READINGS IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (11)
READINGS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (11)
Matthew 26: 1 - 35; Matthew 28: 16 - 20
JT That period of the Lord’s history here which may be called the question period, is covered by verses 15 to 46 in chapter 22. Chapter 23 is an indictment of the Pharisees. Then comes the prophetical part in chapters 24 and 25, which is to be noted. It is remarkable, for no other gospel gives us the same facts as fully as we get them here. They are distinctively prophetic. Then the Lord’s supper comes in in chapter 26; then the solemn and touching facts of the Lord’s death which we would hardly attempt to enter into now. Finally, we have the position of the Lord in chapter 28 which involves baptism. The Lord is not seen as having gone into heaven, so that we are confined in our minds, in that sense, to the earth and what transpires on it. The Lord, according to what we have just read, says, “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. So that whilst the earth is still turbulent, occasioning distress at times, Matthew would say that God is taking care of matters in the sense of government, so that men are not allowed to do as they wish. Violence is restrained in such a sense that the Lord’s supper is possible in it. The suggestion is, therefore, that keeping these things in mind, we should now consider chapter 26. Verse 1 says “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, Ye know that after two days the passover takes place, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified”. The passover was to take place. Then we are told in verse 6, “But Jesus being in Bethany, in Simon the leper’s house, a woman, having an alabaster flask of very precious ointment, came to him and poured it out upon his head as he lay at table”. It seems as if we should rest a little on this position in the house of Simon the leper as making way for the passover and the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper, as seen in Matthew, has become more prominent historically than in any other of the gospels, although Luke gives a clearer view of it than Matthew does; but the reformers and others selected Matthew to teach us as to the Lord’s supper. And what took place in the house of Simon the leper would be especially in our minds, because it is a question of the Lord as Head, thus linking us on with 1 Corinthians 11. The Lord said of the woman who anointed Him, that “wheresoever these glad [p. 233] tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”, verse 13. So that what she did is carried down in regard of the gospel, wherever the gospel is preached. We are reminded that in preaching the gospel we must pay attention to what this woman did and see that there is accuracy and that no worldly principles are allowed in the preaching of the gospel. What she did involves the Lord’s supper and the order of it.
ANW For Matthew’s purposes she is nameless. There is a reason for that?
JT It is to stress what she did in the anointing of His head.
AR You referred to Corinthians in regard to headship. Did you have in mind that the head of the woman is the man?
JT 1 Corinthians links on with this particular incident in Simon the leper’s house. Our brother has called attention to the fact that the woman is not named, but I suppose we all assume that it was Mary of Bethany, a very distinguished person spiritually.
RWS Is there teaching in the statement the Lord makes in verse 12? He says, “For in pouring out this ointment on my body, she has done it for my burying”. Verse 7 says she poured it out upon His head, but He says upon “my body”.
JT The head is part of [p. 226] the body.
CAM Would you mind repeating in what way the Lord’s supper is distinctively looked at in Matthew’s gospel?
JT It says in verse 20, “And when the evening was come he lay down at table with the twelve”. They are mentioned in Mark and Luke also, but Matthew especially mentions that “when the evening was come he lay down at table with the twelve”. The Lord’s supper is in mind, but administration is in mind also, so that He sees to it that the twelve are there, that the administrative number is there, so that things are done in order. I believe, therefore, that we should keep in mind that order enters into the matter of the Lord’s supper in Matthew’s gospel. It is very important that it should be in mind; that things should be in order because the subject is enlarged on in 1 Corinthians.
ANW What did you have in mind when you said that Luke puts the supper more clearly than Matthew?
JT He stresses the apostles; not only the administrative side but the authoritative side; the twelve apostles. In Luke 22: 14 it says, “And when the hour was come, he placed himself at table, and the twelve apostles with him”. That is to say, authority is in mind. We cannot just do what we wish to do. We have to recognise the order and the authority that is behind the order.
ANW Then did you have in mind, too, that while it plainly gives the passover cup it still more plainly brings out the Lord’s supper — the cup as well as the bread?
JT Yes; very good. But in addition to what we have said, Matthew and Mark take the whole matter to the mount of Olives, which Luke does not. And while the whole thing is done on the earth there is the idea of going up. Heaven is the objective, the mount of Olives being in mind.
WAT It says that they went out to the mount of Olives.
