WHO DO YE SAY THAT I AM?
[p. 397] WHO DO YE SAY THAT I AM?
JT I think it is well to note that the point of the Lord’s question to His disciples, “Who do ye say that I am?” is not connected so much with what they believed, as with what they said, and it appears that the incident at Bethsaida was preparatory to this, so that one might know how to speak about the Lord. It seems as if we need to have our eyes opened for this. There are two lines in regard to the Person of Christ; one is what is publicly declared, and the other is what is revealed personally. The opening of our eyes would be to see what is set out in the way of public evidence of what Christ is; revelation is more intimate and personal, as we see in Peter (Matthew 16). Men were saying certain things as to who Christ was; this was occasioned by His miracles and teaching.
HEF Do you mean that revelation is an advance on declaration?
JT Yes, I think so; the declaration is public.
HEF Will you say a little more as to the distinction between those two thoughts?
JT In Romans it says, “Marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:4) — or dead ones. That is public witness. But Peter, as we have said had a revelation: “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens” (Matthew 16:17); and Paul had a revelation also: “God ... was pleased”, he says, “to reveal his Son in me”, Galatians 1:15,16.
HEF Do you mean that it should be an exercise with us as to whether we have received this [p. 398] revelation?
JT I think so. There is that which is for all — the public testimony, and then there is too that which is personal and intimate. The resurrection of the dead and other miracles are public; the private side is on the line of revelation as in the case of Peter and Paul.
FHB Would you say that the scripture in Matthew 11 would support that: “No one knows the Son but the Father, nor does any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him” Matthew 11:27?
JT Just so. What is public is to be seen, and so the necessity for the opening of our eyes.
JAP What is the significance of the second touch in regard to the opening of the eyes?
JT In our case it would be the Spirit known in us by which we discern everything. It says, he “saw all things clearly”. No one sees all things clearly save he who recognises the Spirit. “All things” would involve what has come out in the way of testimony. First he sees men, but he sees them “as trees, walking”. Evidently he had a very distorted view of things, and that indicates, I suppose, that the reason why many of the people of God have a distorted view of things is that they have not received the second touch.
Ques Does it suggest a need of adjustment?
JT Yes. The Lord laid His hands again upon his eyes. It is a second service, or ministry, which I think many of us need. The evidence of this need is the distorted and unproportionate way in which we look at things.
Ques Would the second touch suggest the Spirit’s movement?
JT It would; it is the Lord’s work. The Lord touched his eyes.
HEF How would you distinguish between the first touch and the second?
JT [p. 399] I think the first, touch expressed the Lord’s sympathy with the person who was blind. “They bring him a blind man”; it does not say who brought him. It shows there was general sympathy with him, which I think the Lord would promote among His people, and indeed the spirit of sympathetic interest in those who are needy should always be amongst His own. Then, further, we read that they “beseech him that he might touch him”; there is solicitude for the man. This side should be emphasised among the people of God — solicitude for those in need. I have no doubt that if we kept these things in view, there would be blessing and help among us.
HEF There would be the desire to bring those in need to the Lord.
JT The influence of the town is prejudicial to the service that He intended to render to the man at this particular juncture, so He took him by the hand. “Taking hold of the hand of the blind man he led him forth out of the village”. Note that He took him by the hand, then it says, “and having spit upon his eyes, he laid his hands upon him”. Thus the man is made to feel at the outset that the Lord was a real Man. It suggests “the man, Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5.
HEF Would the proof of His humanity be in the spittle?
JT The spittle stands for the genuineness of the Lord’s humanity, “Having spit upon his eyes, he laid his hands upon him”; so there is in the service rendered a complete committal. We see first the Lord’s consideration in leading him outside the town because of the prejudicial influence of the town, and then His humanity. These features, I believe, should come out in the gospel presented to those around. He was a real Man, and then He identifies Himself with the blind man, He lays His hands upon him. Then the Lord asked him if he beheld anything,
[p. 400] because the effect of the ministry of Christ is seen in what we say in answer to His question.
HEF Do you think the Lord in laying His hands upon him had in view that the man should answer to His own thought?
