SPIRITUAL INSTINCTS IN SERVICE
SPIRITUAL INSTINCTS IN SERVICE
JT Luke deals with things from the outset. I thought it would be well to consider the application of this principle to those who serve. We have the details here of John the baptist, and of his infancy, and also of our Lord’s. I thought particularly of John, the first of whom it is said he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his infancy. It is important to have right spiritual instincts. Instead of what would stimulate the natural, we have the Spirit in the Baptist from the very outset; He would produce right feelings and instincts. “The child grew and was strengthened in spirit”, it says, “and he was in the deserts until the day of his shewing to Israel”. If the principle is brought out as to ministry, on the one hand spiritual instincts are developed from the beginning, and on the other, what is natural is kept in check and worn down by desert experience. John was not only in one desert, but in deserts; and then the word of God comes to him in the desert.
DLH Do you make any distinction between wilderness and desert?
JT We have the word ‘deserts’ in the end of the first chapter, and ‘wilderness’ here in the beginning of the third. It is the same word in the original. What had you in mind?
DLH I had heard some attempt to make a difference. I do not know of any.
JT The suggestion is that the Spirit, being there from the outset, would produce right instincts. John’s was an extraordinary case, pointing to the importance of right instincts underlying service, not only intelligence [p. 2] and understanding, but instincts and feelings. There would be an enormous advantage in the Spirit being there from the beginning of his history, and then, too, there was something further in the desert experience and the kind of garments he wore and the food he ate. I think it all conforms with divine requirements.
FF-t Is it significant that the word of God comes upon John? Is it to such that the word of God comes?
JT It would so appear. Scripture gives us the setting — the governmental circumstances. The word of. God comes to such an one as this amid these circumstances. He was not among the governments of the day. John appears as another development outside of them altogether; in the midst of all these dignitaries, to such an one has the word of God come. Here was one having a secret history, a history known to God; in the midst of all these political and religious circumstances there was one who was spiritually matured as under divine care. It is not mere history. It is to bring out the divine requirements in service.
PL Do you get that in Timothy? He is a typical man of God in those circumstances. Do his tears suggest instincts suitable?
JT Tears are a sign of deeply wrought feelings. Timothy came in where he was needed.
DLH Tears would come in in relation to the ruined state of things. I do not know that it speaks of John the baptist weeping.
JT With John we have brought out what God requires, and whatever we may think that stands. There are no short cuts to the service of God.
FF-t Do you refer to the sensibilities that are begotten spiritually in private life?
JT Exactly — known to God. Paul spoke to Timothy of the prophecies regarding him preceding — [p. 3] the mind of God indicated beforehand. You could hardly expect the presbytery to lay on their hands until there was something there they could note, but God noted everything beforehand. Even the movement of John before he was born is noticed. Anything that responds to Christ in whatever little measure, God notices that.
FF-n Would the tears begin in private?
JT No doubt. You would begin to feel things.
FF-n The prophet says, “My soul shall weep in secret”, (Jeremiah 13:17).
JT John was marked off before he was born as one who should not drink wine or strong drink; he should be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, and he should thus turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, that is to say, he would be in the spirit and power of Elijah, who would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, and thus make way for the Lord. That was the prophecy preceding, but the realisation of all this depended upon training. He was born into a remarkable household. His father had just been under serious discipline, and in the naming of the child he shows that he had learned from the discipline, because instead of naming him Zacharias on the natural line, he wrote down that his name was John. That was an immense thing for John. The father’s discipline under the hand of God (and the mother was in it as well) had John in view, showing how God takes care of His servants. So Zacharias gives his name John, and then his mouth is opened and he speaks, praising God.
FF-n Do you think that was the result of Zacharias’ private discipline?
JT I think it was. He was not unbelieving now; he had been. Then it says that he prophesied, and his ministry had reference to Christ, not to John, that is to say, in that household Christ is brought in.
[p. 4] John is brought up in that atmosphere where the father begins to speak, not about him, but about Christ. God had raised up a horn in the house of David, not in the house of Aaron; but then Zacharias turns to the child and says, “Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest”. Thus we see the divine preparation in the household for this special vessel. Then the training was in keeping with all this; it says, “he was in the deserts until the day of his shewing to Israel”. There was no effort in the training to produce anything in him that would appeal to man’s flesh.
