CHRIST ASSEMBLING WITH HIS OWN (4)
[p. 58] CHRIST ASSEMBLING WITH HIS OWN (4)
Matthew 16:13-20; Matthew 17:24-27; Matthew 18:15-20
JT It is necessary to link these scriptures with what we closed with yesterday in chapter 13. We observed that in the house the Lord expounded to the disciples, at their own request, the parable of the wheat and tares. He enlarged on His teaching beyond what they could have thought of, because He introduced the assembly there, not under its own name, but in a parabolic sense; under the heading of the treasure and the pearl of great price. It is also in view in the parable of the net cast into the sea. They drew it to shore, and the good fish were put into vessels for further use. The further use is opened up in the scriptures now under consideration.
The Lord enquired of the disciples in chapter 13:51: “Have ye understood all these things?” We reached the end of a previous section in chapter 10. In chapter 11:1 we read, “it came to pass when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples”. He finished a certain course of instruction involving His authority. He is not always commanding. The Lord would also instruct us. The scribe discipled into the kingdom of the heavens would not need to be constantly reminded of the Lord’s authority over him.
Now we are challenged as to whether we understand this teaching: “Have ye understood all these things?” (verse 51). Not only, are we subject, but do we understand? The Lord answered the disciples when they said they did understand, by saying that “every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man that is a householder”. The Lord thus brings in a very great thought based on their assertion that they understood what He was saying. He used the word scribe, meaning that we are not to understand things in a general way, but in a critical way; to be like the Bereans who searched [p. 59] the Scriptures daily to see if the things Paul taught were right. We are not to be critical in an adverse way, but to be sure that what we are taking in is right. The Lord used the word ‘ scribe ‘, I think, as a suggestion of an accurate person; a person who writes. What we say at such meetings as these, as taken down in notes, is sometimes incoherent, and that is not always the fault of the note-taker. When we undertake to publish them, the idea of the scribe must come in; there must be accuracy. ‘ Householder ‘ is another figure which the Lord uses, it has a great place in Matthew, both the words, ‘ house ‘ and ‘ householder ‘. “For this reason every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old”. That is, they are proved things. Like Mary, he keeps them in his mind, pondering them in his heart (Luke 2:19). Thus he has treasure out of which he brings things new and old. He is a spiritually educated man; educated on right principles, as Enoch was educated — on the principle of discipline.
It is not optional whether we read the Bible or not — or spiritual ministry. It is a question of understanding, and being obligated to the Lord for it, too; for He will have to say to us as to what He furnishes for the blessing of His people — whether we value and appropriate it. In Bible readings we can bring out “things new and old”. A scribe discipled into the kingdom of the heavens is not speculative; he is an accurate man; he has tested the things by Scripture, and he knows what he is speaking about. I thought we should note, before we proceed, the words, ‘ scribe ‘, ‘ discipled ‘, and ‘ householder ‘. “A man a householder”. He is a man, but he is a householder. That is really what is needed for stabilisation among the brethren in our localities — following up Bible readings, ministry, and the like in the light of verses 51 and 52.
HH I feel how very important it is to get things accurately into our souls. Perhaps we are [p. 60] clear about the pearl being the assembly, but what about the treasure?
JT “The kingdom of the heavens is like a treasure hid in the field, which a man having found has hid, and for the joy of it goes and sells all whatever he has, and buys that field” (verse 44). The Lord’s exposition of the parable of the wheat and tares tells us that the field is the world. The assembly is largely secured in cities; it is remarkable how much is made of cities in relation to the assembly economy: but here it is not the cities, but the field — a wide thought. The Lord pictures Himself as having found it, which, I suppose, would mean that He found it in His disciples. In Matthew 10, in relation to the Jewish economy, He told them not to go elsewhere, but “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. Now, He finds something wider than that; He finds this “treasure”, as if He was not looking for it, but had been occupied with something else. He finds this, that the disciples were developing assembly qualities in their intelligence and affections, and so He is minded to buy the field. It is not now the land of Israel, but the whole world; the wide field in which the gospel was to be preached (Mark 16:15). He sees the treasure there potentially. Similarly, when Paul came to Corinth, a gentile position, the Lord said to him, “No one shall set upon thee to injure thee; because I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:10). He had them there potentially, though not yet secured. So here, the treasure is said to be found, and He hides it. “Which a man having found has hid.” It would be, I think, the saints viewed as affording the Lord more joy than He had found in the Jewish setting.
