THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIVINE BOUNTY (4)
[p. 199] THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIVINE BOUNTY (4)
Matthew 17:24 - 27; Matthew 26:6 - 30
JT What comes out in this house in chapter 17 is sonship, an important feature of the truth. It is not here sons of the kingdom, but sons of God. The Lord says, “Then are the sons free”. Sons of the kingdom would refer to development in that line of teaching, corresponding with “sons of light” John 12:36 in John. In our chapter we come to the family relationship, which involves liberty in the house.
JCS Is that the reason why there is no particular designation attached to the sons?
JT The idea, of course, is taken from the kings of the earth: “From their own sons or from strangers”, whereas the Lord implies that Peter was a son as He was, He links Peter with Himself: “Me and thee”, He says. So it is sonship, and in the sense that we are in direct family relationship with God.
HLD It is important that he found one piece of money. The Lord would link Peter with Himself in that way. When the widow came to the temple she had two mites. But here it is one piece, because, I thought, the Lord would link Peter with Himself as a son.
JT One piece for the two — “Me and thee”.
JCS So that this takes character from what had transpired on the mount. It helps to see that something has transpired on the mount before this takes place.
JT The Lord is seen as Son there, so that the introduction of the kings of the earth makes it very simple. If their sons are free from tribute, God’s sons are free [p. 200] from tribute.
RJW Would you say Moses and Elias were linked up with the Lord on the mount in a certain way, but not in so great a way as Peter is now?
JT No, they are withdrawn; but Peter remains linked up with the Lord — “Me and thee”.
RJW Did those two refer to the previous dispensation?
JT They did. This passage is leading up to what we get in chapter 18 — the assembly and Peter’s commission. It is important that this truth should come out at this point.
JCS So that the outstanding feature of sons is that liberty should mark them in connection with the house, not bondage.
RJW Would John 8 help at all: “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed”? John 8:36.
JT It does; it fits in here, because this is really a liberating thought. It was intended by the Lord to liberate Peter’s soul; he was not to be a servant. The assembly is already mentioned (chapter 16), and then chapter 18 is to bring it in as functioning; and in order that it should function according to God this truth of sonship must be understood, because it is sons of God who compose the assembly. It is the family relationship which involves liberty and dignity. There are many men in countries who are spoken of as sons of their respective countries; indeed we get it in Psalm 89. Different countries have their heroes. Such and such an one was born there; they are accredited to their respective countries. But that is not the idea of a family. To be a son of the kingdom, or a son of light, is not family relationship; but this passage is family relationship — we are brought into the family.
JCS I think what you say helps very much. There may be sons after a certain character as [p. 201] indicated, but that is quite different from the family link. That is an important distinction.
WV So you emphasise that this is in the house, not on the mountain.
JT Yes, in the house. The Lord waits for that. It says, “When he came into the house Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou?” He knew what was going on in Peter’s mind. It was to be intimated in the house that he was a son. The Lord might have told them outside, but it is in keeping with the line of thought in Matthew that these great features are developed in the house.
EBMcC You said Peter was a son, not a servant. “A servant knoweth not what his lord doeth”. John 15:15. But He had made known everything to them.
JT “The Son abideth ever”. John 8:35.
EBMcC That is privilege, is it not?
JT Yes. Even Moses is said to have been a servant in the house, but Christ is Son over it.
JCS Are the sons in the house patterned after His place and position there?
JT I think so. In Hebrews it is said we are companions of Christ. We are companions as sons.
RJW Does the truth of sonship lie behind all true administration in the present period as it does behind service in Mark’s gospel?
JT Yes. You cannot have the liberty that is becoming to the house of God unless you understand this particular point. It comes in before the assembly begins to function.
RJW Does it mean you have a place that gives dignity, so that when you come out in administration you are free from bondage?
