THE EXEMPLIFICATION OF THE TRUTH (3)
THE EXEMPLIFICATION OF THE TRUTH (3)
WBs There is a change here: the testimony is now connected with “Paul and his company”. I have wondered if, in the order that we learn things in our souls, the epistles of Peter do not precede the epistles of Paul. The teaching we get in the epistles of Peter is more elementary and governmental. In Paul’s epistles things are more developed. The assembly is brought into view, and the counsels of God.
JT Yes; Peter emphasizes the government of God, the element of government being so essential to construction. Without the maintenance of the government of God, we cannot have the assembly developed. Paul comes in on the line of construction. He is the “wise master-builder”. Peter is not said to be that. Peter had “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. His service, therefore, is largely in relation to government, but if government is established there is liberty for building.
WCR How does the government of God affect us?
JT Well, it subdues the will, and, on the other hand, it protects me against evil. Government is necessarily charged with these two features: the repression of lawlessness in the subjects of the kingdom, and the defence of these subjects from outward attack.
AFM Do you connect that with the cherubim?
JT Yes.
JB And with the apostle?
JT I think Peter represents it, and hence the importance of chapter 12.
GWH The elements of the kingdom are there preserved, in view of construction.
JT That is it exactly.
HG It is said of the Lord that He will “shepherd them” (the nations) “with an iron rod” — a peculiar expression. I suppose under His rule people will find the [p. 101] beneficence of government; so in Peter you get the thought of shepherding.
JT If there is one word that spells the need of the world today it is “government”, and I think what obtains in the world is very largely reflected in the church.
WE Would you say the path of righteousness prepares you for the building, which is brought in by Paul?
JT Just so, and the development in these chapters shows how Peter’s service, in conjunction with James and the others at Jerusalem, is effective to make way for Paul, in view of the corrupting element that went out from Jerusalem.
LGM Would you say that Peter’s work was getting the material together and Paul’s putting it in place?
JT I would not go so far as to say that he prepared Paul’s material. I think the vision (chapter 10) on which we have been dwelling, suggested that Paul’s ministry would come from heaven, but Paul brought in the material as well. He supplied the material as well as the design. Hence he says, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ”, and it was he that laid it as a wise master-builder, 1 Corinthians 3.
FL Peter, through the vision, had indicated to him the kind of material that would be found and used; but, as you say, Paul goes and gets the material.
JT There is no doubt that the presence of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch is the explanation of the remarkable product that is presented in this chapter: “the assembly which was there”.
FL You were saying yesterday that they were there long enough, and identified in that way, that they were of that assembly locally. There were in Antioch in the assembly prophets and teachers, and Barnabas and Saul were included. I was thinking of the order — prophets and teachers.
[p. 102] JT It is the order in which the gifts were given. The assembly was provided with all that was required and the result was that “they were ministering to the Lord and fasting”. I think we see the result here — what there was for the Lord, and in connection with that, “the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them”.
HG What is the character of that service — ministering to the Lord? Have we anything of it?
JT I think the chapter presents to us the teaching of Numbers: the priestly element and the levitical element dependent upon it.
JB Is this the assembly God-ward?
HG I think so, but I was inquiring as to the practical side: have we anything answering to it definitely?
JT Well. I think we have. I have no doubt the Supper becomes the occasion in which there is ministry to the Lord.
HG Yes. I fully go with that. I thought this more something special.
FL There seems to be the suggestion that things here were in perfect normality and order, and that there was produced, as it were, an excess. There were the prophets and teachers and the evidence of priestly exercise towards the Lord: He was ministered to. Thus the Holy Spirit is able to direct that Barnabas and Saul be separated for the work whereunto He had appointed them.
GWH I would like to ask before going on, what is the thought in a prophet?
JT One that brings the mind of God in, I think. It was the gift that was to be especially desired according to 1 Corinthians.
FL Would you say, one who brings the light of God in at any time upon the existing condition? Today, for instance, the state of the church is not what it was in [p. 103] Antioch, but the prophet brings in the mind of God for the present-day exercise.
JT Yes, the order of the gifts was apostles, then prophets, then evangelists, then pastors and teachers — pastors and teachers being in one man.
JB They were set in the assembly, and therefore a prophet with his gift would be relative to the assembly, would he not?
