CHRIST ASSEMBLING WITH HIS OWN (2)
[p. 18] CHRIST ASSEMBLING WITH HIS OWN (2)
Matthew 8:14,15; Matthew 9:1-8; Matthew 10:1-6
JT We have alluded to the light springing up in Capernaum (Matthew 4:16). It was there to be seen; it sprang up, meaning that it issued from Christ, not as in heaven, but as here. Life is not stressed as to heaven, but as to what is on earth. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). The statement in chapter 4 conveys what was in Christ as on earth. The voice from heaven, recognised Him not simply as having life on earth, and the source of it too, but as the Son — sonship in Him is owned as here on earth. It came out through His own words, according to Luke, when He was twelve years of age. He spoke about His Father’s business, which implied His own sonship. There are two thoughts as to Him here; the life, and the light consequent upon it; and then the voice proclaiming His sonship and how He afforded pleasure to the Father, whose infinite delight in Him was made known.
Matthew 4 contemplates the far-reaching testimony of our Lord. “And Jesus went round the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every bodily weakness among the people” (verse 23). We have a summary of His service there, preceding, though doubtless going beyond, as to date, what we have in chapter 5. It is to bring out the effect of the light shining from Him, the light of life. That lays the basis for chapter 5, which is legislative, as we said this morning. The disciples came up to Him as on the mountain. “Great crowds followed him in chapter 4:25, but in chapter 5 His disciples came to Him; that is the principle of discipleship; it was there actively. In chapter 5, the Lord says, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do [p. 19] good to those who hate you, and pray for those who insult you and persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in the heavens; for he makes his sun rise on evil and good, and sends rain on just and unjust. For if ye should love those who love you, what reward have ye? Do not also the tax-gatherers the same? And if ye should salute your brethren only, what do ye extraordinary? Do not also the Gentiles the same? Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (verses 44-48). The Lord is bringing out the character of the kingdom in speaking of the kind of persons who are of it; you might say who are “it”. They reflect their heavenly Father. As He says, “Sons of your Father who is in the heavens”. Substantial quality is what is stressed in the disciples as reflecting their Father, but all learnt in what Jesus was as coming in and going out among them.
HH The Lord comes down in chapter 8 with His disciples having that instruction in mind.
JT Chapter 8 brings out a further thought as to discipleship, which is stressed in this gospel. We learn in verse 23 that He went on board ship, and His disciples followed Him. He is perfecting the disciples in this chapter. “A scribe came up and said to him, Teacher, I will follow thee whithersoever thou mayest go. And Jesus says to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven roosting-places; but the Son of man has not where he may lay his head. But another of his disciples said to him, Lord, suffer me first to go away and bury my father. But Jesus said to him, Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead. And he went on board ship and his disciples followed him” (verses 19-23). Following Him is of greater importance than any natural claim. The disciple is to understand that he is not offered anything at all to gratify the flesh; “the Son of man has not where he may lay his head”. These are all important facts as to our inquiry at this time. What is before us now is what marks households [p. 20] in this gospel, and leading up to the appointment and naming of the apostles.
Chapter 10 says, “Having called to him his twelve disciples, he gave them power over unclean spirits, so that they should cast them out, [p. 35] and heal every disease and every bodily weakness”. The disciples received power from Him. The second verse says, “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these”. It would look as though they were already apostles before they are named. It would show that names are attached to us according to what we are. We do well to take note of what is said about discipleship, and how the quality here is seen in their moving as He moved.
WJC In chapter 5 we read of the disciples coming to Him, and now in chapter 8 they followed Him. Would the following be the moral result of having come to Him?
JT I should say that. They were distinguished from the crowd, as you will observe at the end of chapter 4. “Great crowds followed him ... But seeing the crowds, he went up”. He withdraws from the crowds to the mountain, and there His disciples came to Him. They are in keeping with His movements and are ready for instruction. “Having opened his mouth, he taught them”. In chapter 8 He is challenging them in following Him, pointing out that there is nothing for the flesh in such a course. Nevertheless, He went on board ship and His disciples followed Him. Presently they are tested again, because “the water became very agitated on the sea, so that the ship was covered by the waves; but he slept”. They are further tested.
HH Do you mean that in coming to the Lord we are committed to discipleship?