AEH Do you think chapter 13:44 should be carried forward to our present scripture? The Lord, in chapter 16, names the revelation to Peter. In chapter 13 He found the treasure, but what it is, is not stated.
JT That is what I thought we might see. He names it in chapter 16, consequent upon the revelation [p. 61] the Father had made to Peter, because Peter was thus constituted actual material for the assembly. Chapter 13 does not go that far. It is simply treasure. So far the Lord was only dealing with the Jewish disciples, but now He takes a wider outlook. He has bought the whole field in order to secure this treasure; it is going on yet, including America. He is securing it out of the whole world through the gospel, but then He hides it. It is not yet a public thing. It is a mystery, the mystery of the gospel.
JRH In Ephesians 3:15 the apostle addresses God as “the Father ..., of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”. There are other families beside the assembly, but would they be comprised in the treasure?
JT I think not. It is the assembly. The way it is spoken of would plainly indicate this. He enlarges on it in the next parable, which is another phase of the same thing. We have two other accounts; one in verses 45 and 46, and one in verses 47 to 50; the three together would form a group referring to the same thing, only in different phases. The pearl is a greater thought than the treasure, and it is something being sought by one who would know its value. He was seeking goodly pearls, and found one that was exceptional and secured it.
AEH Going back to this question of hiding the treasure, does that develop in chapter 16, in connection with the various opinions that are abroad, and to which the Lord calls attention in His question? Is the secret or mystery of it seen in what is alluded to as in the soul of Peter?
JT Just so. The acquiring of the knowledge of Christ’s sonship in chapter 16 is not by signs, as in chapter 14, where He is recognised as the Son of God, because of what is seen objectively in Him. That is not the foundation of the assembly; this in chapter 16 is what He is as revealed by the Father, and Peter as having that revelation is constituted actual material [p. 62] for the building. These verses in chapter 13, therefore, as was remarked, are linked on with chapter 16, where the assembly is formally named, when the Father reveals to Peter who Christ is.
This section of chapter 16 is strikingly illustrative of our whole subject, because it is the Lord coming in among them. “When Jesus was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi, he demanded of his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I the Son of man am?” It is a meeting, a private meeting, you may say, with the disciples, and in His incoming the Lord’s mind is engaged with something. What are men saying about Him? That has a great place today. What are men saying about Jesus?
AEH This would be an outstanding feature in Peter’s education for his service later.
JT He would certainly need to get the good of this meeting, because in his service he would find people enquiring about Jesus; some too giving their opinion as to who He is, and it would be very important to be able to answer questions of that kind, and to insist on the truth. The Lord has helped us in late years as to this great matter, and we should all understand the truth of the Son of God.
WJC Is the mystery bound up in Peter’s answer to the Lord’s question?
JT It is bound up in the Lord’s word to Peter, as given in verse 18.
WJC Would you say that Deity is involved in it — Deity in manhood?
JT That is right. First of all, what are men saying? The Lord is enquiring as to what others are saying, and in service we are bound to come into contact with these varied views as to Christ. Christendom is full of them now. It was not that they meant to be derogatory, but what they are saying was derogatory to Him. “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”
[p. 63] To say that He was John the baptist was belittling Him: to say that He was Elias or Jeremiah was belittling Him. Then one who would say that He was “one of the prophets”, was very vague and uncertain in his mind. So that what is needed now in meeting all these views is definiteness as to the Person of Christ. This definiteness is the outcome of the clear knowledge of Him by the Spirit.
JTJr In Deuteronomy 33, Moses has a place in the affections of the Israelites — “king in Jeshurun”. Would that link on with our present thoughts? Moses was the one who had given commandments, but finally, the people give him his true place — king in Jeshurun.