JT Yes. In the next passage in chapter 18 we have, “In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?” That shows they had not laid hold of [p. 202] this great truth. If they had laid hold of the truth that they were sons they would not have been aspiring to this greatness in the kingdom of heaven. The sons of the kingdom have already been indicated, but now we have arrived at a much greater elevation — sons in the house — sons of God. They were dropping down to the level of who is to be greatest in the kingdom, whereas we have arrived at the house, and sonship in the house. It is like a reading on sonship amongst us, and after the meeting is over we are debating who is the most prominent, forgetting that the thing we are dealing with is greater than any prominence one may acquire in the exercise of his gift. You see how the disciples missed it when they said to the Lord, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom?” Matthew 18:1.
MPM Sonship gives a dignity to our service.
JT Yes, it does; you are a servant “for Jesus’ sake”, a servant of the saints; really below, them when you are serving them. So the Lord, having called a little child unto Him, set him in the midst. The little child represents the lowly spirit in which we are to serve in the kingdom.
HLD “Let my son go that he may serve me”. Exodus 4:23. True service comes from sonship.
JT Quite; and if one is in the good of this one could be little. It is great men that can be small.
WV The Lord is the Model in John 13, is He not?
JT Just so.
LDB Those who are in the truth of being sons can accept the place of a little child and serve.
JT I think that worked out specially in the apostle Paul. He is the last mentioned in the list of those at Antioch; Acts 13. His name, as we have often remarked, signifies ‘little’.
EBMcC He knew how to serve, and yet he knew his place in the house more than [p. 203] all.
JT He did. I think he must have got the light of sonship at the outset. He says, “When it pleased God ... to reveal his Son in me”. Galatians 1:15. He announced Him as the Son of God immediately.
EBMcC And confirmation was there as well, was it not?
JT Quite.
JCS Is the character of sonship that is introduced here peculiar to the light of what the Lord had been calling attention to in connection with the treasure and the pearl? That is, whilst other families will touch sonship, this is something distinct.
JT I think so; sonship as we have it is unique. One piece of money for the Lord and Peter makes it very intimate. In all His present administration the principle of “me and thee” is carried through. It is very precious that the Lord links us on in this way with all He is doing. Hence the great importance of chapter 18 as showing how we are to act in the kingdom; not now as sons of it, but as sons of God in it. Hence you can become little, and if your brother offends you your great desire is to restore him. It is gain thy brother — one of the greatest moral triumphs.
JCS Do I gather from what you said that the more our souls are really formed in the light of sonship the greater will be our power and ability to gain our brother?
JT I am sure that is the thing. It is “gain thy brother”. Matthew 18:15. A son would not be without his brother. You see the value of a brother.
SF Would grace be the prominent feature in one who was bent on regaining his brother?
JT I think what underlies it is, he values his brother, and then he acts wisely. There must be the supply of grace, because you have to overcome [p. 204] every enemy, and it is only in grace you can do that. Grace rises above the evil.
AW “A brother offended is harder to win than a fenced city”. Proverbs 18:19.
SF It appears you do not give in until all means are exhausted.
JT “If thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee and him alone. If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother”. Matthew 18:15.
JCS I suppose his hearing depends largely on the manner of approach.
JT I think that is true. Grace enables you to take account of what you have to deal with. God teaches us how He has overcome with ourselves. “Grace and truth” is the principle. You begin with grace, for grace rises above the sin.
EBMcC Having the dignity and light in your soul you desire your brother to be back and apprehend his place as a son.
JT Joseph helps us in the skill with which he met his brethren at first. It is a question of knowing how to act. You know the value of the brethren from chapter 17; you see what they are to Christ.
Ques I suppose the value of the brethren to Christ would be the principal thought?
JT Just so; that is what I was thinking. Chapter 17 enables us to see their value.
JCS From this point of view they would be all of equal value, would they not?
JT I think so. “Ye are all sons of God by faith”.
JCS You were speaking somewhere about a brother who might not be worth fifty shekels, but he is worth something.
JT That refers to his spiritual stature — what he may be here in actual service; but the members of the family are all on the same footing. “Ye are all sons of God”, it says. So that the Levitical [p. 205] family were all first-born ones. It is very interesting that they were all first-born ones; they represented the first-born in every family in Israel. It would give dignity to them. They were round about the tabernacle. God surrounds Himself with the sons — the dignified ones. It is suitable; it is due to God that He should be surrounded by dignified ones.
