DIVINE NAMES (8)
[p. 310] DIVINE NAMES (8)
Matthew 1:20 - 25; Luke 1:26 - 35
JT For the sake of our visiting brethren, it may be remarked that in these monthly meetings we are considering the great subject of Divine Names. We have so far considered the Father — in the first reading, in subsequent meetings we considered God as in the names peculiar to the Old Testament, such as, Elohim, the Highest, and the Almighty, and above all, Jehovah; so that at our last meeting, we considered that we reached the end of the Old Testament. There are four readings remaining, so it is thought that we might look into the New Testament again with regard to the names or titles of our Lord Jesus and of the Holy Spirit.
The proposal now is that we might consider Jesus, and Jesus Christ, and Christ Jesus, and Messiah at this reading — referring to sections in Matthew and Luke. It is thought well to begin with Matthew in our subject, because it gives the legal side of our Lord’s position as become Man. The genealogy establishes that He was Son of David, Son of Abraham, and in the course of the angel’s remarks to Joseph (Joseph is more prominent in Matthew than in Luke) we have the remarkable statement that Jesus implies Deity. It is said, “For he shall save his people from their sins”, Matthew 1:21. The ‘for’ there is sequential in that it alludes to the meaning of the name Jesus, which we get in the Old Testament — “Jah, the Saviour”. The word ‘saviour’ is alluded to. It is the enlarged name of Joshua, and the first name given to him; although it was literally given to him as he searched out the land, the first mention of him is not as ‘Hoshea’ but Joshua, which means, Jah, the saviour. That is a clear statement of His deity. The name Jesus designates Him as Man, but it also involves His Deity. This is a point that each of us should understand, because it greatly enhances in our minds the Person of Christ — who He is.
[p. 311] It is not a mere human name. It is a name given to Him in incarnation, but a name covering the truth of His Person.
Another thing that confirms that, and it is very significant in Matthew, is what was said to the prophet, “Now all this came to pass that that might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord, through the prophet saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’”, Matthew 1:22,23. So these two allusions to the Old Testament are very significant here. There are no more significant statements really as to our subject, because they point directly to the deity of Christ: first, as Saviour of His people, meaning God’s people, and then Emmanuel, that Person is with His people. And it is said further, in Luke, that Mary was to call His name Jesus. The angel in Luke would put it on Mary to do this, but significantly it is Joseph here, the male side, establishing the full position of Christ as in manhood, that He is God, and that He has people, and that He saves them and that He is with His people, the word ‘Emmanuel’ meaning this. What we have, therefore, in this chapter is on a sure footing. It is well to have all this before us, because it is very establishing and confirming as to the ground we are on as gathering to the name of the Lord Jesus.
AR In that way, Jehovah that we have been dwelling upon in the Old Testament is now here in a babe, is that the idea?
JT Just so, Jehovah the Saviour, and that He is with His people.
Ques The apostle says, “For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell”, Colossians 1:19, does he refer to the incarnation?
JT Yes.
CAM When you say the ‘legal side’ of things, do you have in your mind government and responsibility as [p. 312] in Adam?
JT Well, what God had ordered or inaugurated, was binding in the sense of being of Him. It is what is of God, as governing an order of things. It appears in God putting Adam under responsibility, not to eat of a given tree. But then besides, He established Adam over the lower creation. “And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth”, Genesis 1:28; that is, man is established legally in that position. It is morally right that man should be supreme in the creation, but it is legally right; that is, God has enjoined it, and that runs into many things. It comes down to Noah. Noah was established as having authority over the creatures, and to use them for food. There was no legal right to do that before, but after the flood it was inaugurated by God that man could kill a cow or a sheep and eat it. Then we have later many other things, but particularly what is enjoined at Sinai. There is a system of things enjoined there, so the Lord says, “One iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass”, Matthew 5:18. He magnified it and made it honourable, that is, He established by practice and example what God had enjoined through Moses. Applied to what is before us, our Lord is legally proved to be the Christ by the facts presented in Matthew 1: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”, Matthew 1:1. “Son of David” first, because it is a question of royalty on legal ground.
