DIVINE NAMES (9)
[p. 330] DIVINE NAMES (9)
Luke 1:35; John 3:35,36; Matthew 12:8 - 12; John 1:1,2
JT At our last meeting we began to look at the titles attaching to the Lord Jesus as Man, and spoke of “Jesus” principally. It is thought that we should look at His titles. Son, Son of God, Son of Man, and The Word, at this time. We have only three meetings more after this and there is considerable ground to cover both as regards the titles of the Lord Jesus and the titles of the Holy Spirit.
It has been thought wise to begin with Luke as to our subject, having in mind that our Lord’s sonship is contingent on His incarnation and Luke gives us a fuller account than the other evangelists and particularly mentions the title Son of God. Matthew stresses the titles Jesus, Emmanuel and Christ, but the angel Gabriel according to Luke directed that the Lord, as born, should be called Son of God. It is assumed by many and has been generally believed that His sonship extended back into His part in the Deity before incarnation, but if that was so, the angel should have said, is Son of God. But it is “shall be called”; that is, He is called Son as born — “the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, Luke 1:35. In the three synoptic gospels He is declared from heaven to be Son of God, not at His birth but at His baptism. Of course as born He was Son just as much as He was as baptised or as much as He is now, but what is to be specially noted is that the angel Gabriel says, “shall be called”. If He were Son before incarnation then it could be said He is — who is Son of God.
ARS And what the Jews looked for was the Messiah, was it not?
JT Yes, but it is stated in the second Psalm that Jehovah said to Him: “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2:7. That confirms what we have [p. 331] been saying, that it was as begotten He was stated to be the Son. To add to that, you will remember that Nathanael said to Him, “thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”, John 1:49. There was no evidence that he had a revelation about the Lord Jesus as Peter did; it was simply that he took account of Him in that way, because He said that He saw Nathanael before Philip called him. He discerned in what the Lord said to him that He was the Son of God; that is, he connected what the Lord said to him with Psalm 2. That confirms really what we are saying — “shall be called” Gabriel says. He alludes to what people would say or call the Lord Jesus, and Nathanael calls Him the Son of God. And so did John the baptist call Him the Son of God as coming to Him, and so, in effect, did the blind man, who worshipped Him, John 9, and others. “Shall be called” — that is, it came out in Him as born into this world.
ARS And what do you say about Nebuchadnezzar? When Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were cast into the furnace, he said, “I see four men ... and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God”, Daniel 3:25.
JT Well, that undoubtedly alludes to what was coming. It is there in the plural; it is son ‘of the gods’ really; what Nebuchadnezzar would mean really is that he was a super-natural person, but it is translated “is like a son of God”. You can see the Holy Spirit had the incarnation in mind, that the Lord Jesus would be identified with His people in their sufferings.
AR Would you say that the title ‘Son of God’ is a graded title, whereas the Lord before incarnation, as it says in Philippians, was on an equality with God?
JT Yes; — “who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God”, Philippians 2:6. The allusion there is to His deity, of course, that He was God, as John 1:1 says — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, meaning that He had part in the Deity.
ANW In one of your addresses you had identified the Lord, I think, in Daniel 3, as the Son of God, but you now say that that was merely foreshadowing.
JT Oh, I should not say He was not there; He was there in some sense. It is Nebuchadnezzar’s apprehension that is mentioned; the Spirit of God does not say that it was the Son of God, but that Nebuchadnezzar said that. But if He were there, it would be anticipating what He was coming to take on. Jehovah was one of the three ‘men’ who came to Abraham, Genesis 18:2. No doubt as to the Person, it was the Lord Jesus, but He was not incarnate.
ABP In a methodical writer like Luke, having accompanied Paul, he would be very careful as to the selection of words in dealing with this great subject, would he not? I refer to what you have already said as to “he shall be called Son of God”.
JT Yes, as you say, he is a methodical writer and of course all the scripture writers are, but he is peculiarly that. Instead of saying He is the Son of God, the angel says He shall be called that, meaning that it should come out in Him, the characteristics of God should come out in His Son as here.
