FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (4)
[p. 52] FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (4)
Acts 3: 1 - 11; Acts 4: 23 - 31; Acts 12: 1 - 7
JT The thought at this time is that we should look at Peter. He comes before us in the Scriptures as one occupied in a legitimate business. The Lord called him, and said He would make him a fisher of men. It was in this capacity, when at Caesarea, that he secured Cornelius and his company, thus having to do with the nations or their representatives; and the Spirit also uses him as representative of leadership amongst the people of God. In Matthew in the list of apostles given, he is first, and so the Acts takes him up in that way. The Lord ascended to heaven and Peter is seen in the upper room with the others and proceeds to serve according to what was needful. Then in chapter 2 he is seen as representative of the ministry; his ministry is linked up with the eleven, he stood up with the eleven, giving a lead amongst them. He was divinely qualified and did his work well. He is put forward as representative of the Lord’s own handiwork. The idea of it is of one being made.
In chapter 3 John is seen taking a second place. Peter is always first. He and John are seen together in chapters 3 and 4 — we may call them ‘Peter and John chapters’, but Peter is leading. Chapter 4 brings them forward as sufferers, but knowing how to avail themselves of the circle formed, a retreat provided in the company, into which they merge. Peter, however successful in his leadership, merges with the others; he lends whatever he has to the company. The company is enhanced by whatever one is, as of God, or whatever he has of God, and the chapter shows how the position is so regarded. It is a strenuous time, hence God is alluded to as a ‘Despot’, which is the word for “Lord” in the original here. “And having been let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord, thou art the God...” The word ‘Despot’, or ‘Master’, alludes, as remarked, to the strenuousness of the times. There can be no will, save the will of God; in His kingdom the will of God must be adhered to. So they lifted up their voice with one accord to God, quoting David, “Why have the nations raged haughtily and the peoples meditated vain things? The kings of the earth were there, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass. And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word, in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus”. Now it is for us at this time to see the circumstances, and the truth entering into them; also how far they enter into the present moment.
Then finally, in the passage in chapter 12, Peter is seen in prison, again representing the ministry, although the ministry was rendered impotent for the moment; Herod representing the authorities, which is, the Roman Empire. We see what happens to the rulers as they disregard the will of God, the service of God; the facts are prophetic. In this chapter Peter still represents the ministry. Satan had intervened through Herod to kill James, and then he took Peter because it pleased the Jews, which fact brings [p. 54] out how the authorities are affected by the people, the populace. So that Peter is put into prison, and therefore the ministry becomes hindered, at least for the moment. And now the point to be understood is how God met the emergency which the chapter discloses.
ANW This morning you seemed to give Paul a place in precedence to Peter, which is confirmed in Scripture; is it that Peter is “first” in relation to the eleven only, and his ministry preparatory to that of Paul?
JT Yes. He takes the lead in relation to the eleven, what the Lord left here, His handiwork. But Peter links on with Paul in chapter 10; that is, not formally, but in his ministry; although it is remarkable that Paul went up to see Peter after he was converted and remained a certain time with him, as if there was at once a spiritual link between them. But Paul as in relation to Barnabas takes the lead, not by formal appointment but by power and efficiency. Saul in chapter 13 is identified with Paul, and it is now “Paul and his company”; a similar comment is never made of Peter or of any of the other apostles. And so Paul is already in the lead in chapter 13, and in chapter 15 he is pre-eminently in the lead, that is, not by appointment, but by fact, linking on with receiving the right hands of fellowship of Peter, James and John. Finally in his epistle Peter formally commits himself to Paul in the ministry, and as a Scripture writer, too. So that I think these facts make the matter clear that Paul is outstanding, a universal minister, a person who has received ministry from the Lord personally more than once. Peter is stressed by the Lord as put in administration in the kingdom — not in the assembly, but in the kingdom. But our point is to see the link between him and this main subject, that is, how the rulers of the world came in contact with the ministers [p. 55] of the truth of Christianity, and how the ministers behaved in relation to them.
HGH It speaks of the hour of prayer in Acts 3, but in chapter 4 the prayer was specific, about a certain crisis that had arisen.
