READINGS IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (9)
READINGS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (9)
JT The line of truth still before us is the assembly, and what is immediately before us now is the mount of transfiguration. It may be remarked that the idea of the mountain is very prominent in Matthew, beginning in chapter 5 and going on to the last chapter. This has some bearing on the whole gospel, for it implies the idea of elevation. It has a bearing on the truth of the assembly because the epistle to the Ephesians has moral elevation in mind. In the Acts it speaks about Paul coming to Ephesus by the upper districts. The truth of the assembly and its service God-ward involves elevation. I suppose the bearing would be moral, although the literal side is seen here. “After six days Jesus takes with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them”. The thought now would be to apprehend the meaning of the transfiguration; why it should be. Luke says that the Lord was transfigured as He prayed. Prayer enters into it therefore in that gospel, so that the attitude of the Lord, in these cases, must be taken as meaning something. Here it is just that He was “transfigured before them”, but Luke says, “He went up into a mountain to pray”, and He was transfigured in prayer, so that the service of God would evidently involve prayer.
PHH Does the idea of sovereignty continue in this passage? That is, the Lord sovereignly selecting Peter, and James, and John his brother, not all the disciples.
JT I suppose that would point to the divine selection in service, service committed to certain persons. Things have to be done, and certain brothers [p. 244] or servants are particularly fitted to do them. No doubt it will appear in this meeting that certain ones are doing certain things.
AJG I wondered if the Lord in taking Peter, James and John with Him, indicated that they were equal to being in that elevated position. Would that be right?
JT Quite so; they were equal to the position. The selection would correspond with the equality. Clearly the divine selection in the inauguration of Christianity as seen in the selection of the apostles must come into view in that sense. Therefore Peter comes first for he is the leading one as it says in Matthew 10, “first, Simon, who was called Peter”. Paul was evidently selected later and taken out of a sinful condition, and yet, you might say, he is made the chief servant of the assembly.
AJG We know something of the distinct place that Peter and John had in service, but is it not remarkable that James was favoured in this way, and yet the Lord allowed Herod to put him to death early so that we have no record of any specific service by James.
Rem Might that be, do you think, because we only have the record of the end of these three, as far as I know? John, in the island of Patmos; Peter who was to be martyred, and James slain by the sword.
JTJr The apostles at the beginning had to take on a lead, I suppose, as the Lord had left them. He was no longer amongst them, and so it would be a question of what they could do. Peter shows what he could do as giving the ministry at the beginning of the Acts.
ETS Does Peter show how qualified he was by the record he gave in his second epistle of this [p. 245] very incident?
AJG That is an interesting example of how we may arrive at the spiritual gain of a matter, although we may not be fully equal to it at the time. In that account he eliminates his own unspiritual suggestion as to three tabernacles but concentrates on the glory of the position, and that they were with Christ in it.
RW Would you say a little more about being equal to it?
AJG I suppose we are all equal to it by divine workmanship, and as having the Spirit. Of course, here Peter, James and John had not yet the Spirit, but I thought perhaps it was intended to convey the idea of what the saints of the assembly are equal to in the way of privilege. At the end of the chapter they are sons.
MAW Would Galatians 4 suggest the moral elevation? It says “Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother”. Are we to be drawn to recognise that kinship?
AJG I suppose the liberty of sonship is the great distinction of the assembly.
PHH Does John make a concentrated reference to this in his first chapter? “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1: 14.
JT It says, “We have contemplated his glory”, does it not? Of course, that was true here.
PHH Would that be an apostolic reference?
JT I think it would in the sense in which John gives it. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. So that the contemplation of His glory would be concentrated. “The law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”. So that although we might touch on John, the chapter before us brings in sonship, and we do not get sonship in John, except once, save as applying to the Lord Himself. The Lord is presented as the “beloved Son” in John and so it is here, but we do [p. 246] not get the sonship of the saints in John. We only get it once in his writings and that is in Revelation 21: 7. So that the matter before us now is sonship. The Lord is said to have taken “Peter, and James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them”. And then we have the voice from heaven.
Ques Is it not to become a principle in the assembly that we are to listen to Christ, “hear him”?