RJW Round about the tabernacle would view them in relation to service. When you come to them in the land they are spread out over the whole of Israel. Would that be more their influence in the dignity of sonship?
JT That is right; they are on both sides of the Jordan.
HLD I was thinking of Hebrews 12, where it says, “The assembly of the first-born ones”. Hebrews 12:23.
JT We have come to that. Perhaps we might go on now to the other scripture. We see there are two houses in chapter 26. The latter is the one the Lord asked for, so that it is of peculiar interest. There is nothing said as to the other ones being specially fitted for anything. It is simply the idea of a house, but when we come to chapter 26 we have a house He specially asks for. But first of all we have the house of Simon the leper. That is a house that would be discreditable publicly — the house of a leper.
JCS You think the house of Simon the leper would be a house that would be rather avoided — not the kind of house people would look for?
JT I think you can understand that when you take into account what leprosy was in the east — how it was regarded in Israel.
SF Naaman is spoken of as a great man. He had done great things, but it says, “He was a leper”. 2 Kings 5:1.
LDB What is your thought in emphasising that he was a [p. 206] leper?
JT That I do not seek to cover up what I am. Unless I see this I may endeavour to maintain a good public exterior.
LDB Notwithstanding that we are carrying along the relationship in which God has placed us as sons, we still maintain this spirit of lowliness.
JT Publicly we are sinners.
LDB What does that mean?
JT Romans 2 and 3 contemplate us publicly. In fact chapters 1 to 3 are to expose what we are — to bring out what we are, and we do not endeavour to cover that up or minimise it in any way. The greater the leper, the greater the sin, the more the grace is magnified.
LDB This is particularly interesting in view of all the developments which we have followed in these readings.
JT Yes; why should it not be in the house of Mary and Martha? It is in the house of Simon the leper.
LDB There is the danger of losing touch with the reality of these things. We are to bear about with us the sense of what we are publicly.
JT After we are forgiven we like to forget the past history, but that must stand. “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief”. Of whom I am. 1 Timothy 1:15.
MPM Is it like what you were suggesting, that the altar of earth comes first and then the altar of stone?
JT Yes, quite.
RMcM You are speaking of what we are publicly, not what we are before God?
JT Our public history stands, but this does not interfere with our position before God. In the assembly my public history is wiped out through the blood of Christ. Ananias says to Saul, “Arise,
[p. 207] and be baptised, and wash away thy sins”. Acts 22:16. Justification is by faith.
JCS This would emphasise the responsible side of our history here.
JT That is what is meant by it, I think. It would magnify the grace of the Lord. He was in the house of this leper; He had cleansed him. A cleansed leper, but historically a leper.
RJW Do I understand our public responsible history does not actually stop until we die?
JT That is so; but then there is the testimony of what grace has done for you. Once you admit the one and accept the other you are justified, but the justification is before God, it is for faith.
WJP It is not necessary that I should always be occupied with my public history.
JT No, but you must not forget it; it humbles you, and magnifies the grace that met you in Christ.
WV Why is this fact left out in John 12 — Simon’s house?
JT It may be the same incident; we cannot be sure. There is another point of view there; it is to show a risen man. The idea in John 12 is a risen man; that is what he is in the new circle. He is outside of the world altogether. That is the thought there; this is the public position.
JCS It is remarkable this comes in chapter 26; had it come earlier we might have concluded that the idea of sonship had cancelled it.
JT In John 12 it is the “dead Lazarus”. You cannot charge anything on a dead man — “whom he raised from the dead”. John 12:1. But this man is alive in the world. It is good ballast to us; it keeps us lowly to bear in mind what our public history has been. It magnifies the grace of God that He has dealt with it in the death of Jesus; but nevertheless there [p. 208] it stands.
MPM Naaman taking the two loads of earth would be in keeping with this truth.
JT I am sure he would thus magnify the grace of God; he would never forget nor deny what he had been.
EBMcC We are a sanctified company in connection with the assembly.
JT That is what we are inside.
EBMcC But publicly we are sinners saved by grace.
