THE ABUNDANCE OF THE SEAS (5)
[p. 85] THE ABUNDANCE OF THE SEAS (5)
Mark 10:46 - 52; Mark 11:1 - 11; Mark 12:41 - 44
JT We observed yesterday that chapter 10 begins the second general division of the gospel. It is said of the Lord, “Rising up thence he comes into the coasts of Judaea, and the other side of the Jordan”. Then later, verses 32 - 34, “And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going on before them; and they were amazed, and were afraid as they followed. And taking the twelve again to him, he began to tell them what was going to happen to him: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered up to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him up to the nations: and they shall mock him and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again”. These verses indicate what is now in view. The Lord had been labouring in relation to the sea, in connection with which there was no organised opposition, although there was opposition but now He is turning towards Jerusalem, and what we may see in our consideration of these remaining passages is the kind of material that comes to light in the blind man and the colt. We are now turned towards the recognised divine centre, but the facts developed shew that it was like “the hill of God” in the hands of the Philistine, in the enemy’s hands, so that the Lord, in turning In that direction, asserts His rights. We are, therefore, in the presence of the full power of the enemy. That at the hill of God were outposts of the Philistines was a matter to be taken to heart; and the Lord, as facing all this, acquaints His disciples with what they might expect.
EuR It is interesting that in invading Jerusalem the Spirit of God would draw attention to His coming first to the coasts of Judea and the other side of Jordan.
[p. 86] Would it involve that in overthrowing the Philistine element, holding things in bondage. God would open up universal blessing?
JT Exactly. He came in by way of Trans-Jordanian territory; He came in that way. That is what is meant, I think. He approached that way.
PL Are you connecting that with the experience of Israel? In regard of the Red Sea have we got more the expression “the way” and what lies in it; but in the crossing the Jordan with the ark the enemies are scattered. Is it the concentrated power against Christ here?
JT Yes. Jericho stands for that; so that you have the expression that he followed Jesus “in the way”, meaning that he took that way. That is to be noted “the way”. Approaching Judaea and Jerusalem on this line we are reminded of the power in which the land was taken. It was a question of the “Lord of all the earth” that is to say, the rights of God entered into the crossing of the Jordan and taking possession of the land. It was the “ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth”, and those powers enter into chapter 10. The Lord approaches similarly, and He finds material at Jericho corresponding very much with Rahab. That is, the blind man Bartimaeus recognises the Son of David. It is not an ordinary person believing for salvation, but one who recognises in his faith the Lord’s right to the inheritance. That is, you have material that will stand up against the opposition that now is evident, as with Rahab.
So the subjects dealt with in this chapter enter into this; the subject of marriage and divorce; and that of children; and the rich man whom the Lord is said to have loved all these enter into the position. The rights of God and His institutions are in view; and perhaps we shall be helped in taking up this section of the gospel if we take account of the testimony as involving all these things, but that in maintaining them we have to contend [p. 87] with entrenched organised opposition. What belongs to the Lord by profession is in the enemy’s hand. That is the position now. So, in turning our faces towards Jerusalem, as it were, the rights of the Lord come into view, and all has to be maintained in the presence of organised opposition. The hill of the Lord is in the enemy’s hand.
Ques Would the thought of Hebron help to illustrate it? “The name of Hebron before was Kirjath-Arba”.
JT Well, it does; it had been held by a family of giants, (Joshua 15: 13 - 15).
MWB Do you mean that the situation becomes more defined both in the organised opposition and in the actual securing of the material?
JT Yes; Bartimaeus represents the material now. It is material of, as one might say, fighting ability, because he came into blessing against opposition. Difficulties were raised him and he overcame them whereas earlier, throughout the first section, there was a sympathetic atmosphere. In the cases mentioned the environment generally was sympathetic, so that the needy soul was helped to the Lord; but now there is opposition. Barriers are raised up, but he overcomes.
EJMcB Does he represent a case that is translated out of the authority of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of God’s love?
JT Just so.
EJMcB So that he throws aside his garment.
HES Is the thought of Rahab that before there were material effects gained by God there was a great moral effect gained in her heart, and is that the character of the present moment?
