 - 20
JT Were we to look, in detail, into the passages read, time available would not suffice us; so the thought is to note certain features in these passages that lead up to the assembly. Chapter 14 is especially important in view of all that we have had in previous readings. We should note the need of faith, as seen in Peter walking on the water. And then in chapter 15 the incident of the feeding of the multitude carries with it the thought of the Lord giving thanks, but not looking up to heaven; whereas in chapter 14 He does look up to heaven to give thanks. The thought, therefore, is to call attention, in chapter 15, to the presence of the Spirit here, rather than what is in heaven. And then in chapter 16, of course, attention is called to the foundation on which the assembly is built and all that enters into that, including Peter’s position in the administrative system. It is thought that these remarks would help us in what leads up to the assembly formally in this book, which has been before us from the very outset in these readings. So that the first instruction is to learn how to walk on the water with the Lord, which is a purely faith matter. The Lord uses the words, “Why didst thou doubt?”
JTJr Does the element of fear come into that? He cried out through fear. Is that not often with us?
JT Quite so. There is much to fear in what we may encounter, and have encountered, even in a physical way, but we have to learn to be without fear, according to the great instruction to Joshua: “Be strong and very courageous”, Joshua 1: 7. We have to learn to go through things and count on God in these matters, as well as in the pressure of sickness. There is much sickness and there is apt to be much fear. We are [p. 156] at the end of the dispensation and so the Lord may be coming at any moment.
RWS They were compelled to go on board ship; they were under command. The position was a right one, was it not?
JT Quite so. As we are under the Lord’s orders, in a moral sense, we need not fear. “Who shall injure you if ye have become imitators of that which is good?” 1 Peter 3: 13.
WFK Has the fourth watch any dispensational value? Would it be the present day, near the end?
JT That is what we might conclude by observation. In the very early days of christianity the Lord’s coming was not stressed in the same sense as at the end. It is stressed especially in the Lord’s letters to the assemblies in the book of Revelation, which makes much of His coming. Of course it was always a truth to be held in hope.
FHL This right position as under command would be supported by the Intercessor on high, would it not, despite the waves and the night conditions? That would apply today, would it not?
JT Quite so; the Lord’s intercession on high is a very great matter, because He makes intercession for the saints according to God. The position of Christ now is in relation to a system. Intercession is a feature of it.
ANW What is the significance of His moving from the mountain down into the very disturbed conditions where the disciples were?
JT I suppose to bring out what we may count on in these difficult times in which we are; what we may count on from the Lord to help us. Even if we have to suffer, we are to go through it patiently. But faith is the point. The Lord said to Peter, “O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?”
AR “Behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. He was nearby.
[p. 157] JT The position in Matthew, in general, is on the earth. The Lord is here where the attacks are. It is not so much intercession that is in mind, as in Luke, but Matthew is that the Lord is here: “Behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. That is to say, He is where the attacks are made, and we can count on Him. And then the further word, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, chapter 18: 20. Think of the comfort of having Him in our midst in a time of trouble!
CN So that it is said, in verse 25, that He went off to them: “But in the fourth watch of the night he went off to them, walking on the sea”.
JT It was to set an example of what could be done, even in such circumstances.
CAM What would the ship mean in a practical way for us now? Peter descended from the ship.
JT Well, it would be something from which to get away. Faith would lead you to leave it to prove what the Lord can be to you. That is to say, the point is to bring out what the Lord can be to us, and He puts Himself in circumstances so as to be seen, so that suitable exercises should arise. They thought it was an apparition and cried out through fear. The circumstances brought that out. That is to say, “The disciples, seeing him walking on the sea, were troubled”. The Lord intended that they should see Him. What is in mind is to bring out that the Lord Himself is walking on the sea; and Peter would have in his mind to come to Him. He says, “Lord, if it be thou, command me to come to thee upon the waters”. The Lord intended that, and it must have been a joy to Him to find that Peter had that thought in his mind. There was more than that to come out, but Peter said, “Command me”, showing how thoroughly he was in the spirit of the moment. And the Lord said, “Come”. “And Peter having descended from the ship, walked upon the waters [p. 158] to go to Jesus. But seeing the wind strong he was afraid”, verses 29, 30. They were already afraid, but now Peter is afraid because, having come down out of the ship, he sees the wind strong. “And beginning to sink he cried out, saying, Lord, save me”.