JT The blood of Jesus maintains me. My conscience is clear. It does not say ‘sins’, it says “sin” in 1 John. That is, although I have been a leper I am free in my conscience.
RMcM There are things we would all like to wipe out in connection with what is publicly true in our history; but, as you say, it is really ballast for us.
JT Yes, you can always tell where people are. If I am occupied with my ancestors, means, and status in this world, I am not in the sense of the magnitude of the grace of God which has delivered me from my sins and the awful state in which I was.
Rem We are not to think we are better than others.
JT It is a great thing to discover at the outset that one is a leper in the sight of God, but that the blood of Jesus has cleansed me — to feel that publicly.
JCS That is how you feel about yourself, but in the family it is the dignified position rather.
JT The blood relieves me of what I have been, so that I may enjoy family conditions, and not be disturbed.
HLD In the assembly we take up our higher relationships.
JT We do, indeed.
Rem There is a certain reproach upon us, but [p. 209] the grace of God does not admit of this being added to by us.
JT That is right. “Go, sin no more”. John 8:11. That is the principle; but you cannot forget the other in your circumstances while down here. How could the woman of Samaria get rid of the fact that she had had five husbands? It only magnifies the grace of God that she is fit for His presence in spite of this.
SF And she could say, “Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did”. John 4:29. There was no hiding; she was transparent.
WV It was a fitting place for Mary’s action.
JT If this was Mary. It does not say it was. I think the name is designedly left out. It is the act that is emphasised — “what this woman has done”.
JCS You spoke of this woman as giving us the other side.
JT It says, “Jesus being in Bethany, in Simon the leper’s house, a woman, having an alabaster flask of very precious ointment, came to him and poured it out upon his head as he lay at table”. I think she represents the cumulative development of all that we have had. She has followed Him. It is on His head she pours it. She follows the Lord, as it were, throughout His service, and she intimates here that she appreciates to the full the official dignity of His Person. It is not, as in John, His feet, but His head; it is His official dignity. In John it is a question of the walk that is appreciated.
JCS She has really come to the appreciation of what heaven did at the outset of His pathway.
JT I think so; she is in accord with heaven. So that this was to be handed down: “Wheresoever these glad tidings may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”.
EBMcC She appreciated the wisdom of Christ, as shown by her anointing His head — [p. 210] the intelligence.
JT In the next house He says, “Go into the city unto such a one, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near, I will keep the passover in thy house with my disciples”. Now He is selecting the house.
EBMcC That would not be a leper’s house.
JT It was marked by the conditions that should mark the house of God. “The Master says”. His word is accepted.
MPM The saints in that way have been educated, and now they are built up a spiritual house.
JT Yes, in a way. He introduces His supper here. One can understand He would be concerned to have a suitable place for that.
RJW Is there anything in the fact that the disciples here did as Jesus directed them?
JT It shows they were under His direction. It is not enlarged on as in Mark and Luke. Things are done as He directs.
JCS Do I gather that the Lord, in selecting this house, would indicate that there is something very special about to be introduced, and therefore everything must be orderly in view of it?
JT Quite; He marks out a special house. We are now coming on to the epistle to the Corinthians, where things must be in order. I mean we can come from this to the epistle to the Corinthians, where you must have the Lord’s authority owned. You must have conditions such as He would approve.
RD I was thinking of I Corinthians 5 bringing in the passover, which may be looked at as the entrance into what we have in chapter 11, where the Lord’s supper is found. So we get the two things, the passover and the Lord’s supper.
JT This house has a great place in the links of the chain. We come at the end to a house which the Lord Himself selects. I think we have to bear [p. 211] in mind that this great institution He brings in here cannot be dissevered from conditions suitable to it.
JCS You think there were conditions there the Lord could approve so as to introduce this.
JT That is what I thought. He knew the owner of the house.
HLD Another gospel says it is furnished.
JT The other gospels have in view our finding it, so you have the pitcher of water and following the man; but that is not in view in Matthew. It is in keeping with the gospel, so that it is a question of the Lord approving the conditions; the disciples did as Jesus had directed them.
Ques What are the indications in finding it?
