THE PROVISIONAL CHARACTER OF THE KINGDOM
[p. 518] THE PROVISIONAL CHARACTER OF THE KINGDOM
Matthew 17: 1 - 9; John 18: 28 - 37
JT These scriptures are proposed for comparison’s sake. The first is to call attention to the glory of Christ’s kingdom, which appeared to these apostles, clearly in order to affect them in view of their ministry. The second is to bring out the character of the kingdom now. The Lord was rejected and crucified and His royal position and rights here were affected, so that things did not proceed according to what might have been expected. There needed to be an adjustment in that He was not received by the Jews to be their King. What form has the kingdom taken now? Is it a form which is to be continued, or is it just provisional, necessitated because of His rejection? We shall see, I believe, that it is not to abide, as many of us already know.
It is a provisional kingdom and does not carry all the characteristics of the kingdom of David. When the Lord was born the angel told Mary that He should be given the throne of His father David, and that He should rule over the house of Jacob for ever. So the kingdom of His father David is evidently in abeyance. The conversation between the Lord and Pilate opens up to us much instruction as to the present provisional time in which many things, which will be seen later, are in suspension. But the glory of the kingdom, that is, the glory of the Son of man coming into it, should affect us in our service just as it was intended to affect the early servants in theirs. At the same time we are sobered and challenged by what the Lord says to Pilate in John’s gospel.
It is clear that the incident in Matthew was designed by the Lord. In the previous chapter (Matthew 16: 28), the Lord says, “Verily I say unto you,
[p. 519] There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. Notice that it is not the kingdom of God in this gospel as it is in those of Mark and Luke. It is the kingdom of the Son of man, and yet the facts presented are similar in all three gospels.
ABP Do you have in mind that the kingdom of God come in power, according to Mark, is a present thing; whereas this looks forward to the future?
JT I think it is the Son of man coming in His kingdom, which is a coming matter, now deferred. It is the Son of man coming, but it is glorious; whereas Mark and Luke call it the kingdom of God. Mark says it is the kingdom of God come in power; and Luke says it is the kingdom of God. Matthew has in mind what is more personal to Christ, and therefore it can be compared with John, because the Lord says there, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews”, John 18: 36. So it brings up this whole matter of conscientious feeling now, as to whether we are really conformed to what He says to Pilate.
FNW At what point does the stone cut out without hands in Daniel, smite the image?
JT That is more future, I would say. Revelation 11: 15 says, “The kingdom of the world of our Lord and of his Christ is come”. That is a future thing. It is cut out without hands and it breaks in pieces the other kingdoms and continues for ever, but this of which the Lord speaks to Pilate is clearly a provisional situation pending the time when He takes on the kingdom according to Daniel, because that will be a public matter, and the sword will be attached to it clearly, according to many scriptures especially Revelation 19, but in the provisional state of things in this scripture, the sword is not in evidence.
[p. 520] We are not to destroy it, for it will be used later, because they will beat their swords into plowshares, but it is not destroyed; it is just put back in its place. Peter used the one that he had, and the Lord says, “Return thy sword to its place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword”, Matthew 26: 52. It was a question of not using the sword to defend Himself or His disciples either, but of suffering. The will of God required suffering.
AR When Peter refers to “having been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1: 16), does he have in mind Matthew’s account, His face shining as the sun?
JT Yes; that would be His majesty, the glory of the Son of man in a coming day. It is here just to influence the saints in service, and we can see that Peter was very much influenced. How different his mind was when he wrote his second letter from what it is here. He did not have much more thought here of Jesus than he did of Moses and Elias.
JS Is it to enhance His personal greatness?
JT That is the idea, the Son of man coming in His kingdom. It is a personal matter. His movement and appearance in it, so that His countenance is like the sun.
ANW Is the thought you have before you seen in the Lord saying, “Tell the vision to no one” on the one hand, and His enlarging on His path of suffering on the other?
JT That is what comes out both before and after. Chapter 16 specially speaks about what they were going to do to Him. It says in verse 21: “From that time Jesus began to show to his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed”. And then in verse 22 of chapter 17, He says, “And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said to them, The Son of man is about to be delivered [p. 521] up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him”. That is, the Jews first; and then, men. So that it is clearly the order of things coming down from the Old Testament as held up by this mediatorial attitude, so that we are told elsewhere, “A certain high-born man went... to receive for himself a kingdom and return”, Luke 19: 12. That is a primary thought; that is final. He is to receive that, but what is going on in the meantime? That is what I thought we might see. What an extraordinary state of things it is, not heralded before, not prophesied of before, really; so we are to accommodate ourselves to the change-over.