JT I think that would be simply that [p. 227] they were leaving Jerusalem. They were not staying in Jerusalem, although the Supper was instituted there and it remains here in the presence of evil. The fellowship involves that there is the presence of evil. But going out would mean going out of the city. We are going out of the world. They went out to the mount of Olives.
ABP Does the idea link with the original passover when they ate with their loins girded preparatory to going out?
JT It would; there is a link with the passover, although Paul would segregate the idea. He puts the passover in chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians and the Lord’s supper in chapters 10 and 11, showing the Pauline system is to keep the Lord’s supper by itself, and the assembly by itself, because it is in the assembly that the Lord’s supper is celebrated.
JTJr Would the hostile scene that is in mind in the first paragraph of Matthew 26, where the chief priests and elders are referred to, connect with the local position in the way we sit down to the Lord’s supper, as being in a city where the power of evil is present as it was in Corinth?
JT I would say that, especially because conduct in the assembly itself is in mind in 1 Corinthians 11. “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”, verse 30. There was a want of self-judgment. Where there is a prevalence of sickness we have to take it to heart as to what the Lord may have in it for us.
Rem Is there not a very striking and solemn note in the fact that while the spirit of hostility is seen in our chapter in Matthew, they take account of the feast outwardly? They say, “not in the feast”, verse 5. Is that not a striking indictment of what is around us today? Men take account of things in a religious way without any thought of the pre-eminent place that Christ should have.
JT It is indeed, for it is a murderous spirit.
JAP [p. 228] Paul says it was in the night in which the Lord was delivered up.
JT Quite so. We often quote that. Luke refers to it, too.
Rem Does all this emphasise that whilst the murderous condition is there, yet these verses coupled with the first few verses of 1 Corinthians 11 show the great place Christ is to have in our affections if the Supper is to be rightly taken?
JT Quite so; and also the order that enters into it. That is to be noted. Some of us, no doubt including yourself, would know that the Lord has been greatly stressing order in regard of the Supper for many years past.
AAT Would you say we have order in Matthew?
JT I would say that the order would be more specifically in Luke, although it is here too.
RWS Is it the thought that despite the public conditions, despite the fact that there might be just two or three of us, there is no excuse for anything less than the divine thought?
JT Quite so. The Spirit of God began with a good many more than two or three. It is a very remarkable thing that we have three thousand mentioned, and that is not an accident. Luke records that as to the first day of the testimony of the Spirit here below, and the breaking of bread is mentioned in connection with it.
RWS I wondered if, therefore, the Spirit of God has been stressing the order of the Supper that we might come into the full thought in spite of breakdown and weakness.
EB Is the thought of order involved in Paul’s reference: “When ye come together in assembly”, 1 Corinthians 11: 18? Is that one reference to the order of which you speak?
JT It is not just so many persons together, but [p. 229] the attitude of the persons that are in assembly; not simply in the assembly, but in assembly. It is the character of the thing. We get the article in chapter 14, but in chapter 11 it is “in assembly”. It is the character of it.
ANW Would the teaching of headship in the earlier verses of that chapter imply that it is to be learned at home?
JT I would say that. This may be so especially where there are a number of sisters at home, as there were in Philip’s house. Then it would be stressed. There were four women there, and they prophesied. Well, that enters into what we are saying. The order that is proper to the Lord’s supper ought to be stressed.
AR You have suggested that the brethren should sit down in numbers of fifties. Is that order, also?
JT Quite so; that has been a part of the teaching of later years. Earlier it was not considered out of place to have as many as three hundred sitting down together, with several cups and several loaves of bread.
FHL Would this enter into what the apostle wrote to the Colossians: “... rejoicing and seeing your order”, chapter 2: 5?
JT That is very good; that is said to the Colossians. Their order was better than that of the Corinthians; it was shameful the way the Corinthians carried on.
DMacd Would you help us in regard to the young amongst us who are seeking their way into the assembly? What are we to look for in them?
JT Well, they ought to be able to look at the elder brethren and follow their example. The elder brethren ought to be patterns, which is a principle with God; the idea of pattern comes in in Exodus and elsewhere. So the younger ought to learn from the elder and when sober and mature features are seen in them, and devotedness, they should be ready for their place in the assembly.
