THE KING IN HIS BEAUTY (1)
THE KING IN HIS BEAUTY (1)
WB-s Is this the “man child” in Revelation 12?
JT Yes. And in view of the prevailing conditions, among other things, I thought it would be helpful to consider the Lord as thus viewed; that we might have the King before us. We are living in democratic times and it may help to look at the early chapters of this gospel so that we may see in them what marked Him.
WB-s What is the difference between the “king” and the “man”? We get both in Isaiah 32, “a king shall reign in righteousness”, and then immediately afterwards we read: “a man shall be as an hiding-place from the wind”.
JT The “king” suggests the thought of authority, and the “man” sympathy.
WB-s Would you say it is the King in Matthew; in Luke more the Man?
JT Yes, I think so. “A king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And a man shall be as an hiding-place from the wind”. (Isaiah 32:1,2) The latter is the sympathy side. I think Matthew brings in the king and the princes. The Lord at the end meets the disciples in Galilee, on the mountain, and speaks to them as a King would speak to his princes, to his council.
WB-s You mean in Galilee?
JT Yes, not at Jerusalem, but Galilee, showing it is a period in which Jerusalem is forsaken, nevertheless, the King reigned and princes ruled.
WB-s Does that apply at the present time?
JT Surely. That is the point, that we should [p. 251] apprehend the King and be, so to speak, among the princes. That is what Matthew brings in. It is an administrative gospel.
WLP Do the princes represent the assembly?
JT Well, the saints viewed in that way, as those who are dignified. The economy of Israel was set up in relation to the King and princes, because Moses was king in Jeshurun and there were twelve princes in Israel. (Deuteronomy 33:5).
CAM You made a remark as to power being in His hands, and that is alluded to in the last chapter of this book.
JT Yes; “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”. And then He says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. (Matthew 28:19) This passage helps us to understand how the matter stands now, because baptism involves that the King is not reigning publicly. He is in rejection, but He is still to be known and obeyed.
BTF It is said that David’s sons were “chief rulers”.
JT That helps. In 2 Samuel 8 you have a list of officers, and in the end it is said that his sons were the “chief rulers”. (verse 18) They would influence the kingdom in general. They were the princes, as the margin reads.
WCR Then in Numbers 7, you get princes who are sympathetic with the testimony.
JT Yes, there are twelve of them and what marks them is, that each offers exactly what the others offer. They all offer alike, showing they were marked by unanimity in appreciation of Christ; united sympathy in the testimony. They had the means, too, to supply what was needed.
WB-t Would it be correct to say that there are four different classes found [p. 252] among the people of God; princes, priests, Levites and the common people?
JT I think that is right; that is, the saints may be viewed in these aspects.
WB-t Numbers 7 brings in the princes, there are twelve of them, and what they gave to the tabernacle.
JT Numbers begins with the princes, then you have the priests and the Levites; and then in chapter 7 the princes are seen, not according to their official position but according to their appreciation of Christ in their offerings. Their offerings indicate how much they appreciated Christ, typically, and what is noticeable is that they all offered alike. There was no disparity between their offerings, showing it was unanimity in appreciation of Christ.
WB-t How would you connect that with Matthew?
JT I think Matthew brings in the King and the princes. The Lord sends a message to them after His resurrection, that they should meet Him in Galilee, and meeting Him there, He speaks to them in royal dignity. There is nothing of the sympathy that you see in Luke. It is a sort of speech from the throne in Matthew.
BTF Speaking from the throne?
JT Yes, using that figure, as to the end of Matthew.
WB-s That agrees again with Revelation 12. He was caught up “unto God, and to his throne”.
JT Yes; and then He shepherds the nations with a rod of iron. The rod of iron is safe in the hands of a Shepherd.
CAM Matthew and Luke both give the commencement of things in the birth of the Lord Jesus. What is your thought of the birth of the Lord Jesus in connection with this gospel?