JT Yes, it is power in the believer that overcomes the environment, because she was beset by deadly opposition to the people of God, but in her soul she had light as to what God did at the Red Sea, and what the people did to Sihon and Og. She had light as to the [p. 88] power of God in the resurrection of Christ, and the power of the Spirit acting in the saints; and, alongside of that, a cumulative moral state, for she had the stalks of flax on the roof of the house; meaning that she was coming into unity out of the sink of corruption in which she had been, and she directed the spies to go another way. She had the principle in her soul of another way, not the ordinary way, and so she represents the kind of material that would stand up against the opposition, as she herself did. So the opposition here fits in with our present circumstances. The effect of our study of the first section should be to make us evangelical, but as the wealth is acquired, this opposition has to be met; because the wealth must be made to fit in with the rights of the Lord. He is the “Lord of all the earth”, and His institutions must stand. Whatever was given from the very outset, every divine principle must stand; so that we hold to all these things in the presence of organised opposition to them.
EM Would it be an exercise to bring to pass that, which would be protective of what is so precious to Christ as the result of ministry?
JT Yes. So you are concerned now in moving on to Judaea and Jerusalem, as to whether the result of the ministry is able to take its place in conflict, for otherwise it will go under.
EM To be a “good soldier of Jesus Christ”.
JT That is right, and to take your share in suffering.
EuR It would be vain for me to hail Him as Son of David when others are refusing His rights, if I do not take my place in relation to those rights as an individual. I must not be occupied with what others are doing, but come under His authority, and I will find my place in relation to others on that line.
JT Quite. You stand by those rights and suffer if necessary. The blind man “saw immediately, and followed him in the way”. “The way” is to be [p. 89] noted here; it involves divine principles and their maintenance.
JJ It is mentioned three times in the chapter.
EuR Is it the thought that there were already others in the way? The disciples were wondering as they followed Jesus in the way, and so he would link on with them.
JT Yes, and then it says, “And as he went forth into the way, a person ran up to him, and kneeling to him asked him. Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” verse 17. Well, he did not hold in the way, although he kneels down. In the Establishment there is plenty of that sort of thing, and profession to be in the way, but riches lead this man out of it again, so that he is a discredit to it.
FHB The way here led definitely to the cross.
JJ Would it be like Mark’s own history in leaving Paul?
JT He comes in later on, as the young man who fled because of the intense persecution and left the linen cloth. Mark is more a failing Christian but this man does not denote a genuine disciple.
RB Do you think that Moses had any light as to this when he said, “Shew me thy way”?
JT He wished to see it.
HH Do you not think that all these points we are going over in regard to the gospel of Mark suggest that Mark himself came into a much fuller apprehension of them. He had got to write about the things, and is not the gospel running rather on that line as brought before us for our education?
JT I am sure that is so. Moses, as was said, desired to see God’s way; he saw it as on the mount of transfiguration.
AN Was there correspondence in the way the blind man addresses the Lord, and in what is seen in Rahab?
JT She had light corresponding with this. It is quite clear that this man had been the subject of a divine [p. 90] work. Otherwise he would never, being a blind man, have been able to address the Lord in this way. It says, “Having heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean, he began to cry out and to say, O Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me”, and then again as they rebuked him, it says, “But he cried so much the more. Son of David, have mercy on me”. That is, he is shewing what kind of material is in him; and he therefore stands for what is to be relied upon, in the way the Lord was taking.
HES Is there the thought in addressing the Lord as Son of David that he felt the power of the kingdom, and knew the seriousness of the position in which he was placed?
JT It rather gives that impression. Whatever intelligence he had himself, the position of the confession here has relation to the rights of Christ, which is a greater thing than his need. Not that one would say much as to what he really understood, but the title by which he addresses the Lord is in keeping with the position; and that testimony comes out here; there is the acknowledgment of the Lord as the Son of David, although outwardly He was known as Jesus the Nazaraean. That is what was told him by those passing by, but he called Him Son of David, which shews there was a work of God there, that he had light in his soul. Therefore, it is a testimony in this particular setting, to the rights of the Lord and what was due to Him in Jerusalem. He would stand by that; because the next character is the colt, and he carries the Lord. All this has to be taken account of. He carries the Lord into the city of the great king, and the Lord is acclaimed in this relation, as borne by him into the city.
