THE LIBERTY OF SONSHIP (1)
THE LIBERTY OF SONSHIP (1)
JT The epistle to the Galatians indicates the enemy’s tactics as designed to rob the saints of the truth as delivered to the saints; and it is thought that as so much of the most exalted character of truth has been before the saints, the enemy will not fail to seek to rob us of it. The liberty involved in christianity was introduced by way of example, in the Lord’s ministry, as also by teaching; but it was introduced by Himself looking on to Pentecost. In going through the cornfields on the sabbath He indicated that there was liberty to do that without the need of explanation. Mark 2:23 says His disciples “began to walk on, plucking the ears”. They thus seized the liberty the Lord introduced; but this liberty of theirs was immediately attacked, and the Lord defended what they did. His own action was not attacked, except indirectly, but what the disciples did, in appropriating what was available, was attacked. In the Lord’s defence of the position, we have what may pass before us in looking at this epistle, that the defence implies the stabilisation of the position, so that this epistle may be regarded as a charter for us. The understanding of this, and the acceptance of the liberty that is implied, is required to maintain in character what the Spirit gives to us, what we may regard as treasure. The more exalted the ministry, as in the days of David in 1 Chronicles, the more the stress on the receptacles, the treasuries — not only treasures, but treasuries — in the house; for the Lord would remind us that each is to be a treasury, holding and carrying through what he has in the power of the Spirit, not merely in a doctrinal way — of course, we are to be right in doctrine — but [p. 289] in the spirit of the truth, for the Spirit is said to be the truth, 1 John 5:6.
In making these remarks one would refer to what the Spirit indicates as to the christians addressed in this epistle, the Galatians. They were evidently of a fickle mind. The Cretans represent a certain feature of the flesh in a national way, and these Galatians represent the fickleness of the flesh. I believe they were of Gallic origin, a race of people that are known to be fickle and shallow, and ready to take in things quickly and to express their feelings, and as ready to give up what they have received, and to change their minds. These traits are not, however, simply racial, but as brought in and stressed in some race, are to call attention to what is in all of us; a certain fickleness and readiness to take in what is presented, as I may say, extravagantly, for the apostle says that they were ready to pluck out their eyes for him, and they received him like an angel of God, which was immoderate. Others came along and influenced them, too, and hence they were exposed to the enemy. It is important to mention that, because we have recently had evidence of this sort of readiness to take on things and to be influenced unduly by what is not of God. That is what I had in mind.
LDM Is it a question then of how things are to be held in spite of influences? The apostle says that his apostleship was “through Jesus Christ, and God the Father” — is that the secret?
JT Yes; you cannot carry these fickle traits into that realm. Things are all established in Christ risen. Then, moreover, there is the stress on apostolic authority in the opening verses, which is perhaps greater than in any other epistle; so that what is ministered is to be held. It says, “Paul, apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father”. Men and man, and all that is implied in the words as regards natural and national traits, are [p. 290] left behind.
NKM In the other epistles he refers to himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ, but here it is “through Jesus Christ”. What is the significance of that?
JT It is the instrumentality by which his apostleship was effected, making it all the more imperative that it should be accepted and owned. The Lord had said to Peter, “I will make you ...” Matthew 4:19 It is what the Lord had made Paul; his apostleship was through that means: “through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from among the dead”. It came about in that way, but it was not an apostleship of a subordinate character. Doubtless there were those who were apostles in a lesser degree, but no one’s apostleship had more weight than his: “through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from among the dead”. The means of Paul’s apostleship is striking here: God operated in Christ, in raising Him from the dead, and now He is operating in Paul. The ground is very firm and the authority involved great.
Ques Would not this cut out the whole clerical system?