RWS Is it in order for a brother who addresses [p. 230] the Lord in the service of praise to proceed to address the Father? Or should that transition be by a hymn or through another brother?
JT I would have no difficulty; I have done it many times, and I have heard others do it, too.
RWS I have heard it said that it is well for a brother who is addressing the Lord to confine His expressions to the Lord, and that it is better when a hymn intervenes before we proceed to the Father.
JT Well, I am sure I do not know whether I would endorse that. The Lord Himself, in speaking to His Father in John 17, varies the titles. He begins, of course, in lifting up His eyes to heaven and He says, “Father”. But there are variations in His prayer in John 17, and I believe this matter needs a little more attention than we can give it now, as to the place and the liberty that we have in access to the Father; the liberty that we have in the assembly to address the Lord, and then to address the Father; the same person doing both.
ANW Luke closes with that note really. While not giving assembly order, yet they did Him homage and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God.
JT Quite so; they did the Lord homage.
Ques Would you say that the Spirit would lead us on? When the Lord has received His portion, then we should move on to the Father. Would you think that?
JT I would have no difficulty about that; at the same time, we are all ready to learn; but the liberty that belongs to us as brethren as having access to the Father as sons of God I think would admit of addressing divine Persons alternately.
AAT Is it not so that some of our hymns address both the Lord and the Father?
JT Well, I could cite certain hymns that begin with the Lord. If you begin with the Lord the hymn [p. 231] might lead you on to the Father, and I should not like to question that; but not to begin with the Father and then go back to the Lord. I should begin with the Lord, because we begin with the Lord’s supper. It is not the Father’s supper, nor the Spirit’s supper, but the Lord’s supper, and that gives scope to what we may do to move on from the Lord to the Father.
Rem Would not your reference to John 17 raise the question with us of holy sensibilities and sensitiveness? One has noticed that the Lord, when referring to the world, says, “Righteous Father”; and when referring to the saints, He says, “Holy Father”; but as proceeding to the Father Himself, in relation to His own matters, He says with utmost simplicity, “And now ... Father”. Would that not raise the question of holy sensibilities with us in these matters?
JT I think that is very good.
AR You have said that brethren in Christ and the assembly and sonship are collateral. Would that help in liberty?
JT Just so; they have all equal value.
GH In our meetings for prayer some speak to God, and some to the Lord. How do you look at that?
JT That is quite admissible. I believe the idea of liberty ought to be studied more in this matter.
ATD All that we address to the Father is in the Lord’s name, is it not?
JT Quite so.
ATD Would it be lacking in reverence to omit the Lord’s name in closing a prayer or a thanksgiving to the Father?
JT Well, the apostle does not always do that, although he tells us to do it. “And everything, whatever ye may do in word or in deed, do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by him”, Colossians 3: 17.
WAT One has noticed that thanksgivings to the Father almost always commence with ‘God and Father’. One seldom hears anyone say ‘Father’ alone.
JT Well, the best way to get help would be by referring to the Scripture. The Lord says, when He is in a certain place praying, “When ye pray, say, Father”, Luke 11: 2.
WAT Would it be correct to start our thanksgivings with “Our Father”.
JT It would be quite correct to say, ‘Father’, and also to say, ‘Abba, Father’. It is ‘Father, Father’. The idea of Father is stressed in the double term. We have access to the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. The three Persons are involved, therefore. The Father is viewed as supreme, and as the great Objective.
FNW Is the thought of order especially important in view of the provisional setting of the service of God here below?
JT I would not like to eliminate the thought of order eternally. Not that anything will be out of place then, but still, the idea of order attaches to the position.
JS God is a God of order.
VCL Would not many of our difficulties be solved by our recognising the headship of the Lord at the beginning of the meeting? If we are consciously under His control and influence at the time of our coming together, we will have no uncertainty as to whom we are speaking and when.
JT I think that is good. The Lord Himself gives us the lead; and also the apostles, especially Paul.
Rem The Queen of Sheba was impressed with the order of service in Solomon’s day.
JTJr Does the order that is necessary in the preaching of the gospel require some further comment?