JT I thought that first of all we might see [p. 253] the genealogy, the place He holds; because that is important. The person who is to be King is authenticated by an accredited genealogy, because it is the legal side in Matthew, and what is to be observed is, that it is not son of Abraham, son of David, but “son of David, son of Abraham”. David is the prominent one, being the king. Then you have the fourteen generations from Abraham to David; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon; and from the captivity unto Christ, fourteen generations in each period. The royal personage is in that way marked off unquestionably, and Joseph is addressed by the angel as “son of David”. All these facts help us to see what is in the mind of the Spirit in this narrative.
WB-s So that Joseph is prominent here, whereas Mary is in Luke.
JT Luke presents, I think, the seed of the woman, which of course the spiritual mind can readily apprehend. The spiritual, prophetic mind would look for the seed of the woman, but on the other hand, you would look for the seed of David, the King.
WCR Is birthright connected with David?
JT Yes, exactly. It is the male line, and this gospel establishes that Christ is legally the Heir to the throne of David.
BTF I suppose that brings in the kingdom, what in one sense characterises Matthew?
JT It is the great theme in Matthew. Although we get the assembly in Matthew, it stands in relation to the kingdom.
CAM Is that why Israel has such a large place?
JT I think so. So you have here in chapter 2, the Gentiles recognising the “King of the Jews” and “the land of Israel”. These are two features of a wide spiritual field. The fact is presented that the [p. 254] Jews do not recognise Christ, but the Gentiles do, which is the situation today. “The land of Israel” in verse 20, indicates what is immediately before the mind of God.
WB-s Significant that Egypt comes in here and the land of Israel too, the two points where Israel was.
JT Showing that God is tracing the whole course of Israel’s history again, but the King is taken up in relation to it, so all is now secure. It is God taking up everything now in the King. “What can the man do that cometh after the King?” Nothing but that “which hath been already done”, (Ecclesiastes 2:12).
WCR You said that Matthew was kingly, and yet the Lord goes down to Egypt and retraces all the history of the children of Israel. He was in the wilderness as they also were, and yet sympathy is connected with the man.
JT I think He identifies Himself with them as King. “In all their affliction he was afflicted”. (Isaiah 63:9) The identification of the King with them in the whole course is most touching in this gospel.
WLP That would be characteristic of a true King, would it not?
JT I think it would, and so the true King must be a true Man. Therefore Luke supports this, because Luke gives you the Man; the Man is sympathetic, so you get “the glad tidings that Jesus was the Christ”, (Acts 5:42).
EHT Seeing that Israel had the records which indicated that Jesus was the King, why did the Gentiles come to know Him through the heavens?
JT Is that not how we discover Him? Christians arrive at the truth via heaven. The old things are in the documents; the new things come from heaven. We understand all the old things by the new. Would you not [p. 255] say that?
EHT Yes. I was just thinking of your first remark in connection with the Gentiles.
JT All that preceded is necessarily understood only rightly through the heavenly truth; that is, Paul’s doctrine. We were speaking about the fact that the wise men got their guidance from heaven, which is suggestive of Christianity. As the hymn says: ‘And heavenly light makes all things bright’. (12:3) We arrive at every thought of God via heaven; so that Israel’s position, and Christ’s relation to Israel, is only rightly understood as we understand Paul’s doctrine, the truth of Christ and the assembly.
BTF In Matthew we get more the history of the introduction of the King, would you say, and in Luke more of the moral features in connection with it?
JT Yes, it is the seed of the woman in Luke, so a great deal is made of Mary. Here it is Joseph, because he is the son of David, and much is made of the fact that he was a righteous man, and that he was subject. What he was told to do he does without question.
CAM Referring to what was said of the wise men, they did not belong to Israel any more than we do. They were from Babylon and they got heavenly light as to what was written in the Scriptures for Israel, as we do.
WB-t They saw “his star”, but they had prophecy too, did they not? I thought perhaps they got prophecy through Daniel.
JT But they did not refer to that. The point they make is the star. “We have seen his star”, they said. They went to Jerusalem. It is questionable if they should have gone there, but the star guides them, after they leave, and leads them to Jesus. So it is the heavenly light.
WB-s Their going to Jerusalem served to bring out the usurper that was on the throne, Herod. I was wondering if the star might have had reference to Balaam’s prophecy; if they might have gathered something from that writing?