JT That was when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together. Men who knew Moses would honour him. A great concentration of spiritual wealth is contemplated in Deuteronomy 33, and Moses was king in Jeshurun — an upright people. Well, that is the point now. Am I upright in what I am saying about Christ? Where do I get my thoughts? Am I a scribe discipled into the kingdom of the heavens, endeavouring to be accurate? The Lord, we may say, is coming to the upright people; the taught people, in Matthew 16:13. He says to them, “But ye (’ Ye ‘ is emphatic) who do ye say that I am?” They are different from the generality of persons who were speaking about the Lord Jesus. The ye means persons who understood what He had already taught them, upright men. What good are we if we are not upright? King in Jeshurun means king among an upright people, and such a people would be accurate. They would not be speculative, but reverential in regard of Christ.
HH The word Thou is emphatic as to Christ: “Thou art the Christ”; and lower down as to Peter: “thou art Peter”.
JT Personality is in mind. The same suggestion as in “But ye, who do ye say that I am?” The first “ye” is emphatic. We get one of the greatest [p. 64] thoughts — a revelation of the Father to one of those persons; it was not simply what Peter saw in Him objectively, as in chapter 14, but what the Father revealed to Peter.
WGT Do you link this scripture with John 6:69?
JT The authorised version is misleading there. According to the New Translation, Peter says, “We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”. It was not a revelation, but rather what the disciples learned by experience; “we have believed and known” refers to past history. Peter and the others believed and knew, not that He was the Son of God, but “the holy one of God”. It is a question of His priesthood, He is the Minister of the sanctuary. Peter is stating what he and his fellow disciples already knew. It is a settled matter. It is his own experience. “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal.” Others were drifting away. The feeding of the multitude in John 6 corresponds with Matthew 14, and this incident in Matthew 16 is later.
JWD The revelation would bring about in Peter an affinity with Christ. The thought he expressed was interwoven in his spiritual being. He was subjectively part of the system that is headed up in the Christ. I am thinking of 1 Corinthians 12:12.
JT “So also is the Christ.” Peter was included in that. And the word stone bears out the affinity you mention; the ideas of stone and rock being akin; so the affinity is striking both as to material and anointing. “The Christ” is connected with the anointing; and in 1 Corinthians 12:12 it refers to the saints.
AB Would “one of the prophets” suggest limitations in regard to the Lord in that sense?
JT Quite so. Some were saying He was John the baptist; a great man. Another says, Elias; a great man too. Then another says Jeremiah, coming down in the scale a bit; and then one of the prophets. Well, that would include the minor prophets. You can see the man who says “one of the prophets” is very vague and very careless. There was no idea of guarding the Person of Christ, but that is so characteristic of what men are saying today about Jesus.
EP Do these parts of Caesarea-Philippi suggest the region of the speculative mind of man? Is it over against the Colossian truth — the greatness of Christ, and the greatness of what was introduced in Him?
JT Yes. I think too the idea of territory is involved. He is in the vicinity of the nations. The gentile world is in mind. The Lord deliberately raised this question there. Territory or locality has a great deal to do with the assembly.
EP Do you think it is an imposing kind of thing, the idea of Caesarea-Philippi, the greatness of man in his own realm?
JT It is as to name. It denoted too that the Lord was going wider in His thoughts; going out into the gentile world. Peter opened the door to Cornelius, when Cornelius was an officer in the Roman army, and head of the band called “Italic”; Peter’s action went out to the Roman world. God was working with Cornelius in view of the assembly, in view of the great thought of God indicated in the vessel coming down from heaven (Acts 10:11). All the beasts were there; all the fowls of the air, and the creeping things: God was cleansing them, for He had in mind to go out to the gentile world. Peter did not preach the Son of God to Cornelius; he preached Christ. Paul brings in the Son of God in the testimony of the gospel. Peter knew that truth by revelation, but you do not get it in his ministry unless in the second epistle, where he speaks of the Son of God, announced from heaven (chapter 1:17). The truth of the Son of God is brought in by Paul, in whom God revealed Him, that he might preach Him as glad tidings among the nations (Galatians 1:16). Paul could tell the whole truth of the Son of God in the gentile [p. 66] world.