CAM It throws light on the gospel of Matthew to my mind, that God Himself should come into those matters, giving the idea of government and our responsibility as to it.
JT I think we shall see that as we consider the matter in going through Matthew how the legal side is established; not legal in the sense of enslavement, but establishing everything as of God, what God enjoins; and how it bears on the assembly, and the position [p. 313] of the remnant now. That is to say, is there a right ground? Or is it problematical? It is not problematical; what the saints go on with is legal; that is, it is according to what God has enjoined. So that each has to understand the ground he is on, whether it is divinely legal; whether it has been established by divine injunction.
JS Is it then the legal side as to royalty before the promise? Son of David comes before Son of Abraham.
JT Quite so. It is the royal side. God had gone to great pains to establish the house of David, and David says, “thou hast spoken also of thy servant’s house for a great while to come”, 2 Samuel 7:19. That “great while to come” implies eternity; and that book shows that the Lord Jesus is the promised son of David, not Solomon.
AR Is the angel not speaking to Joseph in what he has to say to establish the legal side?
JT And for good moral reasons. He is a righteous man. You do not get that in Luke. The angel takes account of and honours a righteous man, and so in Matthew you get later that if you do something for a righteous man, you get a righteous man’s reward. “He that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward”, Matthew 10:41. The book is on those lines. Things must be right, and Joseph is morally right in his position. It was right for him to have those exercises, but the angel respects that and adjusts him thoroughly, so that Joseph is brought into accord with God.
JS “A king shall reign in righteousness” would be this book.
JT That is right. Hence Matthew brings in the city of the great King; and the first people that rise from the dead go into Jerusalem, ‘the holy city’.
ANW Would you place this gospel first in the structure of our souls in dealing with that?
JT Well, it is a question of what we need to begin [p. 314] with. I would say Luke is what a sinner needs. Luke is the most evangelical of all the gospels, and of course what we all need is the gospel to set our souls right; so that the angel says to the shepherds, “For today a Saviour has been born to you in David’s city”, Luke 2:11. That is what we need. I would say that Luke is the gospel of the grace of God — which every sinner specially needs. But then the next thing would be whether he is going to be an assembly man, and every christian should be fit for the assembly; and I think Matthew is specially the gospel for the assembly. If I am to be an assembly man, if I am to be in fellowship, I must be a righteous man. One who is assembly material does not seek to justify himself in any matter by saying, The Lord knows my heart. That will not do for Matthew; in cases needing adjustment more than that is needed. The saints need to know something about your conduct and your associations and what you are saying. Matthew demands all these things.
Then, the next thing is the ministry, and Mark has that before him. So that he begins with “Jesus Christ, Son of God”. It is a question of the ministry, and then finally, the greatest thing of all, the deity of Christ. What He is from John’s point of view; formally stated to be God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, John 1:1. And the creation was by Him; that is, John goes back to the beginning of everything and establishes who Christ is in relation, not only to the creation in Genesis, but that which is before it. Whenever there was a beginning, He was there.
RWS Would you say how extensive is the statement, “for he shall save his people from their sins”? Matthew 1:21. Do you look at that as the people of God?
JT Well, the people of God, whoever they are. It would be immediately the Jews, Israel. Matthew quotes the Lord “I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel’s house”, Matthew 15:24. And He tells the apostles, “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”, Matthew 10:5. “Ye shall not have completed the cities of Israel until the Son of man be come”, Matthew 10:23. Thus “His people” would immediately be the Jews.
ARS When he says, “He shall save his people from their sins”, Matthew 1:21, does that allude to the condition of Israel, being under the Roman yoke because of their sins, and that He was coming in now to deliver?