MWB Do you think there is an analogy to the way the word of the Lord is spoken of in connection with Ephesus? “Thus with might the word of the Lord increased and prevailed”. (Acts 19:20). It is the rights of the Lord in [p. 91] that respect.
JT Yes. That reminds one of what we have here very strikingly, because of the teaching that preceded it. The Holy Spirit first, in chapter 19, and then the teaching in the school of Tyrannus over a long period, and then the word of the Lord. It is not the word of God as in chapter 18, but the word of the Lord; His power to take up the inheritance.
MWB I was wondering whether there is not a twofold usage of the title Lord in that regard? the general thought of the kingdom and then that almighty power that the word of the Lord has. Nothing can stand against it; His word is supreme.
JT That is an important distinction. The first is, in general, Romans, the second, Ephesians.
WRP I have not got your thought with regard to the colt. Would you say a little more about it?
JT That is a very important item in the instruction. I think he is a continuation of Bartimaeus It is the idea that he is available: “The Lord has need of it”. It is the creation really taken up in the colt, as you might say. No man had ever sat on him at any time, he had never been under man’s training or yoke; so I think this section brings in the Lord’s creational rights, as well as His royal rights.
WRP Do you mean creation is made subservient to Him and His rights?
JT That is the idea. When crossing the Jordan it was the “ark ... of the Lord of all the earth”, and this corresponds, so that His creational rights are in view in the colt. “The Lord has need of it”. It was a colt; that is to say, when you drop down to the lower animals it is more the creation as such. Mark has that in view preaching the gospel “to all the creation”; and in this section creational rights are in view as well as His royal rights. They must and they will combine. Therefore, you see the intense opposition; because all these positions are in the hands of the enemy. You see how he has [p. 92] invaded the marital institution and the family in chapter 10. These involve creational rights: “God made them male and female”. The title Son of David implies His royal rights. These also are in view. We are now facing the combined opposition of Satan, because he has taken up all those things, he is entrenched in them.
Ques Would the fact that this man is begging be out of keeping with the dignity of the “ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth”? He was sitting by the wayside. I wondered whether that would represent the moral work of God in his soul. He is near to the way, but out of keeping with the dignity of it.
JT I am sure that is right, and it marks many. But he is now coming into the kingdom, he will not be begging any more.
PL Was Timothy to be brought into the way? “Remember Jesus Christ raised from among the dead, of the seed of David, according to my glad tidings”, (2 Timothy 2:8). Would that connect with the Son of David here?
JT It is remarkable that is brought in there, doubtless he needed to be brought into it more fully. So that 2 Timothy necessarily has the rights of the Lord in view in a day of apostasy. “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, (2 Timothy 2:19). It is a question of what is due to the Lord.
EuR And would it be right to say for ourselves, that it is only as coming under the royal rights that we can fill out our place in creational rights?
JT Exactly. You feel the kingdom gives you liberty to revert back to the divine institutions and to hold them inviolate. That is an important part of the testimony, that the marital relation should be held as a divine institution, and that the family should be maintained accordingly.
EuR So in Timothy you get those “forbidding [p. 93] to marry, bidding to abstain from meats”. All those things are safeguarded here.
JT Quite.
HH Do you not think the inheritance comprises creational rights and royal rights? The effort to keep Christ out would be a denial of both sides.
JT Exactly; so later on they discern He is the heir, and put Him to death, so that they should have the inheritance without any claim to it.
EuR Is that all involved in the “Firstborn of all creation” in Colossians?
JT Yes.
HH Would not the conflict in the end of Ephesians have regard to the inheritance in the way you are looking at it, in the opposition to the testimony which has to be met?
JT Exactly; so that we are to stand: “Having accomplished all things, to stand” in the power of the Lord. It is a question of the Lord, as has been remarked as to (Acts 19). It is the Lord, not so much the kingdom, either in that chapter or in Ephesians. It is rather the military position, the “captain of the Lord’s host”, the power that is in the Lord against “the universal lords of this darkness”, so that we are to have on the whole armour of God.