HH The statement in Psalm 2, “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, in a certain sense is in a Jewish setting. There are wonderful gems in the Psalms.
JT Clearly it is in the Jewish setting — the first book of Psalms. But it is brought into the New Testament very prominently, especially in Hebrews — all the teaching as to sonship in Hebrews, we may say, is founded upon Psalm 2.
AAT I suppose Mary knew that He was the Son of God at His birth according to Luke, but John the baptist, although a cousin to the Lord, did not know Him as the Son of God until His baptism.
JT Yes, he says, “I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptise with water, he said to me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God”, John 1:33,34. That is what he says; that is, he saw the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him; that was an evidence that “He it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit”. Thus John bore “witness that this is the Son of God”.
HH The word ‘son’ means son, and the idea of only-begotten implies the Lord’s birth. I mean, we do not want to put definitions on words in Scripture that are not justifiable.
JT The word begotten means begotten.
HH It used to be said that it was a term of endearment simply; the brethren were not clear about the matter so it was referred to in that way. But sonship is sonship. If a man has sons, he can speak about his sons, but if he does not have any sons he cannot.
CAM God gives an intimation of a matter like this, in creation, such as “the sons of God”, but it is only a suggestion until Christ comes in and then we have the full meaning of what God always had in His mind.
JT Exactly; John the baptist is used specifically to bring it out. “I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God”, John 1:34. He is able to say that and that was not simply because the voice from heaven proclaimed His sonship at the Jordan, but because the Holy Spirit came and abode upon Him. That is what John speaks of.
AAT Did he get it by revelation?
JT Well, “upon whom” — it is equal to revelation. He is told how he is to recognise the Son of God; namely, “upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit”. That is what John is told, and his deduction is, “I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God”. There is thus a clear testimony to Christ’s sonship. The Lord says He had other witnesses as to His Person than John the baptist, but John the baptist was an important witness. The Father witnesses to Him in a proclamation from heaven at the Jordan and another at the mount of transfiguration.
JTJr “This ...”, would that allude to the flesh and blood condition into which He had come — when he says ‘this’; “this is the Son of God”?
JT Quite so; the Man that was there before their eyes had come to him to be baptised, and the Father proclaims Him as His beloved Son, and John witnesses that He is the Son of God.
CAM The questions raised in Psalm 8:4 had to wait for the coming of Christ, did they not?
JT Yes. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and splendour”, Psalm 8:4,5. That refers to Him as Man; that is, Son of man, which we shall come to presently. But in Proverbs 30 we have “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?”, Proverbs 30:4. All that awaited the incarnation; both the truth of the Son of man and the truth of the Son of God awaited the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in flesh and blood.
WB-w It came to light in Melchisedec in connection with Abraham. He is said in Hebrews to be assimilated to the Son of God. Do you link that on with Daniel 3?
JT Yes. The likeness of the Son of God is in Genesis 14, but the word son is not used of Melchisedec there, whereas it is attached to the Person seen in the furnace.
WB-w The testimony of sonship is given [p. 335] in Hebrews.
JT The testimony awaited Hebrews, but in Daniel it is one “like a son of God”. In Genesis 14 Melchisedec is the priest of the Most High God, but he is assimilated to the Son of God the writer of the Hebrews says, and abides a priest eternally. Sonship in Psalm 2 is connected with that in Hebrews.
WB-w Is the featuring of Abraham and Melchisedec to instruct us as to the Son of God?
JT Clearly, from the standpoint of Hebrews. Genesis 14, Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 are linked together in the epistle to the Hebrews to set out the truth of Christ’s sonship and priesthood.
HH As regards the thought of person — the Lord ever was a Person. I mean, He did not just become a Person when He became incarnate; He was a divine Person before then, and is a divine Person now.
JT Quite so. John brings that side of the truth out: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”, John 1:14. The Person became, took on, another condition, but He remains unchanged as to His abstract personality in the Deity. His becoming a Man does not alter that. But it is as a Man here that He is designated Son of God; that is the point — “shall be called”, the angel Gabriel says.