JT That would be true, too. But there was a worse bondage than the Roman yoke. I mean, the bondage of sin. “Every one that practises sin is the bondman of sin”, John 8:34. It would be a great point to establish with any Jew that the Lord Jesus was really their Jehovah, and He was here to save them.
Ques Luke does not introduce the thought of sins in relation to the birth of Christ like Matthew, does he?
JT No; the formal statement is, as we read, “thou shalt call his name Jesus”, but he does not give the meaning of it, nor does he give Emmanuel. But he does say. He “shall be called Son of God”, meaning that He should develop that great thought in His life. As born He would be called Son of God.
CAM Matthew makes a great deal of the prophetic word and the fulfilment of Scripture? Does that fit in with what you are saying?
JT It does; the genealogical list comes first. We have had before us lately the importance of a chronicler as seen in the lists of David’s officers. Chronicling now is in the hearts of the saints, corresponding to the records kept in heaven — those too recognised in God’s world. The first thing therefore here is the chronicler’s work. “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Juda and his brethren; and Juda begat Phares”, etc., Matthew 1:2. Matthew says, “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ”, but this is based on earlier chronology, the work of chroniclers.
CAM If I understand then, the histories are in the living persons.
JT I would say that. I would say that from Abraham down, what is coming out now, what is to be established, was known before-hand; hence the Lord Jesus says, “Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced”, John 8:56. Well Abraham is the first mentioned. He is a good witness. “Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced”. I believe that is a key to all this genealogy.
SMcC What do you think about the mention of these different ones who appear somewhat under reproach in the Old Testament? You would think from a human standpoint they were poor names to be linked up in this way.
JT I suppose the fact that they are mentioned establishes as much as anything what we are speaking of, that they are witnesses to this great Person. The first questionable person is Thamar. What does her father-in-law have to say of her? “She is more righteous than I”, Genesis 38:26. Morally she is in accord with the royal line.
SMcC She had a link. She was very careful as to that. She establishes the legality of her position.
JT Quite so; that is what we will get to see in the genealogy that it carries the moral side down.
ANW It is said of Rahab, “and she dwelt in the midst of Israel till this day”, Joshua 6:25.
JT Quite so; all these are just witnesses to what we are saying.
JTJr The prophet says, “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah”. Would that link on with these witnesses? “And my servant whom I have chosen; that ye [p. 317] may know and believe me, and understand that I am HE”. Isaiah 43:10. Is that the idea you had in mind?
JT Yes. God establishes this line of witnesses from the beginning, and Abraham heads the line. You do not get it just that way in Luke. It is who people are of, going right back to God. Adam was of God. He was of Him on the principle of life. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. That was the link with God, a wonderful link; not a mere creative link, but it is the breath of life breathed into his nostrils by God. Well his position is thus clear enough — he is of God. One point in Luke is that Christ was to be called Son of God, but here it is that He is Son of David, Son of Abraham. In Abraham you have the great thought of sonship foreshadowed. “Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest”, Genesis 22:2.
FHL Isaiah says, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given”, Isaiah 9:6. Does that fit in establishing the legality of the position?
JT Yes. Matthew indicates who the ‘us’ are.
JTJr Stephen goes over that ground, beginning with the God of glory appearing to Abraham and finishing with Solomon, which pointed to the fact that He would bring this salvation to Israel.
JT Yes; he really is in line with Matthew, because one point in Matthew is to convict Israel; to convict the Jews of the murder of Christ. Stephen convicts them formally. There is a regular indictment in Stephen’s address, but still the idea of grace was there. So that he says, “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, ye also”, Acts 7:51. The work of the Holy Spirit would be in this genealogy, because it is largely in these mentioned that the testimony to Christ has been — in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David and many others.
Ques How do you connect what you are saying with the genealogy in Luke? Instead of working forward it works backward to God.
