THE HEAVENLY SYSTEM (2)
[p. 356] THE HEAVENLY SYSTEM (2)
Acts 9: 1 - 21; Acts 10: 1 - 16; Acts 10:34-48.
JT The thought before us is to see the character of that into which the Gentiles were introduced, and that it is not exactly what was established at Jerusalem, but what was established consequent on the connection between God and Israel being definitely broken.
RSS That is the great change consequent on the death of Stephen in the development of Christianity?
JT Yes; and what that change involved was that authority was formally transferred to heaven as a centre, and that henceforth all operations on the part of God would proceed from heaven, not from Jerusalem.
RSS And that was indicated by what Stephen saw?
JT Quite so. Jesus and the glory ought to have been accepted at Jerusalem, because that was God’s city on earth.
RSS Whereas they crucified Christ outside the city, and they also stoned Stephen there.
JT So that now instead of Jerusalem being recognised and the glory being installed there, the glory is seen in heaven without a cloud. The fact that the Son of man was seen in heaven in the glory of God laid the basis for the universal character of the testimony, because the Son of man is necessarily related to man as such, not to any family of man.
RSS I should like that we might get the glory of the Son of man plainly before us. Stephen looked up into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus, and said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”.
JT That lays the basis for the universal service and testimony which are about to ensue.
RSS So the second Man is a wider title than that of Christ or Messiah.
JT Then what follows upon that is that the full character of the earthly city as opposed to Christ is exemplified in Saul; so that there could be no doubt at all as to what the city was morally at that time, or of the justice of God in breaking the link with the city. Saul issues from it, not only as expressing its hatred of Christ within its own sphere, but that it would exert its influence beyond its own sphere to the Gentile world. That was indeed “sin abounding”. The hatred against Christ exceeded all bounds in Saul.
RSS So that these earlier chapters may be viewed as a vindication of God’s character and ways, just as Romans 9, Romans 10 and Romans 11 are at present a vindication of what God is now doing in grace in view of His previous promises to Israel.
JT There could be no question as to His righteousness and faithfulness. He had done all in His power to gain Israel.
WCR “Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway.”.
JT That passage shows in a remarkable way the bearing of their conduct. Saul was the personification of the spirit of Jerusalem. He had the credentials of the high priest in his pocket, and the spirit of the thing in his heart, and he was breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord.
AFM The first mention we get of Saul is in connection with keeping the clothes of the murderers of Stephen. He possessed their murderous spirit.
JT The combined power of the world was personified in Saul, and it was at that juncture that the kingdom of the heavens came [p. 358] into evidence.
AFM You mean by the kingdom of the heavens what is established in Christ now?
JT It is what came to light on the way to Damascus. It is important to know the details that surrounded Jerusalem. It was in that city that the Gentiles, Pilate, Herod, and the people of Israel “took counsel together, against Jehovah, and against his anointed”, Psalm 2. The whole world, religious and political was there. When its hostility to Christ had risen to its height, when the waves had risen to their fullest limit, it is then that the kingdom of the heavens comes into evidence. “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision”. The power of the world was vested in Saul, and the power of the kingdom was vested in Jesus in heaven. The character of the latter is seen in the Lord’s treatment of Saul. Instead of breaking him to pieces like a potter’s vessel, which He might have done, He exercises the power of the kingdom in grace.
RSS So that as you were saying a moment ago, sin abounded in Saul going to Damascus, but grace did much more abound in his conversion?
WB-t You have Psalm 2 in mind?
JT Yes; but Psalm 2 treats of judgment, whereas the Lord met Saul in grace; in a sense the result is the same thing, the power of the world is brought low.
WB-t Would the last verse bring in the thought of grace? “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little”.
JT It was an opportunity for the Gentiles to make peace whilst He was in the way with them. We are entitled to introduce the gospel of Matthew here; it begins here. Matthew deals with the kingdom of the heavens, intimating that the power was transferred from Jerusalem to heaven, and that is [p. 359] the bulwark of the church. You have both thoughts here. The Lord comes in in the power of the kingdom when the church is threatened with complete overthrow; He breaks down and subdues the instrument of opposition and the church is preserved.