JT That is seen in comparing the two chapters. Chapter 3 speaks of the hour of prayer, the prayer was going on in the temple, and Peter and John went up at that time, showing that it was still a transitional time, and the disciples had part in it, as stated in chapter 2: 46. But Peter and John outshone anything that was there. The temple was really put into the shade, and yet they recognised it. In chapter 4 the prayer is specific, but not in the temple; it was in “their own company”, Peter and John merging with the others. It is a question of the company and how thoroughly they were one and how love prevailed, and that God answered them. While they were together in the building it was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.
AEH In Paul have we in a general way the idea of a model set before us, an elect vessel chosen to set out the divine thought; but in Peter, the working out of the truth morally, and therefore the forces of opposition especially stressed with him? There seems to be more sympathy shown on the part of the authorities with Paul.
JT The personal touch between Peter and the authorities is not much stressed. In Peter the expense, the overhead, was heavy; the Lord had to spend much on him to make him conform to what He had in mind; whereas the word ‘vessel’ is applied to Paul from the outset. He is an “elect vessel”, meaning that he would be usable and that from the start.
ASB You referred to the idea of processing. That is seen with Peter, as under the hand of the [p. 56] Lord; but the result of the Lord’s work with Paul is almost instantaneous.
JT Paul started to work immediately, and with the right thought: he preached that Jesus is the Son of God. That was the leading thought then and it is the leading thought now. Peter comes to it at the end of his ministry. He never brings it in in his early ministry; that, of course, would be according to the Spirit’s guidance. He is about to depart from the service when he speaks in his second epistle about the Son of God.
CAM Paul said, “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”. Would that stand in contrast to what He made Peter?
JT I think so. In Paul the idea of the vessel, of one available, is noticed and he had been long in the divine mind. Of course, Peter had been, too, but that is not stressed. There were more personal touches in Paul.
ANW By the ‘expense’ the Lord had with Peter, do you mean the repeated corrections which seemed to be necessary for him?
JT That is what I mean, the exercise the Lord must have had about him. It is remarkable how many instances there are in regard to him. It is meant for us now as to how much overhead the Lord has in regard to each of us.
APT “I have prayed for thee”, would that indicate some of the overhead?
Ques “I have prayed for thee”, would that gain all the apostles? The Lord told them that Satan had sought to have all of them to sift them. But He said to Peter, “I have prayed for thee”. He would have Peter notice what he was costing Him. Not that He did not pray for the others, but He says to Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not”.
AAT Was the service of Peter more in connection with the kingdom, whereas Paul’s was in the assembly, involving the truth of the Son of God?
JT The Lord said to Peter, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens”. It was an administrative matter; whereas Paul had committed to him the ministry of the assembly, the truth of the mystery, the truth of reconciliation and the completion of the word. He was also a competent minister of the new covenant, and he tells us himself that he laboured more abundantly than they all — Peter and the other eleven apostles. It is plain that he has the first place in the service of the Lord. But Peter had the first place among the early apostles.
AEH The subject of overhead costs, involving mathematics, is interesting. I wonder if that is why Peter uses the word add in his second epistle, that the spiritual project might be a growing one?
JT According to that scripture the believer is to have in one element another, and in this, another, leading to regulated completeness in the features of Christianity. He says, “Simon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have received like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. As his divine power has given to us all things which relate to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that has called us by glory and virtue, through which he has given to us the greatest and precious promises, that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust”. And then he goes on to what you alluded to as additions: “But for this very reason also, using therewith all diligence, in your [p. 58] faith have also virtue, in virtue knowledge, in knowledge temperance, in temperance endurance, in endurance godliness, in godliness brotherly love, in brotherly love love”. There we have the idea of a great system of operation — elements operating to produce other elements. It is a system of things, and it covers what we are saying as to cost, each believer adding or producing.
AHP Is it not significant that the ninth hour, the hour of prayer, was that in which Peter and John went up to the temple together, linking it on with the sufferings on the cross? There was darkness over the earth from the sixth to the ninth hour.
JT It has often been noted and I am sure it is true. It is a question of spiritual sentiment.
TLS Just how much does Peter’s occupation enter into this matter of what he was going to do now?
JT The word “fisher” is used of him; the Lord says, “I will make you fishers of men”. The thought of a fisher would run right through his history. His position at the end of chapter 9 was at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean and not on the Sea of Galilee. That would accentuate the idea of men, the universal thought. In that connection he links on with Paul; it is a question of men. Cornelius was a man, and Peter said to him, “I myself also am a man”.
CAM Do you think the name Peter, meaning “stone”, which the Lord gave him, would link his personality with his service?