WWM At this point, is it a question of apprehending which is the greater, the Lord or the things that are against us? As long as his eye was on the Lord, he could walk on the water.
JT When he saw the wind, or the tempestuous character of the water, he was afraid.
ANW Are we right in assuming that the source of this contrary wind was an evil one?
JT I would think so. I think it indicates evil influences. Satan is the prince of the power of the air, but this is a smaller matter than we get elsewhere; I mean, it is a limited incident, really, and yet it is a wonderful incident as teaching us a lesson of faith in the presence of what might cause fear. The Lord is moving and Peter has right thoughts and is governed by right principles. “Command me” he says to the Lord. But then the element of the water, and the wind acting upon it, is a thing we have to notice, and to see how the Lord meets it.
CAM Since, as you say, the incident is not a large matter, would it be possible to apply it to our local church position? We have no such support as the ship might indicate. We do not belong to any kind of outward system of things.
JT I certainly think that. It is a question of whether we have faith. Instead of a system which we might rely upon in such circumstances, faith makes up for all that. We rely on it. It is the great lesson of faith; negatively the word is, “O thou of little faith”.
AR Apparently he was not afraid of the water — it was a question of the wind. Is it satanic power working in the lives of men?
JT Quite so; “But seeing the wind strong he was afraid”. It was not the water, as you say. “And beginning to sink he cried out, saying, Lord, save me”, verse 30. So far, so good; but faith would have saved him. The Lord asked him why he doubted: “And immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught hold of him, and says to him, O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?” So that it is a question of whether we have learned how to trust the Lord in adverse circumstances such as are indicated here.
FHL Would not Peter’s position be the position we should all take at the outset? “Lord, if it be thou, command me to come to thee upon the waters”. We must leave all thought of system such as is suggested in the boat.
JT I would say that. At first, after the Lord had gone to heaven, the disciples went into the temple, and I suppose they would get certain protection in the temple, but that did not last long; they were in the temple blessing and praising God. After the Spirit came down and the assembly was formed, then they left. The position was that they ‘left all’.
RWS Would Matthew confirm the point that there are no short-cuts in the exercises we must pass through? There seems to be no modification; it is the fourth watch of the night. But immediately they cried out, the Lord spoke to them; and when Peter cried out, immediately the Lord stretched out His hand to save. Would that suggest a sort of consummation of an exercise?
JT I think so; He does something. One has often wondered how things, that are real sorrows, go on and on, but presently someone does something that is according to the position, like Isaiah bringing in the figs and applying them to Hezekiah, effecting a cure. But then, God was acting before that; only the bringing of the figs was what Isaiah did. And so it is, that [p. 160] when a thing that is detrimental to the testimony is prolonged, we should question in our souls. Why should it continue? It may be that we are missing something that could be done that would help to modify our sorrows.
CN Does divine sovereignty underlie all this? The Lord’s intervention saves the position. And does that lead up to the revelation to Peter in chapter 16?
JT Quite so.
ANW In spite of Peter’s failure was it not better to have left the ship in faith than not to have left it? Did he not gain an experience that the others did not have?
JT Quite so; he left the ship. Many a one has said, I would be with the brethren but for certain reasons, like the anchors that held the ship firm in Acts 27; meaning wife and children, or the necessity for a certain income, or the like. So that in Luke 5: 11, it says, “Leaving all they followed him”. They left the fishing boats, and all, and followed Him.
TD We can trust the Lord, even in a seeming impasse. He will make a way out.
JT Quite so; God is waiting an opportunity to support faith, even if it be only a little. The Lord says to Peter, “O thou of little faith”. He had a little, and that is what the Lord is waiting to support; not that He expects but little. He is waiting for the evidence of faith in us. Here, however, reproof was intended in what the Lord said.
EAL Does it seem that the disciples were particularly weak here?