GVD When the disciples in Acts 1: 6 asked, “Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” does not the Lord go on to refer to what is to take place in the meantime?
JT Yes; He does not satisfy their inquiry at all. He says, The Spirit is coming and you will be My witnesses. It is left open. It is the time of the Spirit; it is just left open pending the final set-up of things. It is a most nondescript state of things, and we are to be that too. It is not easy to make clear to people the extraordinary change that has come in.
RWS It was not clear to the disciples. Their minds were not clear about the kingdom.
JT They were not. After all the instruction they received from the Lord they said, “Is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” That was clearly what was in their minds. They did not say a word about the assembly. He had spoken to them about the assembly — “My assembly”. Why did they not ask Him about that?
CAM “Shall not taste of death at all”. They did not put any meaning on that expression perhaps.
JT Well, it has been said they did not understand anything [p. 522] He said.
CAM I suppose that is true, of course. What do you read into that? “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they shall have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom”.
JT I think it is to bring the thing before them vividly. They were to see the Son of man coming in His kingdom. It would be a great matter. They might have thought it would be the final setting up of the kingdom, that the time had come for it, as He says in John 12: 23, “The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified”. The time had come. The kingdom required the setting up of things, but everything was knocked on the head because of what the Jews were going to do to Him, and what men were going to do too. What could He do with the Jews and men if their attitude is murderous? He has to go back to heaven to await the change. But in the meantime is heaven to be idle? Is He to be idle? What is to be done? That gives time for God to disclose His hidden purpose in the assembly and that is the present time.
CAM I suppose as these men drew near to death and evidently faced it, the glory grew brighter in their souls?
JT It was evidently to affect them. It was eight days after at the longest, according to Luke, that the word was fulfilled. So these men would not die for these eight days anyway. I think the wording is intended to make the thing impressive, that it is going to happen immediately. But then is it really to end finally? Is it a settled matter? Or is it a provisional appearing for the sake of the testimony? Clearly that is what it is. After the scene of glory the “disciples demanded of him saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first have come? And he answering said to them, Elias indeed comes first and will restore all things” (verses 10, 11). We have to [p. 523] understand what He is saying here, as to whether it is going to happen immediately or whether it is just left open. “But I say unto you that Elias has already come, and they have not known him, but have done unto him whatever they would” (verse 12). We have now to turn around and see if Elias has really come? It is rather that John the baptist fills the function provisionally. It is not really Elias according to Malachi. It is John the baptist, but the function of Elias as far as the provisional state of things is concerned had taken place. That is how the matter is put. Elias is still to come. What one is impressed with is the need of getting the brethren to look at things as they are in Scripture, not to put them in pigeon-holes, but to get alongside the Lord and see what He is working out, what is provisional and what is final. We are in the provisional, and it is not so easy to explain it.
AAT What kingdom is Paul referring to when he wrote to the saints in Rome and said, “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, Romans 14: 17?
JT That is the kingdom of God as it is now. As we said already, this same event is called the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke, but it is not called the kingdom of God here. Therefore we have to look at one thing in two aspects, or a dozen aspects maybe, and not say it is just that and nothing more. We have to be on the alert and move spiritually all the time.
JS Is the kingdom of the Son of man a much wider thought than Israel only?
JT The Son of man is a wider thought. It is the whole race of men.
AR The idea of what is provisional is seen in that we are not told the duration of this vision on [p. 524] the mountain. It is just said to be six or eight days after.
JT No. We have to be on the alert all the time. You cannot put things down with your pencil; this is this, that is that. It is a changing or provisional state of things we are in, and we want to be with the movement; it is not easy to show from the prophets this present provisional phase of the kingdom of the Son of man as it is. If we were to describe the kingdom of David, it might be thought to suit the present time; but we are at a disadvantage because that kingdom will have the sword and there will be real fighting, so that is not the kingdom today at all. It is a provisional state of things today.
