CONFESSORS OF THE SON OF GOD (1)
[p. 317] CONFESSORS OF THE SON OF GOD (1)
Matthew 16:13-20; Matthew 17:4,5; Matthew 17:22-27
JT Our subject for these readings is Confessors of the Son of God. In considering it, we may see how the truth apprehended and confessed works out in practice and testimony. The first to be considered is Peter and then Paul; Peter in relation to the assembly, and Paul in relation to preaching. Paul is the first who is said to have preached the Son of God; in fact, his confession is in the form of preaching (Acts 9:20). There is also John the baptist, whose testimony is related to the sacrificial side of the truth; and then Nathanael, Martha, the centurion, and others.
It was thought that we should begin with the leading features of our subject, for it appears that we get better results on occasions like this, in beginning at the top, thus seeing the full general thought of a subject, and then how it develops in detail. The passages read will enable us to do this. The Lord deliberately raises the question of who He was; what men were saying about Him. The Father had to do with the matter, as we see in Peter’s answer. Peter is enlightened by revelation; not by teaching, but by a revelation by the Father. He says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. This is one of the most interesting sections of Scripture, because it is divinely arranged with a view to bringing out the great truth of Christ and the assembly. The assembly is seen in Matthew in an administrative sense, corresponding with what is in heaven for the maintenance of the truth — the whole truth — “and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”. Whatever the attack, it will remain invulnerable.
The confession Peter makes constitutes him material for this great structure; chapter 17 shows how the truth is confirmed afterwards. When a divine thought comes into the soul, it is confirmed in later events,
[p. 318] as on the mount here, the Father’s voice saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him”. Following this, at the end of the chapter, the Lord Himself takes up the matter, bringing it home in an effectual way, to bring out that the saints are to be sons too. He said to Peter, “Then are the sons free”. The Authorised Version says children, but that is misleading; it is sonship that the Lord has in mind. They are maintained, too, in a world of misunderstanding, in uprightness, in paying tribute so as not to offend.
This part of our subject ought to help us today as to the general position, including government requirements and the like; for we are to maintain uprightness, and at the same time avoid any unnecessary feeling; as Christ said to Peter, “But that we may not be an offence to them”. This brings out how the saints are brought into the particular truth before us. “And when he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him”. Matthew usually connects all such instruction with the house, the place of affection.
Rem This knowledge of the Son of God seems to furnish a basis for the assembly in our minds.
JT The great teaching of this phase of our subject is the assembly and the material for it, and how it stands the test of opposition. Whatever advantage Satan may have, the assembly can always stand the test; the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
ANW In asking this question the Lord speaks of Himself as the Son of man.
JT The Son of man is a title that He almost entirely uses Himself. It is not given such a place as the Son of God. Stephen uses it, and it appears in Hebrews, but there it is a quotation. The title Son of man would involve His universal rights; He is linked up with all men, but in His own way, not from their point of view. He would not admit of men taking on any special relations with Him. The title implies His relation to the whole race of man. He is the one Mediator [p. 319] of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).
AEH Does the title Son of man stand in contrast to the conditions prevailing in the end of chapter 17, where there are certain demands made that would bring in bondage?
JT Yes; the Son of man is the hope of mankind. Stephen sees Him thus at the right hand of God. He is on man’s side and has taken up his cause. It is wider than the title Messiah.
AR Peter says, in chapter 16, “Thou art ... the Son of the living God”. The Lord says in turn to him, “Thou art Peter”. We might think the confession is objective, but it seems to bring out something subjective.
JT In the end of chapter 14 you might say it is an objective recognition of Christ as the Son of God, by the men in the boat; but in Peter’s case, it suggests subjective conditions such as the Father could use. The men in the boat recognised the Son of God in an objective sense, although their feelings are evidently seen. Peter is affected by the Father; the Father was ready to impart the revelation when the time arrived. The Lord began the matter, inquiring from them what men were saying as to who He the Son of man was; then what they — the disciples — said; not what they thought, but what they said. Then the Father comes in and takes His part in the great matter, and Peter expresses the truth. The truth is placed in Peter’s soul by the Father’s revelation of the truth as to the great Person that was before them.
Ques Would the title Son of man stand over against the name of the place — Caesarea-Philippi, a place, the name of which would suggest the glory of man?
JT You are referring to the Greek and Roman world. When the Greeks came up and wanted to see Jesus, the disciples were pleased that such distinguished people should come, but the Lord says, “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified” (John 12:23). How was this to be? Not by the Greeks as [p. 320] such, but by the Son of man dying; by His bringing in a new race through death and resurrection. That is why it is Son of man; He is the hope of humanity. He falls into the ground and dies, otherwise He would abide alone.