ABP Did you have in mind in that expression that we should be able to call Him Son of God as discerning features in Him of sonship; not merely because we have learnt from Scripture that He is the Son of God, but because of apprehension in our souls of certain features in the Person?
JT Yes. That is what is in mind in the word of the Angel — “shall be called Son of God” without saying who should call Him that. Of course the Father proclaimed Him from heaven as the Son, but as I said Nathanael proclaimed Him too; said He was the Son of God. Those in the boat with Him when He stilled the waves, and Peter who walked on the water said He was Son of [p. 336] God. It came out in Him and different ones said He was Son of God.
WB-w How do you reconcile the scriptures you referred to with Matthew 11 — “No one knows the Son but the Father”, verse 27?
JT It is a question of the Person, as over against the Father, for He says, “No one knows the Son”. It is not a question of sonship but personality — the Person; whatever name you may designate Him by. He is inscrutable. That is what is meant. He is not as to His Person, a subject of Revelation; as a Man here He is to be known. As Son, we are to come to know Him, according to Ephesians, but that is not a question of His inscrutable personality.
WB-w That is a good distinction between inscrutable personality, and what He is in relation to men as become Man.
JT You can designate Him by the titles Christ, The Son, The Word or the name Jesus. It is the Person you have in mind.
AR That is why the Lord said: “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” John 9:35.
JT Yes; it is a question of what He became; He wanted the blind man to know Him as God’s Son, representative of God here, an object of faith as God is, so that the man worshipped Him. He said, “I believe, Lord: and he did him homage”, John 9:38.
EEH Say more in reference to the error of applying sonship to Christ prior to incarnation. It is very important in view of the fact that many of the brethren are confused, especially in relation to Proverbs 8, although in that chapter nothing is said at all of sonship. It simply says, “I was by him”. Some of the brethren seem to use that to indicate Him as Son prior to incarnation.
JT Yes; it had been commonly used in that way, but as you say, the word ‘Son’ is not there. It is the word ‘wisdom’. It is a feminine word. The chapter speaks of wisdom as having been brought forth, or born. Surely it is not right to speak of the Lord as if He had been born in the past eternity. He is the Jehovah, who was creating. We are told in John’s gospel, there was not one thing made that was not made by Him. He is the Jehovah that is creating there, and wisdom is by Him, daily His delight. Wisdom there is a divine quality. It is personified in Proverbs, and in the New Testament. The Lord says, “Wisdom has been justified of all her children”. It can only be said to be a name of Christ, as become Man, for He is called the wisdom of God. There are also the children of wisdom. The word in Proverbs 8 is feminine. And it is “brought forth”, as if begotten or born.
HH In a certain way, it may attach to Christ in view of His coming in, but the way that chapter has been used to establish an eternal sonship of Christ is perfectly wrong.
JT Well, it is derogatory. Let us look at the passage. “Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up” (notice the word is ‘anointed’) “I was set up from eternity, from the beginning, before the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth” (notice ‘brought forth’. It is an allusion to birth). “When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth” (the same expression); “while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the beginning of the dust of the world”.
“When he prepared the heavens I was there; when he ordained the circle upon the face of the deep; when he established the skies above, when the fountains of the deep became strong; when he imposed on the sea his decree that the waters should not pass his commandment, when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him his nursling, and I was daily his delight,
[p. 338] rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights were with the sons of men”, Proverbs 8:22 - 31. All that is wisdom speaking. Jehovah is the Creator, and John 1 tells us that the Creator was Jesus. “All things received being through him”, John 1:3.
AR That last section of the verse — “my delights were with the sons of men” that is still wisdom, is it?
JT Yes; still wisdom; she anticipated men, of course. It came out in Christ when He became Man. It was all there, but we cannot apply it to Christ in the full sense. He was not brought forth. He was the Jehovah who was making the universe. You can understand it applied to a quality and that quality belongs to God, and comes in when it is necessary. When the universe was set up, wisdom was there, implying that infinite wisdom was employed.