[p. 318] JT As we have said, it is ‘of’. Thus Adam was of God. “And Jehovah Elohim formed Man ... and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul”, Genesis 2:7. It was the “breath of life”, not simply breath. You will see that in Genesis 2. We cannot say God lives by breath as we do, but the breath of life was what was needed. What cannot God in this sense do? and what Adam needed was to be made to live. He is not made to live as a sheep is; he is made to live by the breath of life.
ANW The other living souls are in swarms, and come forth by the word of God.
JT Here it is not simply breath, but breath of life. It was breath of a peculiar kind; it linked him with God. That is the finish of Luke’s genealogy. “Who was of God”. Adam was of God by the breath of life.
Ques In Acts 17 there are three things said of the creature. “For in him we live and move and exist”, Acts 17:28. Where would you bring in breath there?
JT That is what we are as creatures simply. In Ecclesiastes 3:18 - 20 men and beasts are on the same footing. The wise man says what befalleth the children of man befalleth the beasts, that they have one breath. But the last chapter of Ecclesiastes says, “... the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit return unto God who gave it”, Ecclesiastes 12:7. That is, he rises to the truth of man’s link with God, that he got his spirit from God, which cannot be said of any other creature. Job says “the spirit of God is in my nostrils”, Job 27:3.
ABP Would the breath of life be in contrast to the breath of the Lord’s mouth, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which consumes?
JT Quite so. We have been speaking a little about that, how the breath of God ignites hell. “For Topheth is prepared of old; for the king also it is prepared: he hath made it deep and large; its pile is fire and much wood; the breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it”, Isaiah 30:33. It was prepared for the king, meaning for the devil, and the breath of God ignites the pile. That is how hell has been started; it is the breath of judgment. And so, as you say, “Whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming”, 2 Thessalonians 2:8. But the breath of life is the great thought of the link between man and God.
JTJr There is a note in regard to that in Genesis 7:22 — “everything which had in its nostrils the breath of life”. And Mr. Darby gives a note to that, ‘Breath of spirit of life’. That is, all that died in the flood.
JT And so we are told in Job 34:14,15 that if God gathered unto Him His breath all flesh would succumb. Thus what is man to be regarded “whose breath is in his nostrils”? That is, our breath is a superficial thing in one sense, but it is an eternal thing in another sense; through it God has access to all men, and in the believer it involves an abiding sense; a link with God.
JS So that our outbreathings should be to God.
FHL Is there a suggestion as to what is before us in Psalm 33, “By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth”, Psalm 33:6?
JT Yes, in the mention of “the breath of his mouth”; but that would not mean that they are living by breath as we are. The “host” is made by God’s breath, not made to live.
“The host of them” is metaphorical. The psalmist would allude to the host of heaven, the stars; “Jehovah of hosts” would refer to living beings; but they would be angels, and we cannot say they live by breath. We do not understand their existence.
CAM Referring to the matter of generations again, we have fourteen, and fourteen, and fourteen till you come to Christ; the living formation in those people [p. 320] pointed to Christ, so that when Christ comes in, all that is living in them is given a meaning by God Himself.
JT That is what I understand; the genealogical registry is in people. We are not directed to any literal registry here. ‘Book’ in verse 1 refers to what follows in the chapter to verse 17. We are given names beginning with Abraham. That is the key, I think, because of the Lord’s own remark about Abraham. “Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced”, John 8:56. That is, he pointed on to this Person. Just forty-two generations is sovereignty. God makes everything fit from His own point of view. He might have included more, for some names in the line of kings are omitted, but He would have three times fourteen.
JHE Would that be something like the crowd of names in the beginning of Acts?
JT Well, the suggestion there is that although a crowd you could count them. There were one hundred and twenty, but it means more there, I think, that is, that in spite of their being a crowd they are all distinguishable, ‘names’ implying that each had his own distinction; that is, you can say. That is Peter; That is John; That is James; I know these names, because I have the impression of them in my soul.
JHE That is what I was thinking. They were in keeping with this genealogy.