CAM As this subject, sonship, is brought out, the incident given from verse 14 of chapter 17 brings out the terrible power of evil against man.
JT Verse 14 brings out lunacy; the boy was a lunatic, under the power of Satan, which is one of the worst things you get in Scripture. It would tend to destroy everything of God.
Rem These various opinions as to who the Son of man is, indicate the confusion that there is where the Father has not operated.
JT I think that is right. The Lord says, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”. The Son of man is an accredited title. He is saying that He is Son of man, but He is not inquiring as to whether men were owning Him by this title, but what they said as to who He was. They were speculating as to who Jesus was, having no certainty, for the Spirit of truth was not governing them. There is no evidence that they investigated thoroughly, or with genuine desire to know the truth. In our meetings, normally, as inquiry goes on, the Father comes in; we often notice this. This implies the truth of the temple. The Lord did not enlarge on, or combat, what men were saying about Him. He inquired if the disciples knew, but He did not enter into men’s speculations. He does not allow the matter to get out of hand. In a meeting like this, if a matter gets out of hand we do not get anywhere; we could have a long meeting on speculations; but it is a question of getting at the truth. The Lord says, “But ye, who do ye say that I am?”. The answer was not arrived at by each saying what he knew, but by letting the Father in. Let us always seek to make room for the spiritual side.
[p. 321] APT I notice the word demanded is used in verse 13. Is there some suggestion of intimate feeling in the request of the Lord?
JT That would fit into our meetings. The word demand here may refer to mutual feeling and liberty; as if one were to inquire, What do you say about that? Generally, it would suggest the spirit in which questions are asked at our readings; as distinct from a question asked by an inferior. I am thinking in this of the note to John 14:16 in the New Translation.
SJH Would you say that one is hardly known as material for the assembly until this point of confession is reached? The knowledge of the Son of God is essential to it.
JT The material comes into evidence by the confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. “Thou art Peter”, the Lord says. The whole matter, we may say, was arranged; divine Persons having to say to it. The Lord’s raising questions with them leads up to the full thought. The Lord expects us to inquire about things. Even now, there is much confusion and darkness about the Lord’s Person. I suppose all modernists and those influenced by them would say that the Lord came for the advantage and improvement of humanity. There is hardly one that would not allow that; but they are missing the whole point as to His Person. The Father operates, as we see in Matthew 16, at an opportune time to bring the whole truth out.
Our present meetings are of little use unless there is a divine touch. These are spiritual matters, and we shall get nothing definitely unless God comes in. What this one says, and that one says, the Lord brings to an issue, and the Father takes advantage of that, and then someone says something that conveys the whole truth — that which spiritually should be understood at the time.
GF You were distinguishing between what they said, and what they thought. What had you in [p. 322] mind?
JT You may think a great deal, and not say a word to your neighbour about the truth. We should be on the alert for evidences of the work of God; because God is working, and having priestly sensibilities we should be able to discern what is of God in a soul and further it. There was no evidence of God’s work in what the disciples heard from other men, though some seemed to have more respect than others; apparently none of them showed disrespect. That is pretty much the situation today in christendom, but where God is working, there will be a spiritual touch and this should be fostered.
What is before us now is a great spiritual matter. In His own time the Father would speak as He has someone to whom He can say it. Can the Father use me to say the needed thing definitely at a given moment? These are exercises which everyone should have. In Matthew 16 the answer to the Lord’s question came directly from the Father; it was an ordered matter, the Father knowing all beforehand.
JWD Do you look at the Father’s action as connected with what is essentially spiritual, the Lord’s service being preparatory to that?
JT “God is a spirit” (John 4:24); this thought distinguishes Him as over against flesh and blood. Here, it is not exactly His speaking, but spiritual impressions received from the Father; it is revelation.
CHH In chapter 14:34 the men in the boat say, “Truly thou art God’s Son”. Did that involve a revelation from God?
JT I would not connect revelation with them. There was something seen that enabled them to connect with Christ the sonship prophesied in the Old Testament. Nebuchadnezzar said, “The appearance of the fourth is like a son of God” (Daniel 3:25); that was also an objective idea. Today, the sonship of Christ is an orthodox doctrine, owned by unconverted people, but [p. 323] the point for us is to have a spiritual apprehension of it.
RWS This revelation affected Peter inwardly.