JT Yes. We have noticed that he was not called, as Paul was, to special service in the assembly; the name given him implied that he was material for the assembly. His commission specially referred to the kingdom. The Lord said to him, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the [p. 59] heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens”, Matthew 16: 19.
AEH Do you think the original work given to him and Andrew, when the Lord said “I will make you fishers of men”, would suggest to Peter that in dealing with those in authority, they too were men? He could pay respect to them, but still they are men, and hence there would be an element in them to which there could be some appeal as having to do with God.
JT On the other hand, as opposed to God and His testimony they are degraded — just clay. The truth works both ways. Peter had to do with a man judged by God in this sense. Herod, although a dignitary, persecuted the apostles, and was eaten of worms.
CAM You were alluding to Cornelius as in a position of distinction. Manhood comes up in that connection with Peter.
JT In that section of Acts he links on with Paul as to the whole race. It is striking at the end of chapter 9 that Peter is viewed as “passing through all quarters”, implying that he was in accord with the Spirit at the moment as reaching out to the nations — seen in the next chapter. Today we have been praying as to the saints generally coming into accord, being united; we do not wish to have a different line of things here from that in Australia and Great Britain; we wish to be universal, which the Holy Spirit requires and promotes. Peter seems to come into line with what the Lord is doing, he goes to all quarters. He is seen on the shores of the Mediterranean, and while in prayer he goes into an ecstasy. The vessel comes down from heaven which was to enlarge his view of things, making way for Paul, and therefore he regards Cornelius as a [p. 60] man — as he was. He was a man of Italy, and Peter says to him, “Ye know how it is unlawful for a Jew to be joined or come to one of a strange race, and to me God has shewn to call no man common or unclean”.
JWD Going back to Herod — if you had been living in the dominion that he governed, how would you have prayed for his government?
JT It is a question of the circumstances. God may raise up a man, or allow a man to be raised up to do certain things in relation to His people in a disciplinary sense, and he does them. But he may do far more, becoming lawless and destructive. Then he becomes an enemy of God and an enemy of men. The position changes; the spiritual would discern that. Herod “laid his hands on some of those of the assembly to do them hurt, and slew James”, and put Peter in prison, intending to kill him. Here is a man definitely against God’s servants and testimony, having the character of antichrist. I should not pray for him — unless that if it were God’s will he should be removed. He is an enemy of God and is eaten of worms. Although this dispensation is one of grace, God in certain circumstances acts in it in the severest way.
JWD God removed him in a summary way without causing the destruction of great multitudes of people. Could we not intelligently pray that an angel of the Lord might operate in a similar drastic way with certain individuals in governments who oppress God’s people?
JT I pray for that very thing regularly — that God, if it were His will, might, to save the carnage, deal with the men who are specially responsible for it. God can do that. The great battle mentioned in Revelation 19 is in relation to the beast and the false prophet and the whole world under them. The [p. 61] two leaders are taken first; the beast and the false prophet are taken first and cast into the lake of fire. God can do that.
AAT In the verses you read in Acts 4 the brethren as they prayed asked the Lord to look upon their threatenings, but did not exactly pray against the government. They ask that they might have boldness to speak the word and that the Lord might stretch out His hand to heal.
JT Yes; the idea of the dispensation is greatly stressed in that prayer: “And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word, in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness”. It is the gospel they are concerned about, that is a very important item to have before us. It is God’s work going on, not simply our relief, that is our concern.
SMcC Peter had learned this in a practical way when with the Lord. He cut oil the ear of the high priest’s servant, but the Lord stretched out His hand and healed it.
JT Quite so. That is Luke’s point of view; it is the question of the gospel; But John does not mention that, as we had yesterday. From his point of view such things may be allowed to go on to the end unremedied. Now God may not today act in any such drastic way as we see here, but I think we are entitled to pray that He might come in and deal with matters in such a way as not to cause such enormous loss of life and property. God may do that, because it is a gracious time. He may listen to that.
[p. 62] Ques You were speaking about the preparatory work in Paul in view of his service. What would you say about Galatians 1: 17?
JT I think that bears on the thought of overhead that we were speaking of. The Lord would be saved certain expense, so to speak, by Paul’s movement into Arabia. It is a question of how much we judge ourselves. Going into Arabia would be going into wilderness circumstances; instead of building up your personal circumstances, comfort or affluence, you take the other course and starve the flesh. If you starve the flesh, you save the Lord expense; I think that is what is meant. Instead of going to Jerusalem, he went into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus; and after three years he went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter.