TW This period that the Lord speaks of as “my kingdom” was just for that time. He came to die, and the period would not extend to now.
JT That is not so. It does extend. It is just how things are now. He is rejected and has gone to heaven, and He told them at this particular time they were not to use the sword, but put it back in its place. They were not to destroy it. “My kingdom is not of this world”. Well, David’s would fit in, and it will again, because all the nations will be dealt with in a coming day when the Lord Jesus takes up His kingdom, sitting on His own throne; but in the meantime, He is on His Father’s throne. That shows us that this is a provisional state of things, that it is not fixed.
ABP Peter speaks of the power and coming of our Lord in relation to this. The power therefore is moral power; not the power of the sword, but there is power nevertheless.
JT Power to carry on what is to be done; that is, it is a question of the gospel and the calling out of the assembly. The assembly is a hidden matter, and we are brought into all this. It is a question of [p. 525] being able to speak about it intelligently when the matter Comes up.
JS Do you link grace and truth with the Son of man?
JT Quite so; that enters into it. It is a personal matter here, to enhance the testimony they were to render, but they were to have it in their souls just as Paul, having been in paradise, was to have it in his soul. It is a question of making us great inwardly; so we are to know how to accommodate ourselves to whatever the word of God may require, what the mind of God, the Spirit of God, might require at any time, and to be ready for it.
Ques What is the difference between this and the kingdom of the heavens? I was thinking of the man who brought things new and old out of his treasury. Does that enter into it?
JT The kingdom of the heavens is another matter. We might speak of the British Empire. It is the kingdom or empire coming from Great Britain. It is not a question of the emperor of Great Britain but a kingdom or empire emanating from a certain section of the earth. So the kingdom of God takes the form according to Matthew of the kingdom of the heavens. He is stressing this that it is a kingdom that has its existence or control there instead of being controlled from Jerusalem down here.
WR Do you think that being of the kingdom enhances personality, and the glory of the person of Christ is carried forward?
JT Yes: this chapter is a chapter of personality, and that is why we have sonship introduced in such a striking manner at the end of it. But instead of the glory of the kingdom, you have a murdered Christ, and sonship is to enter into the provisional state of things; that is, we have to deal with people demanding from us such things as the temple tax, and we have to know what to do about it. It is an [p. 526] extraordinary state of things, because you have to get down before God and ask Him to tell you how to act in these continually changing circumstances.
RWS Luke says, “Lo here, or, Lo there” (chapter 17: 21), as if that might cause some disquietude of mind; whereas the matter is one. There is the same standard in the testimony in the minds of all our young brothers in Australia and England as well as here. It is not, “Lo here, or Lo there”. It is a standard matter.
JT Just so; I think John’s gospel is for the last days. The more you see it, the more it impresses you that he has really written in view of our times; so we have no healing of the ear of the bondman of the high priest in John, we have no repentance of Peter because he denied the Lord. John would say to us, Well, terrible things are happening, you must just accept them. What an awful thing that Peter should deny the Lord, and not confess anything about it, and he could cut off a servant’s ear, and the Lord does not do anything about it. Things are to go on. Things are to survive in the presence of all this. That is what John means, so that the conversation with Pilate is peculiar to John, and we have to follow it, because the Jews did not want to come into the praetorium. It was the passover time. Pilate does not break that up. He just leaves it, the great religious status as it was before. The government recognised it. Pilate has to go out to the Jews; instead of their going to him into the palace, he goes out to them. That is not an advantage to the government. It is really a breakdown of government, because while the Romans were professedly governing Judea, they were not, not at this point anyway.
ANW That was on account of their religious scruples.
JT There is the tremendous system now after fifteen hundred years, and they do pretty well as [p. 527] they like wherever they go. You just have to accept that. Sometimes they have more power than the government.
ABP Is not the secret here in what Moses and Elias say? Both of them seen on the mountain were speaking of Jesus. Apparently there is a message in that.
JT Matthew does not record as much as Luke does, but says, “He was transfigured before them”. The point is, they are to see this transfiguration. It is not a universal matter. It is for these three persons to see. They represent the ministry, and then we are told, “his face shone as the sun, and his garments became white as the light; and lo, Moses and Elias appeared to them talking with him”. Notice “to them talking with him”. They are in mind as we are now in this reading. It is what impresses us. It is for certain ones, not for the universe. Then what is Peter’s reaction to all this? Well, “Peter answering said to Jesus, Lord, it is good we should be here. If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles”. He is missing the point, which we are very apt to do. He thought he was taking the lead in making a proposal in a wonderful scene, and he was just unable to do it. He did not know his measure, nor did he have a right apprehension of the Person that was there.
