THE KING IN HIS BEAUTY (3)
[p. 291] THE KING IN HIS BEAUTY (3)
WB-s In the third temptation here in Matthew 4 we get the “high mountain”; in the third temptation in Luke 4:9, we get the “pinnacle of the temple”. Why the difference?
JT The religious side comes second in this gospel; the “holy city” and the “temple” point to what is religious. The “high mountain” and the “kingdoms of the world” refer to earthly, political glory. Probably Matthew has Israel’s history in view; Luke that of the Gentile nations.
EHT The devil gets three designations here: “the tempter”, “the devil”, and “Satan”.
JT The identification of the devil is a feature of Scripture. In the book of Revelation you get all his titles put together, so that his whole history should be identified. The devil sinned from the beginning and his identity is maintained. It is the same one from the outset.
WCR There can be no doubt as to who he is.
JT It is important to be able to discern his workings and to recognise him. As the Lord said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan”. (Matthew 16:23). He discerned that it was Satan. Although Peter was ostensibly governed by kindly feelings towards the Lord, the Lord quickly discerned what was actuating him.
WLP Do these three temptations signify that Satan was absolutely conquered by the Lord, because he leaves Him?
JT Yes, and the titles employed would show he had exhausted all his ammunition. Satan is the adversary, the great adversary of God, and being defeated he leaves Christ. It is the tempter, the devil, and then Satan.
WB-s In this gospel, [p. 292] it says, he leaves Him,
and stops there. In Luke, it says, he leaves Him “for a time”. I suppose he appears again in the garden in Luke?
JT Yes, Luke has that in view, that he would come back in another way.
WLP Would that be a temptation?
JT At Gethsemane? Yes. The Lord had said to them, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation”. (Luke 22:40). It was a temptation of an extreme kind. The enemy was bringing to bear on the Lord the power of death in order to divert Him from the path of obedience.
BTF Do you think this answers to the secret trial of David through the lion and the bear, in the wilderness?
JT To some extent, I should say, yes. That was a test to him.
AAT There is a Scripture, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations”. (Luke 22:28). Has that any connection with what is before us?
JT No, there was no one with Him here. That would refer to what they had gone through with Him after they became His companions, but He has no one here. The Lord begins to gather disciples after this, as we see in the next part of the chapter.
AAT What is the setting of this temptation? There must have been a reason why after the baptism He went right into the wilderness and was tempted.
JT It is to bring out the beauty and moral integrity of the King here, I think, what He is as left alone with Satan. What would you do if you were left alone with Satan? What would I do? But if we look at this scripture we see what Christ did. We see the triumph of a Man who had to contend single-handed with Satan.
WCR The kingdom is in view, and the Lord is to give character to it. He is here binding the strong man and is about to spoil his goods.
EHT Do we not get the full solution of both [p. 293] good and evil set forth here: in what the Lord sets forth of good and what Satan sets forth of evil J.T. In a way. He is single-handed with Satan. As it says, “Jesus was carried up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil”. It was designed. It is not an accident in His path, it is designed so as to bring out what was there. Afterwards He hungered, and it is then the enemy brings forward this great test as to the necessities of His body. The more you study it the more wonderful it is, that in that state of hunger, which was real and not feigned, for His humanity was as real as ours, the enemy, knowing well what that meant for man, Jesus stands out and refuses to minister to Himself because there was no word for it.. Hence he says, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which goes out through God’s mouth”. That is what a Man says who is hungry after forty days fasting. We must not suppose that it is any miracle here; it is a real Man who needed food, as we do.
DR Would the Lord’s answers not emphasise the necessity of reading, so that in the event of any temptation coming our way we should be able to say what is written and stand on that?
JT Having the word, that is it. I am afraid there is great want among the saints of God from lack of reading, private reading, family reading, and collective or public reading.
AAT It is not only reading, but it seems the Lord knew how to apply the Scripture in the right way. He had the Scripture that governed the position in each instance, which is a very important way of applying Scripture.
JT Philip says to the eunuch, “Understandest thou what thou readest”? (Acts 8:30). It is not merely the routine of reading, but the understanding that we need.