FF-n Are you speaking now of maturity in regard to service as relating to special servants, or for all to take it up?
JT Oh, for all! You do not want to show your child to the world. The showing of the child is to Israel, that is to say, the people of God. The training is in keeping with that. Training for the world is very different.
GC How do the deserts apply today?
JT That would be keeping the children from the things of the world. You have no other thought for them than that they should be shown to Israel, so to speak, in due course, and if they are to recognise what is spiritual, no worldly training or culture will help, but will hinder. On account of the way many children are brought up, when they are shown to Israel they are very defective; they need to have the reproach of Egypt rolled away. John never needed that. I think Timothy is an example of what can be done. Timothy’s father, being a Greek, would hardly help, but the mother’s faith must have been strong. The emphasis is on the mother and grandmother. Faith dwelt in them.
FF-n Would the father being a Greek furnish an indication of the conditions in which the child was brought up?
JT [p. 5] Faith is not said to have been in the father, but in the mother and grandmother. The preponderating influence was evidently with the mother. Both Zacharias and Elisabeth were believers, and they were greatly helped by discipline. The best kind of faith, the most enduring, is brought out of the furnace. Here is a child whose parents’ faith had been nourished in discipline. Zacharias had asked for something but he did not believe he would get it. God says, I will give it to you anyway, and then I will bring you to it, and that was by discipline. Then, as we have seen, John was in the deserts until the time of his showing to Israel. The Lord is brought in in the next chapter; but I thought that first in John we might see how perfect the result was, that in the midst of these dignitaries in the world — all under the government of God in their places here — was a man He could take up. His secret history qualifies him for the word of God to come to him.
Then it says, “he came into all the district round the Jordan”. He selects his area of service, all in keeping with his training. He does not go to the places of religious repute to serve. He could easily have attracted attention in Jerusalem, but instead of that it was the district of the Jordan, with all the spiritual memories and teaching that centre around that river. As instructed in the way of the Lord, the minister who should finish up the old dispensation would be learned in the Old Testament. He would know the significance of Jordan, for the truth centring in Jordan abounds in the Old Testament. That is the next thing that would come out in a vessel — he would know “the way of God”, compare Acts 18:26.
CF Does the Lord begin at Jordan, too?
JT Quite. He comes to John there.
CF Is that why Jordan (baptism) comes before the genealogy in Luke? In Matthew it is after.
JT I think so — to bring out the order of man.
[p. 6] In Matthew it is royalty, but in Luke you get the genealogy identifying the Lord — that kind of man — with our race right through Adam to God. It is to bring out what the Lord was. After all had been baptised He was baptised; He was the last apparently. He did not put Himself forward; He claimed no distinction, and as baptised He is praying. There was full maturity there; the order of man was fully come to light, and heaven owns it; and now He is identified with our race. Marvellous grace!
GC Does He have in view in His service to bring man into accord?
JT That is it. What you get in John is that he is instructed in the way of the Lord, and his ministry is governed by the light of it. Isaiah is quoted. In the next chapter Isaiah is again quoted, or read, by the Lord — the passage that governs His ministry. Here we get a passage that governs John’s ministry, so evidently we need to be governed by the light governing the position, that is to say, by what the dispensation of God is. If we are governed by that light, we are acting with God. Paul emphasises that the Corinthians were not so governed. Then the next thing is that John sees the people — the crowds, it says — coming to him, and he makes no distinction; he calls them a generation of vipers. That was a very strong word to use in preaching, but the point to see is that he touches their consciences. He knows what to say.
FF-n This was making straight the way of the Lord. I was thinking that the Lord begins in a very different kind of way.
JT Oh, very different! It is on the line of grace, but John is on the line of reformation.
HMcM What does the Jordan stand for?
JT It generally means death; it is a leading subject in the Old Testament, with which John was no doubt conversant, so that he begins there.
[p. 7] HMcM Is it death and resurrection — the two together?