JT He would. The apostle brings in authority. He asserts the authority of God in Christ. The prophet brings in the mind of God. If you have these features you have what God can, so to speak, add to, and the evangelist adds. Very often the difficulty in meetings is that the condition for addition does not exist — I mean the principle of housekeeping, “He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children”, Psalm 113: 9. The conditions existed at Antioch with which God can identify Himself.
AFM The pastor and teacher would take care of those the evangelist brought in.
RSS Are we to regard Barnabas and Saul here as evangelists sent forth?
JT Yes. I think so.
WBs I notice in 1 Corinthians 12 the order is apostles, prophets, teachers, then miraculous powers. In Ephesians 4: 11 it is apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers. There is a difference.
JT Yes, because I think the state at Corinth scarcely warranted the idea of evangelisation. The evangelist is omitted. The conditions did not exist for it, but at Ephesus they existed.
RSS There is not much use bringing forth children if you have not a home in which to bring them up.
HG Why does the Holy Spirit speak here? Later on, in Acts 16, Paul and others “were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia”.
JT I think the point here is to emphasize the fact [p. 104] that the Holy Spirit had now a vessel in connection with which He could operate, and He is acting sovereignly. He says, “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”. And then it says, “They let them go;” as if they were held in links of affection with the local company. Being let go, they were sent forth by the Holy Spirit. The church did not send them forth. The church let them go, but the Holy Spirit sent them forth. He suggests the function of Eleazar, who is said to be the prince of the princes of the Levites, Numbers 3: 32. That is, the priestly element, and the Holy Spirit linking Himself with it. The Levites, Barnabas and Saul, go out in connection with that.
HG But of course for your own direction you would look to the Lord.
JT Quite. Of course Barnabas and Saul would look to the Lord for direction; for after all to his own master the servant stands or falls.
HG I was meaning that you would look to the Lord, not exactly to the Holy Spirit.
JT Yes. But at this juncture prominence is given to the sovereign activity of the Holy Spirit — no doubt to check the metropolitan spirit at Jerusalem.
RSS It says, “The Holy Spirit said”. Probably it was through some one that He expressed Himself, would you not think so?
JT Possibly. The point is, it was He that said it.
RSS Yes, and it was recognized by them that it was the Holy Spirit speaking.
FL The whole idea here is a new departure in the divine way. That is, it is not Jerusalem. It is a new centre of divine operation outside of the Jewish land and city; and everything takes character from that new point of departure, and I suppose that adds to the gravity of what John Mark did when he left Barnabas and Paul and went back to Jerusalem.
JT The Lord had spoken of the testimony [p. 105] of the Spirit and also of the apostles as distinguished from Him, John 15: 26, 27. It is the work of the Spirit largely in these chapters, but when you come to the fifteenth they are beautifully blended: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”, the apostles say.
AFM I suppose these men, Barnabas and Saul, had been growing up in their place, and now they are at the disposal of the Lord in this attitude of prayer and fasting, so the Spirit can now speak in this way. Would that be the order? So, as levites, whilst their service was at Antioch, it was not confined to Antioch. It was worldwide in character.
JT Quite, and you will notice Saul is the last mentioned.
JD Yes. I was just noticing that.
JS Are those mentioned in the early part of the chapter regarded as local brothers here?
JT I think so. They are in the assembly; not viewed as visitors, but viewed as in “the assembly which was there”.
FL It is very interesting to see all through the Acts the way in which what is official is recognized along with what is distinctly on moral lines. Stephen and Philip were not introduced in any official way; and so Paul. All is on moral lines and there is no jealousy about it, no protest. I think there is nothing more beautiful than to see the way in which the service was adjusted and carried on.
JT The Scriptures present the things that occurred and they are allowed to speak for themselves. Barnabas went himself and brought Saul from Tarsus and both laboured together for a year in the assembly at Antioch, and Saul is the last man mentioned in the list of servants.
RSS It does not say, ‘Separate Me Barnabas, Saul and John’. They had John to their minister, and he got discouraged and gave up, and, as we read afterwards, left the work, chapter 15: 38. Have you any comment [p. 106] to make on that? He was not especially appointed by the Spirit to accompany them.