WCR The Lord had “the sword of the Spirit”. (Ephesians 6:17)
[p. 294] If we are to meet the enemy in conflict we must have the sword of the Spirit too and know how to use it. Is that your thought?
JT Yes. The passage corresponds very much with David’s position in the valley of Elah. “He took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand”, (1 Samuel 17: 40). He chose them, that is what a Christian should do. We see it here in perfection in Christ. He selected His scriptures from Deuteronomy, showing His perfect knowledge of the arsenal, the armoury and the weapons that were there. He knew where they were and what was suited to this crisis. He says: “It is written”.— “It is written” — “It is written again”. He could bring forward the suited scripture in each case.
WB-s I think this point of reading is a very important one. Proverbs 21: 17,18, reads, “Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips”. This involves reading, meditation on the word, and the time would come when they would be fitted together in the lips. The Spirit of God would bring them forward at a time they were needed.
JT And then, too, to know how to use the Scriptures in a comely way, as fitting your own experience. One is to think soberly so as to be wise, as God has dealt to each a measure of faith. One has to know one’s measure; and I think David’s sling would be like his measure, and the choice of stones would be in relation to that, and hence the effectiveness of his service. He could not wear Saul’s armour; he had not proved it.
BTF Would you say a word in regard to not only knowing Scripture but comparing [p. 295] Scripture?
JT It is very important to compare one Scripture with another, and especially the types, as affording details which the New Testament does not afford. Some may assume there is no need now of reading the Old, because we have everything in the New, but that is an entire mistake. We have the truth of Christ unfolded in the New, His path, His death, His resurrection, His glorification, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, but there are details that cover all this in the Old Testament which are not in the New, and these details help out immensely in our warfare, and in our ministry, and for our souls’ enjoyment. Mark you! the food here is every word that proceedeth through God’s mouth, and that includes the Old Testament.
DR The Lord uses the Old Testament, as we see here.
WB-t How often one sits down to read and does not understand, and finally lays the book down. I think there is many a one here who has gone through that experience, and I was thinking of that scripture in Matthew 9:24, where the Lord said in the ruler’s house: “Give place; for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth”. Give place! Is not that important in connection with reading and understanding? We have to give place in our hearts to the Lord. It will not do to take up light reading and lay it down and then think we can take up the Scriptures and understand them. We must give place to the Lord. Would you go with that?
WCR It says, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”, (Isaiah 8:20).
WB-s So it is not the literal word merely; it is God speaking to you.
JT Yes, so wisdom is the principal thing. We are encouraged to get wisdom, but “with all thy getting get understanding”. (Proverbs [p. 296] 4:7)
CAM You feel in connection with reading that you are very dependent on the Spirit, because we do not go on spiritually if the Spirit is grieved.
AAT There is a good deal of reading that goes on outside of Scripture; I mean the reading of writings by brethren. I would like to have a word on that. It certainly has its place, has it not?
JT Reading is the next mode of communication to speaking. God has employed both modes and it is right that we should employ them. If we cannot speak, we can write. As I was remarking last night, the scribe is a very important officer in the divine economy; one who can write. It is a question, of course, of what he writes, but if spoken ministry is effective there is no reason why written ministry should not be effective proportionately, and it should not be ignored. It is a mistake to ignore it. Anyone that despises it is despising, in principle, a method or means that God has employed Himself.
WB-s Peter and John both spoke of what they had written.
WLP If it is necessary for one speaking to speak as the oracles of God; it is also necessary, if writing, to write as the oracles of God.
J .T. Quite. Now, coming to these temptations, I am glad that we were able to speak about this because it is of value for us to know how to use Scripture. It is like an armoury, that the man of war may go to for his weapons. Now the Lord says of Himself that in contending with this strong man He took away his armour in which he trusted. The enemy did not reckon on that, that the Lord would even deprive him of his armour: not only of his weapons but of his armour.
AAT To what does that refer?
JT Well, whatever it was Satan trusted in, and had used effectively in contending against God heretofore, he is now deprived of.
WB-[p. 297] t It says in Job 41:15,16: “His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them”.
CAM Is it not remarkable that the devil uses Scripture? When a spiritual man uses Scripture words take on an entirely different force, do they not?