JT I think so. Discipleship is coming to Him. They tax themselves to do so, for they have to go up to the mountain. It means elevation, and makes a demand on our strength. In chapter 11:28, He says,
“Come to me”. He is urging us to do so, because of certain advantages. True discipleship is marked off by movements that are regulated by His, whatever the consequences. What is in mind is to call attention to the households of the servants; all of course, but the servants particularly. In Matthew 8:14,15, He observed what was in Peter’s house. He saw “his mother-in-law laid down and in a fever”.
HB Would you say why this condition calls for a personal touch from the Lord? On a previous occasion He seems to heal at a distance.
JT The personal touch is always to leave an impression. He laid His hands on the little children, meaning He committed Himself to them. The impression was there potentially, but the touch is more. The touch means the impartation of sensation from one to another. It is intended to affect later service.
JH-tJr It says, “He touched her hand”. Is there discrimination in that? He touched her in view of service. It says, “She arose and served him”.
JT The hand symbolises the power of service. That is what is meant. He intended her to serve as healed; whereas she was laid down in a fever. In this state you could expect nothing from her in the way of service; she needed to be served. It alludes to the servant’s house — that He should have one there ready to serve, serving because the Lord had touched her hand and the fever left her. Luke goes further and says, “And standing over her, he rebuked the fever” (Luke 4:39). That would be to impress her with Himself as having authority over her; in Matthew it is simply that He touched her hand. Verse 14 says, “And when Jesus had come to Peter’s house”; it would seem to bring out that whatever brought Him there, He noticed the condition in the house. That is the idea, I think. The servant is to see that the Lord takes account of what is in his house and deals with it.
WJC Does the Lord’s touch here as in other places imply impartation of something of Himself to the person?
JT That is the thought. It is a sensation anyway. It brings out what is in Him. The woman in Luke 8 touched Him; touched the hem of His garment and drew out healing virtue. Here the touch is from His side. It characterises the kingdom in Matthew. He touched her so that the fever left her.
JTJr Is there a connection between the first part of chapter 8, the leper coming to Him, and Peter’s house? The leper comes evidently of himself. Would there be a link with the leper, in the servant recognising what he is in the flesh?
JT Well, quite so. “And when he had come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came up to him and did him homage, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou art able to cleanse me. And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, I will; be cleansed. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed” (Matthew 8:1-3). It does not say it left him; he was cleansed. The man had a sense of uncleanness, and it was a question whether the Lord’s disposition was toward him. He says, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou art able to cleanse me. And he stretched out his hand”. He does more than He does for the woman in the house. He stretched out His hand and touched him.
HH How would you apply the fever? Is it activities out of proper focus?
JT I think whatever causes the fever comes into this matter. What would occasion this malady? She is said to be Peter’s mother-in-law — the house was Peter’s. Our attention is called to irregular conditions in the household. The word says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24). Here we have the mother-in-law adversely affecting the house; irregular conditions in the household occasioning such things.
[p. 23] SJH Is there something in the fact that He sees this? In Luke they called the Lord’s attention to it.
JT Yes, I think Peter is in mind in Luke, in regard of the miracle in his house. He is not called Peter in Luke until chapter 5, when he says to the Lord, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man”. Up to that he is called Simon only. Luke helps us in showing that Peter had not been making headway. There is no change of name until he makes his confession of being a sinful man. In Luke 4:38,39, we read that “rising up out of the synagogue, he entered into the house of Simon. But Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering under a bad fever; and they asked him for her. And standing over her, he rebuked the fever, and it left her; and forthwith standing up she served them”. I think Peter’s responsibility enters into this matter, especially as Luke gives it. He had not been making headway; he had opportunity to do it, but his name not being changed indicates lack of advance. The Lord comes into his house out of the synagogue where there had been another difficulty; that is, the unclean spirit. In Luke the Lord comes from dealing with the religious position to the household position, and apparently Peter was not affected even then. It is in the fishing scene in chapter 5 that he is affected, and the name Peter added to him. Here we have the name, but Matthew does not appear to make much of this. The Lord observed the condition in Peter’s house, and asserts His supremacy. In Luke He does it by standing over her and rebuking the fever.
SJH How, as the Lord is brought into the home, are these matters met by Him?
JT If the head of the house in a general way is right, the Lord may take account of things that he may not have noticed, but the Lord does things for us without hesitation. If He has to rebuke a thing, that would mean there had been delinquency on the part of the head of the house. He should have done [p. 24] the rebuking.
AB In chapter 4 the Lord says to Peter and Andrew, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men”.