JT That is undoubtedly the main point; that the saints were to hear Christ. The voice uttered its word immediately. It says, “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him”. That they were to hear Him is undoubtedly the main point, but at the same time we have the word as to the Son: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”. Then what corresponds with all this is the incident spoken of in verse 22: “While they abode in Galilee, Jesus said to them, The Son of man is about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were greatly grieved. And when they came to Capernaum, those who received the didrachmas came to Peter and said, Does your teacher not pay the didrachmas? He says, Yes. And when he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him”. So that the question now comes up as to sonship, and it continues, “saying, What dost thou think, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive custom or tribute? from their own sons or from strangers? Peter says to him, From strangers. Jesus said to him, Then are the sons free. But that we may not be an offence to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when thou hast opened [p. 247] its mouth thou wilt find a stater; take that and give it to them for me and thee”. I think this thought of association has to be taken into account in relation to the whole chapter. The Lord is associating His people with Himself. “Take that and give it to them for me and thee”. So the Lord associates us with Himself in such circumstances.
Ques It says, He “brings them up into a high mountain apart”. Is that the Lord taking them into His circumstances?
JT I think He places them in a position where they could see what He had in His mind for them; what the divine mind was. It is in keeping with Matthew, as I was saying, for there are seven mountains spoken of in the book, and this one is one of them. So that the idea is elevation, but elevation in order that there should be observation.
AJG Would it be right to say that the result of His being transfigured was that they were permitted to see Him in the glory that is proper to sonship in heaven?
JT That is what I thought, because we are dealing now with Matthew, and we come into the idea of the assembly after chapter 13, which we had yesterday. The assembly comes into view and then we have these chapters involving association, because we must have association if we are to have part with Him. The Lord said to Peter in John 13, “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”, and this chapter involves part with Him too. But the first thing here is observation, observation occasioned and given an opportunity for by elevation. Why should we not be elevated morally to see things, because seeing is an immense feature of the scriptural records?
AJG So that the Father’s voice here is not presented as spoken to Christ, but as addressed to Peter, James and [p. 248] John.
JT Just so. That was the idea. The Lord intended that too, because it says He told them not to tell the vision, “Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no one, until the Son of man be risen up from among the dead”. That must happen before this is spread abroad. The Father’s voice is heard immediately Peter speaks about the tabernacles. Peter is foolish, really, to say, “Let us make here three tabernacles”. It was a foolish remark and the voice from heaven comes immediately. So that Peter’s idea is simply drowned, which is a good thing where people are foolish in what they say. So that it says, “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him. And the disciples hearing it fell upon their faces, and were greatly terrified. And Jesus coming to them touched them, and said, Rise up, and be not terrified. And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus alone”. And then they descended. After they get their view the Lord comes down to the plain.
WmH In referring to the word ‘eye-witnesses’ in his second epistle, Peter uses an expression implying not only a person who views a thing afar off, but a participator in it.
JT Just so. He says, “Being with him on the holy mountain” and he speaks of “the excellent glory”, so that by that time he had got right; and he had got right in the light of the fact that he is to be martyred. It is his last letter, and it is the only place where you get Peter mentioning sonship as to the saints, for that is involved in “being with him”.
PHH Is the “excellent glory” in the chapter quoted a kind of title of God, such a voice being uttered to him “by the excellent glory”? Would that be a reference to God?
[p. 249] JT I would say it would be Deity as we see it in the expression, “the fulness” of the Godhead. So that in Colossians 2 you have the idea of the personal deity of Christ, but in chapter 1 “the fulness” is mentioned by itself. It is mentioned as a noun; it is a name pointing to Deity.
RB I would like some help as to the distinction between this voice out of the cloud and the revelation to Peter. He says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, but here it is, “This is my beloved Son”.
JT Well, of course, it was a revelation, and the Lord interpreted what Peter said as coming from the Father, but we have not got the Father’s voice in chapter 16. It is not a question of voice there; it is a revelation. The Lord explains: “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens”. It is the Father’s revelation. It is not a voice but a revelation that is made to someone, which is a very different thing. Here there is no revelation; it is a voice declaring that the Son is there: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”. The Father’s voice is identifiable, but in chapter 16 it is a revelation; there is no voice. In chapter 16, the speaking is by Christ Himself to Peter, but here there is a voice from heaven. It says: “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them”. It was not a darkening cloud; as the note says, it was bright — the excellent glory. It means that it did not darken. The note goes on to say, ‘The word is used in the Septuagint for the cloud which took possession of the tabernacle and filled it with glory, Exodus 40: 34, 35’. Now that is to be noticed, that the cloud was a brightening cloud. It was not a darkening or confusing cloud; it was a brightening cloud, and the question raised in this is the frequency of the use of the word ‘cloud’ in regard of [p. 250] divine Persons. The Lord Jesus is to come with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and so forth, so that the bright cloud here is remarkable. It is the presence of divine Persons, we might say. The voice comes out of the cloud.