JT Yes, and he quotes it accurately and in its connection; whereas the devil does not. It says, “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone”. Well, that was not accurate, for Psalm 91:11 says, “keeping thee in all thy ways”.
EHT In using Scripture, as indicated by what you have said of the five smooth stones, you read it with exercise and, if not read that way, you will not get it very accurately.
JT Yes, one would be concerned about using Scripture aright. The Lord carefully selects these scriptures. They are not used haphazardly; so when He is about to preach the gospel and stand up in the synagogue of Nazareth, He finds the scripture. He turns, so to speak, to the chapter and verse. He knew it was there.
Rem He chose a stone out of the brook.
JT It was the Scripture governing that position. Isaiah, I suppose, is the most evangelical of all the prophets, as Deuteronomy is the storehouse for the wilderness that is, the wilderness for those who have the Spirit. When presenting the gospel the Lord selects a Scripture from Isaiah.
AAT And He quotes so much and no more.
JT Quite. But this religious test, you know, is a very severe one, especially when one is on a pinnacle of the temple, for that is what we get here. “The devil takes him to the holy city, and sets him upon [p. 298] the edge of the temple, and says to him, If thou be Son of God cast thyself down”.
EHT I suppose you have in mind that the severe test was the prominence of the place, as much as to say to the Lord, If you make a display of yourself the whole world will follow you.
JT Yes, and you do not want anybody to rule you religiously. In that realm, the realm of “the holy city” and “the temple”, God determines everything. It is quite obvious that it is not Satan’s sphere. God will give a man his place. He will not fail to do that.
Ques You use the temple here in a moral way?
JT The reference is to the religious sphere.
WB-s It is presumptuousness on the part of Satan here.
JT I think so.
CAM Does Satan hold the religious place at his disposal? Would you go that far?
JT Apparently in the world; but here, you see, it is the temple of the holy city, which belonged to God, and one does not want to be led there by anyone. It is a great mistake to patronise anyone in connection with the things of God. You are for yourself, so to speak, in the house of God, and it is a question of what God may do with you.
DR Then would this answer to spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places?
JT Well, it may. It is spoken of as “the holy city” and “the edge of the temple”. That is, the general buildings are alluded to in which anyone may be found. It is not necessarily the priestly place.
CAM Referring to what you said as to patrons, it is interesting to notice that Peter, when he speaks to Cornelius, and Cornelius treats him with great reverence, says, “Stand up; I myself also am a man”. (Acts 10:[p. 299] 26).
JT Yes. One can leave one’s self with God, for if an influential brother promotes you in any way you may get beyond your depth. Peter’s attitude was very different from that of his so-called successors at Rome!
BTF It has been spoken of as one being made an object of religious veneration.
JT Yes, the Antichrist will occupy a similar place. He will set himself down in the temple of God. Satan wished the Lord to cast Himself down; but the word was, “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”.
EHT That verifies what you said, it was the sphere of God.
Ques Would that not be taking away his armour?
JT It was. What could he do against a Man like that? It is the Lord saying, I could not tempt God by casting myself down.
WLP Was this a literal meeting of the Lord and Satan?
JT Oh, quite. How it happened in detail that He was led into the holy city and placed on a pinnacle of the temple, I do not know.
CAM I suppose you cannot very well account for the fact that after the death of Christ, as recorded in this gospel, saints came out of their graves and entered into the holy city and appeared to many. You cannot account for that either.
JT No, it is just stated. We bow to the statement of the Scriptures. They do not satisfy natural curiosity.
EHT The Lord would not accept a place of prominence, except the place God would give Him and the principle you are trying to emphasise is that you must only take the place that God gives you?
JT Yes, quite. There is much you can read between the lines. The Lord did not enter into detailed controversy with Satan; one smooth stone [p. 300] is enough. Hence He only refers to the casting down side; but you can see how the enemy would attack any of us by offering us, if we have the ability for it, a position religiously. We must avoid that.
Ques Do you not think we lose by not seeing that the Lord took fully the place of man?
JT Whilst we keep His Deity before us always in thinking of Him, yet we must not forget He was a real Man, and in grace entered into time and material limitations, and acted in them according to the position He had taken. The point in all these scriptures is that man is to be subject, man is to be guided and nourished by the words of God.