ABP Is there not a link between Proverbs 8 and Luke 7:35, “wisdom has been justified of all her children”?
JT Just so; the disciples were children of wisdom. Christ was wisdom here upon earth. He is said to be the wisdom of God.
WB-w What is your thought in the quality being personified?
JT There are other qualities personified in the book of Proverbs. “I wisdom dwell with prudence”. That is an allusion to prudence being a personified quality.
HH ‘Personification is a figure of speech by which inanimate objects and qualities are regarded as human persons’. That is a definition in a dictionary.
FNW Is there divine order in Romans 1 — “come of David’s seed according to flesh”, and then “marked out Son of God in power”, Romans 1:3?
JT “Marked out Son of God” by certain things He did; exactly. “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, showing that the [p. 339] power of sonship was there; the power of God was there.
JTJr Satan takes up the matter in Matthew 4: “If thou be Son of God”, Matthew 4:3. He brings that side in to try to lead the Lord off the line that He had come in on, that of obedience.
JT Yes, he wanted Him to act as God in sonship, a title attaching to Him as Man, so that the Lord immediately answers him, “Man shall not live by bread alone”, verse 4, suggesting that He meant that sonship was in manhood.
ANW Do you see any reason why the Spirit stresses the title ‘Son’ in Hebrews?
JT The book begins thus: “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in (the person of the) Son”, Hebrews 1:1,2. That is an historical reference, that the Son was speaking. Isaiah and many others had spoken, but now it was the Son. Clearly He is viewed as a Man speaking here as the prophets had spoken, but the Speaker now is a divine Person in the relation of Son. “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”, Psalm 45:6 is quoted to emphasise the deity of Christ, but it is the Man here, the Person known here historically that is in mind; that is as clear as anything can be in the Scriptures. The setting out of the truth in Hebrews is that God spoke in a Man down here; that is, in a Person, the Son, instead of in an ordinary man like Isaiah or Elijah.
CAM I think the truth is that the idea of manhood or sonship or typical names would have no meaning if Christ had not come into them.
JT He must come in and appear before men Gabriel says. He “shall be called Son of God”. People see that He is not an ordinary Man; He is a divine Person.
AAT Do we have any scripture as to His title before incarnation?
JT The divine titles of the Old Testament included Him, for He was then “in the form of God”. Then there were prophetic allusions to His manhood, as “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2:7.
AAT That was not His title before incarnation, was it?
JT No; that is in time; it is this day; it is not eternity; “I this day have begotten thee”. It is day, we must go back to the beginning of Genesis for it; it is one of the days of creation.
WB-w Psalm 2 is only a prophetic reference, is it not?
JT That is all; it came to pass when the Lord Jesus was born, so that the psalm says, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way”, Psalm 2:12. The kings are called upon to recognise the Son while they are in the way with Him.
HH The Psalms were waiting for Christ. Their full application required His presence here as Man.
JT The whole Bible would be unintelligible without the incarnation. It could never be understood spiritually; it is the Son coming in that makes everything clear. Philip says, “Come and see”, John 1:46. Nathanael came to Him and said, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel”, John 1:49. He is one of those who call Him Son, and we all need to come to that, to see what sonship means in Jesus, and regard Him accordingly in our own experimental way.
Now I think we ought to go on to the title ‘Son’. We have the Son of God as Christ on God’s side, but Son of Man is that He is on man’s side, which we shall come to presently, but the title Son is usually more a question of His Person; that is, He has the dignity in the testimony of God, that He is the Son. The greatest things are stated of Him as the Son. Of the Son God says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”, Psalm 45:6.
HH In that way would it be right to say, that the term ‘the Son’ covers the whole truth of His Person?
JT I think it does; only the title refers to Him as Man, and He says the Son can do nothing of Himself, which we ought to reverentially look at in John 5: “Verily, verily, I say to you. The Son can do nothing of himself save whatever he sees the Father doing: for whatever things he does, these things also the Son does in like manner”, John 5:19. You can see that is the Lord Jesus speaking of Himself as a Man here, in subjection to the Father. And so, using the same title in Mark 13, He says, “neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father”, Mark 13:32. The Father has reserved to Himself the knowledge of the day and the hour of the Lord’s coming. To put that scripture back into His state and part in Deity before incarnation is not right. It is the Lord become a Man here that speaks thus.