Ques It is only in this gospel that we get the statement “in whom I have found my delight”. Does that suggest that the personnel of the assembly are peculiarly fitted to share the Father’s pleasure in His beloved Son?
JT Exactly, very good. ‘Personnel’ is a good word to refer to the members of the assembly.
HH How do you understand Moses and Elias being present? They were talking with Him.
JT Well, they represent certain earlier ministries. The stress is on them. It does not say Jesus talking with them, but they talking with Him, showing the distinction they had. “And lo, Moses and Elias appeared to them talking with him”, meaning that they were speaking with the Lord. These men are distinguished, as God loves to do with His people, if it is necessary to emphasise the truth. They were talking with Him; a very precious thing to be allowed to talk with the Lord Jesus. It is not to Him but with Him; so that association is in the chapter.
AJG Do you think Moses and Elias were on the mount and talking with Jesus in order that, in them God might set out what Peter, James and John were to take on?
JT I suppose so; they would be examples. That is to say, it is bringing the Old Testament into the New and giving it full distinction; for Moses and Elias acquire full distinction in this wonderful scene. So that at a time like this, even now among ourselves, if the Lord is pleased to give anyone distinction we ought to recognise it. There were two here recognised in distinction, and then three are [p. 251] brought up to the mountain. These are distinguished too, only they fail in it, whereas Moses and Elias do not fail in their distinction. Presently we have to reckon with Peter again because Peter alludes to this same scene in his second epistle. He said to the saints that he thought it right to write to them because the Lord had shown him that he was about to die. “As also”, he says, “our Lord Jesus Christ has manifested to me”. So that he was fully brought into it in his own epistle.
Rem He does not mention Moses and Elias in that account. He says “We ... being with him on the holy mountain”.
JT Quite so; it was an apostolic pre-eminence, and Peter shared in it. The “we” are the apostles.
JSE May I ask a question relative to our reading on Lord’s day afternoon, in this connection? Does this appearing of Moses and Elias illustrate the right of heaven to assert itself at any given time to reach a certain end?
JT That is very good. I would like to hear further what you have in mind as regards this point.
JSE I think we were all powerfully impressed with the reading on Lord’s day, and I wondered if this coming forward of Moses and Elias represents to us this right of heaven to assert itself in bringing two such persons forward, known to us in a previous dispensation, but to augment the position so that these three brothers go forward from now in the power of what they had seen there.
JT Quite so, and then another thing that comes into the mind in this gospel is the statement in chapter 27, “many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose, and ... entered into the holy city and appeared unto many”. We do not know where they are. We do not know just who they were, or where they are, but they came from the Old Testament time, and it indicates to us how the Old Testament [p. 252] merges into the New and how the rights of divine Persons are seen in that they can bring forward the Old Testament if necessary, and so Elias is brought forward many times, and so is Moses. God has the right to bring these men forward, because of their distinction in His service. Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, and Elias, we might say, is equally great and glorious in his service in seeking to bring back the ten tribes from their departure. That is the great service that Elijah rendered, but he went back to Horeb, as dear Mr. Revell once said about sixty years ago, to resign his commission — a very remarkable statement, but God accepted it and in due time called him up to heaven. So God did not at all reduce His valuation of Elijah, nor did He in the least degree reduce His valuation of Moses. They are two of the greatest servants in Old Testament times, and we do well to take notice of distinctions that God is pleased to make in His sovereign ways. He brings the Old Testament into the New and the New Testament into the Old. It is quite right that we should use the Old Testament in ministry because the types are of immense importance in the ministry of the Spirit.
Rem Although Elijah’s garments are mentioned, they were not comparable with these garments that became “white as the light”. He is eclipsed by the Lord. Elijah resigned his commission, but the Lord never did.