JT I think he represents an element that falls in with the testimony, and circumstances test it. It was right that he should be there, but circumstances tested him. What is to be noticed is that his departure came in after we have the expression, “Paul and his company”. It was that company he left. If it had been Barnabas and his company, I dare say he would have stayed.
JD Which would you prefer — Joab or Jonathan?
JT I would certainly attach more moral importance to Jonathan. I think he had genuine affection for David, whereas I do not think Joab had. Jonathan was largely governed by natural considerations, and was outwardly on the wrong side, but he loved David; Joab was an ambitious, clever man, although on David’s side. He had no moral worth.
FL We have them at all times — men who have intelligence without spirituality. Sooner or later they make shipwreck of themselves and those affected by them. Ability that is not controlled by affection to the Lord is a very dangerous thing.
JT Yes, indeed. Jonathan has spiritual initiative. I mean, he “wrought with God”. He had no direct commission, but he sees an opportunity (under most difficult circumstances, too) and he wrought with God, 1 Samuel 14: 45. Afterwards he manifested his appreciation of David.
JB Is that not the point with regard to these five ministering to the Lord? They took the Lord into consideration, exercising priestly functions; and the Lord could take two of those and they could be trusted with this great service, would you say?
JT Just so. So the fact that Barnabas heads the list and Saul ends it opens up an extremely interesting point. That is, the change from Barnabas and Saul, to Paul and Barnabas. It is the adjustment in this chain of circumstances (by the Lord’s skilful hand, through the priestly discernment of the saints) that becomes intensely interesting, and that is what we get here. I am very doubtful if Barnabas stood the test fully.
AFM It is another phase of difficulty that we have to face now, is it not?
JT It is a difficulty constantly confronting us; confronting you, and me, and everybody, because the sovereignty of the Lord, or of the Holy Spirit, is ever present, and one can never tell what He will do.
HG You feel the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit was along moral lines. The man who was morally the greatest man came to the top, did he not?
JT That is right.
HG And it would appear in regard to Mark that the position was too much for him. I judge the energy with Paul was much greater than with Barnabas.
WBs He came under a changed name.
JT Yes, and you will notice it says “Who also is Paul” — indeed the word “is” is not there even. It is “Who also Paul”. It may refer to the apostle’s estimate of himself.
AFM You are not surprised at what follows, are you? “But Saul, who also Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit”, verse 9. There is correspondence between his name and this fact.
HG Does the blinding of this man, this sorcerer, suggest the judicial blindness of the nation of Israel and Paul coming out in his particular work in regard to the nations?
JT He described him fully and says, “Behold, the Lord’s hand is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season” — for a season. It is a judicial pronouncement, I judge, of the state of the Jews. They are not to see the sun for a season — it is not for ever.
AFM The Sun of righteousness will arise for them by and by, with healing in [p. 108] His wings.
JT Yes. What Israel seeks for he has not obtained.
FL “God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; unto this day”. But it is not death. The suggestion is that after a season the eyes will be opened.
JT The veil is on their heart, “When it shall turn to the Lord the veil shall be taken away”, 2 Corinthians 3: 16.
JD According to what you have been saying as to Paul coming in on the line of construction, it is important to notice that when the proconsul desires to hear the word of God he sends for Barnabas and Saul, and the sorcerer opposes Barnabas and Saul, but it was Saul who pronounced the judgment. He comes to the front in a way to detect evil and pronounce judgment. While he is constructive, he sets aside in principle, with one stroke the whole Jewish system. Then it seems to me he can proceed on the lines of construction. In his own soul he had come to the end of Judaism in the destruction of the sorcerer.
WE Would you say in that way he is exercising his gift as a prophet, in order that he may go on to his gift as teacher?
JD I believe that. There is something deep in it, to my mind. It seems to me that in the change of this man’s name to Paul he has an insight to the whole heavenly system now. What brings him to the front, it seems, is his ability to detect evil and set it aside, so that he can go on with the building. I think the principle is true today.
HG As a matter of fact in the sermon that Paul preaches in regard to the Lord Jesus, he speaks of His burial, which Peter does not. Peter never leaves out resurrection, of course, but Paul mentions burial. In that sense he clears the ground of any material that could not be used for construction. It is very much as you have spoken in regard to 1 Corinthians 3. Paul was a wise master-builder, or architect; he clears the ground in [p. 109] 1 Corinthians 1 by introducing Jesus Christ crucified, and then he says, “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus” — suggesting, I suppose, the material for the building.