ABP I thought perhaps if they had listened to what was being said there certainly would not be anything in the word of Moses and Elias that would give a distorted view of the thing.
JT Just so; if they had profited by the great experiences they had, especially that of Peter in chapter 16, they would not have thought of a proposal like this. That is, he is showing he has not been learning, and that is one of the great points made, that they have not really learned from their advantages all along. Therefore, Peter is blundering [p. 528] here, so that it is said the cloud came in immediately to settle the matter. “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him”. That is to adjust Peter. So we have to come to that and see whether we are listening aright and learning in our opportunities, and then if we have not been, we are to correct ourselves and not leave our correction indefinite.
CAM Sonship was the thought. In this next paragraph there is the terrible thing happening to this man’s son; would you think that the happenings of the present time are in order to supplement the ministry as to sonship?
JT I would go with that. There is one thing that encourages you here; that is this blundering of Peter, and then the matter with the boy, as you say. Is the thought not to expose us as to our slowness, because He is speaking of this now, their slowness in taking in things in advantageous circumstances? The man says to the Lord, I brought him to thy disciples and they could not do anything. The Lord says, “O unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?” So the disciples were included in that. That is a most solemn thing. It would look as if the teaching in the chapter is to impress us with how slow we are in taking things in and being formed by them. This thought of sonship seems to be the only way to set us up in dignity, so that we take in things according to the mind of Christ. We have the mind of Christ; that is, His power of thinking.
CAM Perhaps if we took that in and were cast on the Lord in faith those things would change in view of the saints.
JT Well, you can see right through this chapter, Peter, and Peter, and Peter. He was ready to pay [p. 529] the tax. He told the Lord. He knew the order of things among the kings of the nations. How did he know that? Had he read history? Had he read accounts of royal houses and the condition in Rome? He is able to tell the Lord what they did in these royal places, but he did not know how to act in regard of the Lord’s royal economy. He was at a loss right through.
WR How do you account for this in Peter? It seems as though in the previous chapter when he confesses Christ it is by revelation. The Lord is unique over against others.
JT He would have turned the Lord aside from death immediately after that. ‘Pity thyself’; again he is at fault, and yet in spite of all that, the Lord says, This is the man I am going to use, so that we are encouraged all the time. For it is, “First, Simon, who was called Peter” in Matthew 10: 2. So that we are not to be discouraged, but acknowledge our faults.
JS He is not left out of the cloud; the cloud overshadowed them.
JT And the voice out of the cloud says, “This is my beloved Son”. It is a question of being set right, but we cannot be set right without telling others we have been wrong.
ABP Would you say that while Peter did not show up very well in the main, his salvation would be that he must have gotten on his knees before the meeting and gotten adjustment after the meeting?
JT Luke tells us he went through much and made confessions.
FSC When he says, We “were eyewitnesses of his majesty”, he was speaking of the King.
JT Just so. He had got right there. He was about to put off his tabernacle. What a fine finish! What a glorious thought that is as to a man who made so many blunders, and of course there is not [p. 530] one of us that has not made blunders. We make them and do not say anything about them; I mean, even in the meeting.
AAT In his epistles, he reviewed the incident himself, and he speaks of it and says, “He received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son”, 2 Peter 1: 17. He speaks of it there as the excellent glory.
JT What a great impression he has of Christ now! That is the only place in his writings, I think, that he calls Him Son. He calls Him Son when he made his confession, and then here in the second letter, showing how thoroughly he was under divine impression in his ministry. It was not for him to stress sonship. That was for Paul in his ministry and John in his gospel.
Rem He makes much in his ministry of Paul. He calls him “beloved brother”. He had made a mistake as to him.
JT That goes with the recovery. We make much of Christ and make much of the brethren. That is true recovery. We make room for the brethren too.
AR Why is it that Matthew calls attention so much to the idea of the King including this thought of His face shining as the sun? Matthew speaks more of the Lord as King than any other.