JT It would be impossible for the Lord to resign His commission. He began early by saying, “Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will”. It would be morally impossible for Him to do anything of the kind, but it was not impossible for Elijah. He went back to Horeb, and Jehovah said, ‘What are you doing here’, and then he pleads against the people of God, according to the epistle to the Romans. He pleads against them, but the Lord never does that;
[p. 253] the Lord is always doing the will of God in love to the assembly. He laid down His life for the assembly.
RWS How is it that Peter recognises Moses and Elias? Of all the Old Testament worthies, he knows who they are, and yet he does not really know who was there in the Person of the Lord Jesus. There must have been something identifiable about them for him to name them.
JT Quite so, and so the Lord brought them up for further observation, and they would be equal to it, as we already said.
PHH Is there something in the way of intimacy in the way the Father speaks here? Although Peter is being adjusted, yet he is not being driven away; the bright cloud is there.
JT And the Lord comes down quietly and appeals to them. It says in verse 8, “Lifting up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus alone”. Elsewhere it is “Jesus alone with themselves” (Mark 9: 8) but here it is just “Jesus alone”. So that He comes down to be with them as He had been. He resumes His holy, precious, loving relations with His disciples. There is no change in His valuation of them. They are the same three that the Lord selected to bring up. “After six days Jesus takes with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and brings them up into a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them”. Evidently it was an intended thing, for it is not simply transfigured, but transfigured before them. Their eyes were to see Him. It was an anticipated testimony to what He is now above in heavenly glory. We have not seen Him yet but we shall see Him there in heaven; for we are going to be taken up. As they were taken up, so we shall be taken up, but taken up for ever, to stay there. Just as the sheet was taken up to stay, so it is that the assembly will be taken up to stay, because it belongs to heaven.
FCH Would the “hear him” involve not only what He would say to us, but how He would address Himself to the Father? When we come to Hebrews 2 we have, according to the prophetic scripture, the Lord speaking to the Father: “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”.
JT Quite so. It is just what you expect; it is what the Lord does in the service of God in the assembly. That is where He is and His praises go on there: that is where the service of God goes on every Lord’s day, and He is in the midst of the assembly. We do not simply carry on the service of God individually; it is in the midst of the assembly, the Lord is there, and He praises the Father there. What a glorious position it is, showing what the service of God is, and how it begins in the assembly.
Ques You have several times called attention to the thought of change taking place in the service of God. Would this come out here, in that they noticed the change in the Lord, His face shining as the sun? That should have regulated their behaviour.
JT Showing that it is just change for the moment; it is just instantaneous, we might say.
Rem I was thinking of the way the Lord appears to us as a principle connected with the service of God; the way He presents Himself would regulate the service.
JT So that we get change. First of all we come from our houses and we come to the place of meeting and each takes his place. We see each other; it is the meeting time, because I do not apprehend that the saints come in and ignore each other, but there is the idea of meeting one another, the word meeting fits in there. Then there is a change in the whole position, and the change implies that the saints themselves take on change because immediately the Spirit of God has His place. Something [p. 255] happens, and that happening continues on until we come to the leadership of the Lord Jesus as the Minister of the sanctuary, and then the brothers and sisters are no longer to be regarded as brothers and sisters but as sons. They are approaching the Father; they are approaching Him as sons, and so the service goes on. We do not go out from the room as we came in, we go up, and we go up in glory. We go up properly in dignity; not as we came in, because we came in as brothers and sisters, but we go up in dignity. In the book of Ezekiel the worshippers do not go out as they came in, and that applies to the Christian assembly in the service of God. We do not go out as we came in, because a great thing happens. There is great gain every Lord’s day, every first day of the week, because of the change that happens.
PHH Is it significant that the word used here “transfigured” is the same word as in 2 Corinthians 3? It says “transformed” or “changed”.
JT The second epistle to the Corinthians suits the idea of change in the Lord. It says there, “transformed according to the same image from glory to glory”. You have that in mind?
PHH Yes. I was going to ask whether that is not the change in the saints as accompanying change in the Lord. It says: “But we all ... are transformed ... as by the Lord the Spirit”. Your point is that the change is not only in the Lord, but in the saints too?
JT Quite so; in fact, the sexes disappear. We are all sons, and the idea of sonship is the point in this chapter.
AJG Does the Father’s voice to the disciples give them the capacity to enter into His own affections for the Son? “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”.
JT You would expect that the saints or apostles would be affected by that voice. The voice was heard, because Peter says in his epistle, “This voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain”. It was when they were with Him.