JT I was thinking of that. We have the word as to the woman in chapter 26: 13. “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. If we go to John’s gospel we shall find much more about Mary of Bethany. What a person she was! And how the Lord loved her as well as her sister and her brother; but especially Mary! What distinction she has, and now she is brought down in the glad tidings to us as having a memorial. Another person who has a memorial in Scripture is Cornelius, the centurion of Caesarea. He had built up the thought of a memorial by almsgiving and prayer. It was built up in heaven. And this woman has the distinction that her name is to be mentioned wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world. That is remarkable. Therefore, we are all challenged as to how we preach the gospel, and the terms and the methods we use. I think the way it is set here would lead up to the institution of the Lord’s supper, because it is a question of order.
FHL Would John’s touch as to the feet being anointed link on with what you are saying? Matthew suggests the ointment going on the body, whereas the touch in John is as to the feet, as if those who preach would follow that way through death itself.
JT Yes; so that the woman in Luke 7 has a certain distinction too as to the Lord’s body; but this is a particular case, and I think we shall do well to think of it, so that in preaching the gospel we do not introduce anything that would be out of keeping with the institution of the Lord’s supper; the order of the service of God. There should be nothing to interfere with the service of God in relation to the preaching of the gospel.
Rem What she did must have a permanent place.
JT It keeps things right. If we have one person called attention to from heaven as an example, we do well to pay attention to what that person does.
CAM Would you have in your mind the idea of [p. 234] burial in a very distinct way in this regard? She did it for His burial, which involves another order of things altogether. I wonder if this matter of burial should be made very distinct in the gospel.
JT Yes.
ABP Does the apostle Paul support that in 1 Corinthians 15? He announced how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised again the third day, according to the Scriptures. He emphasises the idea of burial.
JT Yes. And then there is the idea of anointing in burial; but it is not as in Mark 16 where the women came to anoint the Lord after His death, which is not really a right thought. There should be no thought of embalming the Lord. But the women intended to embalm Him. The word is used in this translation, but there was no thought in the Scriptures that the Lord was to be embalmed. He was going to arise. If He is going to arise there is no need of embalming, because He would rise again in three days. Scripture speaks of three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
GBL “Neither wilt thou allow thy Holy One to see corruption”, Psalm 16: 10.
JT Quite so. There is no need of embalming in view of that; but here He is anointed before He died, and the Lord is stressing that.
JTJr When Peter preached at Pentecost, he brought in that thought in Psalm 16. He really brought forward the spirit of things that is in this woman, and therefore is a pattern for us in preaching, bringing in the truth in the preaching.
JT I am sure that is good, because what we preach should be equal to the service of God, for the preaching is a part of that service.
AR Do you think the very standing up of the preacher should express that also? It says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach”, Luke 4: 18. Should there be the external evidence of the anointing with every brother that stands up to preach?
JT He stood up to read in Luke 4, but then He sat down to speak, which we have to notice, too. So that the actual standing up is not so much as the unfolding of the truth, because the glad tidings are most precious, as having emanated from heaven, and they convey the most precious suggestions; so that everything that we set out in our preaching ought to fit in with the service of God.
ANW According to 1 Corinthians 15, the appearings of the Lord are a part of the glad tidings; not only His death, burial and resurrection, but also His appearings.
Ques Would it be normal to suppose that affections touched by the gospel would move with a certain alacrity to a committal to Christ in the Supper?
JT If the gospel is received, the normal effect is to have part in the Lord’s supper. That is how things stood at the beginning, because when the preaching began, according to Acts 2, it goes on to say, “And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”, verse 42. The whole service of God is in mind, and there should be nothing set out in the gospel that is not in keeping with the service of God generally.
JAP Is that why Peter is careful to show that he is not excited when preaching? He says that they were not filled with new wine. Was there not sobriety with the eleven, too?
EB Do you think that the material secured through the glad tidings presented in the way you have been suggesting, would readily fit into assembly order?
JT It is quite important and worth while to refer to Acts 2, because it is the great model of the preaching, I would say, in the book of Acts. We are told that Peter stood up with the eleven; so that standing up is in order.
“[p. 236] But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them”. He lifted up his voice. Notice that! And then it goes on to say, “Men of Judaea, and all ye inhabitants of Jerusalem”; that is, he is dealing with persons who are local. The testimony begins with the locality. The local idea attaches to the gospel and the service of God generally; and then, of course, the universal idea is there too, but there should be no variation, as the apostle Paul says, “Thus I ordain in all the assemblies”, 1 Corinthians 7: 17. The word ‘assemblies’ is plural, and it refers to the local positions, and whatever is preached ought to be equal to being included in assembly services.