JT He does. “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ”. He begins with that, and it runs through in his gospel. I think the idea is to support the truth of the assembly, that royalty must be behind to support and govern the assembly. Matthew makes more of the King than any other.
AR Would the idea of royalty in Matthew enable us to stand before men in royalty? The Lord says, I am a King. He came before Pilate, and then [p. 531] He says, I have servants. Would the servants as understanding royalty in Matthew, be royal in standing before men?
JT They would, quite so; when we come to John, that is what is in mind; that we might make comparisons. Matthew would set these three men up in the light of Christ in His glory coming in His own personal kingdom, for He is coming in His kingdom. They were to have this light in their souls. It would give dignity to them in their ministry, even though they were not speaking of it. It is what you have in your soul. Our thought was that we might see in the conversation with Pilate how the Lord calls it “my kingdom”, not the kingdom of God: “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence”. This is to the governor. It is a circumstantial position. Pilate is the governor, representing the four monarchies that God had set up, and the Lord tells him about them. Pilate represents these men that we have to deal with today, and we have to learn the Lord’s mind from what He said to Pilate. It shows us the light governing the position; not that He is seen as a great royal Person, or as coming in His kingdom as in Matthew, but that He has been rejected, because He is here in the presence of Pilate. Pilate is walking in and out from the praetorium, really subordinating government to Jewish or religious feeling. But what Pilate is engaged with is the greatest possible thing, and the Lord is pleased to speak to him as He spoke to no other man: He spoke about the turn the kingdom was taking because of what was happening, so the Lord met the situation in this way, and we are to understand how to meet the situation. It is an extraordinary situation.
[p. 532] ABP He did not do it to save Himself. He did it on the basis of the truth.
JT Quite so; He was born for this. So it is not an accident. There are no accidents with God, but there are changes on account of circumstances with God, and we have to learn to change with the changes. The will of God requires it.
Rem It makes the position somewhat complicated.
JT It does, it makes it very complicated. These men would say, ‘David was a great warrior; Christ is the Son of David and He is going to reign over the house of David for ever, and He will have swords’; so He will. Well, I have to learn how to answer and to point out that the Lord before Pilate is not saying anything about David’s kingdom. He is speaking about His own kingdom. Things have to be set out — what belongs to David and what belongs to Jesus.
FNW He does not enlarge on His kingship. He leads on to the moral side of the truth in speaking to Pilate. You might have thought He would have enlarged on His being born King.
JT That is one of the last things He says. The order is, He had been before Caiaphas the high priest, and then we have Peter’s denial and Peter’s use of the sword. And then we have in verse 28: “They lead therefore Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium; and it was early morn. And they entered not into the praetorium”. They go that far and did not go in to the governor. Well, there is a defect there. It says, “Pilate therefore went out to them and said, What accusation do ye bring against this man?” He had to come down from his bench in the court and go outside to these men. It is an anomalous state of things, even though it [p. 533] is Judaism.
ANW You are inferring that the Lord’s recognition of kingship extends beyond “King of the Jews” in this statement, are you?
JT O yes, in the Lord, you mean? The question of royalty is raised here; it is not premeditated by Pilate but seems to come out. That is what I am seeking to press, the way things turn unexpectedly, and how am I to meet them with intelligence? So He entered into the praetorium. “Pilate therefore went out to them and said, What accusation do ye bring against this man? They answered and said to him, If this man were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered him up to thee. Pilate therefore said to them, Take him, ye, and judge him according to your law”. Well now, you see, there is a breakdown again. It is an extraordinary state of things. There is the governor, and they bring a man to be tried by him, and he throws him back on them. “The Jews therefore said to him, It is not permitted to us to put any one to death; that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled” Now notice this! That is not overlooked. There is no breakdown in the words of Jesus. They fit perfectly, even here in this extraordinary state of things between the governor and the Jews. “That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke, signifying what death he should die”. That is brought in by the Spirit. “Pilate therefore entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus, and said to him, Thou art the king of the Jews?” Why did he say that? That came in. “Jesus answered him, Dost thou say this of thyself?” The Lord was going to put everything right, and the young brother before the tribunal has to put things right, because you cannot expect them to be right. As a rule they are never really right at all if you come to examine things.
ANW Do you mean [p. 534] the authorities?