JT It is difficult to define what it was that led them. God must have helped them. They have no doubts about it. It is, “His star” “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” They do not ask if such a thing had happened; they assume that He was born, and they want to see Him.
WCR They got the report, and the report was “mixed with faith”, (Hebrews 4:2) like the Queen of Sheba. She heard a report and came from afar off.
JT I think that is very good. It shows there was faith there. The report they had was “mixed with faith”.
WB-t Is your thought that the star represents the present energy of the Holy Spirit?
JT I think it represents Paul’s doctrine, the light of the heavenly position; Christ in heaven and the assembly’s relation to Him there. Stephen looks into heaven and he sees Jesus there, but he does not unfold a system connected with Jesus there. Paul does that and that is the light that governs the Christian.
AAT At the beginning you made a remark as to the contrast between the kingly thought and the democratic thought. Has the democratic thought gained any headway in Christendom?
JT It has indeed. It is gaining everywhere now, and it occurred to me, although it was not the main thought in my mind, that it was well we should have before us the King and what marked Him as He came into this world; the circumstances of His introduction into this world. We get them in this chapter, and the first is that He is definitely authenticated. He is not a usurper. He does not come in His own name. The king that Daniel speaks of does come, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, in his own name, and he sets himself up, “showing himself
that he is God”. He has himself before him. As the Lord says, “If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive”. (John 5:43) But here is a King coming in and God is doing things for Him. It is “the little child with Mary his mother”. Not a word is said about the mother beyond that it is indicated that she is caring for Him. He is in her charge.
AAT Is it not remarkable that in spite of His being so well authenticated, He comes in such a humble way?
JT It shows that the royal position today is one of suffering and littleness. It must be so because the testimony that He carries with Him involves the complete overthrow of all that exists, and that will not be recognised here. It is inevitable that it must involve suffering, hence the purple of the tabernacle denoted the royalty that was within. That is, the thoughts I have in my mind about Christ, in regard to this world, mean the complete overthrow of it. How can I expect anything else but suffering in the world if I am true to that?
RLC Is that not in keeping with the smooth stone of David’s that overthrew the giant?
JT How can I expect this world and its leaders to recognise me if I cherish the rights of Christ in my heart? If it is the secret of fellowship, how can I expect Christian fellowship to be in popularity?
WB-t I have sometimes thought the world looks on the thoughts of a Christian as unfair, prejudiced and narrow.
Rem In John 15:37, the Lord says, “To this end was I born”.
JT “Art thou a king then?” and the Lord says, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth”. And the apostle Paul in referring to that, says: “who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession”. (1 Timothy 6:13) That is, He did not deny the truth. He bore witness to it.
Rem That would be in the face of rejection, and Christians today should accept rejection with Him.
WLP Suffering in Christianity today is occasioned by the condition the world was and is in. That is the reason that what is of Christ is nothing in the world. The world loves “its own”, (John 15:10) but it hated Him.
JT If those we have to do with only knew all we are holding in our hearts they would not think highly of us.
WLP What did you mean by democracy?
JT It is spoken of in Daniel, symbolised as “miry clay”. (Daniel 2:43) We have to be on our guard that we are not interfering with national claims, but, speaking of it spiritually, it is not reconcilable with royalty.
WB-s Is not the thought of a King absolute authority?
JT That is the idea of a King.
WB-s In the passage you quoted from in 1 Timothy 6:15, God is called the “only Potentate”; the word of a despot is absolute. When He has spoken there is no other one to speak.
JT The apostle had charged Timothy, “before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels”; and then he goes on to speak about “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords”. He says that Christ Jesus witnessed the good confession before Pilate, (1 Timothy 6:13 - 15).
WCR That is the One that is to rule with a rod of iron; whereas in the democratic thought it is iron and clay. There is no stability connected with it.
JT They do not mix. It says so in Daniel.
WB-s Democracy implies the rule of the people.
WLP It is very beautiful to think of “the blessed and only Potentate”. He has absolute authority and He will use it for the establishment of good. Earthly potentates have used authority on the side of evil.
JT When we read the gospel of Luke we are assured that the sceptre being in the hands of that Man is good tidings.