JT The position is depicted in the history of the testimony according to Acts 1 and 2. The position in the boat alludes to Luke 24: 53: “... and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God”. That was good, but it was not praising God in the assembly. It was not the Lord singing praises [p. 161] in the assembly.
WFK Even though we are weak in faith, the Lord, in grace, will save us.
JT Still; He stresses faith. And I think the Lord would help us on the point of where the real thought of the assembly begins in the history of the testimony in the Acts; it was not in the temple. The temple was the provision of God at the outset in mercy and patience. He would stay with Israel. It was consistent with the testimony. But staying there and singing praises to God in the temple is not at all what we learn later, in the book of Hebrews: “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, Hebrews 2: 12. That was the thing they had to learn.
JAP Do you see the position recovered in Acts 12: 5? Unceasing prayer was made by the assembly; but still, there was lack of faith, according to verse 15.
JT There was. Prayer was made, and it was answered; but still the Lord did not get the full result of the prayer and the faith.
TEH The apostle said, “But in that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me”, Galatians 2: 20. That involves the full result?
JT Yes. I live by the faith of the Son of God. That is a high level; but then we have also in Colossians: “Ye have been also raised with him through faith of the working of God who raised him from among the dead”, Colossians 2: 12. That is a great matter. These are the great basic thoughts as to faith.
JTJr Would Hebrews 11, in its record of faith operating in the history of the testimony, fit in with this, especially in the movements of the saints?
JT I think that is right. The epistle to the Hebrews came in late. It came in much later than the testimony at the beginning of the Acts. It was in order that the Lord, through His servant (I suppose Paul was the writer) might take up the types to bring [p. 162] out the truth of christianity. Paul came in late, but the writing of the epistle was later than that. It alludes largely to the types and the Psalms, and is to bring out the authority and the use of the Scriptures in the late history of the assembly. We are now in the very late history of the assembly, and therefore Hebrews has acquired a great place among the brethren; a delivering place. It serves to deliver people out of human systems because there is the same sort of thing as Judaism in the systems around us, and we have to learn from the types as they did at the beginning. I do not know whether the brethren follow what I am saying, but I think it is very important to see the historical side of the position beginning with Acts 1, and where Paul came in, and the epistle to the Hebrews following upon that.
JS Do you feel that the systems have become Judaised, in principle?
JT They have, and the epistle to the Hebrews serves us now to get out of these things, because they correspond with Judaism.
TEH Would it be right to say that everyone of the persons in the cloud of witnesses would be indicative of this measure of faith? In view of helping us into the testimony properly, a cloud of witnesses looms up before the soul; and I wondered if every one of those persons would have faith, “the faith of the Son of God”.
JT Just so. They come in in Hebrews 11 to strengthen the position of the testimony. This “cloud of witnesses” is not before us as so many persons. They are persons who have come and gone in the testimony from the beginning. They have come and gone, but they are brought in in such a way that you can see them passing. They pass in a victorious way, so that the writer says, “Time would fail me telling of Gideon, and Barak ...” But then we have a general idea. The thought is brought before us in a sort of rapid way, so that we might see that from the beginning,
[p. 163] right through, God had His witnesses. They are brought into the end of the dispensation to strengthen the faith of believers and get them out of the system.
EAL Do we see that in the end of Luke 16? The Lord says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets ...” There is a living voice still coming from them.
JT Just so; a living voice. We have an exact reference to that: “Ye have come to ... the blood of sprinkling, speaking better than Abel”, Hebrews 12: 22 - 24. It is a voice. Each of these men had his voice, but the blood of Christ speaks better things. Everything that is brought forward in Hebrews must be better than the old system.
AAT When they said, “Truly thou art God’s Son”, Matthew 14: 33, what light did they have as to His person?
JT It is not the same idea as Peter’s testimony. Peter, in chapter 16, is called blessed because of his confession, but these men, those in the ship, are not the disciples; they are persons in the ship. They are acting in the ship. They did homage to Christ saying, “Truly thou art God’s Son”.
JS Does Peter give the lead? He says: “Lord, if it be thou, command me to come to thee upon the waters”. That is, it is to the Person.