JT Yes; they never have the right view of things. You will always find some defect in it. The Lord says, “Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me?” That was a bold thing of the Lord to do, but it was necessary. This “King of the Jews” — that is hardly a proper term to hang on the truth. The wise men had come with the same thought. “Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?” Matthew 2: 2. Pilate has the same thought in his mind and the Lord says where did you get that? Who told you that? You must get things right. The Lord will be with anybody that patiently and humbly and courteously suggests that that is not right. If it is not right, there is a way of saying it is not right without offending anybody.
CAM The name that is given to the Lord seems to govern the situation. I was struck with what you said just now about the name of Jesus and David. The name of Jesus seems to characterize the present situation, whereas in Revelation 19 what wonderful names the Lord has: Faithful and True, etc.
JT When He comes out with His military garb no one knows; it is an inscrutable situation, and this is too. Pilate is using wrong terms. So the Lord says, “Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done?” Well now, the Lord says, “My kingdom is not of this world”; He does not say, ‘I am King of the Jews’. They would make Him a man of this world for they would fight. Earlier in John they wanted to make Him king because of what He could do in the food question. So the Lord now uses a phrase and could Pilate understand it? It is not God’s kingdom or David’s kingdom, but My kingdom in these [p. 535] circumstances.
WR In the present crisis the younger brethren appearing before the tribunals have brought out how much they have gained in impressions for themselves. Pilate evidently had nothing for himself. He was questioning whether the Lord is King of the Jews. He is not sure of his ground.
JT It is clear that I am in a crisis when I am before a tribunal. The whole question of the present provisional kingdom of the Lord Jesus comes up, and over against that the four monarchies which God maintained to govern the world, to police the world in the meantime, running parallel with “my kingdom” as the Lord calls it. The Lord is not taking a hand at all in the government of this world now. Presently He is going to do this, but this conversation means He is not going to do it now. Pilate, you are to do that. Heaven is giving you power to do that.
AR It is very difficult to convey to the authorities that you are praying for them but that you cannot fight because you belong to another world.
JT What we are saying is the crux of the whole matter; whether I can speak of the position today in this way. The Lord said to Pilate, This is the position. The tribunal is Pilate. There are religious systems around, and they are ready to tell you to recognise Pilate. They recognise Pilate. There is the religious position and Pilate. The Lord said to Pilate, Heaven recognises you, but He did not say that to the high priest. There is no religious system that God recognises at all now, no manmade system. That is the position we are in. So I have to turn my back on the high priest, as it were; whatever he says, I am not going to go by that; I am not going to recognise him as authoritative at all, but Pilate has power from heaven. Here is Jesus, and the trembling young brother who loves Him. Well, what can he say? I am a follower of [p. 536] Jesus, and I am going by what He said. That governs the position at the present time. He has a kingdom according to Matthew 17; it will be a wonderful one too. He is coming out in it. But in the meantime He is put to death, and in being arrested and put to death, He told Peter not to use the sword at all, but to put it back in its sheath. “All who take the sword shall perish by the sword”, Matthew 26: 52. That is the position, so that we cannot use the sword.
CAM Would it be safe to say that the great religious systems that recognise Pilate could really never give the Lord a right name? I mean they never say, “Lord Jesus”, by the Spirit, whereas the power in the confession of one that is before these tribunals seems to lie in that.
JT There is power in that confession. Quite so. Here is a Man whom I love, and to whom I am responsible, and whom I represent. He has a kingdom, but that kingdom is in abeyance. It has taken on a provisional character, and I want to be in accord with that provisional character until He comes back. He will rule the world and I will be thoroughly with Him, but I cannot take the sword now, because He told one of His disciples not to do it, as plainly as possible.
E When the Lord said to Pilate, “Dost thou say this of thyself?” was the Lord testing Pilate’s personal knowledge of Himself?
JT Well, He had moral power to do that. He said in the presence of the high priest, “I spoke openly to the world; I taught always in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I have spoken nothing”. I am not a fifth columnist. What I am doing, I am doing openly, and you can ask those that heard Me. They will tell you. That was a bold thing for the Lord to do in the presence of the high priest, and they smote [p. 537] Him on the face because He did that, but He did it and it is infinitely right. Why should He not say that? A Man with power, Christ! When everything was going wrong and the government was being miscarried, He is putting them at the bar, both Pilate and the high priest, but in such a way as to have power. That is the thing, that the Lord gives me moral power in facing these men.