WB-s At the same time human rulers are ministers for good.
JT The epistle to the Romans balances us in regard to that. “The powers that be are ordained of God”. (Romans 13:1) Whilst His King is concealed in heaven and, as in hiding, carrying on a spiritual ministry here on earth, God has not given up the reins of government among the nations. Of course, it is a very important balance, that the epistle to the Romans enables the Christian to move on here and recognise everything that is of God. “The powers that be are ordained of God”.
BTF I suppose you would say it is most important that in the naming of the King in Matthew, the name Emmanuel is given, meaning, “God with us”? (Matthew 1:23)
JT It has been said that the voice of democracy is the voice of God, but that is far from the truth. As our brother was remarking, democracy is the rule of the people, but the voice of the true King is the voice of God. It is Emmanuel, God Himself with us in a kingly way.
AAT Was it not God’s original thought that Israel should have a King?
JT Well, the idea of a King of course is provisional. It was to meet conditions that prevailed. He was King Himself, as the book of Judges teaches us. That was His idea. See Judges 8:23 and 1 Samuel 8:7 But He did not continue to get the place.
JT The situation was that after the wilderness Moses was “king in Jeshurun”, which I think means [p. 260] he was king in the affections of the people. It is a very happy thing when the Lord has His place in the affections of the saints, and that principle was to continue. God was to rule the people through a mediary in some way, but they would have a king “like all the nations”. That was their error, they would be like the nations.
DR Would you say, if the Jews had received the Lord in the way in which He comes into the world here, as the wise men regard Him, that they would have been delivered from the spirit of democracy, and His voice would have been heard amongst them as the voice of their King?
JT It was their opportunity, and the fact that Jerusalem had the announcement from the wise men from the East is very remarkable. It should have had the light itself; but the fact that it did not, only shows the state existing there.
EHT Does the fact of a king necessarily indicate that there is an adverse condition?
JT No; I think the king in Jeshurun means that he ruled in the people’s affections; but in a general way the necessity for a king arises from opposition, I think, because the kingdom in the sense in which Christ holds it, comes to an end when He delivers it up to the Father. (1 Corinthians 15:24 - 28).
WB-s The reign of the king spoken of in Psalm 72, is very beneficent. The poor are thought of. There is a wonderful description of God’s King in that Psalm.
CAM I was thinking in connection with what you have said about Israel and your allusion to Moses, that what you have historically there, the Christian, in principle, has now. You alluded to the commencement being in weakness, and it is very interesting to me that that commencement of things is spiritually known now.
JT I think so. Our position is in identification [p. 261] with Christ as presented in Matthew, and one of the thoughts I had in mind was that we might see how the kingly order comes into the world, and in how far do I correspond with it? The King of the Jews is born, and, instead of being announced by cannon, like other royal persons, for the birth of the King should have been announced at Jerusalem, Jerusalem is asleep as to it, and yet there is a form of piety in Herod ordering that the Scriptures should be searched. But the King of the Jews had actually been born; yet neither Herod, nor the people of Jerusalem, knew anything about it. That is how matters stand today; but those in the secret of heaven know about it, and they not only know about it, but they want to see Him.
Rem There was exercise with Herod as to Christ. The exercise comes from one in authority, that it should be brought before the world.
JT I do not think God was working with Herod. There is an accredited religion in the world and they do recognise the Scriptures to some extent, but there is nothing moral in that. Their inquiry does not lead to anything but murder.
Rem But it leads to the exercise of God’s people sometimes.
JT Oh, yes, but it does not here. The Scriptures may be employed with murderous intent. They found out where He should be born, but what does it lead to?
CAM Do you not think that is what emphasises the remarkable value of spiritual men? The words of Scripture need a heavenly interpretation, do they not?
JT I think that is what you see here. The wise men proceed and they find the Lord, find Him in affection. They love the Lord. They have it in their hearts, at any rate to find Him; whereas [p. 262] Herod is actuated by murderous intent. David said of the ark, that he heard of it and found it.
WLP The wise men had heavenly guidance.