JD The prohibition of light is a most serious thing. That is what Paul charged this man with when he says: “O full of all deceit and all craft, son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness; wilt thou not cease perverting the right paths of the Lord?” So it is evident that a new line is to be taken and the ground is being cleared for it. Paul’s soul is filled with it.
JT And so the importance of what has been remarked — “Saul, who also is Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit” — that was the vessel; one that could be filled with the Holy Spirit.
JD Would you judge that his moral training had been completed in Arabia?
JT I have no doubt that it had, although, of course, it would be continuous. It is very interesting to see the steps in Paul’s training. Before he went to Arabia it says that, after his eyes were opened, “straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he saw, and rising up was baptized; and, having received food, got strength”. These are the facts and then it says, “And he was with the disciples who were in Damascus certain days”, with them. Then it says, “And straightway in the synagogues he preached Jesus that he is the Son of God” Acts 9: 18 - 20; but before he preached he was with the disciples certain days. That was the kind of training that he began with. He learned what it was to be with the saints before he took up service. And then it says, “But Saul increased the more in power, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. Now when many days were fulfilled, the Jews consulted together to kill him. But their plot became known to Saul. And they watched also the gates both day and night, that they might kill him; but the disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall,
[p. 110] lowering him in a basket. And having arrived at Jerusalem he essayed to join himself to the disciples”, Acts 9: 22 - 26. That was the way he looked at things. It was not his service first. It was the disciples first. He wanted to be one of them practically.
JD Not simply believers; it is the forming of moral character — disciples.
JT At Jerusalem “all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple”, but he was a disciple. “But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem”. And then it says, “and speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and discussed with the Hellenists; but they sought to kill him. And the brethren knowing it, brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus”. Now that is the course he went through before he went to Tarsus. What he went through there is not for us to conjecture, but undoubtedly he went through much.
JD I believe there is a moral Arabia for every man that is to be used of God. He has his three years in Arabia.
RSS And when was he in Arabia the three years?
JD After he had been with the disciples. Possibly he carried with him, to isolation, all the effects of his conversations and life with the disciples. Now with us, I believe our character is formed with the brethren we associate with, but we have our Arabia concurrently.
RSS Was he in Arabia, do you think, before or after his being at Tarsus?
WBs In Galatians we get the order of events. God was pleased to reveal His Son in him — that is, at Damascus. Afterwards he went to Arabia. I judge this was prior to his going [p. 111] to Jerusalem.
JT The statement in the epistle to the Galatians is, “But when God, who set me apart even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations, immediately I took not counsel with flesh and blood, nor went I up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem”.
FL What one notices with a great deal of admiration is that while Paul had the revelation, the light of God concerning His intentions, mentioning him as a vessel of distinction, when it comes to the actual putting of things into practice he assumes nothing; but goes on in the line of simple levitical service; and as he develops moral characteristics, the Lord puts His seal upon that and brings him out into his singular glory, his unique place as the vessel of the testimony. I think that is greatly to be admired. I was thinking that it is very easy for us to be jealous (just speaking perfectly plainly), but in the sphere of God there is no room for jealousy. I remember Mr. Raven emphasizing that, when the Lord was introduced into the world, the first to acclaim Him were the angels, although they were to lose their place of superiority; they were to be lower than man; but there is no jealousy about it, and so through the whole line of what we are following here everything is brought in in such exquisite moral beauty. There is no place for jealousy, and Paul himself, filled as he is as the vessel of the testimony, waits. He is patient and the Lord opens the way for him. I am sure there is a lot in that.
JD Do you not think that the forming of the character (forming of character is a great thing) of Paul was through the men he companied with? He saw Christ in them morally. He heard the words of the Lord from the glory, “Why persecutest thou me?” and when he comes in amongst them he finds the “me” in moral [p. 112] characteristics, and begins to take on the character himself in the power of the Holy Spirit.