JWD Do you mean that whether we are on the Peter line or the Paul line is a matter for ourselves?
JT I think we can in a sense take things on ourselves to obviate the necessity of discipline. In disallowing or non-feeding the flesh much is accomplished. I think Arabia means that we are denied the means of feeding the flesh. John the baptist was brought up in the deserts, meaning that he was brought up in circumstances that prevented the feeding of the flesh. The more we do of that the less expense the Lord has with us. John the baptist’s ministry was short; he was only a young man when beheaded, but he was very successful — of those born of women there was none greater. He kept his body in control. Paul says, “I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest after having preached to others I should be myself rejected”, 1 Corinthians 9: 27.
ASB Is that why the apostle said, “I took not counsel with flesh and blood”, in relation to going up to Arabia?
JT I think so. He was resourceful in taking care of himself. The fact that he took not counsel with [p. 63] flesh and blood would mean that he did not rely on human wisdom, he relied on the resources which God gave him. Going into Arabia implied that he would not trust himself, that, as we have said, he would not promote fleshly tendencies in himself. “Confide in Jehovah with all thy heart, and lean not unto thine own intelligence”, Proverbs 3: 5. The Lord said to Peter, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not”; not that he should not fail, but that his faith should not fail. He could go on with His work with Peter if his faith did not fail. Buffeting his body is a good illustration; the apostle kept his body under. Of course he would look to the Lord to keep him, but then, he saw to himself and did not allow the natural to rule. The basis of this doctrinally is in Romans 6, Romans 7 and Romans 8.
HB Is there overhead seen with Israel in the many days of their wandering, over against the eleven days’ journey they could have taken?
JT Yes; God journeyed every extra mile with them. Everywhere they went He went, whereas it was only eleven days’ journey from Mount Horeb to Kadesh-barnea.
JAP We often allude to Peter and John returning to their own company. They were not puffed up by their service, but took their places in the company as before; they kept lowly.
JT I think we know the gain of keeping among the brethren. How our young brethren in the services are at a disadvantage in having been cut off from the meetings! In Great Britain they usually get to meetings, but not in this country and the United States; that is, “their own company” is not generally available. That is a serious matter, they have to progress in spite of that. In these circumstances the word to Timothy is particularly needful: “Youthful lusts flee”, and in keeping with it, “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those [p. 64] that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”, 2 Timothy 2: 22. The young men have not the brethren near them to “follow... with”, but they can flee youthful lusts and maintain self-judgment, including buffeting of the body, as well as practical righteousness.
WWM Do you think that the thorn in the flesh that was given to Paul saved the Lord a great deal of trouble with him?
JT Yes; He gave that to him to work for him. That was one of the workers in his favour: “And that I might not be exalted... there was given to me a thorn for the flesh, a messenger of Satan that he might buffet me”. He also knew how to do the buffeting himself, but he needed more of it and the thorn effected it. He says himself, there are certain things that work for us: “tribulation works endurance; and endurance, experience; and experience, hope”, Romans 5: 3, 4.
AEH What do you see in the fact that in the beginning of chapter 12 God allows an apostle to be slain, and before the chapter finishes He allows sixteen soldiers, I assume, to die to save another apostle? Such a vast difference in the way these two brothers fare!
JT That is a remarkable chapter for us now; it is a sort of parenthesis in the general history. The history is dealing with Paul and Barnabas, who come into chapter 11. While they are labouring at Antioch successfully, Agabus comes down there and prophetically announces a famine; the chapter finishes with persons in Antioch who are “well off” sending money to Jerusalem to meet need occasioned by the famine. Now in chapter 12 we have another matter altogether, what is going on under Herod’s rule; not against Paul and Barnabas, but against Peter, John and James who were of the twelve. Then the political side of Herod is brought out: he saw the murder of James pleased the Jews and he arrested Peter [p. 65] and put him into prison, having in mind to slay him too. Now we have a most remarkable account of divine intervention; the attack was against the ministry and in Peter’s deliverance God shows man’s impotence. These are touches in connection with Peter’s imprisonment which indicate that the revival of the ministry, as well as the restoration of it was in mind, and that the Lord’s supper is linked with the latter. The angel smote Peter’s side, which would remind him of the Lord’s smitten side and what it suggests as to the assembly; as risen from the dead the Lord showed to His disciples His hands and His side, the witness of His unchangeable love for the assembly.