AJG The Lord in John 17 says: “That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them”. Does that fit in here?
JT Just so, “and I in them”. So that I think we would do well to get the full bearing of this chapter, beginning with the first verse. We have the glory and then the voice from heaven, and then what happens, and then the catching of the fish, to bring in association. The ending implies association, as He said to Peter elsewhere: “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”. The service of God carries the idea of part with Christ, and this chapter brings that out.
WSS Would the taking on of change, of which we have been speaking, also regulate us in matters of administration?
JT Quite so, if we are happy with each other in, administration, but if we have difficulties they may be very adverse, but in administration we have the word ‘twelve’. That is usually the sign of administrative authority or power, and it implies, too, that we love one another: “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”. We must have love amongst ourselves and that is the great power of change. Love is the great power of change among the disciples. But then the Lord comes in and greatly enhances the whole matter, so that as we proceed in the Lord’s supper we come to the idea of “My brethren” — according to John 20, “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. All that enters [p. 257] into the idea of the service of God, which begins with the Lord’s supper; indeed it begins primarily as the saints come together and sit down together. Love for one another begins to permeate, and then we have the great idea of the Lord’s coming in.
Ques It is only in Matthew’s gospel that you get “John his brother”. Would that be to emphasise the brotherly relations in these settings?
JT It means that they are both the sons of Zebedee, but John is the one that Jesus loved. James was slain with the sword, but John his brother is the great matter, as you say, because John is the one that Jesus loved, and the writer of the great gospel of John. That is a peculiar gospel which brings in the idea of eternal life and all else that goes with it. But I would like to hear further what you have in mind as to “John his brother”.
Rem I was wondering whether, in the working out of the truth and the love that you have referred to, everything should be done in brotherly love, on the line of the verse you have quoted: “By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves”.
JT Quite so, and another thing comes up there; I would not say sisterly love because it is not right, for the sisters become, as you might say, brothers, because when the Lord says “Go to my brethren” He would mean the sisters too. God has helped us on those lines, and I think we are being helped today, and yesterday. We are delighted to have the sisters coming amongst us as the brothers are, not to speak, of course, but to be there to feel things with us and to love one another.
PHH It was a sister to whom the Lord gave the message.
JT Quite so. Mary was the great leader. It was Mary Magdalene, not Mary the Lord’s mother. On the other hand, referring to Mary the Lord’s [p. 258] mother, a very striking matter about her is that the Lord says to her, pointing to John, “Behold thy son”. That was pointing to John, and implying that John was to be her son, and then she was to be John’s mother; that is a matter of change. A sister is capable of that; the sister is capable of being the mother of a son like John. I hope the brethren will understand what I am saying.
PHH Would you say a little more about that, please. We would like to get the benefit of it.
JT Well, that is the way the matter stands. The Lord sees the disciple whom He loved, John, and then He says to His mother (although He does not call her ‘mother’), “Behold thy son”. Some might think that He referred to Himself; but He did not, He referred to John. He placed Mary, His own mother, in the position of being John’s mother, and from that time John took Mary, the Lord’s mother, to his own home, showing that he took the matter fully up, and I am speaking of it now to show what sisters can do; how the idea of change may come in. A sister can be motherly; although she may not have a husband she can be motherly, and she can love the brethren and care for them. So that I think the Lord is greatly helping us on the line of sisters coming into things and having right feelings; having feelings as the brothers have them.
Ques Do we come together at the Supper in the wilderness in the spirit of a disciple or in the spirit of sonship?
JT It might be as a brother. I mean to say, you might be there as one of the Lord’s brethren in the wilderness. Sonship really belongs to the holiest or to the land, so to speak. We are sons in the land. God is leading many sons to glory, not brothers and sisters, but sons. Sonship implies that the sisters as well as brothers are all sons, because they have [p. 259] the Spirit.
HFN Would you say a word in regard to Acts 1 as bearing on what you said about Mary? It says: “These gave themselves all with one accord to continual prayer, with several women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren”.
JT Of course, we cannot say that that was an assembly meeting. They were staying, or abiding, there. It was a sort of rendezvous for the apostles, and the saints of God at that time, at the beginning of Christianity. They met together, and they selected an apostle there, but they were staying there. It was the sort of place, as you might say, that was an abode for them.