JT It would; it is ministerial ground; that is, if we go back to the types, it is the book of Exodus. There is to be no disregard of this authority, even as that of Moses and Aaron, whose personal history entered into what God presented in them. It says, “I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam”, Micah 6:4. God made that selection, and sent them before Israel; they were not only God’s own selection, but His own formation. “Jesus Christ” here would mean the kind of Man employed. Moses and Aaron and Miriam, as has often been remarked, were very old, as we speak, when they were sent before Israel, and God committed Himself to them in sending them before Israel. Not that they went before in a physical sense, but they were in the mind of God, and under the formative hand of God, and under His discipline before.
MWB Do you think that the apostle’s object in [p. 291] referring to his apostleship and to the resurrection of the Lord was to meet this fickle feature of the Galatians?
JT Yes. One is sensible in oneself of this fickle trait which marks the human race and I believe this branch of the Celtic race conveniently represents that, and here God presents His judgment of this feature. It is to remind us that we are all characterised naturally by that; and so strikingly was it the case with the Galatians that the apostle uses the word “wonder”, as if to say, Even although I know well enough you are Gauls, and fickle — even allowing for all that, I am surprised that you change your mind so quickly! Someone comes along with a measure of ability and a striking way of presenting things, and we are carried, not because of the value of the things in themselves, but by the manner of the presentation.
HMS Was not the turning away of the Galatians here more serious than turning away from Paul? We read later that “all who are in Asia ... have turned away from me”, 2 Timothy 1:15, but here the turning is “from him that called you in Christ’s grace, to a different gospel”.
JT It was; and in the reception of something additional to what they had received, there was a specious kind of opposition to the recognition of what had already been ministered, yet in a way so as not to be exposed in attacking it. To openly attack what has been received as of God, would discredit us; but assuming to recognise it, yet bringing in what is different; “a different gospel”, as it says, is a specious way of overthrowing the truth.
Rem Paul would even withstand that fickleness when it came out in Peter.
JT It is very suggestive that even the great apostle Peter manifested this very thing, and not one of us is immune. Certain came from James, and Peter was affected by [p. 292] that influence.
LDM Paul has with him in Titus a concrete example of the production of his ministry.
JT We shall see that in our next reading, that there is the product of the ministry before them in Jerusalem where it was attacked. That is what Titus represents, and the second chapter is more formal in taking the matter in hand. The apostle went up, it says, “according to revelation”, Galatians 2:2. We may always look for that, that as an attack is made God will definitely take the matter in hand. The first chapter is Paul and his ministry, and his wonderment at these Galatians, the readiness with which they took on something different from what had been received by them as accredited of God.
DLH Was not the whole character of the dispensation at stake just then?
JT Quite so. The liberty of christianity, as introduced by Christ, by example and in teaching, and as set out in the apostle’s ministry, was being attacked. That is the thing. It was a surreptitious attack, not merely one person having a difficulty, but a regular attack as by an enemy, a warlike attack; so that there were those who entered in to spy out the liberty of christians, to rob christians of their heritage, and of their liberties. Hence the ground taken here is military, as you would expect, and these traits of the Galatians — christians, of course — are introduced here. I believe the Lord would help us to look into that, because, unless that is judged, we are exposed to this sort of thing and easily influenced.
HES Why does the apostle connect “all the brethren” with him?
JT It is to give authority, to give more weight to his remarks, and in addition to authority, the brethren would be sympathetic. Brethren are brethren, and if we have to question our brethren it is for their good. I think it is just to bring in the brotherly element. The Edomite element was at work. In defending the liberties [p. 293] of His disciples, the Lord reminds the opposers of what David did, that he entered into the house of God — he took that liberty — and obtained what he needed from the priest. But then, there was an Edomite there. That was not accidental, it was the enemy’s careful plan; Doeg was there and was ready. He spied out what was going on, spied out the liberty that God was encouraging in David, and the terrible consequence was the destruction of the priesthood. It was that Edomite — and that is what the apostle has in mind here. It is bad, of course, to have the fickle, shallow disposition that marks the human race, but how serious to admit a Doeg! — one that would creep in surreptitiously to spy out the liberties of the saints. David said, “I knew it” 1 Samuel 22:22. That is a word for us to be on the watch. He did not say anything to Doeg, but he knew what was there; he represents the christian who is alive to things, who has his eyes and ears open, so that the enemy does not get any advantage over him.