AR Would John 5:26 confirm that? It says, “For even as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself”.
JT You cannot think of one Person as in abstract deity, where They are all equal, speaking in that way. It is as become Man, He receives from the Father.
ARS In the boyhood of the Lord, there is not much said about all this. It is only after the Lord was baptised and commenced His public ministry that you find all this coming out about Him.
JT That is right, only the angel Gabriel did not limit it to time, “He shall be called” is a general thought, and He plainly intimates it when He was twelve years of age: “did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?” Luke 2:49.
HH Would you include 1 Corinthians 15 in what you have been saying about the Son: “then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him”, 1 Corinthians 15:28?
JT Quite so; that is another one. It is just to bring out that these tides, whilst they plainly mark the Lord as a divine Person, One equal with God, because that is [p. 342] what is stated too in John 5, yet He is in the place of subjection as Man. To make it attach to Him as in the Deity, as “in the form of God” is not right I am certain.
ABP Would it be right to attach the thought of development reverently with the Son? I had in mind that the circumstances through which the Lord Jesus passed, never having passed through such before coming into manhood, would give Him the possibility, if one might put it that way, of learning God in varying circumstances.
HH It says, “He learned obedience”, Hebrews 5:8. Quite a new feature, would one say reverently, for a divine Person to learn obedience.
JT Before incarnation as God, He commanded — He was not in the position of obedience. You cannot attach the idea of learning to Deity. But it is as coming into manhood that it is attachable to Him. “He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the instructed”, Isaiah 50:4. Think how the Lord could say that!
AR John 5:20 says, “For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things which he himself does”. Would that be confirmatory of what has been said? He depended on the Father to show Him certain things.
JT Yes. And then at the same time. His Person is protected, for He says, “that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father”, John 5:23.
AS Would verse 27 help there? It says, “Because He is Son of man”, John 5:27.
JT Yes; that alludes to the exercise of judgment. It is because He is Son of man He executes judgment. Men will get consideration in judgment inasmuch as it is the Son of man that judges us; He is on our side.
JTJr In regard to the thought of the Son, Scripture says, “If therefore the Son shall set you free, ye shall be really free”, John 8:36. Does that emphasise the thought of His own personal service in relation to us?
JT Quite so, and He abides in the house for ever.
[p. 343] That, in itself, shows that He is a divine Person. Now the passage read in the end of John 3 says, “the Father loves the Son”, John 3:35. How very touching that is! “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, Matthew 3:17, the Father says: but here, “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”, John 3:35. His position in administration is as Son, but also as loved by the Father; so that coming under this administration, we are in the sphere of the radiation of divine affections.
AAT Is that called eternal life?
JT It would include it, but in the next chapter you see the Samaritan woman talking to the Lord, and the Lord talking to her. The idea of the Father comes into it and what the Father is. How can you explain that, except that there was a radiation of divine affection; that there was a condition great enough for the introduction of the great thought of what God is, that He is a spirit? “God is a spirit”, John 4:24, the Lord says. He also said, “the Father seeks such as his worshippers”, John 4:23, who worship Him in spirit and truth.
ANW That throws light upon the Lord’s previous statement: “he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him”, John 3:36.
JT So that christianity is properly in the range of divine affections, and I believe the woman came into it, in principle, so that He could speak so freely to her. How could she rise to the greatness of the conversation, which she evidently did to some extent, save in the atmosphere that was there that set her free?
AC I suppose that is why at the end of the discourse she said to the men, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done”, John 4:29 Clearly; and there must have been something of power in her manner, so that they believed her and they went to the Lord because of her word.