Ques Has the incident of the lunatic son any bearing on the mount of transfiguration by way of contrast?
JT It is contrast. It is a very solemn and humbling thing that the Lord said what He did here, “And when they came to the crowd, a man came to him, falling on his knees before him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic, and suffers sorely; for often he falls into the fire and often into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples”, notice this, “and they were not able to heal him. And Jesus answering said, O unbelieving and perverted generation ...” Now let us challenge our hearts as to why the Lord should speak of the disciples like that. He says, “O unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?” How do we understand that the disciples are so designated; the Lord using that ejaculation “O unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?” and then the next thing is: “Bring him here to me”. That is to say, His mercy comes out in the midst of all that, but there was something wrong with the disciples. How serious it is that there should be something wrong [p. 260] and very wrong, so that the Lord should be obliged to speak of them in this way. Now I would say, dear brethren, that we ought just to face this; why it is that the Lord speaks in this solemn way to the disciples.
PHH Do we sometimes find in a case of difficulty amongst us that the Lord has as much to say to us by way of adjustment as in the case itself?
JT Just so, and we need correction oftentimes. We need more correction than we think we need.
PHH It does say that the Lord rebuked him, but before that He had very severely rebuked the disciples, according to verse 17.
JT “And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon went out from him”. It was the demon He was dealing with, although He did not speak to the demon, but He said to the disciples, “O unbelieving and perverted generation”. He rebuked the demon and cast him out, but I again repeat that verse 17 is a most serious one, and has to be faced. Why should He speak in that stern way to persons who are said to be the disciples?
WSS I was wondering if you would say a word about the kingdom aspect. The end of the previous chapter speaks of the Son of man coming in His kingdom.
JT It is a question of the authority of the kingdom. The Lord is presently coming in the authority of the kingdom; He is coming. It is remarkable, it says: “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. I should think that would point on to Christianity. What do you say?
WSS I was thinking about the two words “with him” which you have stressed already, and how the apprehension of the Lord in this way would make good administrators.
WmH [p. 261] Would the glory on the mount have to be accompanied with the features of prayer and fasting?
JT That is another good remark. One has often spoken of the fact that we do not hear much of fasting and, less, do we see anyone who fasts. It constantly comes up, and it seems as if we have something to learn about it, as to dealing with matters. “This kind”, the Lord says, “does not go out but by prayer and fasting”. That is, the very demon that He cast out, could only be cast out by prayer and fasting. They were not able to cast him out, and the Lord admits that, because He points out to them that prayer and fasting were a necessity for that. I should think there is a weakness on that point, and probably there is a great weakness amongst the brethren at the present time as to prayer and fasting, because we do not resort much to it. In the book of Esther, for instance, because of the great crisis, Esther asked for fasting and she got it.
HFN In Acts 13 it was as they were praying and fasting that the Holy Spirit’s voice was heard saying: “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul”. Would we know more of the Spirit’s voice if we were really marked by prayer and fasting?
JT Especially when it is a question of the gifts and the exercise of gift of ministry. We might lay our hands on people and pray for them and fast in regard of them, because the power, according to the Lord’s word here, only comes that way in certain cases. In certain extreme cases, power only comes in by way of fasting.
Ques Would prayer and fasting be made most attractive to us as it is said: “Nothing shall be impossible to you”? The Lord does not say ‘to Me’ but “to you”.
JT Just [p. 262] so.
JP Matthew is the only gospel that presents the son here as ‘lunatic’. Does that indicate the necessity of the mind being adjusted in view of the assembly?
JT That is right. That is a matter that humbles many of us. There is so much weakness of mind, as we might say lunacy, in our families. We may as well accept it, and the answer to it is the thought of fasting.
JPH We would like some more help as to how fasting might work out amongst us.
JT Well, just fast — fast for twenty-four hours. See whether you will not have any more power in a crisis if you fast twenty-four hours. I am certain you will have more power if it is a crisis; God will come in for us. I am sure we should resort to it in crises, and difficulties. Thank God, we have not got many of them, but they are apt to come and we ought to be prepared for them, and remember that the Lord says this, prayer and fasting bring power.
Ques And during the fasting time, you are praying all the while; would that be right?
JT Just so. Praying and fasting, praying is preceding fasting, although in the book of Esther there is no praying at all, only fasting.