BTF Would you say the temptations answer to John’s description of all that is in the world “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”? (1 John 2:16)
JT Yes, they do. Satan, from his long experience with men, knowing what would appeal to a man, brings forward these tests so as to accomplish the fall of the Lord Jesus, and the way the Lord meets him is most admirable. Really one ought to dwell upon it; how, without any controversy, He just cites the scripture that fits, and the enemy is defeated. So that in the end He says, “Thou shalt do homage to the Lord thy God.”. In the last temptation the enemy discloses what he is. He says, “All these things will I give thee if, falling down, thou wilt do me homage”. We have the full exposure of the enemy now.
AAT It is almost the best scripture we have for the exposure of the enemy. It shows what his motives are.
JT Quite.
EHT And it shows what is at the end, a political and religious man.
JT Quite. Satan has not given this up. He still has [p. 301] these ideas.
WCR This will be completed in the first and second beast.
JT Just so. It is not that he has any care for them; Satan is seeking that he himself should become an object of veneration, so the dragon is to be worshipped.
WB-s What is undoing the works of the devil? “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”, (1 John 3:8).
JT I think He binds him here and then He goes about spoiling his goods, but for the complete undoing of Satan’s works, Christ had to die.
EHT Is it remarkable that you discover the Lord’s object? “Thou shalt do homage to the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve”.
JT Yes, so the last temptation brings out that Satan is against God. He is Satan, the adversary, and the Lord virtually says in using this term, Now you have exposed yourself; you are not merely opposing me, you are opposing God. That is what often comes out in difficulties among the people of God. It may appear that it is feeling, and it may be, where feeling may exist between two individuals the devil is behind it. He is not thinking of the two individuals. They are nothing to him; he is aiming at God, and the Lord names him aright in this last temptation. It is the adversary, not of man only, but of God.
WCR It says, “Our struggle is not against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies”; (Ephesians 6:12). As you say, the conflict is not between men. We do not have to battle with men; it is what is behind it all, spiritual wickedness.
WB-s The kingdoms of this world do not belong to God at all, do they? They have no [p. 302] connection with God. In Revelation 11:15, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ”; but that is a different world.
JT Yes. The kingdoms referred to here are comprised in the system from Babel, beginning with Nimrod. It is remarkable how the kingdom of God, in its characteristics, is set up to offset the kingdoms of this world. It says, “the beginning of his kingdom was Babel”, (Genesis 10:10) that is, Nimrod’s kingdom. The beginning of God’s kingdom you might say was in Melchisedec. He was “priest of the most high God” (Genesis 14:18); but then he was “king of righteousness”, and “king of peace”. (Hebrews 7:2). The gospel of Matthew brings to us the real King, the kingdom that is to mark the world of our Lord and His Christ. We have the King here.
Rem So the question of authority is a great question all the way through.
ST It is remarkable that in beginning with man God speaks of the kingdom. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. (John 3:3). There must be a work of God in him to see it.
JT Yes. Here it is the King. You are directed to the Psalms in reading these passages, for the Psalms give us the experience and appreciation of godly men in regard of the One that we have had before us. “I speak of the things which I have made touching the King”, (Psalm 45:1). And so in Psalm 72, the King’s Son, referring to Christ, having come on the scene, the prayers of David are ended. You are assured now of the accomplishment of everything, of every thought of God, in this Person. Assurance comes into your heart as you see how He meets the enemy and binds him.
WB-t Will you say a little on the eleventh verse?
JT The devil leaves Him, and angels come [p. 303] and minister to Him. He is the Object of heavenly attention. And then it goes on; “But having heard that John was delivered up, he departed into Galilee: and having left Nazareth, he went and dwelt at Capernaum, which is on the seaside in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim, that that might be fulfilled which was spoken through Esaias the prophet, saying, Land of Zabulon and land of Nepthalim, way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations; the people sitting [p. 304] in darkness has seen a great light, and to those sitting in the country and shadow of death, to them has light sprung up”, (Matthew 4:12 - 16). Now we have the Lord in relation to the darkness of this world and those “sitting in darkness”. That is a very remarkable Scripture.