WC Is that why courage comes in in Joshua? “Be ... of a good courage”.
JT Yes.
WRP You connect all this with the inheritance?
JT Quite, it is the Heir here. He is to put us into possession. It is to overthrow the hostile power; so when the disciples in Luke come to Him and say that the demons were subject to them through His name. He says, “I beheld Satan as lightning falling out of heaven”. That meant the power that He had to meet Satan; it is what is involved in the Lord in the sense in which we are speaking; the power He has to deal with the “universal lords of this darkness”, and so angelic power comes in here. The Lord can marshal all powers in heaven and on earth, as the Lord, in a military sense; and hence you find Michael acting against Satan, but all under the Lord.
EuR And in 2 Timothy the apostle seeks to make all that power converge on Timothy: “For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power”. Would that fit in?
JT Yes; and so every one naming the name of the Lord withdraws from iniquity. He has to contend with iniquity after he withdraws from it, but the Lord will support him in this.
AN Are the two chapters here set forth in principle in (Revelation 4,Revelation 5)? In chapter 4 you get the creational rights secured: “Thou art worthy, O our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honour and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy will they were and they have been created”. Then in chapter 5 you get the Lord presented as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah”. That is, there are His royal rights as well as His creational rights.
JT That is good; and then in (Revelation 10) a “strong angel” comes down and places his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the earth and cries “with a loud voice as a lion roars”. That is to convey the power there is under the hand of Christ; those mighty powers that are set in the creation itself are under His hand and will be used against the enemy. Satan may have something to do with the air, but it really belongs to the Lord, so the “living creatures” symbolise the divine power there is in creation, and which God has under His hand. John is forbidden to write what the thunders said, because it was not the time for it; but simply to indicate that the Lord has those powers under His hand, and will use them yet; what is available to us is the Spirit of God.
HD'AC Why does He allude to angels in the word connected with Nathanael? “Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”, (John 1:51). Why do angels come in there?
JT Does it not allude to (Genesis 28)? In that chapter the angels begin at the bottom of the ladder, meaning that they were perfectly conversant with Jacob. They had been attending to their ministry there. “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14). They were conversant with Jacob, and the thought is they carried up to heaven the latest information, so to speak. Not that God does not know everything; but to indicate to us the first hand knowledge there is.
HD'AC So they begin at that moment.
JT It is not simply on the ladder as in Genesis, but on Christ. The angels of God were ascending and descending on Him, meaning that they were recognising the Person here, and that they begin from that time ‘henceforth’.
HD'AC And did the saints recognise from that moment who was there?
JT It was there. I have no doubt the bearing of it is millennial, because John 2 opens with the millennium, “the third day”; but still there is the fact.
HD'AC They were under His hand then at any rate.
JT And they were recognising His Person. He was “seen of angels”; they were ascending and descending on Him.
EuR And so at the end of this gospel He is sitting at the right hand of God; and Peter says, “Who is at the right hand of God, gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being subjected to him”, (1 Peter 3:22), would that fit in?
JT Yes. So He comes “with the angels of his power, inflaming fire taking vengeance on those who [p. 96] know not God, and those who do not obey the glad tidings of our Lord Jesus Christ”, (2 Thessalonians 1:8). That is future.
HES Is your thought that unless we recognise and submit to His rights we are not suited material?
JT Yes. You recognise them. What is so beautiful about Bartimaeus is that he emphasised the rights of the Person. He called for mercy, but he does not say, “Jesus the Nazaraean”, but addresses Him as the Son of David. And then the colt taken up from the standpoint of creation, is the continuation of Bartimaeus. He is carrying the Lord into His royal city. Creation, as it were, like the living creatures in Revelation, is in sympathy, brought into accord with Him, and usable.
HD'AC What are the living creatures? Are they simply symbolic?
JT I think so. There are four of them, symbols of the creation in its universality, and it is all secured through redemption.
Ques Would you say a further word as to the organised opposition?