E Do you think, especially now when our young brethren are away in camp, that having a personal knowledge in their souls of the Lord, they are able in power to confess Him before the men they have to do with?
JT That is just what we are seeking to say. The Lord is in power here. You or I might be timid to say such a thing in the presence of the governor but He did it, and He will give you the power to do it too, because the light is in the disciples of Jesus, for all of them, the governors and everybody. There is no other, and if we do not speak, who will speak? But speak in such a way as to have power in what you are saying.
GVD It is a question of moral power and not leaning on any set formula?
JT Quite so; it always tells, and the Lord makes it tell.
ANW In addition to moral power, has a young man the right to quote the law? The apostle when they were just about to scourge him said, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman?” Is that a right principle — to appeal?
JT Quite so; he cited that he was a Roman. Of course all a brother would say is that the President and Congress have passed a law, and I am taking advantage of that law. He does not say, I am a citizen, or I have a right to be heard. There is a way to do it. I do not see why he should not do it in a comely way. Why should I not take advantage [p. 538] of the law of the land? I am to obey the laws. Well, here the Lord says, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence”. There is the good confession in the presence of Pontius Pilate that Jesus bore.
Ques Would you say more as to what the Jews represent? It does not say that he was delivered up to Pilate but delivered up to the Jews.
JT Well, they were the ones who were accusing Him. Pilate was abstractly in favour of Christ, and the Lord respected that. It was only through the influence of the Jews that he scourged Him and put Him to death. The Jews were the ones the devil was using. We have to be on our guard against that.
ABP Religious impressions that the public authorities have, have been derived from a faulty source and instead of being helpful to Christians, as the government seeks to be, they are antagonistic.
JT They are, and they are trying to convict us against the truth.
ABP It is the religious impressions that cause them to act that way.
JT Even a chaplain of a regiment has more that feature. He is not with the government. Why should he not be? I know well these chaplains endeavour to influence men contrary to the law.
ABP That is why I thought it would be helpful to see that the religious impressions which the authorities have should be dissociated in our minds. There are two elements, the Jews and Pilate.
AR The chaplains do not know these scriptures, and they do not know God either, generally speaking.
JT The Jews represent the religious element here, and they are the ones who are advocating the death of [p. 539] Christ.
RWS The Lord Himself seems to get somewhere with Pilate to turn away from this religious error, in that he comes out again in verse 38 and says, “I find no fault whatever in him”.
JT That shows that governments as a rule, abstractly any way, are right; whereas the religious element do not need to be with the right; they have their own interests to serve. They have no mandates from God at all. The Jews had lost their governmental position; the gentiles had superseded them so the Lord honours all that in what He says to Pilate. He recognizes what heaven recognizes. He did not say anything to Herod. He is recognizing what heaven recognizes, and that is what the tribunal is. It is Pilate; it is for the brother who has light to present it respectfully but intelligently. They are the only ones that are right. People say it is ridiculous to say that, but it is absolutely so. The Lord is the only One right here in this particular position, and He is using what He knows to put others right.
CN Would you help us a little as to the present activities of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ?
JT I think it works out in Romans. It is called the kingdom of God but on the same principle as Mark and Luke; Matthew views it as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, and the kingdom of the Son of man. In Mark and Luke it is the kingdom of God, and I think that helps us to see how the epistles present the kingdom of God, for the kingdom works out as the kingdom of God in a moral way. It is “not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, Romans 14: 17. It is a great general thought, and I think Romans 12 is where Paul begins to write up the principles that should govern us in regard to the kingdom of God. “Vengeance belongs to me... if therefore thine enemy should hunger, feed him; if he should thirst, give him drink; for, so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head”, Romans 12: 19, 20. Do not exercise vengeance; that belongs to God. Then the next chapter tells us that the powers that be are ordained of God. That is just Pilate; so I am in the kingdom of God, or what the Lord Jesus called “my kingdom” and I know what to do in it, but at the same time, I respect the powers that be, so the position is very clear in Romans 12 and 13.
CN I was thinking, the Lord in casting out the demon said to the Pharisees, “But if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you?”, Luke 11: 20. Furthermore, He gave to the apostles power over the demons, etc. Would that help in the operation?