EP Paul speaks about the gospel preached in the whole creation under heaven. Does that fit in with your thought?
JT Yes. In Colossians he greatly enlarges on the truth of the Son of God.
JTJr Is the thought of government in Matthew connected with “the Christ”?
JT Yes; the facts in the opening chapters indicate He is “called Christ”, and the “generations in chapter 1 end in “the Christ”. Government or rule is clearly in view. The magi ask for “the king of the Jews”. Then “the Christ” is the one who does things for God. That is the point Peter makes — Jesus of Nazareth, anointed of God — “who went through all quarters doing good ... because God was with him” (Acts 10:38). He was doing things for God, and God was with Him in what He was doing; but the Son of God is what Paul stresses as to Corinth. “The Son of God”, he says, “Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus)” (2 Corinthians 1:19). The two brothers with him preached the Son of God. It was a threefold testimony to this great truth, and significantly so in Corinth, where the foundation was. “Other foundation can no man lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). He does not say Son of God, but the Son of God was involved. He says Jesus Christ was the foundation he laid; no doubt because of the state of things in Corinth, and of course it enters into the general thought, but the Son of God is the great foundational thought. Jesus Christ is the moral side of the truth, what He was as Man down here.
HH Christ dwelling in your hearts by faith (Ephesians 3:17), would that correspond with what has been before us?
JT Yes. It is a question of the great divine Operator, the Christ. The Holy Spirit operates subjectively, but He works under Christ. The Christ is the Messiah, but the appellation is taken up in christianity [p. 67] with a deeper and fuller significance than it had in Israel. “That the Christ may dwell, through faith, in your hearts.” The great divine Operator is to dwell in our hearts.
JST Is there something to be gained by the thought of territory, in Saul being enlightened on the road to Damascus, and then the epistle just referred to, coming out of the Roman prison?
JT I think territory has a great deal to do with the testimony — places God selects in which to witness to certain things. The Lord does not reveal Himself to Saul of Tarsus in Jewish territory, He waits till he gets into Syrian territory; and later He tells him to leave Jerusalem. The Lord says, “Go, for I will send thee to the nations afar off” (Acts 22:21).
WW Paul wrote, “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1:4).
JT That brings up another thing. If we preach Him we must consider as to what phase of the truth of the Son of God we should present. The first announcement is, “The holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God” (Luke 1:35). At Christ’s baptism, the Father’s voice proclaimed Him as Son, “Thou art my beloved Son” (Luke 3:22). When we come to Paul’s foundational epistle, Romans, he refers to the Lord being “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1:4). It is not His own resurrection that is in view exactly, but that He could raise the dead; however many there were, He could raise them all. That is what is needed in the gospel. The Son of God “has annulled death, and brought to light life and incorruptibility by the glad tidings”.
HH The gospel extends to us on these lines, so one does not preach a full gospel if he leaves sonship out.
[p. 68] JT I think Romans would link the thought of the Son of God with Machpelah, the place where those who died in faith were buried. The Lord would take all those out of death. He is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead. The word “dead” there is plural. No matter how long a man may be dead, Christ will raise him. The more you think of it the more wonderful it is to you.
WGT “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, would imply that the Lord would have to do with the resurrection world.
JT Quite so. It is also an allusion to the deadness of judaism at that time, and of course has great force, as bearing on the deadness of christianity today; it is not simply Son of God, but the Son of the Living God.
SJH These different ways of speaking of the Son of God indicate what the scribe would understand — he would know when to bring out a particular feature.
JT That is right. The different phases of sonship that the Scriptures open up to us are remarkable. Gabriel announced, He “shall be called the Son of God”; the voice from heaven addressed Him, “My beloved Son”; and John says, “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father” (John 1:14); and again, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18). It is not who was, but who is in the bosom of the Father. In the number of further instances, we have phases of this great truth as to the Person of the Son of God.