JT Yes. These men in verse 33 were persons that were in the ship. We have not yet come to chapter 16. We have not yet come to the real formation as to the assembly, but these men are observing things. They say, “Truly thou art God’s Son”. That is by observation, not revelation; but Peter did not confess by observation. The confession was developed in him. It was something in him that the Father revealed to him.
AR What do you have in mind to say about chapter 15?
JT Just to get on to the thoughts with which we began. We have covered what is in mind in chapter 14, having come to the thought of the Son of God by [p. 164] observation, as remarked; but that is not revelation. We do not build on that passage when we come to chapter 16. These men did not get a revelation. What they had was by observing, just like the centurion in Matthew 27: 54. It is one thing to see things, to learn by observing, which is right, but it is another thing to get a revelation, and christianity is built on revelation.
WWM Is revelation more inward?
JT That is just what it is, although Paul said, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me”, Galatians 1: 16. He used a different word; but the revelation as to assembly foundation was to Peter: “Flesh [p. 170] and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens”, Matthew 16: 17.
FSC Is manifestation greater than observation?
JT Manifestation is one thing, and observation is another. But manifestation may be the means of light in my soul. It is a word John uses, especially in the last chapter; the third time of manifestation is referred to; but here it is what they saw in the sign on the water. Let us go back again to the passage that was referred to. It is said, “But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God’s Son”. That is because they saw the things that happened.
CAM I suppose it would be right to say that every one of us here knows that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God, but to know Him as Son of God, I suppose, is a greater matter.
JT Well, what we come into is what Peter had, the revelation that Peter received. That is the great basis of the assembly. It is found in Matthew only.
JAP What does the ship represent when Jesus gets into it. Is there any change? You were speaking of the ship as being the position from which the Lord Jesus would deliver us, but when Jesus gets into the ship, and the men make this statement that He is Son of God, is there some change that comes [p. 165] about?
JT I see what you mean. Verse 32 says, “And when they had gone up into the ship, the wind fell”; that is to say, the Lord came into the ship, which corresponds with what we are saying as to Acts 1. The Lord had led them out as far as to Bethany, and He went up from Bethany. It does not say that He went up from the mount of Olives. He went up from Bethany; that is to suggest that He still remains in relation to Judaism in Luke. He went up from Bethany. But in chapter 1 of the Acts, which would probably allude to the same position, the inference is that He went up from the mount of Olives, which would mean that in our minds we have to move on from Bethany. Even from Bethany we have to move on. We have to move to the position that leads up to the assembly, and going up from the mount of Olives would be nearer to the truth of the assembly than going up from Bethany. Bethany was a place of love, but in Israel. It is particularly a type of the position in Israel, but the mount of Olives was more than that. It was a heavenly relation.
ANW I wondered regarding the boat, whether it had served its purpose, and we should learn that lesson. Now the Lord, as getting into it, is a further matter; leaving the boat is a vital matter; and the Lord quelling the storm, also; and the confession and acknowledgement that He is God’s Son. All this is vital.
JT It is: He was moving in that direction; but the ship would correspond, I would say, to Bethany instead of Olivet.
CAM That seems to be a very helpful suggestion, because after Bethany at the end of Luke, there is immediate reference to the temple where the disciples were found praising and blessing God.
JT Quite so; in the beginning of Acts they do not go to the temple; they go to the upper room. The position is changed. It is one of the most important things we can have before us, that the position of the [p. 166] testimony is in relation to the mount of Olives in the Acts. And they go to the upper room, and we are told who is staying there. It is a completely new position leading up to the truth of the assembly.
RWS Is there order in the scriptures read? First there is faith, which you spoke of in chapter 14, and then the Spirit is implied in the end of chapter 15. Is that how we come into the assembly morally?
JT Faith is stressed in chapter 14; I think it is well to stress that. It is linked up with the observation of the boatmen, leading up to what Peter had later; that is, a revelation. But now before we come to that, which is in chapter 16, we have to think of the fact that that Lord did not look up to heaven when He gave thanks in chapter 15: 36, whereas, in chapter 14: 19 He did look up to heaven.
RWS What do you make of that?