JT Only you could not apply the word ‘crowd’ here because this is a measured matter. This is forty-two generations. Think of the work of God in all those forty-two generations!
ANW In Acts 1:15 it is about one hundred and twenty: here, it is exactly forty-two.
JTJr So the prophet says, “I will work, and who shall hinder it?”, Isaiah 43:13. Do we see that working out here — no one can hinder it. God has brought it about.
JT Yes. There is much said now about tool [p. 321] making, and the idea of tools comes into what we are saying. The Lord is the great Tool-Maker, and tool-making requires great accuracy. The process of making things fit, so that they operate automatically necessitates this. The creation is most accurate. Think of the sun revolving all these centuries! And so here — fourteen generations three times. What accuracy God put into that, that He could pick out these names, that He could make them fit to bear testimony to the birth of Jesus, and that He was the Messiah! It is unquestionable; what is written on the whole list is that there is in it unquestionable witness to the legality of the claims of this glorious Person.
CAM So you get the astronomical idea in Matthew — the wise men were guided by a star, suggesting the ordinances of the heavens.
JT Quite so; The word ‘wisdom’ enters peculiarly into the creation. As the creation was proceeding wisdom was there; she speaks as a person, and says that she was daily Jehovah’s delight. I would say that God found delight in the means by which He was bringing things to pass.
Bringing that down to the assembly, we read “in order that now to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies might be made known through the assembly the all-various wisdom of God”, Ephesians 3:10. The material and everything is His delight; all these centuries God has been building the assembly, and every day and every minute brings Him pleasure.
SMcC It ought to help us today, that in spite of the carrying away to Babylon, the outward break-down and ruin in the church, the forty-two generations are going through.
JT Exactly; and you would like to be in the forty-second. That is the end; and it should be as accurate as pointing to Christ, as the first one seen in Abraham, bringing out what God is in them all.
HB Does the scripture, “the virgin ... shall bring forth”, Matthew 1:23, have a bearing on that, suggesting a vessel in whom all these thoughts are treasured?
JT Quite so. The virgin here enters into all that. She connects with all that, and Joseph too. He is a righteous man. You need him for that. He is just the man for the moment, amenable to the word of the angel.
HB Would that be why he is called the Son of David, rather than Joseph of the house of David as in Luke?
JT Just so. He is called son of David, Matthew 1:20.
AR Joseph is the last name mentioned in the list in Matthew. Would it suggest he had some light as to the promises made to Abraham himself?
JT I think so. The facts given show that he was a righteous man. “And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus”, Matthew 1:16. He is not behind the list; he is called a righteous man; he is tested out. You may be sure all these were tested out as to the element of righteousness.
HB “Who is called Christ”, Matthew 1:16, and then, “and thou shalt call”, Matthew 1:21, and “they shall call”, Matthew 1:23 — why the difference in tenses?
JT He is called Christ; that is. He is rightly so called. That is an historical fact. Who has called Him Christ? It does not say, but those who did knew what they were saying. The only one that the Lord informs as to Himself in that way is the woman of Samaria, an unlikely person from the natural point of view. “I who speak to thee am he”, John 4:26. Then she does not go and tell the men that He told her that; she says, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” John 4:29. She is a righteous woman. She has an impression; not because He told her, but because of what He said to her as to herself; and that is what enters into all these names. The principle is that God has had to do with them.
[p. 323] Ques What would be the feature in Luke? You were speaking about righteousness in Matthew.
JT Luke stresses the priestly side. There is a great deal more to be said about Matthew, but I think what we have had ought to help us as to the assembly’s legally established position, corresponding with the forty-two generations. As drawing near the end, that is a principle to keep before us. The line runs right through, and the legality of the position now is as clear as it was at Pentecost. There is no doubt about it.
ANW Arriving at Christ by these three fourteens. He is called Emmanuel. “They shall call his name Emmanuel”, Matthew 1:23.