JT And then they went and found Him. It says, “And they having heard the king went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the east went before them until it came and stood over the place where the little child was. And when they saw the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy”. That is one side of the picture, a very beautiful side, and it ought to appeal to every heart that loves the Lord. That is Christianity, you might say. These men are guided by heavenly light, but their hearts are in it, and when they see the star, again they rejoice with exceeding great joy. And they come into the house. That is one side of the picture. The other, is what is going on in Herod’s mind.
EHT You spoke of affection, but the very fact of the adverse conditions bring out affection for the King.
JT Yes, we want to find the “little Child”. I mean, the Lord. They know that He is born King of the Jews, but the Spirit says, “the little child”, an object of tenderest affection. Then they express their affection in the taking out of their treasures: “And having opened their treasures, they offered to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh”. They had more in their treasures than that from now on; they were like scribes instructed in the kingdom of the heavens.
BTF Would you attach importance to the thought that God in a providential way used these wise men, and these offerings, so that the parents of Jesus might be able to take Him to Egypt? That is, there was the gold for instance.
J .T. Then what you will notice is that the responsibility of the child is placed on Joseph’s shoulders. It is the male side. It would not do to [p. 263] say to Mary that she should go. It is said to Joseph, “take to thee the little child and his mother”. He was responsible; that is the point. I think in Matthew you get the persons who are responsible.
WCR The giving of the gold, frankincense, and myrrh would be similar to those who came to David, and said to him: “in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel”; and then they anointed him. That is, their affections were with him; (1 Chronicles 2:2).
WB-s These are the finest things you can think of, gold, frankincense, and myrrh: gold signifying, no doubt, the glory seen in this Person; the frankincense all that came out in His life here; and the myrrh in His death; all a sweet fragrance to God; fit offerings for a King.
WLP All that followed the worship that those wise men brought.
JT Quite. So you would inquire whether one has had any of these things in one’s treasures.
EHT In the early part of the meeting the question was raised as to the application of this in the present day, and you spoke of Paul’s gospel. Would you say we get this same state produced in us by studying Paul’s doctrine? They, no doubt, studied the heavens and the result was they got light as to Christ.
JT There is what may be called spiritual astronomy. John is astronomical in his way of thinking, but it is not to call attention to what is in the heavens in John so much as to show the relationship of things on earth with heaven. Righteousness is that one is in one’s orbit. But David says: “When I consider thy heavens”, (Psalm 8:3) you might take that up spiritually. And then he says: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handywork”. (Psalm [p. 264] 19:1)
CAM Speaking of spiritual astronomy, it is very wonderful. I was just thinking of the fact that Matthew says in connection with the Lord’s glory, “his face shone as the sun”. (Matthew 17:2) The other gospels describe it otherwise, but this seems to be in keeping with Psalm 19, for instance.
JT It is in keeping with Matthew.
WLP In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul refers to the glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: one star differing from another star in glory.
JT All that helps as to what is in the heavens in a spiritual way. Stephen, it says, “looked up stedfastly into heaven”. He looked up stedfastly into heaven, “being full of the Holy Spirit”. That is the power of it. “And saw the glory of God, and Jesus”. And then he says, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”. (Acts 7:55,56) It is very remarkable, that being under the Spirit’s power, he should be guided, not to say I see Jesus, but “the Son of man”. It brings to mind the book of Ezekiel, the position of the Son of man; Israel now being in the act of rejecting, not only Christ but His messenger; but Jesus is now in the position of the Son of man, who stands in relation to all men. Stephen is guided to mention that. Now that they are rejecting Him, He is to act as Man in relation to all men, but He was still waiting on them. He was standing.
CAM The allusion to Stephen is very beautiful. It seems to be a parallel thought. There was a small beginning, a beginning in weakness, but it was the birthplace of Paul’s line of things.
BTF Would you say an important point regarding the King is the word, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”? That is, the Lord goes down into Egypt, and then it is out of Egypt God has called His Son, so that the King is the Son.
JT [p. 265] He is not only the Son of David, but the Son of God.
ST Christ as King according to Melchisedec stands in contrast to this. He is born here. Would you say something as to the contrast?