AFM How do you view Christ in relation to the kingdom? A little later Saul preaches Him as Son of God, and in Psalm 2 we have the same title. In Matthew also He is spoken of as Son of God.
JT The Son of God preached by Saul lays the ground for the church in its universal character into which the Gentiles had been introduced.
EPL I suppose what the Lord said to Peter when he confessed Him as the Christ the Son of the living God bears out what you say?
JT That truth comes into this chapter historically.
RSS Connecting the gospel of Matthew with this portion that we are looking at now is very helpful. Many of us remember some very helpful readings held in this room on the gospel of Matthew in connection with the way in which the church is brought in there are superseding Israel. God had committed the administration of things to Israel, but Israel broke down, and now the church is brought in in connection with administration; and, as you say, the bulwark of the church is the kingdom of heaven.
JT I think it is very important that we should understand what the kingdom of heaven is. It is protection. There was no protection for the church in Jerusalem; instead of that there was a destructive spirit. The necessity for the kingdom of the heavens was apparent before it was introduced. It was as if God was forced to establish the power in heaven; they would not have it at Jerusalem. They said, “We will not have this man to reign over us”.
BTF When you were speaking of the kingdom [p. 360] of the heavens I was thinking that it is rule exerted when the King is in heaven. What is the distinction between that and the kingdom of God?
JT The kingdom of heaven is in contrast to what had been at Jerusalem. God bore long with Israel, but finally He had to withdraw the authority He had vested in Jerusalem and place it in heaven. Acts 3 shows that God would send Christ back to Israel if they repented. The death of Stephen and Saul’s commission to Damascus was the abounding of sin. There could not be a greater evidence of lawlessness than that Jerusalem should go out of its sphere to persecute the people of God.
BTF Why do you emphasise so much the kingdom of the heavens? Was it because it is in contrast to Jerusalem?
JT Exactly. It is not the kingdom in Jerusalem. You will always find in scriptures which refer to Jews especially that heaven in emphasised; for instance, Matthew, Hebrews and Peter’s epistles. That is to show what Christianity is in contrast to what the nation of Israel had lost through the rejection of Messiah. Their rejection of the gospel has opened up a much wider field of blessing, but the patience of God is specially evidenced in the history. Even if it be said that Paul missed the mark in going back to Jerusalem, it was the spirit of Christ that led him back; it was his affection for the people. And when he went to Rome, it was the Jews he sent for. This shows how God followed the Jew even to the capital of the Gentile world. There they rejected the gospel definitely, and the salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles.
BTF I thought we said this morning that the definite link was broken before that?
JT It was broken with Jerusalem as a system. You cannot conceive of God recognising two systems at the same time. It is not till Jerusalem is given [p. 361] up on earth that the heavenly Jerusalem comes into view, but when Saul issued from the city it was all over with it, and then we get the heavenly kingdom and the heavenly city.
WB-t Is that why Saul speaks of himself as being chief of sinners in connection with the hatred and malignity of the city being personified in him?
JT I think so, on account of his persecution of the church.
RSS Will you say a word in regard to the kingdom of God as in contrast to the kingdom of heaven?
JT The kingdom of God is in contrast to any kingdom of man. God is often presented in contrast with man. The kingdom of God refers to the Holy Spirit here acting in power for the good of men.
RSS So that the kingdom of heaven refers rather to Christ as in heaven; the kingdom of God to the Spirit here on the earth?
JT That is it. As the Lord Himself said, “if I by the finger of God cast out devils”. It is the exercise of God’s power on earth. Paul preached the kingdom of God. I do not think he ever preached formally the kingdom of heaven.
AFM The truth of the kingdom of heaven may have been known in his soul; it is the same kingdom.
JT When you think of the kingdom of God it is in contrast to the kingdom of man; it is not a human kingdom; but if you think of the kingdom of heaven it is not an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly. It is a question of contrast in that way.
AMcB “Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost”.