JT Well, I think it is to bring out what is down here. After the Lord went up to heaven, He sent down the Holy Spirit, and this second feeding of the multitude contemplates that the Holy Spirit is down here. In chapter 14, it is more what we have been saying, that it contemplates the Lord having gone up into heaven; and it is right to have to say to Him up there; and it is right to refer to God up there; but we have to learn to refer to the Holy Spirit here below, too, as a prime matter. We have to learn to do that. So it is a fixed matter that enters into the whole position of the testimony of God in this dispensation.
ETP The Lord tells the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they be clothed with power from on high. Would that link on with His compelling them to go into the boat until the other side is reached?
JT Very good; that is to say, the going into the ship is just a temporary thing, but the idea of the Spirit of God down here sets us out on our journey to the full thought of [p. 167] the dispensation.
AR What is the difference between the twelve baskets in chapter 14 and the seven in chapter 15?
JT The numeral seven refers to spiritual completion; whereas chapter 14 is administrative completion. Both are true and necessary, but the point of the Spirit is particularly important in view of the character of the dispensation.
JTJr Is chapter 14 linked with the apostolic side, and this in chapter 15 with the Spirit’s place?
JT Quite so; and we are in the Spirit’s time, as much as they were; but we are not in the administrative side in the same sense, the apostles having to be taken account of at the beginning. But the Spirit continues with us always, even as the Lord is with us always. In Matthew the Lord is viewed as being here, because He is not said to have ascended. The Spirit is in mind as here, in this chapter, as indicated in the number seven.
TNW You had something more to say about the manner of giving thanks?
JT Just that the Lord does not look up to heaven in chapter 15 to give thanks. It is said, in verse 36, “And having taken the seven loaves and the fishes, having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples, and the disciples to the crowd”. It does not say He looked up to heaven because it is to stress that the Holy Spirit is down here. The point here is to show that the Spirit is in mind; whereas chapter 14 is the administrative side.
ANW The Lord points out a distinction between the two cases in chapter 16: 9 which perhaps confirms what we are saying. He says, “Do ye not yet understand nor remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many hand-baskets ye took up? nor the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?” It is a larger basket.
JTJr Does all this side link on with the inward conditions of the saints that comes in in chapter 16?
[p. 168] The food would have that in mind. What is given to the people would bring about a constitution in them.
JT Well, the food in chapter 15 would. We are on higher ground. What has just been remarked as to the size of the basket and the number seven instead of twelve is important. It is to bring out greater thoughts, maybe leading up to such scriptures as Colossians, Ephesians and John’s ministry. It implies what is peculiarly spiritual.
FHL So that the feeding of the four thousand would be a greater thought than the feeding of the five thousand.
JT Just so; as implied in the size of the baskets and the other things of which we have been speaking. It is to bring out the greatness of the presence of the Holy Spirit here below.
FHL Would it not suggest what is universal, also?
JT Quite so.
WFK Would the food be ministry by the Spirit?
JT That is the idea, only that when you come to John’s gospel the Lord Himself is the food.
RWS In chapter 16: 4 it says, “He left them and went away”, and the footnote indicates that it means to leave absolutely. He had left before, in a different way according to the earlier chapters, but does this suggest that we are to come into something special now in separating from the Pharisees and Sadducees as in unbelief.
JT I think so. That is the point we have to come to now, and think over a little. It says, “And the Pharisees and Sadducees, coming to him, asked him, tempting him, to shew them a sign out of heaven. But he answering said to them, When even is come, ye say, Fine weather, ... And he left them and went away”, verses 1 - 4. Many may take the ground of leaving religious systems, but they do not go away. They linger about and are apt to go back again. But it says that the Lord “left them and went away”. That is a word that enters into the moment in this chapter, meaning that we go into the assembly. We have a place into which to go.
JS Is divine fulness suggested here in the seven baskets?
JT Just so. The writer to the Hebrews says, “We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle”, Hebrews 13: 10. That is, there is exclusiveness. They have no part in this. It is not that we do not want to be with them, but we want them to understand they cannot be with us, except on right principles. Fellowship is in the light. We must have right principles.
AR The word is, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”, Matthew 16: 11.