JT Well, Melchisedec refers to what is millennial. There is no thought of humiliation in Melchisedec, but the opposite. He appears as “King of righteousness, and King of peace. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life”. The greatness and dignity of Christ are seen in Melchisedec. He shows what should mark a King. He is King of righteousness and King of peace. That is what should mark a King. The apostle says: “Being by interpretation King of righteousness”, (Hebrews 7:2). He calls attention to that.
EHT Why is the Lord as King introduced here in obscurity?
JT It is in keeping with conditions in the world. What existed at Jerusalem is an explanation of it. How could God bring in Christ in royal splendour into a condition like that? It would be morally impossible. Hence he is born in obscurity.
CAM God begins by setting forth power in weakness. Only God could do such a thing.
JT This second chapter is very touching because it is like the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat. It is a protection that God afforded Christ in weakness; for He was the Ark of the covenant. God “delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand”. (Psalm 78:61) That was all there in Christ, God’s power and glory, but it was for the moment in outward weakness, and so the cherubim of glory overshadowed it. Hence the word “Take to thee the little child and his mother, and flee into Egypt”. And then when Herod dies the further word comes to Joseph in Egypt: “Arise,
[p. 266] and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life”. It is not a question of what Mary was personally, but the mother is best fitted to care for it at that time. Later on the mother would not be necessary. “And he rose and took to him the little child and its mother, and came into the land of Israel; but having heard that Archelaus reigns over Judaea, instead of Herod his father, he was afraid to go there; and having been divinely instructed in a dream, he went away into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a town called Nazareth; so that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaraean”. All that is under divine direction.
WCR And yet how very naturally everything works out.
JT That is what strikes you; there is nothing outwardly miraculous about it; but God was there watching over His Son with infinite care. “The little child and its mother” presents what is very simple. That a Jew, his wife and child should migrate to Egypt was without outward significance; but nevertheless all under the eye of God so that nothing untoward should happen; indeed nothing could happen.
WCR It was the fulfilling of Scripture.
JT Quite, and that is a feature in Matthew.
WB-s Bereaved mothers wept and wailed for their children. That was there to be seen and felt.
JT That was the public effect in Israel, and I can understand that God began to operate among the nations governmentally in view of things that had happened.
RLC The angel says in chapter 1, “Joseph, thou son of David”. He is a true representative of David. There was the carrying out of God’s will.
[p. 267] The facts recorded of him here show that he was a righteous man and a subject man.
EHT You spoke of God acting governmentally in connection with the nations.
JT Things began to happen. Before the birth of the Lord, Augustus decreed that there should be a census made; he had his own reasons for that, but God was behind the movement so that Joseph and Mary should go to Bethlehem to be registered there, and that Christ should be born there to fulfil Scripture. Thus God acts governmentally to accomplish His own thoughts.
CAM And do we not get in that what will happen when Christ is manifested to Israel in the day to come? There will be movement amongst the nations in that day.
JT You can see how everything necessarily focuses in the Man that is born; what happens in the world must converge there, must have that in view; and if we see that, it quiets our spirits in regard to current events. Angelic agencies are moving there, but must necessarily have in view the precious testimony of Christ in this world. That is the one thing God has His eye on.
WCR Leaders of the world think they are very wise and rule in a way politically, but they little know that God is ruling them. He holds the hearts of kings, it says, in His hands.
JT It is beautiful that the chapter which records this part of the history should end with this: “So that that should be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazaraean”. Now there is not one here who could find the word Nazaraeanin the prophets. The other reference to the Scriptures in the chapter, I think, each refer to some prophet; it is not one prophet; it is the prophets, because this feature of suffering, and humility, and reproach marks the testimony of the [p. 268] Christ throughout the prophets. If you look at your margin the comment refers you to Isaiah 53, and you could not get a much better passage to speak of the humility and suffering of the Lord than that, but it is not the only one. It is the testimony of the prophets that the Messiah should suffer.
CAM You are not exactly tied down to the literal words of Scripture. You recognise the meaning too, but that is the value of being spiritual.