EuR Is the “present evil world” here largely religious in character?
JT That is what is in mind, deliverance from it is “according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be glory to the ages of ages”. The introduction is very fine and very wonderful — the power of resurrection, and then “the will of our God and Father; to whom be glory to the ages of ages”. What a vista rises up before the apostle’s soul as to what deliverance into that world — the Father’s world — really means for us!
EuR The trouble was coming from Jerusalem which had crucified the Lord Jesus.
JT Jerusalem, “which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt”, Revelation 11:8. At this stage it is the world’s city really.
COB Why the contrast in the emphasis on Paul’s apostleship in this epistle, with the absence of any apostle, but the emphasis on God speaking “in Son”, in Hebrews? Hebrews [p. 294] 1:2 There is instruction in the contrast. Of course, the writer with great feeling and intelligence is about to speak of “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession”, Hebrews 3:1 and if it be Paul, as doubtless it was, with characteristic sensibilities he leaves out his own apostleship, as also in his address in the Philippian epistle. Where love prevails there is no need of stressing that, save for the sake of the doctrine. Here it is to give weight to what he is going to say.
Rem To understand “through Jesus Christ, and God the Father” would set our feet on a rock.
JT What has been remarked is true, that it is a question of the kind of humanity viewed in Jesus Christ. There is nothing fickle or unstable about that; so much so that the apostle speaks of it as the foundation he laid at Corinth, “which is Jesus Christ” 1 Corinthians 3:11.
FCH Does the “section of the bush” Luke 20:37, referred to by Luke, with regard to Moses’ apostleship, bear on this, in connection with the resurrection of the dead? In our Lord’s reference to the section of the bush, it is said that Moses called God “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”, suggesting that he had apprehended the principle of resurrection.
JT The Lord so clothes what is stated in “the section of the bush”. There are two sections mentioned by the Lord — the “section of the bush” and the “section of Abiathar the high priest” Mark 2:26. The “section of the bush” implies the power of God. “I am the God of thy father”, He says; that is, He brings Abraham to mind.
FCH In Luke, Moses responds to God, and calls Him “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”. Is that the idea that Paul brings in here, bringing the truth of resurrection to bear upon them?
JT That all enters into apostleship, because the history of apostleship extends far back. It is not a matter that began yesterday; hence the ages of Moses [p. 295] and Aaron are mentioned in Exodus. Miriam is added in the prophet Micah, to bring out the history that precedes leadership, so as to make it what it should be, authoritative and confirmatory. God is in mind in that connection, and then the foundation, “Jesus Christ”. It is the kind of Man, that is, what endures and stands the test of opposition, and then, “God the Father who raised him from among the dead”. I believe that enters into the “section of the bush” — the power of God.
EG Is there a special appeal to the affections when it says, “who gave himself for our sins”? Later on, he says, “who has loved me and given himself for me”.
JT It is the great mark of His consideration for us, so that we might be delivered from “the present evil world”.
Ques In people receiving the truth of the gospel, should we consider their national characteristics in dealing with them, before committing ourselves to them?
JT It is well to notice the characteristics of the people you minister to, as the Cretans, and the Galatians here, and the Corinthians. Each set had their own characteristics, and the apostle, in going to Corinth, calculated accordingly: what kind of people are these? Titus perhaps did not calculate as Paul would have done, but he reminds him what kind of persons the Cretans were. The apostle knew well enough what the Galatians were, and no doubt he took account of that in his ministry, and, after making due allowance for all that, he says, I am surprised you have turned aside so quickly.
PL The virtuous woman considers the field and buys it.
JT The consideration of the field is with a view to what you are going to sow in it, what use can be made of it.
AFM Are Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus examples of this, suitable in their work at Corinth and no doubt [p. 296] elsewhere?