JT We are apt to be coloured by the company we are in. Unless we leave such we are apt to bring in their principles and influences.
ANW Is it not in this setting that they become a wicked and adulterous generation in asking for a sign in chapter 16: 1?
JT Wickedness is defined in this chapter. So it is, that we have so much said about the facts relating to the revelation which Peter received. It says, beginning with verse 13, “When Jesus was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi” (note that even the geographical position enters into this) “he demanded of his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some, John the baptist; and others, Elias; and others again, Jeremias or one of the prophets. He says to them, But ye, who do ye say that I am?” Now they are tested as to the Person, not principles just here but the Person; Who the Son of man is. So Peter says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. This is the confession. “And Jesus answering said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”. Now this is the crucial point in Matthew; reference to the assembly itself being formed, and all that leads up to that. Points to be noted are: the separation from the Pharisees and the Sadducees in verse 4, “He left them and went away”, and then the geographical position involving the nations, because the assembly would not only be drawn out of Israel, but out of the nations also. It is at Caesarea-Philippi that the revelation is made to Peter.
FNW Why is a revelation required for the introduction of the assembly?
JT I think it is to bring out the wonderful nature of the assembly. We have no such thing as to the formation of Israel. Matthew 16 is the only place where you get the spiritual side stressed and emphasised so fully. It is a question of the spiritual basis of things in the assembly.
JS Does the Lord introduce Himself as Son of man to bring in the universal character of the assembly?
JT Yes; I think it is to keep clear of Jewish terms. The Son of man would be His relation to men; and that is the point He made. “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?” verse 13.
RWS The very best opinions, outside of revelation, miss the mark, do they not? He asks His disciples, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some, John the baptist; and others, Elias; and others again, Jeremias or one of the prophets”. I thought of how shut up we are to revelation as to who the Person really is.
JT The Lord is clearing the ground now, and Peter is equal to that position, because God acted in Peter, “Blessed art thou. Simon Bar-jona”. The setting [p. 171] is to bring out the spiritual character of the whole matter; that Peter himself is blessed because of the confession; and so the Lord says, “And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter”. It brings out who Peter is. It is a spiritual name. “Thou art Peter”.
CAM Is there a parallel, in principle, to the revelation to Peter, in what Paul says: “By revelation the mystery has been made known to me”, Ephesians 3: 3?
JT Quite so. Peter did not have all the truth as to the assembly. He was to be an administrator in the kingdom, not to bring out the truth of the assembly. But he said enough to set out the foundation of things.
WFK Would every member of the assembly have to make this confession?
JT In some sense; we must come into it. It is mentioned here according to this chapter, and we all have to come into the thing. The light was there. The light came in through Peter, and it is here still. The Holy Spirit takes it up, and the light that Peter had is applied to each one of us. It is most distinctive.
CAM There is nothing like this in relation to Israel, showing how very wonderful the assembly is.
TD It is a great feature in Paul’s ministry too, as we have seen; after seeing the greatness and glory of Christ revealed from heaven, he brings it to the assembly.
JT Just so; And the Lord said to him, “It shall be told thee”. He had to learn things. He did not get the revelation then. He got it later. God revealed His Son in him, he said, which is very much like Peter; in fact, in a sense it is more, as we have already noted.
AR Is the assembly set up on the same principle?
JT It is, and all outside of that is just Judaism, the public profession of christendom today is Judaism, in principle; it is really outside of this revelation to Peter.
FNW The epistle to the Hebrews opens up, “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has [p. 172] spoken to us in the person of the Son”, chapter 1: 1, 2. Would that be the position here? He is not merely one of the prophets; He is the Son of God.
JT He is not only the Son of God. He is God Himself. God speaking in Son. The Speaker is God, God in Son. The article is not there. It is God in Son. The Son is viewed as God. He is the Speaker.
TEH In connection with that, in Hebrews 12, when it speaks of “the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven;” it goes on to say, “and to God, judge of all”, as though the next step in the education would be that we come to God.
JT Yes.
ANW Is the reference to Peter’s parentage, in ‘Bar-jona’, to bring in sovereignty? “Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona”. Why does He refer to his father in that way?