JT I think so. It was a question of eyesight, and the answer we make to the questions put to us brings out the effect of the ministry of Christ.
HT What answers to the village now?
JT It is the organised system around us. The world is marked by organisation. It has been a feature from the beginning; the first town built by Cain introduced the principle of organisation, a principle which was to render the world more powerful and more independent of God. In that sphere all that man is, all his ability and his power, come out. Next we find a city and a tower is built — I refer to Babel — and so all down the history of humanity the principle of building a city is to enhance man’s position on earth as independent of God, and that principle enters into the smallest town and village in the world. So that while the Lord proves His perfect humanity, He leads the man outside of all the sphere of man’s influence. God intends to lead that man into another world, and so his eyes are opened and he begins to see things clearly.
Ques What does Bethsaida represent?
JT I think it represents what is nominally evangelical. It is a city with a reputation, for it was “the city of Andrew and Peter” (John 1:44); Philip also was of it. It is all the more dangerous spiritually on account of being whitewashed in this way.
WS After the second touch the Lord directs the man to look up. What is the point of that?
JT That is a mistranslation. It may be there, but it is doubtful. In the first case the man looked up — that was instinctive. The natural tendency is to [p. 401] look down. Then it says the Lord laid His hands upon him again, and “he saw distinctly, and was restored and saw all things clearly”.
EML You were suggesting that many of us need the second touch, and the evidence is that we do not appear to see things clearly.
JT What is needed is what the Lord effects for us by the Spirit; and we do not see things in their right relation and proportion until this point is reached. Until then we are not fit to take part in the assembly, or in the service of the Lord.
ER Were the Corinthians seeing men like trees walking?
JT Just so; they were making much of certain ones. Evidently though Paul and Apollos are mentioned, others were being looked up to as leaders out of proportion to their spiritual stature (see 1 Corinthians 4:6).
EML Have you any thought as to the difference between seeing men and seeing things?
JT Things are more general; they would imply what is set out — not only men, but principles. They are not to be divorced, of course. What you get recorded in Acts 2 about the three thousand in Jerusalem is that “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles” Acts 2:42. It was not merely that there were followers of certain men, nor that they were simply added to the apostles, but the believers continued steadfastly in their doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers. They had laid hold of principles. If the apostles were taken away the principles would remain and the believers would go on with them, and they did so, too. If Christianity was dependent upon the presence of the apostles, it would have died with them, but it was not. The apostles introduced the doctrine, fellowship, etc., and these were continued in, as understood, by the saints.
EML We should be able to see [p. 402] in the doctrine the things connected with the kingdom and the assembly.
JT Just so. Now men were saying things, and the Lord assumes His disciples would know what men were saying about Him, and we should know, as disciples, what men are saying about the Lord.
HEF What is involved in sending the man whose eyes were opened to his house? What would answer to that today for us?
JT Instead of going to the town the convert is sent to his house. If it be a young convert it is the safe place for him, and hence the importance of having households, affording safety and wholesome influences, having the features of the house of God.
FHB I suppose oftentimes young converts go back to the village and get under its influence.
JT I am sure that is what is happening. The habits of this world are taken up by those who believe, and they come under the influence of them.
HT The man out of whom the legion was cast in chapter 5 is sent to his home and his own people. What is the difference?
JT The man in that chapter is sent home to tell what was done for him. In this case the Lord sent the man to his house, saying, “Neither enter into the village, nor tell it to any one in the village”. It is to avoid Christianising the village. It is not of God to nominally Christianise a community. Modern Christendom is the result of this practice. The village would of course take credit for the occurrence and would talk of it as an item of news. In this way the Lord would become owned outwardly. We learn elsewhere (John 6) that the people were ready to make Him king because of the signs He wrought.
FHB If the house is under the control of the Lord it would be a safe place.
JAP Do you think the Lord gives the second [p. 403] touch as a matter of course, or is it obtained as a result of the necessity being felt for it?
JT The Lord’s first question would make the need for it apparent; hence what you are concerned about is to find out by questions the state the saints are in.