WB-s Why does it state these countries here, Zabulon and Nepthalim, indicating they are of Galilee, of the nations?
JT It was in proximity to the nations. Matthew makes much of that region because he wanted to show the believing Jews, and all the Jews, when he wrote, that God had rightly slighted Jerusalem; that His testimony was towards the nations in view of the fact that the Jews rejected their King. He was King of the Jews, and the nations responded. Indeed, wise men of the nations had come to find Him, whereas the Jews were asleep in regard to Him.
WB-s This is a quotation from Isaiah 9:6, and there we read, “the government shall be upon his shoulder”. The King is seen in that chapter.
JT Yes, it is “unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given”. That is Israel speaking by faith.
AAT You had something in your mind about “the people sitting in darkness”.
JT It shows how things stand; they were sitting in it. Satan had brought about a state of darkness in the world and a state of death, and men were restful in that. So it says, “The people sitting in darkness has seen a great light, and to those sitting in the country and shadow of death, to them has light sprung up”. They were sitting in darkness, and sitting in the country and shadow of death.
WB-t Why is John the baptist brought in here in verse twelve?
JT To show the perfection of the Lord’s ministry, that He would not begin to serve until John had finished His service. And now as we proceed, it says, “From that time began Jesus to preach and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh”. From that time. First we have the Lord dwelling in Capernaum; thus He was light; His ministry follows that; see verse 17.
ST Does He accept His rejection there also, in John being cast into prison?
JT I suppose He foresees it, but I think it is rather that it makes room for Him to come forward to minister. But it says, He dwelt at Capernaum. It is not yet His ministry exactly; it is, the light that shines through His dwelling in the place. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. The light shone in the simplicity of His blessed life.
BTF Does the preaching commence at a different point here in a moral way from Luke’s gospel?
JT Oh, yes. First he was dwelling here. He dwelt at Capernaum, it says, and then we are told where it was. “Which is on the sea-side in the borders of Zabulon and Nepthalim, that that might be fulfilled which was spoken through Esaias”. I think His dwelling there involved that a great light shone there and fulfilled prophecy; and those there are marked out as people that sit in darkness and in the country and shadow of death. It was a wonderful thing for them; but then He begins to preach. We have not as yet come to His ministry. His ministry begins in the seventeenth verse, “From that time”.
WB-[p. 305] s He preached the same as John, just the same words He uttered at the first.
JT The same words exactly.
EHT I would like to ask about the Lord dwelling at Capernaum. Capernaum was exalted to heaven; Christ dwelling there made it tremendously responsible. I suppose responsibility comes in in connection with privilege, and things do not happen accidentally; the Lord selects the place and He selects our localities.
JT He gives you your local position, but the danger is of making too much of your locality. Brethren are often too parochial; we have our parishes, and so on. Responsibility is right to a point; but the house of God is the great thought for the believer and the principle of the house of God is universality.
EHT A house of prayer for all nations.
JT Yes, and if you have any light, according to the next chapter, it is not for your locality especially, it is for the house. You put it on a candlestick, that it may give light unto all that are in the house. That is to say, gift is not for a locality. You may be a deacon in a locality, or an elder, but a spiritual gift is not for a special locality. Hence, it says of the Lord, in Luke 4:31, speaking of this very town, Capernaum, that He “descended to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbaths. And they were astonished at his doctrine”. Then He enters into the synagogue, and it says in verse 42, “And when it was day he went out, and went into a desert place, and the crowds sought after him, and came up to him, and would have kept him back that he should not go from them”. That is, they would keep Him in that locality, but He says, “I must needs announce the glad tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also”. Not simply “other cities”, but “the other cities”; all the cities must [p. 306] be enlightened. Now that is the principle of gift. Zechariah 6:12 says of “the man whose name is the Branch”, that “he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple”. That is one side of the Lord’s position. Then when He began His ministry He went to Nazareth, where He was brought up, and they say, “Whatsoever we have heard has taken place in Capernaum do here also in thine own country”. They would take advantage of Christ to add to their city and their locality, but the Lord brings in the prophet, quoting from the Old Testament to prove that God would not benefit any locality when He was acting from Himself. He sent Elijah to the widow of Sarepta; and Elisha healed Naaman the Syrian, showing that when God is acting from Himself in grace, as He is in the gospel of Luke, He will not be limited to any locality. If you have gift, it is not for any locality, it is for all. It is set in the house. I am obligated to brethren everywhere in regard to any gift I may have from the Lord.