JT He brings in the other two for that purpose. “The Son of God, Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus) ...” 2 Corinthians 1:19. He brings them in, a three-fold cord, in accord with what is foundational.
EuR So salvation lies in coming into the appreciation of the unique character of humanity found in Jesus Christ and Him risen?
JT That is what stands over against the shallowness and fickleness of the race.
JJ Do you think the incident in the synagogue in Mark 3, following the cornfield, would show that these Galatians were in the grip of the legal system, whereas they should have been in liberty?
JT That is the way the truth stands in Mark. It is there the Lord alluded to “Abiathar the high priest”. I do not know that he is called the high priest elsewhere, and that was an element in the Lord’s mind to meet this attack. He knew what was in the synagogue, the man with the withered hand, and the reason of the murderous opposition and hatred of the leaders of Israel, and I believe He designedly alludes to “the high priest”. We need that thought. It is the “section of Abiathar the high priest”, and he was just a remnant of the priests, but he brought the ephod, that is, the means of getting to God according to His mind; not in the low religious way that is current, going with the fickleness we are speaking of, but getting to God according to His mind, and being there truly as priests.
JHL With regard to the stressing of “God the Father”, would that be because the opposition was against the revelation of God in that character?
JT The way the Spirit of God runs on in the end of the paragraph: “according to the will of our God and Father; to whom be glory to the ages of ages”, is all to lift us up to that glorious platform in our minds, away from this wretched fickleness and shallowness that we are all conscious of, but perhaps sometimes fail [p. 297] to judge, for christianity is not in this at all. We may have much attached to us which is not christianity at all.
FGW Would the way the Lord Jesus handled Nicodemus in John 3, and the woman in John 4 indicate the conditions?
JT They are excellent illustrations. The one was hard soil — a Pharisee — and the Lord dealt with him accordingly. The other was hard soil, too, but of another kind — looseness and depravity, and the Lord skilfully handled both cases, and they were both saved. It took a good while to save Nicodemus; he remained in the world of religion a good while, but he was taken out of it at the end. I think that illustrates the importance of considering our field, as has been remarked. The virtuous woman acquires the field, that is, an area in which to operate with a view to results. The Lord knew how to act in the field.
Ques How does the principle of cursing come in today?
JT Although it enters into the period of christianity, it does not characterise it. In the end of Corinthians the apostle puts off the “Anathema” until the coming of the Lord, but here it is not put off. The thing was more serious apparently: “let him be accursed”, and he repeats it. It is to deliver us from this shallowness and the light way in which we think of error. How easily it is passed over, making much of the persons and ignoring their doctrine.
EuR There is a tendency with us to call the woman of John 4 evil, and to think that there is something virtuous about the man of John 3.
JT No doubt; if I am a cultivated man, I am especially apt to lean in that direction, but the Lord is not deceived by any outward appearances. The field is acquired and cultivated according to what may be there. After the opening remarks of the apostle in this chapter he speaks of his own feelings and what marked him in his early days. The types help us to understand [p. 298] this, how God prepares His servants according to what they have to do, for He knows the field in which they are to operate. When Elisha was called he was operating in a field, ploughing. Moses and Aaron are intended to convey to us the operations and the time expended by God on His servants before they are sent out, and Paul stresses his own history here in that connection. God had in mind the field and the people he had to deal with, even these very Galatians and Gentiles they represented, so that Paul was thoroughly prepared in the school of God. He goes on to tell us: “But I let you know, brethren, as to the glad tidings which were announced by me, that they are not according to man. For neither did I receive them from man, neither was I taught them, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard what was my conversation formerly in judaism, that I excessively persecuted the assembly of God, and ravaged it; and advanced in Judaism beyond many my contemporaries in my nation, being exceedingly zealous of the doctrines of my fathers. 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 [p. 300] 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”. That is in brief what is set out in those three servants of God in the Old Testament, those who were sent before Israel, each of them over eighty years of age before they were commissioned. Here, the apostle refers to the fact that he was separated from his mother’s womb, and called by God’s grace in due course. God was operating in relation to him before, with a view to what He intended him to be.