JWD Why does the Lord say My assembly, and not God’s assembly?
JT I suppose to confirm the truth of His Person as revealed to Peter. I would connect it especially with Him as the Christ, because it is a question of what He has now, His rights as Son of David being denied by the Jews. That He builds and possesses the assembly is a great testimony to His Person. Hebrews 3:3-6 [p. 69] shows that the deity of Christ is involved in His building the house of God and being over it as Son. Here He says, “My assembly”, which points to His deity. He says, “I also”; the Father had spoken to Peter and now the Son speaks to him — speaks as a divine Person. The assembly would be His, and He would use it in His administrative service in the economy with which He was entrusted; the Father giving all things into His hands. So the assembly has a special place in the service of God. The Lord’s supper is peculiarly His own matter; it is celebrated in His assembly, but He does not confine assembly service to the celebration of the Supper. He proceeds to the Father, to God; and finally to His Father and our Father, and to His God and our God. The Supper is initiatory to the great thought. The Lord’s supper is His own supper, but as the Minister of the sanctuary, He proceeds from it to fill out the full service of God.
WL Would you say the thought of My assembly follows on chapter 13, and is connected with the treasure and the pearl?
JT Yes. He finds both.
AB He sold all whatever He had, in order to secure both the treasure and the pearl.
JT Yes, it is the cost to Himself, and this enters into His ownership of the assembly. It is, nevertheless, God’s assembly in a wider sense. It comes down from God out of heaven as the heavenly city, but it also comes down adorned as a bride for her husband, so it belongs to Christ as the Bridegroom, and at the same time it is alluded to as the tabernacle of God (Revelation 21:1-3). The ideas connected with the treasure and the pearl run together, but the pearl would point to Paul’s work. The Lord’s word to Peter, “Thou art Peter”, asserts that he was material for it.
DG The woman at Sychar could say, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done:
is not he the Christ?” (John 4:29). Is that material for the assembly?
JT The great truth brought out in her was that she discerned she was a vessel for service. She left her water pot and went her way to the city, meaning she had been secured as a vessel rather than as material for the assembly. She had been a polluted vessel, but now she is a purified one, and she comes to the men of the city, and says, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?”. The Christ — the One who does things and she is now ready to do things.
HH She had something in her vessel, “I perceive that thou art a prophet”, and she has living water too.
JT It is a very important side of the truth, that we are secured as vessels. Immediately we are enlightened we become part of the service; and so the woman of Samaria immediately secures men for the Lord.
WGT Would there be any suggestion here that there is the transfer of authority from judaism to heaven, in the reference to the Father in the heavens? Peter was to obtain the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. Judaism is no longer owned.
JT Yes. That is seen in Peter’s service in Acts 10. It is a movement of heaven, the vessel comes down out of heaven.
EP Do you think this thought of revelation should prepare us for something fresh? Heaven has the right to communicate its own mind in regard to matters at any moment.
JT It is wonderful; a new thing altogether, beginning with the Father. It is an extension of the Lord’s remark in chapter 11:25, where He says, “I thank thee, O Father ... thou ... hast revealed them unto babes”. Peter, however, is not viewed as a babe here. He has progressed in the truth. The Father reveals [p. 71] this great truth to him; and as Peter makes the confession, the Lord acts on that.
SP Manhood is seen here in Peter over against manhood according to men in the area of Caesarea-Philippi.
JT Yes. Caesar and Philip were great names in the gentile world. Philip and Andrew came to tell the Lord that the Greeks said, “Sir, we would see Jesus”. They thought it was important that the Lord should know that such people had come to find out about Jesus. The Lord immediately says, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone” (John 12:24). The greatest of these men is of no account at all in the new world. All that is for God must be on the principle of death and resurrection.
EP Paul closes the epistle to the Romans with an allusion to the mystery.