JT The kingdom of heaven is largely a question of administration.
WCR We were speaking this morning about the knowledge of God being greatly limited till the end of Stephen’s testimony; what was brought in after that?
JT First of all this testimony of the power of God in the hands of Christ in heaven is brought in. The voice of the Man that Stephen saw in heaven is heard by Saul, and He brings Saul down and then Saul recognises that He is the Lord. The kingdom of heaven is recognised on earth. Then the next point is that the man who is thus brought down by the kingdom preaches the Son of God; in the light of other scriptures we learn that it means that a new system is to be established. The Son of God will not take up Jerusalem that is. He must bring in an entirely new city.
WCR Would the bringing in the Jew and Gentile together, formed into one new man, give further knowledge as to God — unity?
JT Quite so. And there would be a city established in liberty. There never was such a city before, because Jerusalem never was in liberty; so that it was a great step in advance in the development of God’s ways that there should be a heavenly city. As explained in Galatians, “Jerusalem above is free”. It is of all moment that we should see that God intended that the Gentiles should have liberty, the liberty which the Son affords.
WCR I was thinking that Peter was not free in this respect until he understood the meaning of the sheet let down from heaven.
JT Quite so; the point is that the kingdom is established in the Lord in heaven, and then Paul perceives that He is God’s Son and he preached Him as such. If that Man is God’s Son He must have everything new and according to Himself. Paul states that God revealed His Son in him.
RSS What is the meaning of that? It is to me a difficult expression.
JT I think that God caused light to shine into Saul’s soul as to the relation in which Christ stood to Him. Stephen did not see that. Stephen saw the Son of man, but Saul got light as to the Son of God, which is additional light.
AFM That was on the road to Damascus?
JT Yes; but I suppose it was after he received the Spirit that he apprehended Him in that light.
AMcB Would 2 Corinthians 4 connect with that: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”?
JT I think so.
RSS It was a very special revelation to Saul and apart from human instrumentality?
JT Quite so. He did not receive it from man. God’s thought was to bring in a free system. He intended that the Gentiles should be introduced into liberty. Paul had said he was free born, but he was never free till he got the light of the Son of God. He was set free by the Son.
AFM Would you go on to Ephesians in connection with sonship? We are predestinated to sonship by Jesus Christ to Himself.
JT That is of course the eternal result, but I think the thought here primarily in the revelation of the Son of God was that there might be a system established in liberty, uncontrolled by earthly influences as Jerusalem had been.
WCR In Hebrews it says we have come to Mount Zion.
JT That is the mercy of God; and the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem.
WCR Is not Mount Zion there in contrast to Mount Sinai, which was in bondage?
JT Yes; but in Galatians Jerusalem that now is is identified with Mount Sinai, but Jerusalem above, which is our mother, is free. The gospel that came [p. 364] to the Gentiles was a liberating gospel. What was established in Jerusalem was not great enough for the Gentiles nor for the full revelation of God. The prodigal was not admitted into that; the prodigal was admitted into the house viewed in the light of Paul’s ministry.
AFM Would an illustration help us in regard to sonship? I was thinking about Isaac, for instance. I think you were saying that as to sonship there are two thoughts in the Old Testament: one was seen in Isaac and the other in Solomon. In Isaac you have affection; “thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest”. Solomon was named of the Lord, and was to build the house. Would not these thoughts help us in this scripture?
JT I think it is an immense thing to see the place the Son must have. If you apprehend the Son in your soul, certain consequences follow.
AMcB What are the consequences?
JT He must have His own city, and, moreover, if He sets you free, you are really free, because the Son has all the liberty of the house. If you connect yourself with Jerusalem, you have bondage, but if you stand related to the Son in heaven, you have liberty.
RSS You can approach God in perfect liberty.
ST In being set free, does it mean you are set free from the first man and his order of things?
JT Especially the religious order; a religion that might lay claim to being of God, such as Judaism was.
EPL The kingdom of heaven embraces universal dominion and is political in its character, but the kingdom of God is altogether moral. We find in Mark almost invariably the kingdom of God; in the parables for instance, and the kingdom of heaven in Matthew.