GAvS Would you contrast that fixity of purpose resulting from spiritual formation by God, with the fickleness that is characteristic of what is set aside?
JT Yes. God took account of Paul from his mother’s womb. He was in God’s mind, as he says, “God, who set me part even from, my mother’s womb”. Even when persecuting the assembly that was the attitude of God’s mind in regard of this vessel. I am stressing this side because of the need of this in those who serve.
MWB Then do you make a distinction between the formation of a vessel and the education of the servant? Does verse 15 refer more to the vessel? I was thinking the first forty years of Moses was not exactly the education of the servant, but rather the second forty years.
JT That is good; the vessel including everything, the physical and mental powers, what the man would be as a creature of God, and then the moral education. The field was in mind, I am sure, from the beginning, and so it is with each of us. A man is born into certain circumstances under the careful supervision of God; there is no accident about it. He says, “from my mother’s womb”.
PTF In the case of Jeremiah, it was before he came forth from the womb that he was hallowed; Jeremiah 1:5.
JT That is the idea, showing how far back God goes and with what watchfulness He prepares His vessels. John the baptist, as we have sometimes spoken of him, was affected in his mother’s womb by the voice of the mother of Jesus. That was of God; he was a marvellous child, most exceptional, but it all indicates with what sobriety and care God is thinking of things, as over against our natural traits, and the fickleness and carelessness of parents in the training of young people.
AFM Are these progressive thoughts, first, that he is set apart from his birth, then, called by God’s grace, and then, God pleased to reveal His Son in him, that he might announce Him as glad tidings?
JT That is the order in which God operates in us and with us, and then the question arises, what will you do following on that? Paul says, “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”. This is a principle that has been set out in the case of John the baptist. He was “in the deserts”, we are told, “until the day of his shewing to Israel” (Luke 1:80), for it is in view of what God is going to show. Here the apostle follows that principle; he says, “I went to Arabia”. There was nothing there, no worldly attractions, as far as one can judge, but desert circumstances. Then it says, “and again returned to Damascus”, where he was converted, where he was first seen as a christian by the saints. It is as if he were respectful of his local brethren. I believe all that enters into this. You may be sure that Ananias and the brethren at Damascus would notice the progress he was making, and the apostle’s respect for Damascus is to be noted. The Lord had said, “enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do”, Acts 9:6. He had respect for that, and for the local brethren.
JTS Do these suggestions enter into the life of Moses? It is said that “the boy wept” (Exodus 2:6), and then later, when Moses moves, “he thought that his brethren would understand that God by his hand was giving them deliverance” (Acts 7:25); but then, later, it says, “him did God send to be a ruler and deliverer”, Acts 7:35.
JT That is most interesting. Exodus is the great ministerial book, and in the New Testament we have the truth which is amplified in that book. In Exodus we get the great general thought of God as to ministers. In Genesis it is such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob His prophets, as He calls them — moving generally on their own initiative. In Genesis we see how God’s work shows itself; but in Exodus how all must be entirely according to God’s mind. It is the ministerial side in Exodus; and hence Moses as the great minister is in mind from the beginning; even as a [p. 301] babe he wept. That is a very fine trait to carry along, the feeling that is proper to a minister; and then the deliberation with which he flees and sits by the well of Midian, and accepts the circumstances. It says that he “was content to dwell with the man” Exodus 2:21, as much as to say that the flesh did not like it, but he overcame that. So with Paul when he went into Arabia, allowing no fleshly desires at all, and then he “again returned to Damascus”, the place where he was first known as a christian. The brethren normally would say, Paul is getting on; he is not considering for the flesh, nor his business (applying it to ourselves), nor marriage relations, not considering for the flesh at all; he is denying the flesh. That is what I think Arabia means. Then he goes up to Jerusalem, not to see all the apostles or what was of God there generally, but to see Peter, “to make acquaintance with Peter”.