JT That is what we are in the presence of here. The Lord is acclaimed and carried into the city by the colt, and He looks around. “He entered into Jerusalem and into the temple; and having looked round on all things, the hour being already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve”. Then He goes back the next morning and curses the fig tree, there being no fruit on it. This is creational action. God can curse. “Cursed be the ground on thy account” was said to Adam. God has a right to do it. Judaism was fruitless, and He cursed it on creational grounds. He has a right to do that. Then He goes into the temple and He intimates His right there. The temple belonged to God. His Person shines out. He could go in and look round in the temple, and then curse the fig tree, and then go back again and clear out of the temple all that was contrary. He walks [p. 97] about in it; there is majesty there; but it is God in His house; and He answers questions in it.
Ques Had you in view the chief priests and scribes in speaking of organised opposition?
JT Yes. We are approaching all that here; but before we come to it fully, we have these wonderful things, indicating who was there.
JJ The owners of the colt seem to recognise His rights, and the position of the colt tied up seems to prove they were true to divine principles.
JT That is important; and the immediate environment too should be noted, “Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives”. “He sends two of his disciples, and says to them. Go into the village which is over against you, and immediately on entering into it ye will find a colt tied, upon which no child of man has ever sat loose it and lead it here. And if any one say to you. Why do ye this? say, The Lord has need of it; and straightway he sends it hither”. Now you see there is a testimony to His rights. The blind man recognised His royal rights in the title he used, but now the blind man, so to say, is usable. That is the idea; the Lord can use him; only he is used as in relation to creation. He has a right to him as Creator.
EM Would the bringing in of the mount of Olives suggest that the power at the present moment lies in the Spirit?
JT That is the idea. It is in that neighbourhood. There is a group of places, Bethphage, Bethany and the mount of Olives, denoting a certain spiritual environment. It was there, and there is that same thing today, in the presence of organised opposition. We can reckon on a neighbourhood like this, where the colt is tied at the cross way, held there.
EJMcB Do you indicate that the Lord looks at Bartimaeus not only as one who recognised the rights, but who is in accord with those rights, in the scene in which he himself was [p. 98] created?
JT Yes; so that in the gospel according to Mark, the position of those secured is not only that they are redeemed, but they belong to the creation. We should recognise that: that the Lord has got creational rights over us, so that the whole position is clear. The creational position is clear, and then we are on redemptive ground as well.
MWB With regard to service, do you wish us to gather that as considering these things we should have before us the securing of material that should recognise the two fold rights of the Lord?
JT Exactly; that is what should concern us now when our faces are turned toward the divine centre; because this section really applies to the church, although it is not brought in in Mark; for we cannot overlook what Matthew teaches us. The church is to replace Jerusalem; but it carries forward all the divine thoughts in Jerusalem; and as soon as you assert these the whole power of the enemy is against you.
MWB So one should have this in the heart in any movements in service, not only the relief of man, though that is essential, but this securing of such persons as will maintain the Lord’s rights.
PL Was Paul seeking to secure those rights in (1 Corinthians 11), rather the creational rights in the beginning of the chapter, and then the Lord’s supper bringing in what would answer to the royal rights; would both be secured?
JT Quite so, the relation of God to Christ as Head is the full position of the creation. That is very helpful, shewing that this feature of the testimony marks us as we sit down to partake of the Lord’s supper. Partaking of the Supper we are His through redemption.
JJ What is the difference between rights and authority? Would you say a little about the authority in the end of this chapter? “By what authority doest thou these things?”
JT The Lord had rights in His own Person, and consequently authority, but direct authority is delegated, He had authority from God. Authority is delegated, but it would include His personal rights. While He retains man’s place in His service His Person was in evidence throughout.
EuR In regard to the Lord’s rights as referred to in 1 Corinthians, as the commandment of the Lord, would they be necessary to govern the situation if we are to find this spiritual environment?
JT That is it. It is very necessary in view of what we have to contend with now in relation to the church, that we should understand the kind of material intimated in Bartimaeus and in the colt, because you have thus a means whereby the Lord is carried in face of the opposition. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power”. (Psalm 110:3). That is the principle here. The people were not willing, but the principle was there in some. It says of Bartimaeus that he cast away his garments, that would be the giving up of the old circumstances, and that he ‘started up’, meaning there was energy in the man. He started up at the Lord’s bidding, shewing how heartily he responded to that voice. It is very beautiful.