[p. 344] APT As to this circle of affection, John 3:35 and John 5:20 indicate remarkable thoughts in relation to the operations of love. It says in a note to John 21:15 that the former is ‘the settled disposition of the person (necessarily resulting in activity) rather than as an emotion; the latter signifies the love of friendship, and implies attractiveness in the loved’.
JT That is very interesting instruction. It is a question of the two Greek words used for love and their meaning.
ABP Would you suggest that in the life of Christ, the life of the Son here, every movement that He made gave the Father fresh occasion to love Him?
JT I am sure that is so and it is a beautiful thought.
CAM Would it be right to say that all the administrative lines enter into John’s gospel in the sense that you have emphasised, the closing period of the Lord’s life especially? And so the whole course of christianity, would it be right to say, has resulted now in these last days in an abundance of love in the understanding of the relationship of sonship?
JT Yes; it is John that tells us how long the two who first were attracted to Jesus remained with Him. He is the disciple whom Jesus loved, and thus knew love; and so he was qualified to set it forth.
AAT Is this realm of divine affections, of which you are speaking, touched on the Lord’s day morning?
JT Quite so; it is a question of coming within the range of divine radiation — “the Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”, John 3:35. Now that is carried into chapter 4, and I believe an understanding of the conversation between the Lord and the woman opens it up for us, that she came under the influence of divine affections. She was rapidly affected; she left her water pot, indicating that she understood what the Lord was saying, that the water pot would be herself, that she would be used for living water.
[p. 345] Although understanding it but little, she came under the power of divine love and then she brings others into it. Then they invite the Lord to stay there, which He does; He remains two days with them; it is a question of the influence of the light of divine love.
Rem So you would say the assembly has really become that. It says in Colossians, “translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love”, Colossians 1:13.
JT Quite so. That is where we are, I hope, at these meetings and that is why the brethren should attend them, because it is not only what is said, but the radiation of divine affections.
AR So that the Lord says in chapter 16, “For the Father himself has affection for you, because ye have had affection for me”, John 16:27. That is really extending the circle, is it not?
JT Quite so, and the disciples say to Him, “Lo, now thou speakest openly and utterest no allegory ... By this we believe that thou art come from God”. Now in regard to the title ‘Son of man’, the third scripture read was in Matthew 12:8, “For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath”. It was read to bring out just that the title Son of man conveys that He has got authority, and authority for enforcing what is good. We were speaking lately about the Lord’s day, that He has to do with time in the great administrative position He is occupying. He can take one day and say, That is mine, and He leaves man the other six, as it were. He says, “For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath”; that is. He has authority with regard to time. He can set aside the sabbath. He can leave Saturday and give us Sunday. He has done that. He is going to take over all time presently. The millennium is one thousand years. He will utilise that time. In the meantime. He is laying claim to one day, called the ‘Lord’s day’ the dominical day, where He has rule. I thought it would be helpful to see that the Lord says here that the Son of man is [p. 346] Lord of the sabbath — and what is He doing with it? Well, He heals a man’s withered hand on that day. The Pharisees would destroy Him for this. They would take a sheep out of a pit on the sabbath however. The Lord says, “What man shall there be of you who has one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and raise it up”, Matthew 12:11. Now He is showing that He is going to use the sabbath for the benefit of man.
AAT How about transferring that to the first day of the week?
JT Well the Lord has done that effectively. Here the chapter says, “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath through the cornfields; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, seeing it, said to him. Behold, thy disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath. But he said to them, Have ye not read what David did? etc”, Matthew 12:3. That is, He defends what His disciples are doing. He is making the sabbath free for men.
Ques In defending it, is He setting it aside?
JT Well, He is setting it aside as the sabbath. He is changing the day. The first day of the week is not the sabbath. The Lord’s day is not the sabbath. This is important, because there are those who make it the sabbath. We are all apt to lie longer on Sunday morning than on Saturday or Monday. That is carrying the idea of the sabbath. In Scotland they used to say, ‘A long lie and a tea breakfast on Sunday’. That is not the idea at all. The Lord is saying that He is Lord of the sabbath, and if a sheep falls into a pit, into a ditch, you can pull it out; or if a man has a withered hand, you can heal him. You can utilise the sabbath for the benefit of man, but then in effect, when He proceeds to change the day. He is up very early indeed in the morning, and He is working late in the evening, John 20:1,19. So we cannot use the Lord’s day to rest ourselves or have a late breakfast.