GAvS In Arabia our spiritual exercises result in stability which is tested?
JT Yes. What can I stand in these circumstances? There is nothing for the flesh in them. Moses, it says, “was content to dwell with the man”. Well, who was this man? He was a Midianitish priest, and his daughters were shepherdesses; Moses had been a prince in Egypt, and had been brought up in affluence and worldly glory, but he “was content to dwell with the man”. That meant he was formed according to God, and had power for the disallowance of the flesh. He “was content to dwell with the man” and to keep his sheep all those years. Think of a man like Moses keeping sheep in the wilderness for forty years! But God watched over that, and in due course showed Himself to him, so that Moses is set up on the principle of the school of God, in the power of resurrection the “section of the bush” which the Lord interprets as meaning that God is the God of the living. It is a living state of things.
WCG Would going into Arabia have in view [p. 302] the deepening of the work of God in him, so that he might be able to render testimony at Damascus effectually and with spiritual vigour?
JT What he records here is for young brothers and for us all — that he deliberately went into Arabia, where there would be nothing to minister to the flesh in him, and having remained there some time came back to Damascus. Thus the brethren would have opportunity of seeing how he was getting on.
AJG Being alone with God would form him as a treasury for what God had entrusted to him.
JT That is good, and the revelation is in him This word alludes to what one has, what one can carry through. Did he carry this through in those years in Arabia? Did he carry it through as he came back to Damascus? Did he carry it through in Jerusalem? I believe that is the way to take this up.
GAvS Why does it say “his Son”?
JT It is the point, as we shall see, in this epistle. The liberty of christianity is bound up with the knowledge of the Son of God. It is liberty, but liberty of this kind. The revelation is in him, not to him, as in Peter’s case, which is to bring out what we are saying as to the treasury, what is to be carried through.
CSS Is it a question of persevering as seeing the Invisible so that divine results might come?
JT That is good — holding the thing, God. “was pleased to reveal his Son in me”, he says, and then he tells us what his own calculated course was with that precious treasure in his heart — the revelation of God’s Son. He goes into Arabia. Elijah had gone there, too, as we may say, but how different with him! He was cherishing in his heart his own grievance, intending to give up his commission, as if all had failed. Paul deliberately takes this course with such a treasure in his heart; he would prove daily how the flesh would assert itself, but he was giving no occasion to it. Wilderness [p. 303] circumstances are a great advantage to the christian in the wearing down of the flesh.
PL Is the Lord the great Model for all His servants, for in Mark it says, “And there came a voice out of the heavens: Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight” Mark 1:11, and then, immediately He is found in the wilderness?
JT Quite so; it was God’s thought for Him. He does not go into it in that gospel of Himself, you will observe, it is not presented as His own act; it is the “the Spirit drives him out into the wilderness”, which is important in view of what you have in mind; that it is God’s thought that the minister is to be tested in that way, to bring out what is there. In every instance the Lord is perfect; it only brought out His infinite perfection, but it is not always so with us. It is God’s thought for us, and the apostle learned from the Lord’s example and from the example of John the baptist, that this is the way to go. So he says, “I went to Arabia”.
Ques Do you link Paul in Arabia with the formation of the vessel or the education of the servant?
JT It is the educational part. The formation of the vessel precedes that. It is God’s work; we do not make ourselves.
Ques Men like Moses and John the baptist were from their earliest days in sympathy, but Saul of Tarsus was in opposition, as he says, “ye have heard what was my conversation formerly in Judaism, that I excessively persecuted the assembly of God, and ravaged it; and advanced in Judaism beyond many my contemporaries in my nation, being exceedingly zealous of the doctrines of my fathers”. Was it necessary that this beloved and peculiar servant should go that way?
JT Whilst God’s work goes on and the vessel has been formed, I must see what I am capable of in spite of the fact that God has watched over one from his mother’s womb, and see the lengths to which one may [p. 304] go. It is to bring out what the flesh is. It was more reprehensible in the apostle himself than in any one.