HEF Do you mean that this man would be in a condition to answer the questions in the next incident?
JT That is what the Lord is leading up to.
HEF We need to be outside the village conditions and to have our eyes opened to apprehend the glory of His Person.
JT You do not want to add to the village. Christianity has added to this world. It was never the divine intent that the world should be white-washed by Christianity. That is what the Lord has in His mind. His injunction to the man to go to his house would provide against that, it would also tend to save himself from the influence of the town.
TEW Is your thought that this incident is connected with the declaration?
JT Yes; as having his eyes open, the man would see what was presented in Christ, and so could answer the Lord’s question as to who He was.
HEF You would only value men according to their estimate of Christ. Your thought is that we should recognise men in this way?
JT You begin to see that in the house, not in the village. A man would appear in a village according to the estimate of the village, according to the principles governing the town. I think in a Christian house what man is naturally is not the point. With many of us there is the culture of the world, and the children are brought up on worldly principles that they may shine as others, and this is the secret of many sorrowful occurrences and departures. The spittle is to bring the Lord’s humanity to the man’s [p. 404] attention. The object in view is that we are to see, not men in this world, but men according to Christ, and our homes should be governed on that principle. The connection of houses with the Lord’s ministry is very interesting and instructive.
ER The apostle recognises certain households at Corinth as being places of safety.
JT He did; and he mentions Priscilla and Aquila twice as having an assembly in their house.
Ques Would Peter’s answer, “Thou art the Christ”, correspond to the second touch of the blind man?
JT It shows that Peter saw things “clearly”. In Matthew the revelation relates to the assembly; Mark does not go as far as that. He is occupied with levitical service and qualifying for that; there is no reference to the assembly. Here, too, it is a question of determining who the Lord is by clearness of vision. It is not what men believed; it was what was being said about the Lord. What did the disciples say?
FHB Peter’s confession here does not go as far as in Matthew.
HEF Would “the Christ” be a man of an entirely different kind from the men in the village?
JT “The Christ” is the One who does things for God. That is what anyone with opened eyes can see. It is not here a question of knowing it by revelation, but by seeing what He is doing. It shows He is the Anointed of God.
FHB The recognition of Him as “the Christ” would be a great step towards the further revelation in Matthew — “the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:16.
JT Matthew has the assembly in view, so that you have, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens” Matthew 16:17. It was a revelation showing who the Son of man is. But this does not go so far as that; it is a question of what [p. 405] you see, what you gather up, what is presented to you in the service of Christ. All service for the Lord should be on the principle of the anointing.
WS This would be parallel with what we get in John’s epistle: “every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh” 1 John 4:2.
EWL Do you think this leads up to the distinction between the things of men and the things of God?
JT The Christ is the anointed One, the One who does things for God. God carries on His work on the principle of the anointing; that is to say, He allows nothing of man’s culture and development. God says virtually by the anointing, “All must be in the power of the Spirit”, so what you find in Luke with regard to Simeon is that the Holy Spirit is upon him. Now earlier in that gospel we read of persons being filled with the Holy Spirit; John the baptist is spoken of in this way, and indeed, the Lord returns from Jordan “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1), but when you come to Simeon, the Holy Spirit is upon him, meaning that God commits Himself to him by what is put upon him. What is inside may not be seen, but what is upon us is visible. God commits Himself to us by the Spirit given to us.
HEF Has not levitical service a great place in this gospel?
JT It is the great point in it. We should learn by the apprehension of Him as the Christ, and take character from that in our service. The man was enabled to see things, and to see them distinctly: “all things clearly”. This is most important; ignoring it, we shall miss our way and be found serving according to human ways.
HEF Thus you would not be likely to Christianise the village.
JT No; the village represents the world organised. What are men saying about the Lord? They are not saying, “He is the Christ”. They have their [p. 406] own men doing things. Every country has its own heroes — men who have done things, who have made the country — but “the Christ” is not working on that line. He is here the Anointed; God is committed to Him and that is the ground upon which levitical service is carried on. How serious a thing that is! God has committed Himself to me as the Holy Spirit is upon me. Everything I am doing is to be for God.