Rem So that in Acts 2: 44, it says, “And all that believed were together”. That is an assembly thought.
ETP Simon, in Acts 8, was not discerned as unreal by Philip. It took Peter to see that he was not suitable for the service of God.
JT Just so; Philip allowed him a place, but Peter would not have it.
AR It would almost appear that those who were converted through Peter’s preaching came into fellowship immediately.
JT Those that were added were counted afterwards.
JS They were added to the assembly.
JT Just so. The Lord did that.
LRP Does Peter refer to the memorial of this woman when he says, “Jesus the Nazaraean, a man borne witness to by God”? Acts 2: 22.
JT Well, I think that the memorial attaches to the service of God, the Lord’s supper. This do for a calling of me to mind.
WFK When we reach sonship after the Supper, does the priestly service end, or does it go right through?
JT That is another matter that would require time for our consideration. But I would say that priestly [p. 237] conditions were seen almost immediately after Peter’s preaching. Of course, there were some who said, “What shall we do, brethren?” They were concerned about what to do; not simply what they should believe, and so it is in accord with the spirit of Luke’s gospel, which is referred to in Acts 1: “... concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach”. It is a question of what is to be done.
JTJr So Peter’s converts address the question to Peter and the other apostles, which today would mean not only the one who preaches but those in the service generally and brethren whose word would be authoritative also.
JT There are a number of persons who got blessing in a certain part of this city recently, of whom several have come into fellowship. It is normal that the breaking of bread should come in immediately, and the order that attaches to it, because the book of Acts brings that out, among many other things. It begins by referring to what the Lord Jesus did; that is, what He “began both to do and to teach”.
EB Is the question of order involved in any way in the giving up of preachings in certain sub-divisions in a city in favour of hearing an especially gifted preacher?
JT I think the Lord would accord latitude to His people in such cases. It has been done on the occasion of special meetings or a general conference. We are called to liberty.
WWM What would you say about open air preaching?
JT I think it is very good. I think Peter must have preached in the open air when he preached first. I do not know where he could have preached to so many in Jerusalem save in the open air.
Ques If the young men go out in the open air to preach, the quality of the preaching should be maintained.
[p. 238] That has been a difficulty often with us in the past. It has been thought that young men could start in the open air rather than in the rooms, but the quality should be maintained, having in mind this great truth of which we have been speaking.
WWM We need the very best in the open air.
JT That is right, and not simply repetition. The truth should be imparted. We should take example from the apostles whom the Lord fitted and used as examples for us. We should consider their gospel addresses and see how they preached the gospel.
ABP Does the reference to the Lord sitting down with the twelve suggest that all will be preserved, and the high level of the truth maintained? The disciples were self-confident. Judas was arranging to betray the Lord; but does the reference to the twelve mean that in spite of all this there is trustworthiness, and that the thought of the twelve is to be carried through?
JT It is important to see that the thought of the twelve is carried right through in the gospel.
WAT It says that Peter stood up with the eleven; it is not that the eleven stood up with him.
JT It is the levitical idea. There were twelve and he would be the twelfth. That was a principle that entered into the gospel preaching. He stood up with the eleven. And persons who became exercised not only addressed their questions to Peter but to the others as well. It says in verse 37, “And having heard it they were pricked in heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, What shall we do, brethren?” So that there was not simply the preacher, but the other apostles were present. The stress is laid on the apostles and on the number. It is the administrative number coupled with the apostolic thought of authority. All that enters into the preaching, because it is not simply the salvation of the persons that is in view, but that the service of God should [p. 239] be continued.
RHS Is that seen in Ephesians? It says, “To announce among the nations the glad tidings of the unsearchable riches of the Christ, and to enlighten all with the knowledge of what is the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God”, Ephesians 3: 8. Then at the end of the chapter, it says, “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”. Does it lead on to the service of God?
JT Quite so. Paul never thought of anything less in his preaching but that there should be results for the service of God.
AR Does Acts 2 fit into the last chapter of Matthew where they are told to make disciples?
