SPIRITUAL MEN AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH
[p. 444] SPIRITUAL MEN AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH
Acts 1:10 - 14; Acts 3:1 - 8; Acts 4:36,37; Acts 6:8 - 15; Acts 8:5 - 8; Acts 9:1 - 6
JT When Christianity was set up, the Holy Spirit calls attention to certain persons, and I thought we might consider them as illustrative of those whom God would use to maintain it here. In Ezekiel 47 we read of a river issuing forth from the sanctuary of God, on the banks of which it is said there were trees. First it is said there were trees on the banks (Ezekiel 47:7), and then that the trees grew out of the banks, bearing fruit every month (Ezekiel 47:12). I have thought of that river as illustrative of the dispensation set up at Pentecost, and that these men of whom we have read correspond with the trees. Trees in Scripture are used as symbols of men, not as standing together as in a forest, but standing up separately in individual prominence. From chapter 3 of Acts onward the Holy Spirit calls attention to certain vessels; He brings them forward as needful for the maintenance of what is set up, with a view to our seeing that manhood according to God is essential to the maintenance of anything that God introduces, and that the babe condition as in Corinthians necessarily misrepresents the divine idea. The divine thought can only be maintained and continued by those who develop into manhood. I thought we might now look at the first chapter to see the material for the assembly, the circumstances in which it was set, and in which the Holy Spirit came to it.
Ques Would you say that the divine thought has been presented pre-eminently in Christ first?
JT Yes; it shines out in Him, and especially at the end in Luke 23, when the Lord is on the cross. They brought Him to the place of a skull, to the [p. 445] termination of all that man is after the flesh — nothing but a skull — and there they crucified Him, and two others with Him, and He says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” Luke 23:24. Manhood in Christ is set forth in superiority to the sufferings. There He was overcoming evil with good. This is seen supremely in Christ, so that He is recognised immediately, for one of the thieves says, “And we indeed justly, for we receive the just recompense of what we have done; but this man has done nothing amiss” Luke 23:41. And then again, as the Lord utters a loud cry and delivers up His spirit to the Father, the centurion glorified God saying, “In very deed this man was just” Luke 23:47. There was there in Christ the evidence of manhood according to God, particularly in the way of righteousness — righteousness manifesting itself not only in doing right ordinarily, but in the assertion of God’s rights, because He appealed to the rights of God in asking for forgiveness of His murderers on the ground that they did not know what they were doing. There you see manhood. The river issued by way of the altar — the place of suffering, and it issued from the house. The growth on the banks is according to what marked the source; in other words the present dispensation is marked by men who are after Christ.
Ques Do you mean that the divine thought being set forth in Christ we find men for the continuance of that?
JT Yes. These men we have read of in Acts represent men in the sense that the trees typify, standing out individually, each by himself, first as set there divinely, and then as the result of growth.
Rem The apostles here are mentioned one by one, instead of in pairs as when they were appointed.
JT They are mentioned in the gospels, particularly in Matthew, in pairs, as two being better than one. The world is built up on the principle of two [p. 446] which is the principle of organisation; the strength of the world lies in organisation, so God meets that with the same principle. Matthew gives an organisation of God, so that there you have many twos. For instance, “two of you” (Matthew 18:19) (meaning two of the assembly) is called attention to, and so two apostles together involved more power than separately. Here in Acts the point is the names; it is to call attention to the dignity of the persons, what they were severally, what they represent, namely, the authority of Christ. Then we read they continued in prayer, which shows they were men according to God. Luke brings the Lord forward as praying, and the disciples ask Him to teach them to pray, and here they continue in it. Manhood is there in the company. What is to be observed in the chapter is that the Lord is received up, not from Bethany, nor even from mount Olivet, but is received up after saying certain things, rather than from a geographical position. Those who saw Him go up returned, it says, from mount Olivet, and in intelligence they go, without being told, to the upper room, that is, the assembly was in view. They go to the upper room, which is another feature of manhood. They are not looking for publicity; they disappear into obscurity as regards the public eye; if they are forced into it, it is in the testimony and not on their own account; so that they do not go to the temple here.
Ques As to those spoken of in the first chapter of Acts being representative of trees, would you say we get the idea in Psalm 1?
JT You do in a very striking way; that is one of the passages that confirms the idea of a tree representing a man. It is well to note the difference between this chapter (Acts 1) and the end of Luke, where the Lord leads the disciples out as far as to Bethany, and He is taken up from there — “carried up into heaven” Luke 24:51. The bearing of that is intended to convey the longsuffering of God towards Israel; the disciples were set in nearness to the city, on remnant ground. He leads them away from the city, but not too far, but to a point from which they could return, and there in Luke they returned not to the upper room but to the temple.
Ques Why did Peter and John go to the temple in Acts 3?