Rem The disciples were to tell no man about Him.
JT It is not a question of preaching the gospel, but of telling men; the latter would only add to the world, it would assume that men can understand, whereas the gospel is “on the principle of faith to faith” Romans 1:17.
Rem So that true service lifts souls up out of that which is systematised.
JT The world as organised is left behind us. Men are to be preached to; that is another matter, but we must be careful about the man in the flesh — the organised world. The idea in the gospel is to bring men into God’s world, not to improve man’s world. Christ is anointed, and doing things for God. In this gospel it is said, “He does all things well” Mark 7:37.
HEF Do you think what follows implies that if one is prepared to move on those lines, one must be prepared for a path of suffering?
JT Yes. Whilst Peter makes his confession he shows he is not prepared to go the whole way. He would spare the flesh. Sparing the flesh is a serious matter.
HEF The Christ was not on that line.
JT No, He was not. It says that Peter began to rebuke Him. Think of that!
HEF The Lord had spoken of the full length to which He was [p. 407] going.
JT In verse 31 it says, “He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and of the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again”. Notice it is not that He says these things merely: He teaches them.
HEF Does that imply that we do not come to it very readily?
JT The instruction here is so important that the Lord exercises the power of teaching, as it were (it is a gift with us), to enforce the truth. He teaches them that He must suffer. If you carry on the service of the Lord, the suffering must be accepted. Peter would disallow this. It is what we are naturally, we tend to spare ourselves; we do not go the whole length. How serious to rebuke the Lord! When men say, “You should not go that length, you should spare yourself”, that is what they do. And so the Lord would have His rebuke to Peter known openly.
FHB It says, He “turning round and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter”; the rebuke was specially intended for their benefit.
JT I thought that. One feels in oneself the tendency to spare oneself, but the need is very great, and so sacrifice must be made.
JB Going back to what you have been saying about the opening of the eyes, is it that we might see what the Lord is doing now, or what He is doing in this gospel?
JT It is that we might see what is going on now, to get a right apprehension of it.
EML Would you say sparing ourselves is savouring of what is of men?
JT That is what it is. He says, “Get away behind me, Satan” — a very strong expression. That sort of thing must be far away from the people of God.
FHB There was not only the flesh acting, but [p. 408] Satan using the flesh; if the flesh is allowed we give Satan a handle.
HEF And it would divert us from this pathway of faith and suffering.
WRP What is your thought as to the reason we get the change from “the Christ” in verse 29 to the “Son of man” in verse 31?
JT I think that “the Christ” would be understood by the Jews as referring to themselves, but the “Son of man” is the Lord’s way of showing that what is in view now is His relation to men as such. He would suffer as the Son of man.
WRP Would it show the world-wide character of the service?
JT Yes. In the next chapter the Lord gives a view of Himself in exaltation. Confessing by what you see involves a moral state in us. He would honour us by an exalted view.
FHB You are referring to the transfiguration?
JT Yes; it says, “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God come in power”. So the thing is seen in its reality, not in a moral way — that is down below — but in its reality on high, in the transfiguration.
HEF What do you mean by ‘down below’?
JT Here in our ordinary circumstances. We arrive at a knowledge of the Lord by what we see, and that involves a moral state — clearness of vision which preserves us from being governed by worldly influences. I think no one can see all things clearly who is not clear of the flesh — its motives and influences. The chapter shows how we are led on to be able to say what is right about Christ. That is a most important thing.
ER The whole of chapter 8 applies to us here in natural conditions, does it not?
[p. 409] JT That is right. There is teaching as to suffering; it is the pathway of discipleship; whereas the transfiguration is special, on the principle of the Lord’s sovereign selection and your exercise is to be in that selection.
HEF Would you say that the passage “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God come in power”, refers to what we experience while down here?
JT Certainly; the question comes, Am I one of those “standing here” — standing near the Lord?
ER When you refer to the selection, does it suggest a certain state in Peter, James and John?
JT Yes; but He does not say anything about them personally to begin with; He says, “There are some”. Every one standing there should be exercised.
WS How had they qualified to be selected?