[p. 347] The later we have the breakfast, the poorer the day will be. It is a question of spirituality. It is a day that the Lord is supreme in, and He has a great deal to do, and He wants us to be with Him in it.
CAM Luke 24 shews that there is a lot to be done in that day. Two of the disciples went back to the assembly with what they had learned of the Lord’s activities. They seemed to have disregarded the lateness of the day.
JT John says, “It was evening on that day”, that is late, John 20:19. This scripture in Matthew 12 is a question of how the Lord sets us free. He went into the cornfield on the sabbath, and the disciples did the same, and they did more; they plucked the ears of corn, which He did not do. They were moving in the liberty which He was inaugurating. He was setting them free, and He says, formally, “The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath”; that is, the Son of man can act for the benefit of man even to the changing of the day.
ABP Would His service to us on the Lord’s day be in view of our lifting up holy hands?
JT Quite so; it is not a question of resting on the Lord’s day. If we are with the Lord in it, following His example, it will be well filled out.
ABP This man was able to lift up holy hands.
ANW In Acts 20, they carried on until midnight in discourse and broke bread in the morning.
JT That is what is stated, showing that the Lord never intended to make another sabbath. He is called Lord of the sabbath, but He inaugurates the Lord’s day, His day.
HH Over against that, He lay in the grave on the sabbath.
AMacd Do we see that in Revelation 1? John says, “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”, and then he says, “I saw ... one like the Son of man”, Revelation 1:10,[p. 348] 13.
JT Just so. It links up the Son of man there. Present conditions abroad are causing isolation among the brethren. We cannot see each other as we used to. I mean from nation to nation. Now John calls attention to that fact; that he was in an island. “I John ... was in the island called Patmos”, Revelation 1:9. An island is isolation, but he was not hindered in spite of the isolation. He says, “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”; that is to say, he is asserting the Lord’s title to time, and that he is set free on it; he is in the Spirit on it, and he hears a voice behind him and he sees one like the Son of man. It is the Son of man that is setting us at liberty. If we cannot see one another personally, if we are in the Spirit, we shall see each other and link with one another spiritually, so that he says, “I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus”.
Ques At what particular time was that day introduced, the Lord’s day?
JT I think when the Lord started, and it was to see the saints, it was early in the morning. He arose from the dead very early. Matthew would say, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay”, Matthew 28:6. He broke through on that day and worked away until late in the evening according to John. It was a long day.
Ques In distinguishing the sabbath from the first day of the week, do you get in Mark 16 proper distinction? It says: “And the sabbath being now past”, Mark 16:1, and “And very early on the first day of the week”, Mark 16:2.
JT That is where the change took place, and the Lord’s activity began. The Lord is asserting in this dispensation that He has a day and that His supper runs with it, the dominical day and the dominical supper. Whatever men may do to close up the ways of travel, these two things hold, that the Lord has a day and that the Lord has a Supper, and so far we are in [p. 349] possession of both and we must make the most of both; but not in laziness, not in sabbath keeping; but in holy activity in the King’s business.
AC Would Psalm 118 fit in with what you are citing? “This is the day that Jehovah hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it”, Psalm 118:24.
JT Yes.
Ques Would you say what the writer has in mind in Hebrews 4? “There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God”, Hebrews 4:9.
JT That is future; that is what we are coming into. “For we enter into the rest who have believed”, Hebrews 4:3. It is the rest of God; the writer is bringing out from the Old Testament that it is yet future. “There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God”, Hebrews 4:9. Joshua did not give them that rest. But those who believe enter into that rest. That is altogether spiritual and the sabbath has an application in a spiritual sense, that I take in and absorb spiritual things. But as to time, the Lord has it in His hands; He is Lord of it; it belongs to Him.