JT It is most important to stress that. “God with us”. The disciples could easily say that a thousand times over; God was with them in Jesus. In Acts 1 the apostle to be chosen, was to be one of the men “who have assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us”, Acts 1:21. Every time they could say truthfully, God is with us. Emmanuel was there. The man that gets converted at Corinth says, God is among you of a truth (1 Corinthians 14:25). It is the presence of God that stabilises everything. The great question in any position is, Is God with us?
Rem John would emphasise that they beheld His glory; that would be his thought of Christ.
JT “We have contemplated his glory”, John says, John 1:14. The apostles did. Bringing the matter to the present time, is God with us? who can doubt it? So Matthew says, quoting the Lord, “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20. That is what we have to count on; as maintaining righteousness and assembly principles God is with us of a truth.
HB Moses says that is how we shall be distinguished above others, Exodus 33:16.
JT There are those who say they are on right ground, scriptural ground, but their meetings are flat.
[p. 324] They are not on the right ground if God is not with them; if there is no evidence that God is with them, they have no right to talk about it.
Rem There must have been much adjustment in Corinth before one could testify that God was among them of a truth, and yet the apostle says in the opening of the epistle “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”, 1 Corinthians 1:2.
JT Well, chapter 14, which we are quoting, is hypothetical. The apostle does not say it is that. If so-and-so happens, this is what will happen. If you prophesy one by one, and an unbeliever or simple person comes in he will fall down as convicted of all. The apostle does not say it was so, but he says that is what will happen if you proceed on these lines. The convicted man would do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you.
JS And does the name Emmanuel carry with it the idea of the land?
JT That is the next thing, that He has a territory. Well, that territory is what we have here today, what we ought to look for, conditions suitable, so that God is with us.
CN Do I understand you to mean that the presence of God in the assembly proves the position right?
JT Yes. You say, we hold the right doctrine; we hold the truth of the church, and so forth. But if your meetings are flat, and there is no spiritual power, what evidence of the presence of God is there? Normally the assembly is marked by the presence of God.
AR Would the end of Matthew support the idea of the legal side, of which we have been speaking? “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”, Matthew 28:20.
JT I was thinking of that, and it corresponds with chapter 18 that we so often quote: “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20.
[p. 325] There is one thing to be pointed out about Luke, and that is the use of the word ‘Highest’. “But in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent of God to a city of Galilee, of which the name was Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in to her, and said to her, Hail thou favoured one! the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou amongst women. But she, seeing the angel, was troubled at his word, and reasoned in her mind what this salutation might be. And the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God; and behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end. But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man? And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 1:26 - 35. I was thinking of the word ‘Highest’. How characteristic of Luke it is! It is moral elevation. It is not simply heaven but the Highest, what God is. He is morally elevated, apart from the order of things down here, and all that entering into this glorious Person, that He is the Son of the Highest. I was thinking that we might have that thought in our souls, the idea of the Highest. It is the most High of the Old Testament.
AR The angels said in the hearing of the shepherds, “Glory to God in the highest”, Luke 2:14.
JT And you get it later, in chapter 19, “glory in the highest”, Luke 19:38. So God is linking us on in Luke with great elevation.
Ques Does Luke bring in the birth of Christ in [p. 326] relation to the priestly family and would not the Highest fit in in that way on high moral lines?
JT Quite so.
JHE It starts off with the hill country, does it not?
JT That is another thing. Mary went to the hill country — moral elevation runs through Luke. God comes down to us in Jesus, even to the position of a babe in a manger. While God comes down so low, He is ever the Highest. Thus however humbled outwardly we are to maintain moral elevation.
HB Is that why Nazareth and Galilee are emphasised in Luke?
JT I think so. It is to bring out the lowliness He came into, but He was what He was, nevertheless.
RWS How do you view verse 35 — “And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee”, Luke 1:35? I was inquiring as to the Holy Spirit coming upon, and the Highest overshadowing.