JT As Matthew presents Peter, his account is more favourable; not so much dealing with Peter’s condition. In chapter 10:2 He says, “First, Simon, who was called Peter”. He supports Peter as the leading apostle, and the Lord in calling him puts no responsibility for his qualification on another. He said, “I will make you fishers of men”. The Lord undertakes to do whatever was needed to be done with them, and in going into his house the same principle applies. Peter was there, the first apostle, and the Lord Himself undertakes to see that he was really first. The Lord considers for His servant. He would support a man in accordance with what he is to be, and make him what He intended he should be; make him what is needed. That is the point of view in Matthew. The Lord is doing the thing Himself, and His great servant is not to be discredited. The condition of his house is not right. The Lord would say, I will see to that — His servants must not be discredited.
JWD Peter speaks of “the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). Would the touch not impress him with the oneness needed in the house?
JT This touch would bring the mother-in-law into the grace that belonged to the household, because she “served him”. Peter dealing with the husband and wife says, “as also fellow-heirs of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). It would be unsuitable to the servant to have anything else there. That is where light shines; life is light. “He that follows me ... shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). The grace of life would be life in the christian household. This is a most touching act of the Lord, because it was to make Peter’s house what it ought to be as the house of a great servant.
EP Do you think we suffer because things are not dealt with and met in this [p. 25] way?
JT Very much. We all feel it. Fathers and mothers who have brought up children would recognise the great disadvantage, where there is a condition of this kind in the house. The Lord feels it more than any, and in Peter’s house He deals with it Himself, without anyone asking Him to do it, according to Matthew’s account.
AEH What do you have in mind in speaking of this irregularity?
JT There is nothing in the marriage contract to provide for the mother-in-law. The word at the beginning was (this comes down the ages) as Eve was brought to Adam, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Moses in writing the book of Genesis put that in, the Spirit directing him. It seems that he got on wonderfully well with his father-in-law, Jethro. When Jethro comes to him in the wilderness there were the happiest relations between him and Moses, but there was a very humbling experience about the circumcision, as Moses was leaving Midian. Evidently Zipporah did not want it. She did not want to go the whole way. This is very often the case with wives. If the husband is spiritual, he is too much so in the wife’s eyes. The Lord sought to slay Moses because of this matter, requiring that he should circumcise the children (Exodus 4:24). It was Moses’ desire, but Zipporah did not want it. “A bloody husband indeed art thou to me!” she said, as if in complaint.
HH The gospel has the assembly in view. Taking care of the household is important, in view of the testimony in the assembly.
JT Natural ties must not be allowed to influence the position. They would thus discredit the spiritual.
EP Paul refers to Cephas leading about a sister as wife (1 Corinthians 9:5). It would seem he had kept free, evidently not hampered by his wife [p. 26] in his service.
JT He took her around in his service; he did not leave her at home. Paul says, “Have we not a right to take round a sister as wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” It was not too much for him to take a wife in his journeys. No doubt, he would always remember that the Lord touched his mother-in-law, and as a result she served. The important thing is the Lord’s touch in our houses. Peter speaks of the “grace of life”, heirs together of it, that “prayers be not hindered” (1 Peter 3:7).
JWD Complications would cease as Peter’s wife’s mother served.
JT Yes. Luke says, “She served them”, including the Lord.
JTJr In Matthew 7 we have an allusion to the house of a prudent man. It was built on a rock. Would that not help in regard to this matter, what is at the bottom?
JT Just so, the foundation of the house. Genesis 2 enters into this. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Peter speaks of husband and wife as “heirs together of the grace of life”, urging that prayer should not be hindered. We cannot serve without prayer. Peter would be supported by his wife as he led her about.
SP Better household conditions are seen in Acts in the three households that Peter had to do with particularly. In chapter 9 the household of Dorcas; in chapter 10 he lodged with a certain Simon, a tanner. It was there that he went up to pray. Then Cornelius and his household were waiting for him — affording further liberty for service.
JT That is very interesting and instructive; and we may add the house in which Aeneas was; there Peter tells him to rise up and make his own bed.
WJC What do you understand by the husband dwelling with the wife “according to knowledge”?