EJMcB Would not a servant like that greatly appreciate the thought of the Man that was before God in contrast with himself as a man?
JT The more you apprehend “Jesus Christ” and then ‘God’s Son’, the more will be your abhorrence of yourself, and to this end I believe God would direct us in our histories to see what one has been. It is not just flesh, but it is the flesh in me. Paul was speaking of what was in himself. It is a very wholesome consideration and helps us all the more to appreciate the grace that has delivered us, not only from the world, but from ourselves, and made us superior to all that now.
GAvS Would you say that is necessary before I could safely go up to Jerusalem?
JT I am sure the school of Arabia is necessary before we go there. Jerusalem is the place of religious influence — one of the most powerful influences — in a centralised form. The enemy took that way with John the baptist; the Jews sent certain leading men to him from Jerusalem, but he had been in the deserts before it, so that he was immune from their influence. It was the devil’s way in sending distinguished persons from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? Are you the Christ? It was a fine opportunity for the flesh to show itself; Jerusalem was ready to own him, but he was proof against it. He says, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness” John 1:23; and then, “In the midst of you stands, whom ye do not know, he who comes after me” John 1:26 - 27 — very wonderful that. What ability John had acquired, what power over the flesh; he was utterly immune from such a suggestion as: We will make you anything you wish.
GAvS Would Jerusalem in that way be a test to us now?
JT Whatever it may be. Rome is no test to me, nor is Canterbury, but there are things that might [p. 305] test me amongst the brethren, in the way of acquiring distinction; there are those who might give me distinction, who might recognise me, and naturally I would love to have that recognition. All that danger has to be taken into account, especially by young brothers.
FWW Would this enter into the education of the servant with a view to local assemblies being established? We need stability in local assemblies.
JT Stability in local assemblies is involved here in what he says — we have already alluded to it — “but by revelation of Jesus Christ”. We have the revelation of God’s Son, but “by revelation of Jesus Christ” is the kind of Man, what one is amongst the brethren, and then, the revelation of God’s Son in me shows the liberty I have. What treasure I have thus that I may convey to the brethren! There is however something beyond, for what I may say is not everything. As the apostle ministered he would convey — as he did to the Corinthians, for instance — that what he was saying was not everything, and a spiritual man there would discern that much more was behind what he was saying, although he might confine himself to certain phases of the truth to meet their condition. “Jesus Christ” suggests the kind of Man, and Paul says, I send to you my child Timotheus — not my son but my child; it is the kind of young man that Timothy was. But he would say to them, so to speak, that the revelation of God’s Son in me involves another world and all the treasures that enter into that; I can keep that, and the brethren are to understand that I have it, that it is not just what I am saying, but what I have inwardly.
JTS Is that the idea in the word “portrayed” in chapter 3, that is, something more than what he had said?
JT Yes, “among you”; he says “crucified among you”.
LDM Arabia is mentioned again in chapter 4; what would be the import of that?
JT The allusion in chapter 4 is to the legal system. Chapter 4 has another setting, calling attention to the legal system, as already said, in contrast with the system of liberty into which we are brought, and as represented in Sarah.
PL In regard to the suggestion that servants thus educated become effective in localities, is that seen with Paul and Barnabas being at Antioch and teaching for one year? The Antioch brethren being marked by fasting would suggest that the Arabia features had been introduced by Paul into that company.
JT That is right; he and Barnabas taught them in the assembly for a year; Christ in character — especially in Paul — would be seen there: “Jesus Christ”.
JJ Would the mention of “James the brother of the Lord” with Peter show that also — what was there?
JT Quite so. It is remarkable that he says, “I saw none other of the apostles”. How he came to see James we are not told, or why it was he saw him. Were the other apostles absent? The inference is that he did not seek them out; he had just one thought in his mind — to make acquaintance with Peter. I have no doubt that James coming into his acquaintance would be the Lord adding to that for him, but he did not go up to seek James. To have one thought in mind is a good principle to learn and cultivate, and God may do more than I expect for me.