JT It is very interesting here that attention is called to the company — “Paul and his company”. In 2 Timothy we see how that company was reduced, but it is there, as you remarked. “Luke alone is with me;” an examination of his gospel shows how fully Luke was with Paul, and how one would love to be in the last days in that company.
JD Yes, you remarked in prayer about those who sailed with us. I thought for myself I would like to sail with Paul, “God hath given thee all them that sail with thee”.
RSS Do you not think Luke was with him in the shipwreck?
JD Yes; that word to him on the stormy voyage of the testimony through this world was wonderful: “God hath given thee all them that sail with thee”. It is a great point to sail with Paul.
JS Giving it a present moral application is very helpful.
JD Very helpful.
JT Especially as they all get to land in spite of the shipwreck.
Ques Do you think that is where the Ephesians came short, because they did not sail with Paul?
JD They would have been numbered amongst those in Asia that had forsaken him.
FL Luke identified himself in the voyage very clearly: “when it had been determined that we should sail to Italy;” and “when we got safe to land”.
JT And getting safe to land is not exactly being translated to heaven; it is arriving on solid footing now in the apprehension of the purpose of God.
JD I do not know that you will go with it, but I was saying the other day that that passage in Ephesians is not a point of time: “That we should be holy and without blame before him in love”. It is a moral consummation, to be reached now.
JT Just so. As regards the company, it is very remarkable that the Holy Spirit should set it down this way immediately in connection with the departure of John; as if to call special attention now to Paul. The ground is now occupied by Paul and his company. There is thus room made for the full unfolding of the mystery.
WE And do you not think there is indicated to us in Paul and his company the smallness of things publicly that must characterize us to the close? That is, one is struck first of all with the fact that the name is changed from Saul to Paul, before the company comes into view.
GAT Does Paul’s company include all christians, or does it indicate a certain state of soul?
JT I think the best way to arrive at it now is by 2 Timothy. Of course it was a large company at one time. Compare chapters 18 and 19.
JB John Mark had the opportunity to continue but he separated from this company.
JT Quite so. The gospel of John is a sort of winnowing gospel. It removes the chaff and leaves only what is real, so that there can be no doubt that John in that way supports Paul, as it has often been remarked. It preserves the Pauline company. “Will ye also go away?” the Lord says. And why were they going away? Because the words that He spoke were spirit and life. And Peter comes forward and says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God;” so John would help in that way to bring the light of God that would uphold Paul’s doctrine. Mr. Darby said, ‘Do not forget John, but cleave to Paul’, and I believe that is a word for us. The testimony of Paul is to be cleaved to if we are to be saved. We must listen to Paul.
Rem The company in that way would be distinctly on [p. 114] moral lines.
JD And you might add would be distinguished by moral features. The company is the company by moral features, for there is no other company.
FL Hence the gravity of John Mark’s departure to go back to Jerusalem. He was not only separated from the company, but he was going back to that which for the time being the Spirit of God was preparing to leave in the new departure, so that the moral significance of his step becomes emphasized when we see the moral significance of Paul and his company.
WE Would you say that in that way John Mark indicates a sympathy with Jerusalem rather than with Antioch?
FL It indicates a certain state. We have been trying to get the present day application of these things, and if we see certain lines along which the Spirit of God is helping us, well now the test of those things comes home. Some turn back into natural things or even go further. Thus their state of soul is exposed. The meetings that we are having now, I take it, are intended to raise questions and exercises in that way. It is very interesting to see what marked Paul and his company, but what about ourselves?
JD I was thinking of your reference to Luke as having companied with Paul, and his gospel being a testimony to this. To him Paul’s ministry must have set forth the meat-offering.
JT Yes. John returned to Jerusalem, it says, and the sad word is used “separated from them”. This makes his defection more serious, for it indicates his mind as regards the company to which attention is called. It puts it in a clear light. The Holy Spirit does not say he was wrong in doing it; it is for us to see. But then it says, “They, passing through” — they go on, the testimony moves notwithstanding defections, “But they, passing through from Perga, came to Antioch of Pisidia; and entering into the synagogue on the sabbath day they sat down”.
[p. 115] I would just call attention to this, because, in passing on, the true levitical instinct comes to light. He goes into the synagogue and awaits his opportunity to speak. So he sits down there, and presently, “after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation to the people, speak”, It is what one would call levitical wisdom — waiting for your opportunity.