HGH Is it not interesting to see the part prayer takes in connection with that?
JT Yes; unceasing prayer was made by the assembly to God for Peter, and a number were gathered in the house of Mary the mother of Mark engaged in prayer, as he was delivered from the prison. Evidently, however, they were not looking for the divine answer, for when Peter appeared they did not believe it was he. They were not ready to receive the testimony that he was released. I only refer to that to show there was a decline in Jerusalem. The chapter is somewhat parenthetical as linking the history of the assembly at Jerusalem with the great movement of the Spirit through Saul and Barnabas among the nations. The remarkable happening in the prison is particularly what we should notice — how Peter is released and how, when he comes to himself and comes to know where he is — in the street, left to himself — he goes to the prayer meeting. But there is a want of faith there. The main line now is evidently in connection with Paul and Barnabas. The need at Jerusalem is met by the bounty of the saints at Antioch, which is sent up there “by the hand of Barnabas and Saul”. The work of God in the gentiles was taking the lead.
[p. 66] He may work in one section, and in other parts His work may be lessened; we have to notice that. But this chapter shows that God does not neglect any part of His field. We see here, too, how God revives His work where there is a tendency to decline, while at the same time entering on new fields.
CAM Do you think He was linking Peter on with the assembly in its wider aspect as seen in chapter 13, and from there on?
JT Yes. The assembly had been recognized officially as in Jerusalem — that was the external position: “At that time Herod the king laid his hands on some of those of the assembly to do them hurt”; they were known to be that; it is “the assembly”, having that status at Jerusalem. But now the work of God is moving among the nations, and full notice is to be taken of those who are leading in it. This comes out more clearly in chapter 15. The apostles remained at Jerusalem, we are told in chapter 8; God is not neglecting what is there, there are still godly men devoted to Christ; but there is some weakness, and God is allowing this man Herod to attack them. But the outcome is not that he destroys the assembly at Jerusalem, but that he himself is destroyed; and the ministry is to revive and to link on with what Paul is doing. He is engaged in the universal movement of the Spirit. It is to begin at the Lord’s supper; it involves the Lord’s side.
JJ Does the fact that the saints are going through and that the young men in the camps are being maintained imply that the ministry should be increasingly wider and better?
JT Yes; and what is indicated in Peter’s release from prison is that the ministry is to be free from bondage, but not as released in a mere arbitrary or physical way. It is to be set free in connection with the meaning of the Lord’s side as pierced. We are to be brought back to the typical teaching of Adam [p. 67] and Eve, meaning the death of Jesus as in John 20; He showed the disciples His hands and His side.
JRH Do you mean that Peter representing the ministry suffers in a representative way in order that the assembly at Jerusalem may be helped and link on universally?
JT Yes. It is evident that Jerusalem needed to be sympathetic with the movement among the nations. The passage states: “And lo, an angel of the Lord came there, and a light shone in the prison: and having smitten the side of Peter, he roused him up, saying, Rise up quickly”. Peter had been taken out of prison before, but the record is not nearly so vivid and so touchingly suggestive as in chapter 12. Then we have to enquire, Why all this? Is it not spiritual? Is Peter not coming out of prison a roused-up person with his side affected? And by contemplation and comparison would not Genesis 2 and John 20 come into his mind?
JH Acts 4: 27 says, “Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass”. Would that indicate that governing authorities retain the character of God’s ministers even when in an attitude of opposition to the testimony?
JT They may; the Lord recognizes that in Pilate. He says, “Thou hadst no authority whatever against me if it were not given to thee from above”. But it is when they go wantonly beyond that that a difference should be made, and I think Herod in chapter 12 is thus marked. He is definitely opposed to the ministry. James is one of the ministers; it is a question of attacking the ministers. Earlier, the persecution at Jerusalem scattered the saints generally; the apostles were allowed to stay there but they were attacked. The people are not attacking, but [p. 68] Herod is directly attacking the ministry; that is, Satan would destroy what is of God at Jerusalem. What Paul and Barnabas were doing at Antioch is another matter.
ASB Why is it said that “a light shone in the prison”?
JT That is a beautiful thought. God is moving in the light. He would make clear to His servant what He is doing; He was not acting in the dark. Peter is to be brought out intelligently.
SWP “Immediately the angel left him” — you might think he would be needed more than ever at that point.