JT I think you will see why if you understand the bearing of chapters 1 and 2. Luke emphasises grace, whereas Matthew says they were sent out from Galilee, because Matthew asserts the government of God, and Jerusalem was guilty, but in Luke they could go to the temple in grace. And so in the end of Luke they were to be witnesses there. He leads them out as far as to Bethany, not further; in Matthew it was to Galilee. In leading them to Bethany — that far only — it was grace; there was a certain condemnation, but then it was grace, its distance was given elsewhere: fifteen stadia; John 11:18. And then as His hands were uplifted He was carried up, showing heaven’s approval. It was grace, and the disciples returned to Jerusalem with great joy. They were not sent back, but as blessed they went back. The Lord is not specially committed to their going back. It is a principle of grace, that those who are blessed become a blessing. They returned to Jerusalem and were in the temple praising and blessing God. But when we come to the Acts there is nothing said about Bethany; what is enlarged upon is what He said to the disciples after He suffered. That is what gives colour to the dispensation; the One who speaks has suffered. And it says they were gathered together to Him and asked Him questions, and He unfolded things, and it goes on to say, “having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight” Acts 1:9. There is nothing said about the cloud in Luke. They are now left in a position requiring faith, and that governs the present dispensation.
Rem In Luke it says they saw Him go up!
JT Yes, it was the remnant character. In the Acts they stood gazing up into heaven as He was going, as if they did not understand that it was a faith dispensation. Hence the two angels say, “Why do ye stand looking into heaven?” They were to be in faith henceforth, and that governs the whole dispensation. Now instead of thinking of publicity, for they had seen wonderful things, more than any others in Jerusalem, they go to the upper room. There were persons there who could be trusted with the rights of God in Christ. The names of the apostles are given; they are men who are known to be trustworthy, hence eleven apostles’ names are given one by one.
Ques Would it be right to say that what had been entrusted to Christ is now entrusted to them?
JT Yes, they all continued with one accord in prayer, with the women, it says. Prayer was to be continued in; it was in faith, and also in dependence. The subjective state is seen in the women. So I think we have the composition of the assembly — the women, the mother of Jesus, and His brethren — all who were dear to Christ.
Rem Is it not beautiful to see how they could act intelligently in choosing a disciple?
JT Yes, that is especially in Peter. He represents, I suppose, manhood fully, so that he knows what to do, and cites the Psalms. He goes over the ground in a remarkable manner, calling attention to the kind of man who was needed to replace Judas, one who had assembled with them all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among them, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when He was taken up, that is to say, such an [p. 449] one would have seen perfect manhood during all that time, and thus would have a knowledge of what was due to God.
Rem. Not a novice!
JT Just so. How much each one who had been with the Lord would have seen during that time! It brings out, I think, the value of experience.
Ques Is that why the apostle says in Timothy, “God has been manifested in flesh ... received up in glory” 1 Timothy 3:16?
JT Yes; and it is remarkable that that comes in after Paul had given the qualifying features of those who should have office in the house of God. Attention is called to the whole course in that verse in Timothy. That is very suggestive for those who have part in the assembly. Now in coming to speak of the men which the trees illustrate the first thing is that we have two men. I think they represent what was to go down the whole history of the dispensation on the collective side. They went up together, it says. The Spirit might have said they went up, but He says, “together”. Attention is called to the ability and effectiveness of two men formed after Christ; they were a wonderful spectacle morally; the ordinary eye did not see anything special, but heaven saw much. They could say, “Look on us”, and the lame man did look on them. They disclaimed having anything of the world; Peter says, “Silver and gold I have not”. Two such spiritual men going up together to the temple indicated what God had effected. Peter and John would thus represent the dispensation from a collective standpoint. They were administering, and the Lord added daily such as should be saved. There was something there that He could add to, and what was added was of the same character as those who went up together. It is the collective principle, what is together according to God. There were thousands at Jerusalem already [p. 450] together, but it is not the number, but the very best that God has. The apostles were divinely set there, they could hardly be said to be growths, but I think Barnabas, and Stephen, and Paul were growths, but the twelve were there before. Chapter 3 gives us to see the moral greatness of God’s best, seen together. See how comely it is!
Ques Do Peter and John represent certain features of the dispensation?
JT They do. If you go through the gospels you will see they were men specially trained. First they are seen in their natural settings. Peter and Andrew his brother are together in the boat, and John and James his brother with their father Zebedee. The Lord takes them out of their natural settings and He makes a spiritual pair of them. He puts them into spiritual settings and they are cultured in that. On great occasions in the Lord’s life they were there, and what we have here was in view in all that. God has superlative ideas and these two men represent His best then on earth and they are seen here in movement. The Lord, I think, would bring us back to this. Matthew speaks of “two of you” (Matthew 18:19), meaning two of the assembly.
Rem I suppose Peter represents the administrative side, and John the family thought?
JT You have not anything about Peter with his father, but you do have it stated that John was with his father; so that with regard to the government of the house of God, Peter maintains rule; he would enlarge on eldership, whereas John would enlarge on the family, and he would include all believers in the family. If you have moral power present, as in Peter, you need not be afraid of the young coming in. John will not have any of the children slighted. But he has to reckon with Peter. So in Luke, Peter and John are sent to prepare the passover. As the Lord’s supper developed from this,
[p. 451] their service specially bears on the whole dispensation.
Rem It seems to me that if these two principles prevailed in our meetings we should have very little difficulty.