FL How beautifully he reflects the manner and spirit of Christ. The Lord in going into the synagogue on the sabbath day, as His custom was, there was given to Him the roll of the prophet Isaiah. There was thus a marked correspondence between the servant and his Master.
GAT What Paul does here is a little on the line of what is now objected to, going into the synagogues about us.
JT God had not as yet cast off the Jews. It was the grace of Christ warning them; but the lesson to be learned from this action of Paul and Barnabas is that we wait for open doors. We are in our own circle; we know how things are and know who is in charge, but evangelical work is outside and we have to recognize the conditions that may exist there. I mean what the government of God may allow. Here the rulers of the synagogue were recognized.
GAT That does not give me the liberty to go where I please, does it?
JT Then what you see is they wait on their opportunity. That is a great feature of levitical work, to be subject, wait on your opportunity.
JD Paul could have told these men of his vision and that the whole Jewish system was being set aside, but he waits on God and He opened the door for him. Like Eliezer (Genesis 24) he is “in the way” and waits for his opportunity. He would have been at a disadvantage if he had stood [p. 116] up before.
RSS It is rather remarkable that the ruler of the synagogue says, “Brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation to the people, speak”. But in Paul’s beautiful address there is not a word of exhortation, because the thought of exhortation is that you stir up what is already there, but, as you say, there was very little for God there. On the other hand, instead of exhorting them he really presents God in a most marvellous way.
JD Yes, and I was thinking that if you and I travel with Paul and his company the Holy Spirit will make opportunities for us; because Paul and his company in a sense are here yet.
JT The levitical skill shown by the apostle’s manner here is very noteworthy: first in the way in which he comported himself so as not to prejudice his position; then he is requested to speak, and in what he said we have an illustration of how he was “made all things to all men”. Instead of antagonizing them in any way, he addresses them on the lines of the promises, and their privileges, saying, “Israelites, and ye that fear God, hearken”. He knew very well what was there as regards the flesh, but he trusted in another element — that the fear of God was there. You see the result now, in the end of the chapter, of Paul’s service. The Holy Spirit always brings in the result of divine movement. It says, “The disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit”. What a result that was!
WBs Why take up that name “Israelites” here?
JT It had a spiritual significance, involving privilege, “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people in their sojourn in the land of Egypt, and with a high arm brought them out of it”. It is a very consistent presentation of the book of Exodus, and it would all encourage them to listen to him, because he was accrediting them with being the same people.
FL It was the breaking of the power of the world-system [p. 117] which was now holding them, in view of the introduction of a new system. Here, in a very honest way, he goes right to the very kernel: a people was hatched, so to speak, in a day, and came out in deliverance from the world-system.
JT If you compare this with Stephen’s speech you will see a noticeable contrast. Stephen states the things that were against them; they were stiffnecked; they always resisted the Holy Spirit, their fathers and themselves; but this is presented, like Luke’s gospel, from the bright side so as to encourage attention and interest.
RSS From the grace side. It is all about what God did. God did so and so, but Stephen was addressing their consciences and really indicting them.
GWH In regard to the pathway of Paul, do you think he got the light of counsel in the third heavens?
JT No. I think all he got in the way of revelation for the saints was by the Spirit. That is what I understand. What he heard in the third heavens he says was unutterable.
WHF Was he not sovereignly chosen as a vessel?
JT Oh, yes. “Things which eye has not seen, and ear not heard, and which have not come into man’s heart, which God has prepared for them that love him, but God has revealed to us by his Spirit”. I think he refers there to how things came to him.
WHF It was plain that he was distinctly called in connection with the counsel of God to unfold the mystery of the church.
JT Just so.
RSS What was the great gain in connection with what our brother spoke of?
JT Confirmation for his own soul.
GWH Was it confirmation for himself? Had he the light of counsel before this?
JT Yes, what he heard in [p. 118] the third heavens was confirmatory.
GWH Would you say the third heavens is open to all saints?
JT Yes, in a sense. It is “a man in Christ” here, not an apostle. He did not go up to paradise as an apostle, although it would help him in apostolic labours, but it was as a man in Christ. He spoke of the event as occurring fourteen years before, so that it was evidently rare.