HH “Come to me ... and I will give you rest”, Matthew 11:28. There is the point of rest in Christ.
JT That is rest for your souls, but to make the Lord’s day a time of mere physical rest is not right; the Lord never intended the first day of the week to be that. He intends us to be with Him in it, and He was most active there the whole day, as we have seen.
JTJr In Deuteronomy we have the length of Og’s bed. He had a big bed, and I suppose that is the idea you have in mind. You mean we should not the use the Lord’s day for that.
JT I am sure that is right; the longer we lie in bed in the morning the poorer we shall be spiritually throughout the day.
ABP According to the record in the gospels, no matter how early you get up on the Lord’s day the Lord precedes [p. 350] us.
JT Quite so; He is up early and so it is in the Old Testament; they rose up early to do important things.
Well, what we have been saying is to bring out the truth of the Son of man; how He operates for the benefit of man. That is what I thought we might see in this scripture in Matthew.
Ques It is said in this chapter that for any person speaking injuriously against the Son of man there will be forgiveness, but speaking injuriously against the Spirit there will be none.
JT Well, I think the Son of man is Christ viewed on man’s side; forgiveness to one speaking against Himself, He allows, but He will not allow it to one speaking against the Holy Spirit. There is no forgiveness for it in this age nor in the coming one. ‘Son of man’ is a term of grace; He is on man’s side and has patience with man. That He executes judgment because He is Son of man would show that He exercises patience in it.
Ques Why I ask that is because you were referring very much to the thought of the Lord here in relation to the sabbath.
JT He goes on to say that it is for man. Mark quotes the Lord saying, “The sabbath was made on account of man, not man on account of the sabbath”, Mark 2:27. He is doing all possible for man and points out that a man is better than a sheep. He is on man’s side, as Son of man. He is on God’s side as Son of God.
AAT What about the title “The Word”?
JT What is in mind has been anticipated in our remarks that the Word is a title referring to Christ as having conveyed the mind of God. Some say it was the name He had in Deity, which is not supported in Scripture. It is a name that He had here among men. His Name is called the “Word of God”, we are told in Revelation, and in Luke, there were those who were eye-witnesses and attendants upon the Word. That is what [p. 351] He was here, unfolding the mind of God. John takes it up to show that that Person existed before time. He is the Creator; He is God. Thus He could speak or convey the mind of God perfectly.
ABP Would it be right to say that there is no title that can fully describe God? Of all these titles that we have in Scripture, the very fact that they are used in relation to creation, indicates they cannot in themselves fully express God.
JT What He is in His absolute relations we cannot take in. There is no title that really conveys it to us. Of course, the word god, may be applied to man and is so in Scripture, see John 10:34,35. The Son declared God, and of course the names of God had been in use before the declaration.
WB-w The expression ‘the Word’ is used three times in verse 1. Does that mean that God is going to express Himself in that Person to man?
JT That is what had happened. It had happened already when John wrote this gospel. He is writing to establish what had already happened; that this Person who had come in and gone out amongst them and had died for them had made the mind of God known.
WB-w Has the title Word the thought of language in it?
JT Quite so; that is the force of it. It is that the Lord Jesus can tell you all about God, and has done so. He has done it.
WB-w That goes beyond all language.
ABP Is not creation one of God’s languages?
JT Just so; to some extent, the creation is that in which He may be read and understood.
ABP Is that why ‘the Word’ is used as a title here of the Person who created; not that He created as ‘the Word’, but there was an expression of those features in what He did?
JT He had in mind that God should be known.
“[p. 352] the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity”, Romans 1:20. So that creation is in a limited way a language.
ANW When He says, “I am the Alpha and Omega”, Revelation 22:13, He means that He has covered every word that can be said.
JT Psalm 19 is perhaps the best confirmation of that, that we have. It is said, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse showeth the work of his hands. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech and there are no words, yet their voice is heard. Their line” (the extent of their testimony) “is gone out through all the earth, and their language to the extremity of the world”, Psalm 19:1 - 4. and all that is included in the idea of ‘the Word’.