JT [p. 27] That is according to the knowledge that God affords as to that relation. “Fellow-heirs of the grace of life” is a beautiful expression. It is grace shining in that house, not natural light but “grace”. That is the first thought. In Matthew 9 we have the house of the ruler Jairus in which his daughter was raised up. There are more households in this chapter. There is that in which the two blind men had their eyes opened. The first is this house in Capernaum in Matthew 9:1. It is to be noted it is in “his own city”. Mark says “he was at the house” — at home (Mark 2:1-4). I mention Mark to bring out that it evidently was where the Lord dwelt. He was at home in contrast to being on a journey (see J.N.D.’s note to word “house”). There was liberty there for any who were evangelical or interested in the souls of men. They even go up to the roof and dig through, and the Lord makes no complaint. It would bring out how a spiritual household is open and affords liberty to those who are interested in an evangelical way. He had been away at a distance; the sea denotes distance and separation. The Lord had been away in His service; He was universal in this. Now He has come home by ship, but He is not seeking repose or a quiet time. He is serving yet, as actively, in His own house, as He was elsewhere.
WGT He would prefer to be in a home rather than a synagogue.
JT Yes, and if these four men came to Peter’s house while his mother-in-law was ill and they took the liberty they did in the house in which the Lord was, no doubt there would be an objection. They opened up the roof and there is no complaint at all where the Lord was. There is great liberty there for persons engaged in His service.
HH You would ask a brother’s permission before arranging a meeting in his [p. 28] house.
JT Certainly I would. The allusion to persons who have assemblies in their houses, would bear on this. If I open my house for the brethren to meet in it, they have a certain right of way.
WL Would this suggest that the servant has as much liberty and power in his home surroundings as when he is away?
JT I think so. According to Mark’s record there is a report that He was at the house, and then “straightway many were gathered together”; people took advantage of the fact He was there. “So that there was no longer any room, not even at the door; and he spoke the word to them” (Mark 2:2). He is not questioning the liberty taken, crowding into His doors. He carries on the service, and then we have, “And there come to him men bringing a paralytic, borne by four; and, not being able to get near to him on account of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was, and having dug it up, they let down the couch on which the paralytic lay”. It is a big operation; the couch a large affair, and the hole in the roof, but there is no complaint. The Lord meets the action with grace, “Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic, Child, thy sins are forgiven thee” (verse 5). He includes him in the family of God at once. That is wonderful grace. He calls the person, who might be an intruder, a child; connecting him with the family of faith.
JTJr Paul in his house in Acts 28:30 was in accord with this. “And he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging, and received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God.
JT I had thought of that. It is a reflection of this, “receiving” all that came to him. I suppose the word receiving there would mean more than a polite word at the door. He received them; uninvited persons coming to your house, especially if you are fatigued, are not always acceptable. The Lord had been on a [p. 29] journey, and under these circumstances we would say, You ought to have let me know you were coming. There is no question about it in the Lord’s case.
JTJr The position in Rome — Paul and his open house — would be in contrast to what is in that city today at the Vatican.
JT You would not get much of a reception there. It is very suggestive. How great a difference between the house the Lord was in, and the house at Rome now! The occupant is called Peter’s successor!
AHP Apollos being taken by Priscilla and Aquila and taught the way of God more exactly, would that correspond with the service of the Lord here?
JT Yes. They “took him to them” (Acts 18:26).
HH Would you take forgiveness here to include what is governmental?
JT It is governmental. There was some cause for the palsy, and the Lord goes to the root of it in saying, “Child, thy sins are forgiven thee”. That is the moral side of the matter, showing that there was cause for the state this man was in. The Lord comes in in power and grace calling him, not Sinner, but Child. If the paralytic did not have a conscience about his sins he should have, for he needed forgiveness. The Lord knew there was something wrong. This is one of the things that an apostle would have to learn; how to be in his own house, and in dealing with paralytics to know what to say to them. He would recall how the Lord spoke about the moral question, first, before the physical. James says, for instance, and no doubt he learnt from these meetings with the Lord, “Is any sick among you? let him call to him the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall heal the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be one who has committed sins, it shall be forgiven him” (James 5:[p. 30] 14,15).
WL Can we look for alleviation of what is governmental?
JT They are not always final, some of them may be. John says, “If any one see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life, for those that do not sin unto death. There is a sin to death: I do not say of that that he should make a request” (1 John 5:16). Something has happened, and it is going on to death. John says, I do not say of that that he should make a request. We should be able to discern whether to pray or not.
SJH “Go to thy house.” What impressions he would take back!
JT He would say to his wife and children, I have been in a wonderful house; the owner of that house is the Lord Jesus. He did not mind when they took up the roof. The man’s bed would be seen first, a very unsightly thing to push into the house of another person. The Lord Jesus made no complaint about that; He recognised the man as in the family at once. He sees the faith of the four, and recognises this beautiful feature in the place; general feeling of sympathy is suggested. He saw their faith.