JT That is what we should see. You could hardly say that of those in the boat. There was something, as they saw the miracle, that caused them to say, “Truly thou art God’s Son”. Peter is to be viewed by himself, and the men in the boat have to be taken by themselves, and the facts mentioned would indicate that God had wrought in them. What they said, however, was the result of what they saw in Christ — His works, not a revelation. What they said is recorded by the Spirit as fitting into the course of the truth there, but Peter’s confession is the result of a revelation from the Father, having in view the foundation of the assembly, and the material for the building.
CAM These schools of opinion are around us today, but none of them have the full truth of the Son of God; but the Father is still ready to give us thoughts of the greatness of Christ, which cannot be found in any circles where the opinions of men prevail.
JT Quite so: it is an arranged matter. The Father makes arrangements, too. The Lord, at a suitable time and place, raised this great issue; conditions were suitable, and Peter was available, so that the Father came in in His own time to afford the needed light — “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Those in the boat did not say that, nor did Matthew, nor any others. Peter, alone, in chapter 16, got the revelation. It is fundamental, and it is from the Father. It is a wholly spiritual matter, and to be material for the great heavenly structure, we must come into this.
AEH It was between the Father and Peter.
JT Peter was honoured in this way, but the revelation is for all; the truth of the body involves that what one gets is for all. 1 Corinthians 14 shows that one sitting in the assembly, as convened for ministry, might get a revelation, and that being so, room was to be made for him to [p. 324] convey it.
CMY Would there be a link with chapter 10, where it is said the Lord chose Peter?
JT Yes; in naming the twelve apostles, it is said “first, Simon, who was called Peter”. That indicates divinely given leadership, and clearly Peter was fitted for it. His leadership was nevertheless not merely official, but generally in the grace and power of the Spirit.
AEH He guards definitely against officialism in exhorting elders against lording over God’s heritage (1 Peter 5).
WR Following this revelation, He enjoins on the disciples “that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”.
JT Spreading it abroad is what has made christendom what it is. This section of Scripture contemplates revelation and spirituality, so as to shut out the human mind. Christ was presented to men as they were, and their estimate of Him is conveyed in their words which the disciples reported. The Lord would not present Himself to the natural man again; henceforth the truth is presented on the principle of “faith to faith”.
JWD This emphatic “thou” in verse 18 — what do you think it conveys?
JT It would carry with it the recognition of all that Peter had apprehended through the revelation. The Lord would, in addressing him, think of Peter in a potential sense; he was marked out as a stone for the building. “This rock” refers to what Peter confessed — “the Christ, the Son of the living God”; the confession — involving his apprehension of it — constituted him a stone. Thus Peter says later, “To whom coming, a living stone ... yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:4,5).
ANW Peter says, “Thou art the Christ”, and the Lord says, “Thou art Peter”. Both pronouns are emphatic.
JT Christ as known by the Father’s revelation is before Peter’s mind, and what Peter was spiritually is before the Lord’s mind. The pronouns draw attention to the persons. As the testimony appeared among the Jews, Matthew enlarges on Peter, as representing what is foundational in christianity. This would be over against the flimsiness of Jewish traditional foundations. Revelation 21 shows how the foundational thought seen here in Peter, extended to all the twelve apostles.
JRH Does that bring out the spiritual affinity that existed between the Lord in manhood and Peter?
JT Yes. The first time Jesus saw him He said, “Thou shalt be called Cephas (which interpreted is stone)” (John 1:42). Here in Matthew 16 He uses the Greek word for Peter; it is more formal. John records, “thou shalt be called”; here the Lord says, “thou art Peter”. The whole position of real christianity is brought before our minds in this passage. Rome is built on a wholly false interpretation of the Lord’s words, and spirituality does not enter into it; it is but a testimony to the ability of the human mind to wrest Scripture in order to build up a false system.
SWP The heavens are introduced here, the Lord saying, “My Father who is in the heavens”.
JT If we look carefully into Matthew we shall understand that. Heaven is greatly stressed, no doubt to lift us out of judaism and all that corresponds with it today.
SMcC What would you say was in the Lord’s mind when He says, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”?
JT It is to show the greatness of the revelation. Simon Bar-jona is the responsible person, but that is not all. God had blessed him in his responsibility. The Lord would no doubt ask him about Jonas, and the Lord fixes the person by bringing in his father’s name. The Lord was three and one-half years or more [p. 326] with his disciples, and, no doubt, many a subject came up in their conversations.
SMcC This great matter of spirituality is not something in the air, but is seen in a responsible person.