FSM You see the affection he had for Jesus, answering to the movements of the children of Israel when they went after the ark across the Jordan; and would the next thing be that he was liberated to carry that which was so precious to God?
JT That is it; the beautiful order seen here; there is liberty for carrying what is for God. So the creation is brought in as that which would support the recognition of the royal rights.
HD'AC Is it not Jehovah coming into His temple?
JT That is what I was thinking. When He looked around in the temple and cleared it, it was regarded as His own. It is not called the temple of God here, as in Matthew, nor His Father’s house, as in [p. 100] John.
JOS Would verse 18 link on with that? It says that the chief priests and scribes feared Him.
JT Quite; the enemy was quailing before Him.
PL Would you get these thoughts in (Psalm 45)? “Thou art fairer than the sons of men; grace is poured into thy lips” is it the Lord appreciated as the Son of David by Bartimaeus? Then in the colt is it “In thy splendour ride prosperously, because of truth and meekness and righteousness”, and then in regard of the enemies, “Thine arrows are sharp ... in the heart of the king’s enemies”?
JT All that fits in here.
EuR Why is the colt all alone here; its mother is not mentioned?
JT It is only in Matthew that you get the two. Matthew often brings in twos, because he has the church in mind as an organisation. That is, the principle underlying it is two. He uses both the colt and its mother in Matthew, but in the other gospels it is just the colt. I suppose Mark would indicate how one person can be used.
DLH Do we not get the Lord’s rights as Man here, as well as His royal rights; His rights as God and His rights as Jehovah? One of the rights of man was that he had dominion over the created things. Everything was under his hand and the Lord claimed that. It seems to be a simple illustration of how He asserted His rights as, I suppose, the last Adam in relation to creation.
JT Yes; He speaks of Himself as the Son of man at the beginning of the section. “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered up”, chapter 10:33.
DLH So we seem to get here a kind of assertion of the whole circle of the Lord’s rights: an unbroken colt, on which man never sat, was at once submissive and carried the Lord. It was a very remarkable thing from a human [p. 101] standpoint.
WC In Luke they put the Lord on the colt, but here “He sat on it” Himself. What do we learn from that?
JT “They led the colt to Jesus”; it was amenable, to being led to Jesus. And then they cast their clothes upon it, and He sat on it, He accepted this action too. So that the colt is usable with their clothes. He acts Himself here in using the colt; in Luke His dependence is more in evidence.
EM Would that be a progressive thought? Bartimaeus threw away his clothes, but here they utilise their clothes for His honour.
JT These are not clothes to be thrown away; they are suitable to be used by the Lord. Clothes denote our circumstances; sometimes our dignity. All should be available in the Lord’s service.
PL Would you see in his service to Timothy Paul leading the colt to Jesus? And would Paul’s ways in Christ be like the clothes?
JT No doubt; the testimony was thus carried by Timothy.
FSM Is there a service today that would answer to finding the colt at the cross-way and loosing him and leading him to Jesus?
JT I am sure there is, because if he is tied there some hand did that for his good, he was held there so that when the Lord came by He could use him. Something had happened previously, and now the service of loosing and asserting the Lord’s rights over him, and then the leading him to Jesus, may be well regarded as service to younger believers. They are held, it may be, by parental influence at the cross-way; for if the two ways meet, they may go one way or the other; but the tying prevents them from going the wrong way. Were it not that there is a wrong way the tying would be unnecessary.
Ques Would you connect baptism with that?
JT Yes; your children as baptised are held. It is not [p. 102] to be a ceremony with you. You bring in the principles of the kingdom and they would hold them.
JJ “Have faith in God”; what place does faith have in all this?
JT We shall come to that more fully later; but it comes in here as the great thing for them. The Lord does not stop to answer their questions. Peter says, “Rabbi, see, the fig tree which thou cursedst is dried up”, but Jesus answered, “Have faith in God. Verily I say to you, that whosoever shall say to this mountain, Be thou taken away and cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but believe that what he says takes place, whatever he shall say shall come to pass for him”. Then He goes on, “For this reason I say to you. All things whatsoever ye pray for and ask, believe that ye receive it, and it shall come to pass for you. And when ye stand praying, forgive if ye have anything against any one, that your Father also who is in the heavens may forgive you your offences”. Now, you have there what would remove this whole system of opposition. Faith will do it. Hence the prayer the spirit of forgiveness is very important in the midst of this inquiry.