PL “In fastings often”, Paul says.
PHH Esther does say: “If I perish, I perish”. Was she prepared to go to the limits of the needs of the occasion?
JT Quite so, she reached it, and she and Mordecai acquired great power in the kingdom.
Ques There are many difficulties and sorrowful cases in the families of the brethren. Is this a special word for us, as claiming them for the assembly?
JT I feel it for myself because one has this experience. Perhaps you have more to say about it.
[p. 263] Rem Only that it comes in this assembly setting, as though the Lord would look for special conditions in difficult cases which God would honour.
JT I think that is quite true, and I would urge the brethren to try it; to resort to it. They fasted and prayed, as we have had it just now, and there are the “fastings often” as referred to by Paul. In the book of Acts we have it resorted to, and evidently the result was there.
ESH Would you include in this the abstaining from material food?
JT I should; that is, rightly understood. Whatever is mentioned in Scripture, if we do not understand it, ask the Lord about it and He will give you understanding, “The Lord will give thee understanding in all things”, 2 Timothy 2: 7.
AJG Could we have a word on liberty, because the last paragraph seems to stress the liberty of sonship as well as association with Christ in sonship. “Then are the sons free”, the Lord says.
JT They are free from penalty or tax. This was a tax imposed to support the temple, as I understand it, and the liberty would be that we are not obliged to support the modern temples or religious houses. That is the liberty, I would say. But, thank God, we are not mourning because we have to pay tax to the government, but at the same time we do not want to pay it to a religious institution.
EAL Would the paying a trade union subscription come in, too?
JT No, that is not a governmental tax; it is a lawless tax, that is what I would say. It is absolutely wrong — it is absolutely lawless.
Ques What about people coming to the door to collect for the Salvation Army and such like things?
JT I do not pay that, certainly. You would help a poor man who came to the door, but not ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, for instance. ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ [p. 264] are just now assembled together in New York, and they come to our houses and ask for accommodation for their people as they come to carry on their meetings; they are apostate people. We do not allow them in; we refuse to allow them into the house. Anything like that is what is in mind here, that the sons are free; we are free of all that.
Ques Would you just say why the Lord uses the fish to meet the matter?
JT It is to show, I think, His rights over the creation. He is the Creator of everything. According to Revelation 10, He sets His right foot on the sea and His left on the land. He has rights, and He can use the sea if He wishes, and the fishes in the sea, too. So He directs Peter to go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up; that is to say, it was a sovereign action. It was a creatorial action too, for He alone had power to do that.
Ques Would the fact that he uses a hook and not a net emphasise his sovereign power?
JT Yes, I would think so.
ECB Would you say a word as to not causing offence? “That we may not be an offence to them”.
JT Well, I suppose the Lord was gracious in giving way. The Lord says, ‘The sons are free’, but nevertheless He gave way, as it were, which we often do and which we have a right to do. We change our minds rather than have a bad conscience or the like, or cause complaint among neighbours. The Lord says: “That we may not be an offence to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when thou hast opened its mouth thou wilt find a stater”, which is a piece of money, which is remarkable, you might say a miracle. The piece of money was there in the mouth of the fish, and the Lord says, “Take that and give it to them for me and thee”. The Lord is associating Peter, therefore, with Himself in that action. That [p. 265] is to say, the Lord is on the same level as the disciples.
Rem It is a remarkable thing that the one coin contained the two didrachmas; one for the Lord and one for Peter.
JT Very good; I often notice that. “Take that”, He says, as though the identical coin must be in mind.
PHH In giving this liberty the Lord is not giving any licence for giving to a morally evil association, such as some we have mentioned this morning?
JT Quite so. Therefore the sorrowful evil of brethren being in trade unionism, actually in the thing, in the system. We are having to do with this in New York, too, finding alas! that some of our brethren were in the system.
RWS Would you distinguish between that and contributing towards the local hospital or the Red Cross, for instance?
JT Oh! that is benefit to the public; I would not mind that at all.
WC Would the principle of latitude come in, in order not to give offence?
JT I think so; the Lord would leave it to us.
AJG Peter had already answered those who came to him and asked, “Does your teacher not pay the didrachmas?” Peter said, “Yes”.
JT The Lord anticipated Peter, so that He had everything in His hand; He did everything right, so that there was no trouble. The saints should not create offence if they can avoid it.