JT I think that is right. Perhaps we should go on to that section of the gospel. It is said, “But the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them”, Matthew 28: 16. Their number is short of one here; they are but eleven. But they did not begin to preach until that shortage was made up in Acts l. The shortage was made up, and there were twelve apostles when the preaching began. But here it is not so. This passage is to show that the Lord was there Himself and it was a question of what He would be and what He would do. So it says, “And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”, verses 16 - 20. That is to say, the broken condition is there, but the Lord is with them nevertheless. The fact of broken conditions does not prevent His being with us. He is with the two or three. “There am I in the midst of them”. That is the great point that is involved in this gospel.
JS He is in triumph, is He not?
JT Quite so. That is what you get here. They had adhered to His commandment. It was a good distance to Galilee, but they went, and the Lord came up to them, and as it says, “They did homage to him”. And then it says, “And Jesus coming up spoke to them”. The Godhead is then brought in; “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. It is in its proper order. The Father comes first always in the economy, and then the Son, and then the Holy Spirit. There is no irregularity at all in the mention of the holy Persons.
ABP Is it the idea of one name?
JT I would think so. The Godhead is involved in baptism and it is one name.
ABP Involving the height of the truth in christianity?
JT Quite.
Rem Would all this show that not only is the preaching to proceed according to divine order but those brought in are brought into a sphere where that order is insisted upon? They are taught to observe all things.
JT That is good. “Go, therefore and make disciples”. Notice the word ‘make’. It means work done more than preaching. I believe it is the principle of pattern as seen in Exodus. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to” (notice that it is to, not in) “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you”, (showing that there is no room for the natural mind at all) “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”.
ABP At the beginning of the gospel, the Lord [p. 241] Jesus said to certain ones, I will make you fishers of men. The verse you quote shows that work is to be carried on.
JT That is right, I am sure; and it enters into our care meetings how disciples are made — how brethren are made.
JTJr Would the eleven, therefore, connect with our local setting; that is, the broken conditions and our acknowledgment of that, and yet the Lord comes to that? It says, “Jesus coming up spoke to them”. He comes up to us in our local position and speaks to us. There are some that doubt; but then, acceptance of the idea of the eleven would be what the Lord goes on with.
JT I think it is very comforting, and hence we can go on, however few or many; but not overlooking the things — observing all things — that He enjoins.
J.S. Is this a command?
JT Well, it is, in principle.
SW Would you say that because of this broken condition, there is need for this word of reassurance that all power has been given to Him?
JT What comfort there is in that for those in this room tonight! We do not say that we trust He is here: we know He is here, and there is power here, and we can count on that power.
Ques Would you tell us why it says to baptise to the name?
JT The word ‘in’ which has the idea of power in it, is used in the same connection elsewhere, but it is not used here where it is a question of the objective being divine Persons. The disciples were to be baptised to Them.
Ques The footnote suggests that the mind is directed to the point to be reached. Is it that divine Persons are to be before us?
JT [p. 242] Very good.
GBL Would that leave ground for our trusting that the Holy Spirit will be received by those who, as children, were baptised to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? When they come to the point of believing, would we have ground to expect that they would receive the Spirit?
JT That is what Paul had in his mind in Acts 19 in connection with those at Ephesus. He clearly had that in his mind; whereas Philip, preaching in chapter 8, did not seem to have in mind that they must receive the Spirit. But the apostles sent Peter and John from Jerusalem, evidently so that they should get the Spirit; which was the point in their mind. Paul’s point at Ephesus was just the same. “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed? And they said to him, We did not even hear if the Holy Spirit was come”, Acts 19: 2. That was almost inexcusable ignorance.
DPC They were baptised to John’s baptism, but does not the scripture show that they were re-baptised?
JT The passage goes on to say, verse 5, “And when they heard that, they were baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus” — notice that the same preposition ‘to’ is used as in Matthew 28. They were baptised as soon as they heard the apostle’s word. And then it says, “And Paul having laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them”, showing the instrumentality of the apostles is involved sometimes — not always, but sometimes — showing that the Lord would stress the idea of His servants as well as that the Spirit may be given directly by the Father, or by the Son, or by His own action — He came upon them.
AR Paul baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus.
JT It shows that any one of the divine Persons carries the thought of all — the Godhead is involved.
EB Is that enforced by the apostle saying, “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”? He singles out the Lord’s authority. The Lord says, in Matthew 28, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”.
JT Quite so; and then Peter, in directing baptism in the case of Cornelius, commanded him to be baptised in the name of the Lord. It is just a question of the power involved in the name.