JJ Would you say a little as to the expression, “James the brother of the Lord”?
JT You can understand what it would be to Paul to meet him; what thoughts would arise in his mind! But I suspect he alludes to it to intimate that he was not there for natural reasons at all, not out of curiosity to see the brothers of Jesus. If he had gone for that he would have sought them out, but he went to make acquaintance with Peter. The other was incidental, but [p. 307] we may be sure not accidental; it was God’s provision for him.
CAC Would there be any link with the revelation that had been made to Peter, and the revelation of God’s Son in Paul?
JT Would you tell us further? Your thought is that there are two men together, one making the acquaintance of the other, each of whom had a revelation.
CAC Would there not be a filling out of the thought of what was connected with the Son of God in putting the two together?
JT That opens up much. Peter, it will be observed, does not present the Son of God in his ministry, indicating just what we have remarked, that he was a treasury. He represents that side; and what was revealed to him he kept, apparently knowing that the time for that ministry had not arrived. Now there is one here come up to make his acquaintance, in whom the Son is revealed, and who has preached Him. He had preached Him at Damascus, so that one can understand what a fulness there would be in their conversation, in this meeting of those two men, the one the apostle to the Jews, the circumcision, and the other to the Gentiles. Have you that in mind?
CAC Yes.
JT I am thankful for the thought. One can see what a meeting it was, fifteen days of intercourse between two such men.
HD'AC Peter must have been greatly affected by such a visit.
JT Jerusalem never had such before. The queen of Sheba’s visit is not to be compared with this! She came from the end of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, but here is a man in Jerusalem to whom the Father had made a revelation, and who had made his confession accordingly; and now another who himself has a revelation comes up to Jerusalem deliberately to see this man. What men they were!
GAvS [p. 308] Would all that tend to stability, and the visit of Paul to Peter be a practical test of the situation during those fifteen days of intercourse?
JT Yes; the next chapter will bring out the strength of the links formed between them. For, although there was a ripple in the beautiful communion they must have enjoyed, Peter’s last word to us leaves no doubt as to his general thought of Paul. Brethren who are ministering should learn to value one another, to make personal acquaintance with one another, and in that way establish links that bear on the general testimony. This visit, I believe, under God’s hand had a long outlook because of the two men involved. A personal link would be established, I am sure, between those two brothers, and was never broken.
DLH Was there not a great point in the revelation of the Son in Paul, that he should be in full enjoyment and power of the liberty wherewith the Son makes free? “If therefore the Son shall set you free, ye shall be really free”, John 8:36. Was not the apostle Paul a peculiar vessel now to set forth that view of divine liberty in sonship?
JT That is true. Of course, it may be a little conjecture but I do not believe Peter had ever seen a man like Paul. He had seen the Lord, of course; I am not speaking of Him, but I do not believe he had hitherto seen a man in such holy liberty with God as Paul.
FSM Of Peter, it says, “flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens” Matthew 16:17, but here, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me”.
JT Here it is “in”, and it is God who is pleased to reveal and this for a specific purpose: “that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”. The Father does not convey to Peter why He made the revelation to him, but God made it known to Paul why He revealed His Son in him. Peter said, “Thou [p. 309] art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:16, and the Lord says, “thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly” Matthew 16:18. That was foundational. It was the Father acting, and the Son in consequence designating the foundation. But now you have in Paul, with the revelation of the Son in him, the kind of man that is to adorn the heavenly city, to impart its liberty to it. The names of the twelve are on the foundations, but they are in keeping with Paul, who represents that which shines in the heavenly city when it descends “out of the heaven from God, having the glory of God” Revelation 21:10 - 11.
GAvS Is it that God was glorified in Paul as one who was the expression of the Son?
JT Through him sonship was unfolded, involving the liberty of the house: “If therefore the Son shall set you free, ye shall be really free” John 8:36. The liberty which the Son gives is set out in Paul — true liberty, and that is what the Lord would help us in.