JT Yes. Peter was a responsible person. The Lord had that in His mind. The Lord perhaps asked Peter about his father, and maybe like Solomon he said, I am a son unto my father. John had a father: Zebedee. He was, perhaps, better off circumstantially than Simon ‘s father. The Lord would know all about the antecedents of the apostles, and would refer to what was needed in teaching at any time. Paul speaks of serving God with pure conscience from his forefathers (2 Timothy 1:3). Peter was Simon the son of Jonas. Solomon says, “I was a son unto my father” (Proverbs 4:3). Maybe the Lord would make use of this in teaching His disciples. The Lord might inquire of John, What about your father, Zebedee? His wife wanted to push the two sons ahead; the Lord adjusted that; but they were working with their father in the boat; and the Lord would take notice of that; they were dutiful young men. Christianity recognises what people are ordinarily. Paul says God “set me apart even from my mother’s womb” (Galatians 1:15); what he was from the outset is thus mentioned in relation to his service.
APT Is David an example? As about to be anointed he was feeding his father’s sheep (1 Samuel 16:11).
JT Heaven took account of that; he was the dutiful son in that whole position. His father sent him into the camp with needed things for his brethren, and in executing this order he left the sheep with a keeper. “David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took his charge and went, as Jesse had commanded him” (1 Samuel 17:20).
GF What is conveyed in the word “blessed” as applied to [p. 327] Peter here?
JT As used here, it would mean that Peter had great spiritual advantage; even as in the word to Mary, “Blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28).
AR Peter’s father, Jonas, was not telling him anything about Christ. The Father — Christ’s Father — in heaven was doing the communicating now.
JT That is the point. The Lord was here about His Father’s business. If one is faithful in a literal father’s business, God respects that.
Ques Why does the Lord say so emphatically in verse 18 — “And I also, I say”.
JT The Father gave the revelation to Peter, and now the Lord — another divine Person — says, “And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly”. That is the counterpart of what the Father had said to Peter. Divine Persons were there working together.
JWD What part has the Holy Spirit — a divine Person also — in all this?
JT He is the medium of divine operation subjectively.
Rem What you have said would show the importance of right arrangements that we might make, so as to give divine Persons the greatest liberty.
JT That is what I was thinking. Paul in 1 Corinthians had that specially in mind, that arrangements in the assembly should be suitable, especially as to the Lord’s supper and the ministry (see chapters 11 and 14).
ANW As a result of understanding this should we address the Son as Peter does here?
JT This is a very special instance; that the Son should be known and addressed in this way was needed at this juncture, to bring out the truth foundationally. Chapters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of John’s gospel show that the Lord would have us address the Father more. In hymns and prayers, the Lord is much more addressed in our meetings than the Father; adjustment is obviously needed.
CHH The apostle prays “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give you the spirit of wisdom” (Ephesians 1:17). Would that be by the Spirit?
JT Yes. Through Christ “we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”. Normally, the Spirit is the immediate medium of operations in and through the saints; it is in His power that we worship and speak to divine Persons.
Ques Would you say that generally the Father should always have the greater part in the economy?
JT Yes; the greater part — that is the way to put it. In the Lord’s supper, of course, that is, in the memorial, the Lord Jesus is peculiarly before us, but as to the general position, the Lord says, “glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee” (John 17:1). At Pentecost, Peter says “he has poured out this which ye behold and hear” (Acts 2:33). The Holy Spirit was operating, and the saints were all filled, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them to speak forth. They spoke of “the great things of God” (Acts 2:11).
AR What I notice is, that those who speak to the Father seem to have more power in addressing Him.
CHH In John 14, John 15, and John 16, there are about seven allusions to prayer.
JT There are very few prayers to the Son; yet we should be very wrong if we did not pray to Him. He is equal with the Father. He says, “ye believe on God, believe also on me”; also, “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it”. It is right and necessary, therefore, to pray to the Lord; but it should be with intelligence; the order in which divine Persons are seen in the divine economy should always be kept in mind.
Returning to our Scripture, the Lord proceeds and indicates now that Peter is not only material for the assembly, but that He is also a reliable person; he is trustworthy; “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens”. He is commissioned to administer the kingdom of the heavens.
ANW Is Peter’s being constituted material for the assembly a distinct thing outside his apostleship?
JT Assembly material is not apostleship; it is what he is by the revelation of the Father, and the confession of what was revealed to him; he is material in that sense. All true christians are material for the building; we are this as having the Spirit, and as coming into, by the Spirit, what was revealed to Peter.