JT I suppose it is to link on the individuality of Peter. It is the same person, only he is not viewed as spiritual material under those terms. But when He says, “Thou art Peter” — not. Thy name is Peter but, “Thou art Peter”, the material is in mind. That word ‘Peter’ is important as regards selecting material; not only is the foundation referred to in the passage, but the actual material generally is there. I believe the whole formation is in mind. Here you have the whole matter of the assembly; not only the foundation in Peter’s confession, the truth of the Son of God and the Christ, but that Peter himself is also essential to the whole matter. He represents the material suitable for the assembly, and all outside of this passage is, in principle, Judaism. There may be modification, because many of our brethren are in it, but all outside of what we are now dealing with has the character of Judaism.
FSC Would you say why the transfiguration follows so closely on Peter’s confession?
JT I am glad you bring that up now, for it should [p. 173] be kept before us. Peter had to come into that, too, as we see in chapter 17.
AR The only thing that is worth while in the systems around us is the work of God in men’s souls.
JT And it all centres around these facts with which we are dealing. The work of God today is centred around these facts, the confession of the Son of God, and the confession involving Peter as material for the assembly.
ANW Do you think we have to consciously realise that two divine Persons, the Father on one hand, and Christ on the other, have had to do with us sovereignly?
JT I am sure that is true. And the great place the Holy Spirit has had in recent times is also remarkable.
AAT If a brother speaks in a prophetic meeting in keeping with 1 Corinthians 14: 30, what kind of revelation is involved in that?
JT Well, it is a revelation, but what we have specially noted here is an action of the Father. Flesh and blood had not revealed it to Peter. It is not the Spirit, not Christ, but the Father. The Father is the Source of the revelation to Peter.
JAP It is remarkable that Paul bows his knees to the Father.
JT Quite so.
AR The Son of the living God stands out in Matthew. You do not get it in the other gospels.
JT It is over against Judaism. I mean to say Judaism is not living, especially as it is dealt with in Hebrews; it is dead. Sardis is dead, “thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead”, Revelation 3: 1. That is Judaism of the present time.
ANW In speaking of Judaism, you are referring to the accredited religion of the day.
JT Quite so. It is Sardis.
RWS Are there opportunities now in the assembly for revelation? I am thinking of 1 Corinthians 14: 30.
JT Paul said he went up to Jerusalem by revelation.
[p. 174] That would not be on the same level as this of which we are speaking. God would be pleased to give ministry in the sense of revelation to His servants, but it is rare now.
ETP Paul says that his revelation was by commandment of the eternal God, Romans 16: 25, 26.
JT That is in keeping with the revelation to Peter.
ANW Nathanael said, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”, John 1: 49. But that is not this. The “Son of the living God” has a peculiar touch.
JT Just so. So here we have the Lord saying, in verse 20, “that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”. That is, He is not going to bring out the idea of the Christ in public literature, religious literature. That is not the idea of this chapter.
JHE Would what the Lord said in John 17: 3 be akin to this? “And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”.
JT I think it would. This point, that the Lord enjoined in verse 20, is most important. “He enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”. Why should we not say that Jesus is the Christ? The Lord means that the truth of the assembly should not be reduced to the level of man’s natural mind.
DP Did the Lord have Paul in His mind in the remark: “I will build my assembly”?
JT Quite so. Paul was the builder of it. We cannot just say that Peter is characteristically the builder of it, although he did build in it and he speaks of it too, and of the stones; but Paul is the one to whom the truth of the assembly was especially given. If we look at Paul’s ministry in Colossians and Ephesians we shall see that he had the truth of the mystery. The whole matter is placed [p. 175] with him.
WFK To Peter it is said, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens”. That was not to the assembly. Would they be needed to supply material for the assembly?
JT Yes; the kingdom is subservient to the assembly.
WFK We must come into the kingdom first?
JT Just so. Romans is, in general, the truth of the kingdom.
AR Paul says, “ye also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit”, Ephesians 2: 22. Is that included here?
JT I think so. In principle, all is included here.
RAL Peter says, “God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”, Acts 2: 36. Does he not confess there that He is the Christ?