WB-t I think that is very helpful.
JT If it is not observed we become parochial, and if we have a gift in our parish, we think our parish is to that extent dignified, and we begin to get metropolitan and expect to influence other districts; whereas if you recognise gift in its relation to the whole house it does not add to you any more than to me. It is in regard to the house.
AAT If a brother has a gift and wishes to exercise it generally, is there not a question raised in connection with fellowship with that gift? I mean a brother might go out and not have the fellowship of his brethren.
JT You get instruction in regard of that in the Acts. Barnabas and Saul had lived a whole year at Antioch before the Holy Spirit calls upon the saints to commit themselves to these two gifts; so one has to be in the confidence of the saints. How can [p. 307] you gain that unless you live with them? They went in and out amongst them for a whole year.
AAT Then it is a right principle that those “out in the work” should be commended by their local brethren?.
JT Yes; those among whom they have grown up. Barnabas and Saul made a circuit and they fulfilled the work, it says. (Acts 14:26). They finished it before they came back, and they came back to Antioch. So I think we have in that chapter in Acts a pattern for levitical work; it goes out from the assembly.
EHT You are speaking now of individuals who have places in the economy of God for special things; you might say specific things. What about a local meeting? Is one to serve locally, having in view the benefits of the house of God?
JT Surely, what you do is in the light of the assembly.
CAM You drew a distinction between an office and a gift. You might hold an office and not necessarily have a gift?
JT Scripture speaks of an elder labouring in the word and doctrine, saying that he is thus to be honoured all the more, but it is not necessary that he should have a gift.
WLP An assembly then can get along without a gift?
JT All the gifts in the assembly are ours. As the apostle says to the Corinthians, “whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas ... all are yours”. (1 Corinthians 3:22). I understand that is how they stand, they belong to the whole assembly. “God has set certain in the assembly”; that does not mean the local assembly at Corinth, because there were no apostles set there. The word says, “first apostles, second prophets”. (1 Corinthians 12:28). It is the [p. 308] whole assembly.
CAM Mr. Stoney has said, ‘You do not need gift, but elders’.
JT Elders are needed; and I would like to have a word about the necessity among us of the principle of oversight.
AAT Both Philip and Stephen were deacons, or had offices at the beginning, but they developed gift.
JT They purchased to themselves good degrees and much boldness in the faith. Caring for the saints is open to any young brother or sister. A sister may be a deaconess; may exercise the service of providing for the needs of the saints.
WCR Phoebe was a servant of the assembly at Cenchrea.
WCR How would it work out with a sister to be a deaconess?
JT Visiting, caring for the bodily needs of the saints. You will notice in 1 Timothy 3, that women were to serve in this way; their qualifications are given.
WCR You get Priscilla coming out beautifully in that way; “who for my life staked their own neck”; Paul says, showing how they served him, and no doubt others, (Romans 16:4).
EHT Several women in that chapter qualified, beginning with Phoebe.
JT To come to the latter part of Matthew 4, I want to call attention to the Lord walking by the sea of Galilee. It says in verse eighteen that He saw two brothers. I wish to call attention to the way the Lord gathers according to Matthew. It says: “And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers”. He calls two pairs of brothers. He saw two brothers, “Simon called Peter, and Andrew, his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishers and he says to them, Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men”. They were brothers and they [p. 309] were acting as brothers; they were acting together, doing the same thing, and so the Lord says, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men”. We have been saying that in baptism we place ourselves under a grave responsibility to Christ; but if the Lord is to make anything out of any one of us, or any two of us, as in this instance, we must come after Him. “Come after me, and I will make you”.
AAT Are you emphasising the coming after or the brothers?
JT Both. So far they were acting in family relationship; there was evidently in that household a recognition of the family institution. They were brothers and acting together, and the Lord recognises that. And then they were not idle, they were casting a net into the sea.