JT Well, the overshadowing would be a spreading out. It precludes all else. I think it is to render the whole position a scene of holiness, but a moral elevation, too, the power of the Highest.
RWS In a divine Person?
JT Quite so. It is to create an environment precluding all else. It is a remarkable priestly statement, showing how God rendered the whole scene free from hostile elements — sterilised, to use a hospital term. It is to exclude all contamination from the scene.
Ques Is that why you have Melchisedec, priest of the Most High God brought in in that way?
JT Yes, moral elevation is implied there. This is the power of the Highest overshadowing. It has Mary as an object — overshadow thee. That is, it is this vessel in which God is operating. It is entire refusal or exclusion of all contaminating thoughts. The whole scene is not only sterilised, but rendered holy. It is made holy [p. 327] by the power of the overshadowing of the divinity, God Himself being there. Think of the scene, think of the operation, think of what is in mind! thus how essential all this is! And Luke opens that up as no one else does, being priestly in his gospel.
Ques Does the overshadowing of the ark by the cherubim correspond?
JT That is right. The overshadowing of the mercy-seat. The idea is protection, and the whole scene is rendered holy, so that there is no possibility of corruption there; and then the ‘Holy Thing’; it is not mere superficial holiness. The babes of christians are said to be holy, but that is only superficial or provisional. This is substantial holiness.
ANW Is “fine flour mingled with oil” the type?
JT Quite so.
AR The power of the highest overshadowing her, and earlier the passage says, “He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest”, Luke 1:32. Say just a word on that.
JT “Shall be called” in all these cases refers to development; what would come out in Him. What a person would be called is what he is worthy of being called. “And thou shalt call his name Jesus” that is a definite word from God. But “shall be called” — that is to say, what is there is named without saying who gives Him the name.
But, “He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest” and “Son of God” — Anyone could see in the Lord how morally He was infinitely above all that was around Him. “For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens”, Hebrews 7:26.
JHE At the end the centurion could say, “Truly this man was Son of God”, Matthew 27:54.
JT He called Him that.
CAM This expression “called Son of God” — the word ‘called’ there could not be understood had the Lord not clarified sonship.
JT We were noting lately the dominance of sonship. Sonship is dominant because of the Person in whom it is. How it shone in Christ is seen in Matthew 17.
AR Would it be right to say that Son of the Highest was seen even at twelve years of age?
JT It came out there. He says to His mother, “Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?” Luke 2:49. He was asserting His sonship. But then could she call Him son? She did not at that time; that is the sorrowful side. I am sure she did afterwards. It is her son (not the Lord Jesus, but John, the writer of the gospel) that was specially used to bring out the greatness of the sonship of Christ.
CN In his entry into Jerusalem on the colt it is said they who went before and those who followed after cried, “Hosanna to the son of David; blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest”, Matthew 21:9. There was a demonstration there that brought that out.
JT “Hosanna in the highest”. I thought we might especially consider the thought of the Highest so as to have it in our souls. These meetings are nothing if they do not elevate us and lift us up from the ordinary things around us.
JS Why do you think Gabriel is introduced here?
JT I think Gabriel is brought forward in Luke because he is the priestly angel; his name is given in Daniel too. He has a great regard for the saints. He comes to assure them that they are regarded in heaven. He knows how they are thought of in heaven. “Fear not, man greatly beloved”, he said to Daniel, Daniel 10:19. And so with Mary here. He says, “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God”, Luke 1:30. It is comforting to know that there is an angel who knows how you are regarded in heaven. The Lord says of children,
“[p. 329] I say unto you that their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens”, Matthew 18:10. I suppose the angels learn from the Father’s face. “There is joy before the angels of God for one repenting sinner”, Luke 15:10.
AR The word Gabriel means ‘man of God’. What do you say about that?
JT It is apparently that he represents man’s feelings, but in divine power; ‘el’ is power.