JT That is ministry. That is what Peter spoke as a minister. The apostles were presently sent out, constituted ministers by the Lord’s appointment; so that it is said that the saints at the beginning persevered in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship. That was the position of the apostles as set up in the power of the Spirit; not simply set up by Christ Himself, personally, but set up in the power of the Spirit. At the outset the apostles were not complete. But they became complete. This was before Acts 2. According to 1 Corinthians 15: 5 “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”. It is not to the eleven. Twelve is the complete administrative number.
RHS Would you say a word as to why this great truth precedes the disclosure of His death in verse 21? We might think it should be the other way round.
JT The remaining part of the chapter is to guard the foundational truth in the passage before us, because you can see how Peter failed. In verse 22, it says, “Peter taking him to him began to rebuke him”. Think of an apostle doing that! It shows how our [p. 176] minds might come under the influence of the devil and we may talk about the most precious things in a purely natural way. The Lord has to say, “Get away behind me, Satan”. That all helps us to see what is meant by verse 20.
Ques Would you say something about the word that God hath made Jesus both Lord and Christ?
JT It is a gospel testimony; the time of the Spirit. The twelve were constituted by the Lord for this whole position; and the Spirit came down from heaven to make all effectual. But here they were considered worthy of having this wonderful charge committed to them, so that the thing should not be discredited, like pearls cast before swine. The Lord enjoined them to tell no one.
FHL Were the Corinthians apt to be on the line of Peter’s failure when the apostle said that they were saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ?
JT Quite so. Any sort of untrustworthy sectarianism is what the Lord is rebuking here. Even Peter, the leading apostle, is rebuked. For this precious jewel, as we were saying, this gem of the truth contained in this section, is to be guarded most jealously from the natural mind.
EAL Does the Lord act on that principle in verse 4: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonas. And he left them and went away”.
JT The terse reference to the sign of Jonas there is striking. That sign would mean that the Lord would be put to death. It implies the guilt of the Jewish leaders.
JAP Referring to the assembly, Paul says, “The assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth”, 1 Timothy 3: 15. What is the link between the base and the secret that was committed to the disciples? Is that the truth, the Son of God [p. 177] and the assembly?
JT Quite so. The assembly is the pillar and base of the truth. What the Lord says in verse 20 is bound up in that, that the assembly is the ground of the truth now; the pillar and base of it.
JAP You mean that we are not only holding objective truth in the ministry, but it is in our souls?
JT Quite so; it is a question of whether you are true to the trust. Paul speaks about that with which we have been entrusted.
TEH Would you help as to the adverse conditions referred to in the gates of hades? How close they come to this marvellous setting of the truth.
JT Satan will get as near as he can to us. We have to be on our guard as to how we are holding the truth, so that hades’ gates shall not prevail against it. The Lord regards us as reliable in relation to His interests here. The virtuous woman in Proverbs helps as to that.
TEH Is some kind of administrative power on the part of Satan suggested in the gates of hades, that he would set himself up against the assembly?
JT He would get as near to the assembly as possible.
AR It is the only impregnable thing on earth at the present time, it is not?
JT Quite so; that is a very great comfort too. So that our point is to hold to the truth of the assembly, and all that enters into it as to love for one another, so that the enemy does not get in.
AI How did Nathanael get his understanding of the Lord as the Son of God, and as the King of Israel?
JT We have to follow the whole history as to Nathanael. Evidently he was an immediate subject of the work of God. He was a remarkable subject of the work of God, and the Lord recognised that when Nathanael said, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”. Although remarkable, it was not as great as Peter’s confession, but the idea of His sonship [p. 178] was there. Nathanael was capable of taking it in. It is well to compare Nathanael with Nicodemus. Nathanael was a quick learner in contrast to Nicodemus. The Lord knew that and said, “Thou shalt see greater things than these”.
AI You were speaking earlier in the meeting about learning by observation. Would that work out in Nathanael?
JT I should think so; and then the work of God in him. If we look into the history of Nathanael we shall see that at first he was slothful, sitting under the fig tree. But he moved, and made steady progress. He was a peculiar subject of the work of God.