JT Yes; I think the kingdom of God is a question of the Spirit, “Righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. It is the form things have taken in this the Spirit’s day.
AR Paul tells Timothy to be a good soldier of Jesus Christ. Would that be working out what we are speaking of?
JT Just so. That is the kind of soldiership, not the sword, but that kind of soldiership.
AR Our young brothers, in principle, are really in the front lines.
JT Just so. How remarkable it is that God seems to put them there to be lights in a world of darkness.
AC What sphere is that in Colossians: “Who has... translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love”?
JT That is a good question.
AC Prior to that Paul speaks of the glorious power that is for us, walking in all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness. Then he refers to being translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love; so that we should have all that is before us, as being in the good [p. 541] of sonship.
JT Yes; he has delivered us from the authority of darkness, which alludes to the darkening religious conditions around, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love. That is a remarkable thing. You do not find it anywhere else, the Son of His love. It alludes to the sphere of love in which Christ rules. It is not any more than that. It is not to bring out that the Son of man comes in His kingdom; it is simply that love prevails where we are; where God has delivered us from darkness and translated us into the realm of the Son of His love. That is the kingdom in which He rules us now, as we are in this meeting, in our houses or wherever we are. It is a love matter. The book of Proverbs opens it up to us. It is the rule of the kingdom of the Son of the Father’s love.
JS Does John define the issue between the Lord and the religious world?
JT He does. They brought Jesus to Pilate and we are dealing now with Pilate and what the Lord is saying to him.
Ques Would you say more about Proverbs?
JT It is Solomon viewed as the son of David; what he was to him; what he should say to us as a young man or a young sister. He uses the word son himself, but he says to us, “I was my father’s son; tender and only beloved in the sight of my mother”, Proverbs 4: 3. He is the one to listen to, because he nurtures you in love and tells you what to do in the most remarkable choice of language; the very best phraseology you can get anywhere is in the book of Proverbs.
RWS In the parts of the world where there is darkness in regard of this matter, how do you act? Suppose the legal positions are being maintained through darkness and religious profession and otherwise. What do you do?
[p. 542] JT There are countries like that. We can thank God we are not in them, in conditions like these. The question is whether these countries, such as France and Germany and other European countries, have had sufficient prayer, whether there is not a governmental element entering into that. Certain parts of the world have allowed light; they have opened the door to light and they are gaining from it. It is hard to say much but it is a thing to be noted and enquired about; people have had to suffer in those circumstances, whereas we have not.
AR Where the light is shining as it is today, the majority of the saints are not enduring this. Most of us have not to endure what we are talking about.
JT We have to endure it. We are with them, at least if we are spiritual. We are to be sympathetic with those in bonds as bound with them. The more spiritual we are, the more we are with people who are suffering for the truth. That is how I would look at it.
AAT Is that not what John says in the isle of Patmos? “Your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience”, Revelation 1: 9.
JT That is exactly what he says.
AAT There are three thoughts in one.
JT There are three thoughts under one article, showing it is one great thought of the present position. It is the tribulation and kingdom and patience altogether. That just covers what we are talking about.
FSC There was seldom any mitigation for any of the apostles as to their sufferings. There were no laws to hinder their sufferings.
JT Not much; they were just to accept it. Paul, as has been remarked, on several occasions asserts his Roman citizenship and the like, but we are not doing that. We are not bound to do that. We just claim that the law of the land is favourable to us,
[p. 543] and we are taking advantage of it. Why not? If the government extends favour, why not accept it? They represent God.
AR Every young brother who faces the tribunals and the military, as standing the ground, will have experiences that will make him gain spiritually. The exercise should be that we might gain spiritually.
JT Quite so.
RM Sometimes the authorities inquire as to the moral basis on which we include ourselves in this kingdom. They say, How do you consider yourself part of that kingdom. What would you say?
JT Believe on the Lord Jesus.
RM John 3 tells us about the kingdom of God. Would you include yourself in that?
JT Quite so. What Matthew calls the kingdom of the Son of man, Mark calls the kingdom of the Son of God. Jesus is God anyway. His kingdom is God’s kingdom.
ABP We should not have any difficulty in getting into the category of His servants, should we? “if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight”.
JT Quite so.