WJC Do you think there was some exercise of soul on the part of the paralytic to be thus brought, so the Lord could also see he had the faith!
JT The four had faith. The Lord, I think, is raising the moral question with the man. He refers immediately to his sins, that they were forgiven.
JWD There must be a very happy affinity between the household and the saints, to meet the requirements of James 5:14,15.
JT James says to the sick man, You should send for them. They are available, and they should be.
TS We must be prepared to face any exposure that might be necessary in sending for the elders?
JT Yes. It is the moral side. That is always important. With so-called faith-healers, it is a question [p. 31] if they ever raise a moral issue. The moral issue is the first thing to raise in these actions. The Lord deals with that at once in this man’s case.
SP The man would be feeling the position he was in.
JT Clearly: “Is any sick among you?” James tells the sick man what he should do. The epistles all carry that sort of instruction for us. James is stressing the importance of the assembly, and what the elders were. They are to pray for the sick and to anoint him with oil. That is important as a typical suggestion; it means that if this man is to be raised up he is to be henceforth for the testimony. Otherwise, it is better that he should not be raised up. “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11:30). This is a merciful provision that James brings in; “and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall heal the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be one who has committed sins, it shall be forgiven him”. It is the prayer of faith that heals the sick. Faith brings God in; and the Lord sees their faith. There would be nothing in all this great movement if the Lord did not see something. He knew things divinely, but then there is what He sees. Peter says to Him in John 21:17, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee”. That word know is subjective in the first two cases, implying that Peter says to the Lord, You know divinely that I love you. That is not enough, and the Lord wishes to see something in us to draw out His love. And so Peter uses another word which is objective. “Thou knowest that I love thee”, implying that the Lord could see this in him. That is the point here. The Lord saw their faith. There is no value in bringing up the question of confidence unless there is something to see. If I have created a feeling of lack of confidence among my brethren, I must not claim that they should [p. 32] have confidence; there should be something about me to show that I deserve their confidence.
JWD Would that include something in the paralytic, too? Faith must be evident, not only by believing in Christ, but by something discernible in the one who has it.
JT That is so generally, as illustrated in the lame man of Lystra (Acts 14:8); but it does not seem so here. The pronoun their refers to the four that carried him. “Jesus, seeing their faith, says to the paralytic”. The faith is in the four, and the Lord now is dealing with the man himself on moral lines. He says, “thy sins...”
DG Matthew 17:20,21 helps. The disciples ask Jesus why they could not cast the demon out of the boy, and He says to them, “Because of your unbelief; for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say to this mountain, Be transported hence there, and it shall transport itself; and nothing shall be impossible to you. But this kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting”.
JT It seems that Mark gives a clearer view of that instance than Matthew, though Matthew calls him a lunatic. In Mark, the father of the child has a greater place. He says to the Lord, “If thou couldst do anything ... help us”. In His answer the Lord implies, Do not apply if to Me, apply it to yourself; “If thou couldst believe”. The basis of all these matters must lie in faith, whether in the person to be helped, or persons acting for him. The boy had no faith as far as the scripture shows, it was a question of the father of the boy. The father says to the Lord, “I believe, help mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). The Lord immediately helped him, and the demon was cast out. In Matthew 9 the Lord honours the four who had faith. It is clear, however, that there was something in the man, because the Lord calls him ‘ child ‘, as we have [p. 33] seen.
EP As to the local position suggested in Capernaum, is there a suggestion in the letters to the assemblies, of the need to recognise the Lord’s proprietary rights in coming “to his own city”? The city and the house are claimed by Him.
JT The local position is in mind; it is remarkable it should be so. He left Nazareth and went to Capernaum and dwelt there. So Capernaum had a great opportunity; great light shone there, and He says later, “Thou, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shall be brought down even to hades. For if the works of power which have taken place in thee, had taken place in Sodom, it had remained until this day” (Matthew 11:23). Localities where the saints of God are, or have been, are more responsible.
JW What is in your mind in regard to the anointing with oil?
JT Anointing is in view of testimony. You never get it save in relation to the service of the testimony. We are anointed for the testimony (see Mark 6:13). Christ was anointed here on earth. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth, who went about doing good (Acts 10:38). That is the idea of testimony. If a man is to be raised up he is to continue in the meeting and be useful in it, otherwise he might as well die.
HB In Leviticus 14, the cleansed leper is anointed on the ear, the thumb and great toe.
JT Yes. He is made fit for the testimony.