JT Yes; he has laid the basis for it, and that would be the next thing for the Romans to understand — the mystery of God. We have it here, and the Father is moving; so that we are in the full economy of God here. The Father reveals to Peter who Christ was. The Son reveals the Father, but the Father reveals the Son so far as the Son may be revealed. The Lord says, “No one knows the Son but the Father” (Matthew 11:27), He does not say the Father reveals Him, but that the Son reveals the Father; so that the revelation here does not refer to the inscrutableness of Christ, but to what He was as Man before Peter’s eyes and the eyes of others. That is what is in mind, even as in Ephesians 4:13, where ministry is used for the perfecting of the saints, “until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”. We are to know Him in that way.
WJC In what way then does the Father make the Son [p. 72] known?
JT By revelation. That is the point here: “flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee”, meaning that Peter could not have learned it from any mere human source. It was the Father’s revelation, the Father calling attention to the Person about whom the people were so puzzled; none called Him by the right name. The Father reveals Him to Peter, who calls Him by His right name; “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. This is the basis of all that follows. If the Father draws attention to Christ, it is on this ground. We are all to be in the knowledge of Him as thus made known. It is a greater transaction in Peter’s case than with ourselves, because it is foundational. Believers now are brought into this by spiritual means. Paul says, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations” (Galatians 1:16). Peter did not get the revelation for that purpose, but for a foundation of the assembly. Peter’s name means stone; he is material for the assembly, but the revelation to Paul was for preaching. He preached the Son of God at Corinth.
HH In his first epistle Peter speaks of Christ as a Living Stone disallowed of men, but chosen of God and precious.
JT Yes. We also are living stones built up a spiritual house, as coming to Christ in this light. There is thus the working out of the truth of this chapter in Peter’s ministry.
Ques Do we see the work of God in the blind man when Christ asked him the question, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?” The Lord told him. “And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage” (John 9:35-38).
JT That is another view of what we are speaking of, the Lord Himself declaring that He is the Son of God. It was to a man that had been cast out. It is another point of view which is most important. He [p. 73] says to him thou, addressing him personally, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” And Jesus said to him, “Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he”. He is thoroughly secured as a worshipper of the Son of God.
WGT The public matter, what men were saying, is left unadjusted here, whereas the private matter is adjusted and then kept secret.
JT It was not to be added to the public profession. I think christendom corresponds in the different views of Christ that exist in it; but this great matter was to be a secret. “Then he enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ.” That subject is finished.
In chapter 17, we have the question raised of sonship in the brethren. The personnel of the assembly now is in mind, not from the standpoint of material, but from the standpoint of dignity, personal dignity. So the question arises in Capernaum, Does your Master pay the tax? and Peter, without thinking of accuracy, says, Yes. Peter did not understand sonship. He had been up in the mountain with the Lord and heard God proclaim Him as Son, and now he tells some questioner that the Lord is just like anyone else, and is subject to the temple tax. The temple belonged to God, and God had just proclaimed Christ as Son, and hence why should He be taxed? “When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him.” This is another session in “the house”, as in chapter 13:36. The Lord opens up the truth of sonship in its application both to Himself and to Peter; a very important item in our subject.
JTJr Does Peter represent therefore in a general way how the truth proceeds in our souls; that is, the revelation first, before the Lord tells them what is going to happen to Him in Jerusalem? Peter rebukes Him — he fails; and then he fails again in this chapter. Is that the way we usually learn this great subject — through our [p. 74] failures?
JT Largely it is so. The correction is intended to help us. Peter would not forget this. Possibly he raised the question with Matthias, if he remembered this incident as to how the Lord brought out sonship; how it applied to Christ and the saints; it is not a question of fitness for heaven here, but that I am immune from the taxation. It is a question of the temple tax, and God does not put me under tribute in His house. Sons are free in the assembly. We are all to learn this in the assembly, that we are free.
HH Sonship in relation to Christ would have Deity behind it. Sonship, of course, for us would not.
JT Quite so, we are adopted. We have the same Spirit, the Spirit of God’s Son.
EP This house would be a place of increased light, in all this teaching as to sonship. Peter coming into this house gets a fresh touch as to what is proper to the new system.