JT Yes. It stands for death, but death as overthrown by the power of God. But in using this expression, “offspring of vipers”, he makes no difference. In Matthew he referred to certain ones, but here he touches the consciences of all, so that they begin to ask what they should do. The ministry was effective. That is the important thing!
JM Would you say that the way the servant gets at consciences marks his own individuality?
JT I think each has his own way of getting at people.
DLH This would be somewhat on the prophetic line, would it not?
JT It would. One has often noticed in Acts 2:11 that those upon whom the Spirit came were speaking of “the great things of God”, but there were no convictions; when Peter spoke a little later there were three thousand converted. He had his own divinely given way of getting at them and of applying the truth.
JM It is always the truth.
JT It is, but you must know how to apply it.
PL The Lord was a “polished shaft”, (Isaiah 49:2).
Ques Would you say there is room for such a word at the present moment — generation of vipers?
JT Whatever word you use you need to get at people’s consciences, so that they begin to ask questions.
HMcM Would this be our warrant for open-air preaching?
JT Surely, but I do not know whether we should use the word ‘open-air’. It is preaching, whether indoors or out of doors. Preach wherever you can.
FF-n And not always to crowds.
FF-t The preacher must have his conviction of sin very deeply to be able to apply [p. 8] it.
JT You may be sure the Holy Spirit had taught John how to repent, how to judge the meanness of his own heart.
FF-t And Peter, to whom you referred, knew it very deeply.
FF-n I wondered whether the tears would come in there, that is, in the matter of learning what you are yourself. Peter had to weep bitterly.
JT Quite so. No doubt he was effective as having gone through that.
DLH John seems to be still on the responsible line, so in answering these questions he points to certain practices which would prove where they were.
JT Yes. It is not christianity, but you have general principles noted. He is preaching according to the dispensation under which he is working. It was preparation for the Lord, according to the ministry John had received. He puts them to the test, that is, the question of equalisation, levelling up and levelling down, making straight ways. The different classes come to him, the tax-gatherers and the soldiers, and he has a word for all of them. But we are not reformers; reformation does not belong to this dispensation.
FF-t Here it is a people to whom Christ could come.
JT Clearly. Then you will notice that a ministry of this kind does not end in outward triumph, it involves suffering — in John’s case imprisonment and death. The passage would also lay stress on the wickedness of Herod — of that kind of man. He added this to all his wickedness that he put John in prison.
EH Referring to the thought of preaching, what does the apostle Paul mean when he says, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest ... when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway”, (1 Corinthians 9:27).
JT It means just what we are saying. In John [p. 9] we see one who kept his body under. It is an athletic figure. In service you keep your body under, that is, you do not allow the natural to come up. You are not satisfying your own ambitions; you do not want to shine as a preacher; you are judging yourself all the time. Many do not do it. They preach, but they become castaways. In no way does it mean that Paul could be lost, but in what he is doing he is seeing to it that he should not be. He is a model for us in this respect.
JM The vessel would be done with as to usefulness otherwise.
JT Just so. He would be a castaway. The man who does not keep his body under is not saved characteristically at all, yet he may be a preacher. The first epistle to the Corinthians emphasises how far a man may go without being converted.
Now I thought we might just note here the Lord as setting forth the order of man that pleases God. He is baptised, but comes in after the others, and He is praying, showing that He is dependent upon God, and heaven owns Him. Then we have His identification with our race, and then in the next chapter, He being “full of the Holy Spirit returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, tempted of the devil”.
GC Following your thought as to conviction, John produces conviction. Does that make room for bringing in Christ?
JT Quite. Repentance opens the way for the presentation of Christ, but then you see the perfection of maturity in the Lord. John is filled with the Spirit, but the Lord is led of the Spirit. That is to introduce the dispensation in which we are, the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and the Lord has His place as one who was subject. He was led of the Spirit to where the flesh would not go — into the wilderness — and it is to be tempted of the devil; not [p. 10] that there was anything in the Lord, but as a model for us. I think the suggestion is that the Lord would not go in the devil’s way otherwise, nor should any of us.
PL Does it suggest that every servant has to be tested as to the motives that govern him in his service?