ST Does that agree with chapter 18:19, “If two of you shall agree”?
JT To some extent. I think the Lord honours family relationships where they are recognised.
WC You are speaking now about natural relationships?
JT Yes, a divine institution.
CAM Then you were emphasising the idea of leadership. The Lord is before us as a leader.
JT They were casting a net into the sea when He saw them. He says, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men”. If the Lord is to make anything of me, I must come after Him.
EHT Peter and Andrew dropped all and followed Him.
JT They were so far right. The Lord recognises what was there. They were brothers and they were acting together, and they were employed in legitimate, profitable work, and He calls them to come after Him. And then it says, “And going on thence he saw other two brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the ship with Zebedee their father”. You see this is a greater thing in a way, that the two brothers should be “with their father”.
AAT And they were mending their nets.
JT They were occupied well, mending things, showing that they were men of concern. They were not wasters. I am speaking now for the young people, because it is a great point with God that young people should recognise family relationships. The two brothers are with their father in the ship, and they are not wasting time; they are mending nets.
AAT I have heard it said that the way these brothers are mentioned in Scripture for the first time gives an insight into their ministry afterwards. The first two were fishers of men, and the last two menders of nets, and able to preserve the fishes caught.
EHT What is it significant of that they are with their father?
JT The family bond existed. They were working with their father. Instead of a young man going off to the city, or to some other place to have his fling, as is common today, and family relationships disregarded, this passage shows how the Lord honoured the recognition of them.
WCR You get the same thing with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; they dwelt together.
JT Yes. He dwelt in tents with them. What I wanted to call attention to, in regard of this second set, is that it says, “he called them”; and He does not say He is going to make them anything. These are James and John, the second two, and it is only recorded that the Lord called them; and it says, “and they, having left the ship and their father, immediately followed him”. The Lord holds out nothing in the way of inducement in His call to James and John. He does not say He is going to make anything out of them. It is a call. I suppose it is intended to suggest the general position of the saints. We are simply called. We cannot assume [p. 311] to be something official, but we are “called saints”. (1 Corinthians 1:2).
Ques Why did He not call the father?
JT That is a question of the Lord’s sovereignty. He selects whom He calls. In view of the verses read in chapter 5, I just want to call attention to the fact that all we have read, and the miracles that follow, bring in a crowd. You will notice it says, “And great crowds followed him from Galilee, and Decapolis, and Jerusalem, and Judea, and beyond the Jordan”. Now in many people is the strength of the King, but these people must be regulated. So it says, “Seeing the crowds, he went up into the mountain, and having sat down, his disciples came to him; and, having opened his mouth, he taught them”. We have not time to dwell on it; but I think this section is the King legislating. Things must not be on the principle of a crowd, because a crowd is not co-ordinated, each one is independent of the other; whereas, the Lord would take them and form a kingdom, and give a law to that kingdom by which it should be governed.
CAM This is really the way things are administered in the kingdom of the heavens.
JT Yes. He sat down and taught His disciples, and what is to be especially noticed is that it is for blessing first. It is, “Blessed”, “Blessed”, “Blessed”. What a kingdom this is going to be!
BTF Does this fulfil Isaiah 8:16? “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples”.
JT Quite, it is the disciples.
DR Would you say, in principle, that this was the Lord forming an assembly. He gathers the material first, and then forms the assembly by having the disciples around Him.
JT In the principle of it. Here it is giving law, it is legislation. In Deuteronomy 33 the law is said to be the heritage of the people, and so these three chapters, Matthew 5, Matthew 6 and Matthew 7, form a wonderful [p. 312] heritage for the people of God. It is called a “fiery law” in Deuteronomy 33, but this is not a fiery law. It is an immense asset to any country to have a good code of laws.
CAM I suppose we have here the principles by which the kingdom is to be governed.
JT Quite.
WB-s It is like Joseph teaching his senators wisdom.
JT That passage in Deuteronomy is worth looking at, at this point, because it shows the moral value of the law. Chapter 33, verse 2, reads, “The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words. Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together”. It is very like this passage. It is what the disciples were, in relation to the King, and the law that He gave them.
CAM They will thus be fitted to rule by-and-by, in the day of display.