JT Yes, quite so. You would have the ass and the colt. The Lord sits on the ass and the colt together, so that He can use old and young together. Then the two — Peter and John — merge in “their own company” Acts 4:23. The idea is asserted, that while two of them are distinguished, yet it says, “with great power did the apostles give witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” Acts 4:33. While God distinguishes, He makes it clear that the others are not ignored. Then after all these exercises you get a prince in Barnabas. He has means, and he lays the money at the apostles’ feet.
Ques Do you suggest that if things were held rightly according to God, Barnabas would be the result?
JT I think chapter 4 makes room for the thought of a prince. A prince was brought in to augment what was there, but we do not see the full bearing of Barnabas until we come to Antioch. One great characteristic of a prince is he seeks to maintain the unity of the Spirit, that is to say, universal unity. Elders were appointed in every city. The qualifications for eldership were princely. Paul’s journey to Jerusalem (Acts 20, Acts 21) brought out the evidence of the work of God in the assemblies visited.
Ques What is the difference between a prince and a son of consolation?
JT A prince is to be taken account of as he comes in. Princes are not small men, they are occupied with great things. Things happen which affect the testimony in various places; a prince would take account of those things, and would recognise what was done in other places. It is a principle with God that princes should be “in all the earth” Psalm 45:16.
[p. 452] They are not party men. Barnabas failed later, but the Spirit of God sets him before us as an unselfish man, rejoicing in the work of God wherever it was. He rejoiced in the work of God at Antioch, and he went to Tarsus to seek out Saul, showing that he was an unselfish man; so that with such you would have unity maintained. The twelve princes in Numbers are a type of this, they have the same apprehension of Christ. Barnabas was a suitable companion for Paul. There was a binding influence with him; he would co-ordinate the work of God by a good influence. He was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit. He had means of his own and he contributes to unity. Now the next man standing out prominently is Stephen, a witness, a martyr, one who was able to suffer — another feature of manhood. He was one who was prepared to suffer for the testimony, and in suffering he was superior to evil, for he says, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” Acts 7:60. He is overcoming evil with good. Stephen’s position is one of the most interesting; he sets forth the idea of a witness — one who could lay down his life for the truth. It is right to use wisdom in what we say, we do not want to raise opposition needlessly; we read of Stephen that his opposers were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke. In witnessing you must be accurate, not speaking beside the mark.
Then, following this we have in the scattering, through the persecution, a preacher coming into evidence — an evangelist. There was not much encouragement, because a furious opposition was raging. Philip is a type of that manhood which does what his hand finds to do. A young man often qualifies by starting to serve; Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them.
Ques Where is the best place to start?
JT According to the opportunity, I think. Notwithstanding the rivalry between Jerusalem and [p. 453] the Samaritans, Philip goes down to Samaria. It was evidence of his manhood, he was not governed by natural or national feelings. He was ready to preach Christ whenever and wherever the opportunity offered.
Ques Is the open air as good a place as any to see if one has ability to preach?
JT Yes. “Wisdom crieth without; she raiseth her voice in the broadways; she calleth in the chief place of concourse” Proverbs 1:20,21. Peter “lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them” Acts 2:14. Philip simply went of himself; you may not be asked by the brethren; the difficulty, however, often is that you are not preaching. Philip was not asked to preach, as far as we can see; it was his own act.
Rem Surely the brethren would be sympathetic with young brothers.
JT Yes, no doubt, but you want to be sure they can preach. When you ask a man to preach you are committed to him. It says, “Having laid their hands on them” Acts 13:3. But Philip went of himself and there was an immense result — the whole city was affected.
Ques If you have one who can preach in the open air, but who takes no part in the meeting, would you be free to ask him to preach in the room?
JT No. A man should speak to God first; to have power with men you must first of all speak to God.
Ques What about Stephen’s face shining as the face of an angel?
JT The heavenly side was coming in. I suppose Paul was the counterpart of Stephen. In Paul the heaven is fully opened up and expanded.
Rem You spoke just now about not seeking publicity. That has been used against speaking in the open [p. 454] air.
JT Not seeking publicity has reference to your relations in the assembly, but when it comes to the question of testimony you cannot help being public; it was said of the Lord that His “fame went out straightway into the whole region” (Mark 1:28), but that was not His desire.
Rem Philip was content to go into the desert.
JT Philip was successful in the work in Samaria then the angel comes in, which seems to show that God may come in to direct you providentially in your circumstances. It may be you are diverted from what you were doing, but it is important to have your eyes open for the governmental ways of God. Then the Holy Spirit says, “Approach and join this chariot” Acts 8:29. It is not now the angel. We have to distinguish between what is providential and the actings of the Spirit. Now in chapter 9 the Lord is taking things in hand Himself. There had been a good deal of voluntary work, but the Lord always shows that He is in control, so He comes in in an authoritative way according to chapter 9. He will always come in and take things in hand for Himself.
Rem The Lord knows whom to use.
JT Yes, and it is His own sovereign selection. If things are hanging loosely, something will happen, the Lord will come in and then there will be a new movement.