WB-s I have often thought of this passage and tried to find some specific scripture; but the view you take, that it was general in the prophets, gives a good explanation. There is the word by Paul in Acts 20:35, “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive”. You do not find that, but it seems to come out something like this.
CAM And the Lord in quoting Scripture quotes from a translation not literally very correct.
JT He quotes, I suppose, from the LXX; but you must not encourage us to be incorrect.
CAM Every word has its meaning.
JT The omission of one letter proved a point. “He does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ”, (Galatians. 3:16). So that accuracy in Scripture is very important.
BTF Have you any thought as to the similarity of the words Nazarite and Nazaraean? Both are beautifully true of the Lord.
JT They have different meanings. Nazarite is separation. “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk”, (Lamentations 4:7). A Nazaraean is a sufferer, one in reproach.
WCR Did not one whom the Lord call say, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46)
JT That was Nathanael. That shows what was in their minds; but it is very pointed there that the [p. 269] Scriptures are brought in in regard of what did come out of it. “We have found him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth”, (John 1:45). The account that Philip gives is striking. It is not primarily the One who came from Nazareth, but the One of whom Moses wrote, and the One of whom the prophets wrote; and then, he adds, “Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth”. Philip knows the Scripture, so Nathanael’s question, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” is answered. If Nathanael had been spiritual, he would have inquired at the outset, What did Moses say? What did the prophets say? But his mind was Jewish and natural. Philip had spoken of what Moses and the prophets wrote.
CAM He had come into the good of the millennium before the time. He was really sitting under his vine and fig-tree, was he not?
JT Notice that it was when he began to move that the Lord designated him. It says, “Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and says of him, Behold one truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile”. It was not the one sitting under the fig-tree, but the one coming that was truly an Israelite, showing that movement is a feature in John.
DR Would it not give us great pleasure to take account of the time when authority will be set up in One who is a Shepherd; and in connection with the Lord as King to take account of Him as our Shepherd and Bishop, the One who will keep us together?
JT Quite. You can rest in assurance, notwithstanding it is a rod of iron, if it is in the hands of One who exercises it as a shepherd. It says, He shall shepherd the nations.
DR And God intended that everyone who came [p. 270] in the royal line should exercise their influence as a shepherd, did He not?
WCR Explain that a little — “Who shall shepherd all the nations with an iron rod?” (Revelation 12:5).
JT I think that is the principle. He keeps them together, cares for them. The shepherd’s rod is not to beat the sheep; it is employed to guide them into the way.
WB-s There seems an incongruity with a shepherd and the rod of iron. Iron is destructive; it is powerful anyway in the way of destruction.
JT It reminds of the power that He has, I suppose, but it is in the hands of a Shepherd. It is used for shepherding.
WLP It could be used as destruction to those who would injure the sheep.
JT You cannot think of flexibility in divine rule. Human governments have to give way to people, but divine rule is not flexible. Rule as in God’s hands is absolute. The bottom principle of divine rule is that there is no toleration of man’s will whatever.
WCR “A sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom”, (Hebrews 1:8).
CAM It is remarkable that David got his training as a shepherd.
JT Shepherds were abominable to the Egyptians; (Genesis 46:34). Man in the flesh is not capable of appreciating the spirit of a shepherd. “And thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins”. That is what marks Jesus. And then it goes on: “Now all this came to pass that that might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord, through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel”. And then we are told what the meaning of that is: Isaiah does not tell us, but Matthew does: “which is, being interpreted, God with us”.
CAM That sign was given to an ungodly king, was it not?
JT It was very wonderful that God should propose that to a man like Ahaz. Ahaz would not ask for a sign, but it was faith’s opportunity to look for a sign, and the sign was given, and this is the sign, a Babe, but Emmanuel.
CAM This wonderful sign involves the whole universe.
WCR God works through that which is weak outwardly.
JT Yes, and then you see in that part of Isaiah, that directly Immanuel is introduced the whole scene changes; (Isaiah 7). The Assyrian comes up to the attack, but it is Immanuel’s land and he cannot overthrow Immanuel. That is what we get in Matthew. The presence of Christ means that Satan shall never prevail now; he cannot overthrow what is of God. If he could we would not be here today!