GWW Does not faith underlie all these instances we have had before us?
JT Surely; Bartimaeus and the disciples leading the colt to Jesus, and casting their clothes on it for Him, imply faith.
GWW Would you say a little as to the last instance about the woman and the treasury? chapter 12: 41 - 44.
JT She represents what was there. She is not viewed as the product of the Lord’s ministry; but she represents the remnant spirit, what is found there. What He acquired on the way was material to face the opposition, so that He is carried in on it, but what He found in Jerusalem is very touching. He found there something that was really greater than the temple itself; the basis, as we may say, for the new order of things. That is the next [p. 103] thing, an element that is taken up with what is of God, her whole life devoted, as we can see, to what is of God. The temple at Jerusalem was too small for what shone in this “poor widow”.
GWW Would it be right to say there was the fullest recognition of rights there, because she recognised the rights of God to all that she possessed; that it was at the divine disposal? Might it be said, therefore, that she represents in a way the consummation of all we have been looking at?
JT Yes; the excellency of her action; it is a small amount two mites, but it represented great devotedness to God. It was not that the Lord had produced it; that is not the view-point here. He was looking on over against the treasury to see what was happening, and this whole-hearted devotedness was noted by Him. So it seems to me chapter 13 announcing the overthrow of the whole system, and then chapter 14 bringing in a new system of things, means that what this woman represents was too great for what was there. He would bring in another system in relation to the Lord’s supper, so that there would be something sufficiently great for an action like this.
EM Would that link on with quality rather than quantity?
JT Exactly. The quality was so, great that the whole temple system would be overthrown it was not great enough for that. It was all there then and God recognised it, but there was to be something greater. Of course there were other reasons for the overthrow of the Jewish systems. The judgment of God required it.
RB Do you mean that this incident is not a development of Bartimaeus and the colt, but something fresh?
JT Quite; there was something there. The remnant for a new order of things always brings forward what preceded, what was of God; and this woman represents what was of God in the old system. What [p. 104] the Lord brought up from Galilee is another matter. That was His own work, but there was something of God in the old system. It was very excellent, and He would make something suitable for it.
Ques Do we see sacrifice as the basis of this action?
JT Quite; it was all her living, as the Lord says, the “whole of her living”. It is love really; devotedness to what is of God, and that deserves something greater than the temple built with hands.
HES Is your thought that we have here not so much the wealth of the seas, but the wealth there in the remnant?
JT Exactly; what was of God. God has had something right down from the beginning, and it is always excellent.
WRP And that something is to be carried into the new thing.
JT It is great enough for it. So that the next woman, we shall find, carries on this thought. The feminine side in this section will help us.
EuR Then is this a remnant feature that we might covet to have in our day?
JT Surely.
GWW Do you connect it at all with what we get in the opening of Acts, “Not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own”, and it was in that way contributing to the advancement of what was then immediately in view.
JT And the Lord added to that those that should be saved. It was the greatness of the thing in (Acts 2). It no doubt extended over a considerable time, but it was to bring out the greatness of the pentecostal result. It was not a temple made with hands.
Ques Then does Stephen give the next thing? Is his exercise an advance on what had been in the previous chapters?
JT I think so; his face shone as the face of an angel.
[p. 105] What is heavenly is suggested. The Lord had come in connection with the better and more perfect tabernacle, the temple at Jerusalem was not great enough.
JJ One almost supposes the words of the Lord Jesus quoted in (Acts 20) concerned this act of the widow, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”; it is more connected with the assembly.
JT Quite; it fits in with the high level of Ephesus.
HD'AC There is a scripture, which governs this march from Jericho to Jerusalem both in Matthew and Mark: “For also the Son of man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and give his life a ransom for many”. And if we follow “in the way”, this spirit will mark us.