HH The thought of the oil is priestly. It is not an actual bottle of oil. We ought to have a moral idea in mind. In praying for a person we ought to be priestly. We should know what we are praying about. A person might be under the influence of some evil if he were suffering under the government of God.
JT The word oil in James 5 should, I believe, be taken up in a spiritual way. It alludes to the Spirit. The man raised up is to be in spiritual power from henceforth.
[p. 34] As regards our subject, household conditions bear on the service. Matthew makes a great deal of what is done in houses. Chapter 9:23 says, “And when Jesus was come to the house of the ruler, and saw the flute-players and the crowd making a tumult, he said, Withdraw, for the damsel is not dead, but sleeps. And they derided him. But when the crowd had been put out, he went in and took her hand; and the damsel rose up. And the fame of it went out into all that land”. Here we see how the house is to be cleansed, or cleared of elements that would interfere with spiritual power. He said, Withdraw. And when the crowd had been put out the damsel was raised up; spiritual power became effective. That is another thing, flute-players and that sort of thing are inimical to all spiritual activities in a household. Matthew mentions flute-players and the crowd making a tumult. Jairus is a man to be respected, but he did not see the incongruity in having all this in his house. Mark and Luke tell us that the Lord suffered no one in the house, but Peter, James, and John, and the father and mother of the child.
HB The element of criticism runs along with this — they are deriding the Lord.
JT It is what goes with looseness. The flesh regards flute-playing and people weeping in such circumstances as desirable and suitable, but those who carry on like that are ever ready to deride the Lord. He is not respected. This condition might be acceptable to the natural mind, but when tested out is not subject to Christ.
JWD If we allow flute-players and other such things in our houses our local meetings will be affected.
JT All this bears on chapter 10 — an important one. The passage selected suggests the idea of the Lord coming in and going out. We are to learn through what happened while He was there. “Having called to him his twelve disciples, he gave them power over unclean spirits, so that they should cast them out,
and heal every disease and every bodily weakness.” Then the names of the apostles are given, and following that we are told that “These twelve Jesus sent out when he had charged them, saying, Go not off into the way of the nations, and into a city of Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. This shows that the early part of Matthew is distinctive as confining the ministry to the Jews, the house of Israel, and brings out another lesson in our service. Paul was restricted, and was directed to go to certain places. It was so as to Macedonia in Acts 16.
HH Some of the twelve apostles were not very prominent.
JT We get all their names here and in the heavenly city, in the foundation of the wall of the heavenly city; so that they must all have had their part in the service of laying the foundation. The city has twelve foundations and the names of all are seen there.
HH No doubt they had their work and did it well. The cutting and polishing of the stones to garnish the Holy City would suggest much in the way of suffering.
WJC The Lord was not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. How would the Syrophenician woman get blessing, if not through Him as the Sent One?
JT Well it was a question of her taking her right place as a dog of the gentiles; then she got the blessing. She called Christ the Son of David, but she had no claim on Him whatever under that designation. What the Lord said was to adjust her position; as Son of David He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As Saviour of the world He is for all of us.
WJC She owned Him as Lord, and she got the blessing.
JT She took her true place; she says, “Even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from the table of their masters”.
JWD You spoke about Paul being restricted in his service; he was forbidden to go to a certain place. Would that be through circumstances now; perhaps through our employment?
JT There are limitations. I only alluded to it as showing that we have to observe limitations today. Suppose a believer says, I want to be a missionary in China, or Africa. Is the Lord calling you there? Are there no limitations? I am only alluding to it in that way. We have to recognise limitations in our service in general. The apostles according to Matthew 28 were sent to baptise all the nations; the Lord as risen sends them out to all nations. In Luke repentance and remission of sins were to be preached to all the nations. That is general, but then each servant has to ask the Lord for guidance, as to where he is to serve. I must get to the Lord as to the work I am to do. Each has his own work (Mark 13:34).
WL So there is no such thing as a free lance.
TH Why were the names introduced here in detail?
JT They are first called “twelve disciples” and as such, Christ “gave them power over unclean spirits, so that they should cast them out, and heal every disease and every bodily weakness”. As in possession of that power they are qualified and called “twelve apostles”; then they are named.
In Mark 3, the Lord “goes up into the mountain, and calls whom he himself would, and they went to him”. He selects twelve “that they might be with him, and that he might send them to preach”; meaning that they are on the elevated ground of companionship with Him. In Matthew they are given the power so as to be potentially equal to the position in which He sets them, and their names are given. It brings out that one is what he is, and his name conveys that.