JT Yes. The first thing in the desert is: Can you live on the word of God? When it is a question of the Lord’s service, one is sure to be tried in his temporal circumstances, and unless he goes through this experience and triumphs in it by dependence upon God, he is sure to fall under the influence of men, of money. It is set down as a model for us.
HMcM Is it important that He returns from the Jordan?
JT It is important. You begin from where death is overcome. Then the next thing in Luke is the glory of this world. You may overcome on the line of dependence upon God for your daily bread, but you may get on in the world and make money, so the second temptation is in regard to the kingdoms of this world. It comes third in Matthew, but second here.
FF-t Would living by the word of God be like a secret spring? I was wondering as to the force of the word of God here in Luke. It is different in Matthew, is it not? There it is “every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, (Matthew 4:4).
JT Here it is “every word of God”. It would not be the word of God in a general way, but in detail.
FF-t Yes, I wondered if it would mean for us the living expression of God.
JT Yes — His mind, and that in detail. All is essential. As in Matthew, there is a freshness in the words that proceed out of the mouth of God.
FF-t The word of God is a feature in Luke. Later we get, “The seed is the word of God”, (Luke 8:[p. 11] 11).
FF-n Would this answer to the manna — every word of God?
JT Yes, quite. The manna was of course the Lord Himself — what He was here for us, but the word of God brings us what is His mind; that is the food for the wilderness. We need every word of God, we must not miss anything.
PL What God is saying at the moment is the most powerful weapon against the enemy.
FF-t So Luke speaks of attendance on the word. That would be the same line, would it not?
JT Yes. So Mary is a model. She sat and listened to what the Lord was saying; she missed nothing. So with Anna. She departed not from the temple, which was the place of communications. She would not miss anything, and sure enough she came in at “the same hour” when wonderful things were happening. Simeon was just speaking the mind of God as to the Babe and she did not miss that.
HWE All this is on the line of preparation for service.
JT That is what I was thinking. In Matthew it is what proceeds from the mouth of God; that is, it is original. It is direct. There is such a thing today — that which comes from the mouth of God.
PL So that “the Spirit speaks expressly” in the house, (1 Timothy 4:1).
CF It would be in connection with the written word.
JT Yes; but you must remember that for many years after the death and resurrection of Christ there were only the Old Testament scriptures, but the word of God was being ministered all the time. That is the spoken word; it is living and operative.
Now I was thinking of the second temptation here, how particularly appropriate it is to young brothers, because the world has a terrible force. Of the young men it is said that, although strong and that the [p. 12] word of God abides in them, they are still in danger of the world. Luke has the gentile more in view, because the gentile is more attracted by the world, in a political sense, and exposed to it than the Jew. With the Jew it would be more the temple, the religious feature, which is the third temptation here.
FF-t These things come up in new forms, do they not?
PL And the enemy tries every temptation.
JT Just so. It says the devil “having completed every temptation”. He omitted nothing. That is a terrible thing to think of, that he would not leave a stone unturned to divert one from the path. But he is defeated, and Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee. He is now entering on His service. He is doing it. It is not now the Spirit’s doing, although the Spirit is available.
Ques Why does it refer to the power of the Spirit?
JT To show that as a perfect Man here He did everything by the Spirit. “If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you”, (Matthew 12:28). The first lesson is the greatest, to be led by the Spirit.
Ques I notice it says that the devil led Him. Has that any force today?
JT I suppose to bring out, as God permits, the power the enemy has, but he had nothing in Christ. I always feel it is not what the devil can do; it is what God may permit him to do — a solemn thing. So that in 2 Samuel it is said that God moved David to number the people. In 1 Chronicles it says that Satan moved David, showing the solemn thing that God allowed all this.
PL Satan had to get permission as to Job.
PT Is not the subtlety of the enemy seen in introducing the element of doubt — the word ‘if’?
JT [p. 13] Indeed. His skill lies in deception. He is the deceiver.
FF-t “Led of the Spirit”. In the teaching of the gospel are we brought to Romans 8? Would that be where the education lies for us?
JT Quite so. We are marked off as sons of God as led by the Spirit. It is in that way that the kingdom of God is developed — “not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, (Romans 14:17).
FF-t So that in passing through the training you would refuse the flesh and allow the Spirit full sway.