JT Yes. If it were the house the Lord lived in at Capernaum, which is probable, it would give it all the more significance. Capernaum is called “his own city”. I think the Lord brings out this truth of sonship, not so much now in relation to our heavenly calling, but as in the testimony, to set aside legal claims that might be imposed upon us in the assembly. We are apt to impose these claims, but if we understand the sonship of Christ, and that we have the Spirit of sonship, we can see there is no tributary claim to be made upon us.
EP Would this be felt in the care meeting in Acts 15? Peter’s word as to the matter of circumcision seems to result from this.
JT It is just what came out there. It was a question of sonship. The judaisers were endeavouring to bring the gentiles into bondage.
EP “It seemed good to the apostles and to the elders, with the whole assembly, to send chosen men from among them with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch,
[p. 75] Judas called Barsabas and Silas, leading men among the brethren” (Acts 15:22). The whole position was in keeping with it.
JT Just so. Bringing out how the spirit of liberty was still in the assembly at Jerusalem. So that the Me and thee in Matthew 17:27 is beautiful. He says, “Take that and give it to them for me and thee”. We are not obligated by God to do it, but lest we should be an offence we do it; but maintain the truth all the same. If men asked us to do something that others do, we are careful that the truth is not compromised by it. That is the point the Lord makes. He establishes the truth of sonship and then pays the tribute.
WGT This is a matter that ordinarily would have been handled by Judas, who “had the bag”, but it seems as if the Lord took it out of his hands.
JT The Lord did not enquire if Peter had something in the bag to meet the demand. The Lord’s creative position is brought into this. The sea is His; He knew it; He made it. The fishes of the sea were His; He knew where they were, and here is one fish, and Peter was to get that fish, and it has in its mouth just what is needed and no more. The stater is enough to pay the tax for two persons, and the Creator provides it, which brings in another side of the Lord’s position here.
EP It is really Psalm 8:6-9 in principle — “Thou hast made him to rule over the works of thy hands; thou hast put everything under his feet: sheep and oxen, all of them, and also the beasts of the field; the fowl of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, whatever passeth through the paths of the seas. Jehovah our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!”
JRH There seems to be a certain concession on the part of the Lord in paying this tax. Paul speaks of not giving place for one hour in this great matter that the truth might [p. 76] continue.
JT In relation to all governmental requirements, you go a long way; the demand was by an established authority. The temple tax was an established matter; there were those responsible for its collection, but the Lord makes the position of Himself and the disciples clear, before they paid it, so that the truth is maintained. That is what came up at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas maintain the truth at all cost. The letter written to “the brethren who are from among the nations” was very limited, but it contained what was needed to meet the emergency. It did not assert the truth of sonship. In the epistle to the Galatians where he refers to this very meeting at Jerusalem, Paul enlarges on the truth of sonship and the liberty that it implies. The letter sent out from Jerusalem did not go nearly as far as that. It was, however, supported by the Holy Spirit and carried the authority of the apostles at Jerusalem, which was needed to silence the judaisers. Paul carried and delivered it to the brethren, showing he was a son and ready to acquiesce with anything that was right and that furthered the prosperity and unity of the saints.
AHP While the Lord provides this tax and pays it, the following chapters indicate that the dignity of sonship should characterise the assembly.
JT Yes. It is a heavenly people that compose the assembly down here. They belong to heaven and they are sons. Chapter 18 carries this forward, showing that we deal with assembly matters on this line of sonship. It says, “if thy brother” — all is to be in the spirit of sonship. There is no exacting — it is to gain thy brother.
SP Is the teaching of these chapters drawing closer to that which is inside; in the previous chapters we had externals?
JT Yes, I think we are getting nearer. Scripture says of David that he built inward. The gospels are all on that line, John particularly, although, of course,
[p. 77] they deal also with what is public, but I think sonship is what is in mind as the great inner thought linking us with heaven. Heavenly dignity and liberty are implied. All assembly discipline is to be carried on in that spirit. So the passage in chapter 17 bears on chapter 18.