JT Peter knew what to do at this time. I believe the terrible attack on Great Britain was to bring out the work of God; what is there is far more than Satan had calculated, but God diverted the attack in due time. Not that it is over yet, but the main effort is over.
Rem It would appear that Herod thought he was going to triumph. He had taken one servant and was proceeding to eliminate another.
JT It is one thing after another! Well, God may use men in His governmental purposes, but they may be going beyond what God intended and in that case He takes issue with them. I believe that is the present position.
CAM Do you think the fact that Rhoda recognized Peter’s voice would show that there is sympathetic discernment as to whom God is using amongst the saints; that there is youthful feminine feeling in spite of all this outward pressure?
JT A beautiful touch! There is in the whole account a remarkable train of circumstances bearing the evidence of God’s hand in the preservation and deliverance of His servant: the angel’s intervention and guidance as the light shines in the prison,
the smiting of Peter’s side, the gate leading to the city opening of itself, the prayer meeting and the person inside who recognizes Peter’s voice. They said Rhoda was mad, but she was not mad; nor was Paul mad when he was speaking to Agrippa, though so charged. Rhoda represents the great importance of standing firmly by what we know in such circumstances. “But Peter continued knocking: and having opened, they saw him and were astonished”. God has gained His end and the ministry is released; but those who were praying are put to shame, for they were unbelieving as to Peter’s deliverance. There may have been a general need of stirring up in the assembly at Jerusalem. Peter is smitten on the side and the light shone inside in the prison, and over against this the prayer meeting is wanting in faith as to what had happened. Then Herod was eaten of worms; this was the direct judgment of God, “because he did not give the glory to God”.
JRH There is an expression here that reminds you of Luke 15; it says, “When Peter was come to himself”. Would that be the work of God in the ministry shining out in its proper native character, underlying the voice of Peter?
JT That is the real Peter. There had been conditions that had affected him, but it is now himself. The Lord has him much in mind as His great servant, especially as to the turn things have taken at Jerusalem; and I believe that is the way we arrive at the meaning of chapter 12, which is, as I said, a sort of parenthesis in the history. There was to be a co-ordination there with the work of God in Antioch. Chapter 15 is a sequel to this, where you get the actual facts of certain opposition to the truth arising in Jerusalem, and how an adjustment was reached in which Peter took a most important part. Unity was maintained, the Holy Spirit graciously [p. 70] helping.
SMcC In connection with the circumstances Paul was in that we were dwelling on this morning, there is no mention of prayer being made for him anywhere. There does not seem to be from the scriptural record, the same interest in his imprisonment as there is in Peter’s.
JT That is of deep interest and suggests enquiry. But it is to be remarked as to the comparison between the two apostles that the reference in Acts 12:5 as to prayer being made for Peter is evidently connected with the assembly at Jerusalem. In Acts 18: 22 Paul is said to have “saluted the assembly” and the context shows that there also the assembly at Jerusalem is referred to. Peter’s special place as the leading apostle of the twelve makes clear why much prayer was made for him by the assembly at Jerusalem. The same interest, no doubt, would be shown in Paul as in similar circumstances. Consider, for instance, the great affection for him manifest in the Ephesian elders at Miletus.
AHP What do you say as to the fact that Peter was asleep in the prison, but Paul and Silas were singing praises in the prison?
JT There is a difference. It is not that you would discredit Peter, but he sometimes has to suffer for our learning. In the records of Scripture incidents that love would cover are mentioned so that saints following after might avoid any dangers indicated in them. Singing praises to God with your feet fast in the stocks has more testimony and pleasure for divine Persons than being fast asleep.
SWP Does the mention of these various parts of Peter, his side, his hands, his feet (in reference to sandals), his voice, carry the suggestion that the personality of the servant gives power to his service?
JT I am sure that enters into what we are saying. The chapter is remarkable as to what it opens up to people who know and maybe have forgotten,
[p. 71] or who failed to use what they know. What they may have known in power has lapsed a bit; so that when they are touched it all comes up again. The whole position is brought to light in what happens, and Herod is removed most ignominiously. That enters into the present position, and I believe that if we lay hold of it and keep on praying, God will do something about it.
AAT Do you think the sisters have a distinct place in our prayer meetings?
JT They should be there. Many stay at home because they think it is not so important as other meetings. God has put a premium on it, that we should be made glad in His house of prayer (compare Isaiah 56: 1 - 7).