JT The Lord alone knows. But then the exercise comes to each of us, “Am I among them?” One would desire to be among that “some”.
ER The Lord had to rebuke Peter, but he was among the “some”.
JT That is very encouraging. We should have said that Peter had disqualified himself by what he said, but he had said something before that. The Lord is to be the judge. It is not left to the saints to nominate them. “After six days Jesus takes with him Peter, and James, and John”.
FHB There is the suggestion of the sovereign choice of the Lord in taking up these three.
JT No doubt there was something in them which the Lord knew, which fitted them for this great occasion.
Ques Would the six days leave time for the development of that exercise?
JT Just so. In Mark we are told it was “after six days”, in Luke “about eight days” (Luke 9:28); a weekly
[p. 410] experience is in view in either record, only Luke implies more grace as to time — a sabbath would intervene, which would be an advantage spiritually. It is the kind of exercise which comes before the Lord’s day morning meeting.
ER During that time Peter would have had opportunity to have got the gain of the Lord’s word to him.
JT Six days are to prepare us for a spiritual result. The seventh would be the spiritual result.
WWP Is there any significance in the thought of a high mountain?
JT It suggests elevation. You are drawn away from the influence of the world altogether. The idea is elevation.
HEF This is more than being outside the village.
JT You are drawn away from the world altogether by the sovereign choice of the Lord. We should connect this with the first day of the week.
HEF Is this open to all?
JT When He says, “Some ... standing here”, He suggests that you may be one of them.
HT He took those three.
JT The intent is that all might answer to it, but room is left for the Lord’s selection. God’s world is on the principle of His sovereign choice.
ER How do you connect it with the first day of the week?
JT The first day comes in after the six — after six days of exercise. I think the assembly’s life is made up of weeks.
Ques John speaks of being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” Revelation 1:10. How do we arrive at that?
JT Well, I think we arrive at it by giving the Spirit His place. We see all things clearly; we are not going to allow the thing that God has condemned. We see in Daniel 9 what self-judgment, prayer, and fasting culminate in.
[p. 411] HEF Do you mean that this scene is the result of the previous exercise?
JT I do. The Lord is showing whom He would approve for this particular privilege. It is a question of privilege. He takes them with Him after six days. He had made the announcement; six days elapsed and then He takes with Him Peter, James and John — He takes them up on a high mountain by themselves apart.
Ques Do the six days refer to the unleavened bread of the passover?
JT We are taken up; we do not ascend. The Lord says, “I ascend” John 20:17. Paul speaks of being “caught up” 2 Corinthians 12:2.
JVW Are there some special features in regard to the three in that way?
JT I think so; they were taken into the house of Jairus; there must have been something that the Lord knew fitted them for this extraordinary privilege.
ER Does this involve the knowledge of the Son of God?
JT It says, “This is my beloved Son”; they heard the Father’s voice. They were then in the region of divine Persons speaking. And then it says, “Suddenly having looked around, they no longer saw any one, but Jesus alone with themselves”. So that you have a company now indicated, I think, that is to mark this dispensation; they come down.
ER That involves sonship.
JT Yes, quite.
HEF Had you this in your mind when you spoke of revelation at the beginning?
JT Yes, I had. The education should prepare us for this; they come down. That would indicate the kind of people that gives character to the dispensation. Peter says, “We have not made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, following cleverly imagined fables, but having been [p. 412] eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight; For he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight” 2 Peter 1:16 - 18.
FHB This prepared them for their future service.
JT It did. This is the second time — that is, after the transfiguration — that He charges them to “tell no man”; but they are to tell them when He is risen from the dead. This is another matter. They are to tell it in the power of resurrection.
Ques What is suggested in the voice coming out of the cloud?
JT It is an allusion to the tabernacle in the wilderness. The true tabernacle was there in Christ.
ER Would “coming down” involve taking up discipleship in a new character?
JT I think that what they saw and heard would give colour to the service henceforth. They were to speak of what they had seen and heard on the holy mount after He was risen, when it should be known that He had power to support their testimony, and when the new order of things, connected with the Spirit, should be established.