JT They come out in Mark and Luke. A man was to meet them bearing a pitcher of water, and they were to follow him into the house where he entered. There it is a question of our finding the house, but here it is to be according to the Lord’s direction. It is what He directs.
JCS Would you say that the features of Christ as Son over God’s house came out in the appointment, supervision, and so on?
JT Yes. Then another thing comes out — the challenge to our hearts in that house. He challenges those who are in it. That is another feature in the assembly, and it is while they were eating (verse 21), “As they were eating he said, Verily, I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up”. He challenges our hearts in this house as to our loyalty to Himself.
JCS Could you say a little more as to the challenge?
JT I think it is very solemn, because it is in the house of His own selection, and in approaching the Lord’s supper there is this challenge: “One of you”. It is one of the final features of the house before we come to the Lord’s supper — “One of you shall betray me”.
[p. 212] Ques Is that similar to one of the Psalms? “Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart”, Psalm 24:3,4.
JT That is right; we are challenged in that way.
RJW Does Paul repeat this challenge in 1 Corinthians 10 just before the Supper?
JT He does. It is while at the passover the challenge is issued, and then we have again in verse 26, “As they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread”. The challenge comes in while they were eating, and then the Lord’s supper is introduced while they were eating.
JCS So that the challenge really discloses the fact that there is a son of the evil one there who has to go out.
JT Yes; he says, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He does not say ‘Lord’; he is discovered. No one can say “Lord Jesus”, but by the Spirit. One who cannot say ‘Lord’ from his heart is not fit for the house. He says “Rabbi”, the others say “Lord”.
JCS That is very interesting.
EBMcC Is it as assembled together this challenge comes in?
JT It is preparatory; it is the passover. It is really more 1 Corinthians 5 as remarked. That is where we are challenged as to evil. We are to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
JCS Would the passover come in by way of keeping us from eating of this world’s food, and the Lord’s supper on the line of enlargement?
JT That is good. The passover preserves us from what is worldly, but the Lord’s supper is positive, and enlarges us; it is the love of Christ.
SF The passover seems to safeguard the Supper position. It is necessary for us to take it up intelligently.
[p. 213] Its bearing upon us is to enable us to reach the fellowship of His death, and then the Lord’s supper.
JT So ‘eating’ here means that you are keeping the feast of unleavened bread always, then the Lord’s supper is in its place. The feast of unleavened bread is to go on every day, meaning, that you are to judge sin; and it is in that state you partake of the Lord’s supper.
HLD There would thus be no need to challenge us when we come together to remember the Lord.
JT Well, we cannot enlarge further on this precious subject, but there is just one thought at the end, that there is an outlet into what is entirely spiritual. It says, “When they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives”. I think that is the highest point we reach in all this, we come back to the “me and thee” again. They sang a hymn: The Lord is included in it; not only He and Peter now, but He and all the others. He links us on with Himself in the singing of a hymn, and then there is an outlet into the mount of Olives.
LDB The sons are free.
JT Quite; the sons are free to go up, because going to the mount of Olives means that we go to heaven — we can enter into our heavenly privileges.
RMcM Does that come in after the Supper?
JT Yes. I consider it to be an outlet from dispensational relationships. Matthew and Mark deal with dispensational things, and the Lord’s supper fits in with the past ways of God. It is in Matthew and Mark that you have this reference to the mount of Olives and the singing, because it means that we can pass out of our dispensational setting into eternal relationships by the Spirit.
Ques Why does the forgiveness of sins come in here?
[p. 214] JT It is the new covenant; that was part of the covenant.
Ques At the Supper, as we have it now, we are past forgiveness, are we not?
JT Oh, but we are there as those who are forgiven; we cannot forget that. How can we be there otherwise?
LDB Would you say what you mean by passing out of our dispensational setting?
JT I think it shows there is an outlet in the Spirit. It is a question of those who are equal to it. “See the Spirit’s power has ope’d the heavenly door”; (74:5) that is the principle of it.
JCS Do I gather that the assembly as set up in covenant relationships was a continuance of what was set up formerly, but the door opens out on something beyond that?
JT That is it; that is what comes out in Matthew and Mark.