[p. 365] JT In Acts 9 we have the establishment of the authority of heaven in the Lord, and the establishment of the city by the Son of God; then the next point is the mind of heaven; what kind of a mind pervades heaven.
RSS Where does that come out?
JT That comes out in the sheet. It was let down from heaven, and it shows what the mind of heaven was. The mind of heaven was in accord with what the chapters immediately preceding this present. The mind of heaven was evangelical. It embraces all the race. It was a four-cornered sheet.
RSS It was utterly in contrast to the spirit of a Jew.
EPL It comes out when Paul was telling his experience. The Jews heard him until he speaks of being sent to the Gentiles; they would not listen to him after that, Acts 22: 21, 22.
JT And God would have the key-holder, Peter, brought into sympathy with what is going on. A large part of Acts 10 is to bring Peter into accord with the spirit of the moment, so that the door should be opened to the Gentiles in suited dignity.
RSS It is very remarkable that Peter was used in this way, even in Samaria. To him the keys were committed, and when Cornelius and his company are brought in you have Peter using the keys.
JT Acts 10 sets forth the operations of God. Chapter 9 is the operation of the Lord. God would bring Peter into accord with what He was doing. He might have told him arbitrarily to go to Caesarea, and Peter would have gone as a matter of obedience, but God does not act in that way. He would have Peter go to Caesarea in full sympathy with Him.
RSS There was dissatisfaction at Jerusalem, but when Peter related the vision of the sheet, it brought them into sympathy. They at once say, “then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life”. Chapter 11 is interesting in that connection.
JT It brings out the spirit of the “elder brother” as in Luke 15, on the one hand, and the spirit of Christ on the other. Barnabas represents the spirit of Christ, and the spirit of the elder brother is seen in “the circumcision”. The point in the elder brother is that he is not in sympathy with his father. The father says, “This thy brother is come”, and he says, “This thy son”; he would not admit that he is his brother. It was as if he had said: ‘He may be good enough to be your son, but not to be my brother’. God would bring the returned son in, and what we see is that the prodigal is introduced into a heavenly system. You must bear in mind that the testimony of chapters 9 and 10 lead up to this.
BTF Is it when you reach this stage that the full truth of the church comes out?
JT Yes; by supplying other scriptures we can see how it is so. Luke 15 is the parable, and this in Acts is the historical event. The fact is, the very words “fell on them”, used in regard to the activity of the Spirit’s action, are used in regard to the Father’s action in Luke 15. God had brought in the light of the new system and now He receives the Gentiles into it.
Peter learned one thing here. He says, “I perceive that God is no respecter of persons”; and when he saw that God gave the Spirit to the Gentiles he commanded that they should be baptised, but he did not act until he saw God act first.
JLJ What is the meaning of the word, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat?”
JT I think that was a very forcible way of reminding him that God was cleansing the Gentiles. Peter was hungry. God is the Creator and has rights over His creature; He had rights over Peter [p. 367] and He caused him to be hungry, and taught him through his hunger.
AFM Is there anything analogous to man in these animals? Was not man cleansed and brought near through the death of Christ?
JT I suppose they would represent the whole race of man. All kinds were there, four-footed beasts, reptiles and birds. God was cleansing all. You see in Peter’s remark to Cornelius and his company how he understood what God meant: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him”. Peter learned that by the vision of the sheet; not that everybody in the race is clean, but he perceived God’s thought, that if He cleansed the Gentile, Peter was to recognise it.
RSS Do you think that Romans 11 has application here? “If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world”. Do we not get reconciliation there?
JT God would never give His Spirit to the. Gentiles unless they were agreeable to Him. It is suggested in the kiss. He would never have kissed the prodigal had he not been agreeable to Him. In Acts 10 “the Spirit fell upon them”, indicating God’s delight in showing mercy to the Gentile; but then the verses already cited necessarily precede that. “In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him”. The fear of God and the work of righteousness must have been there.
RSS So there was a previous work of God in connection with the Gentile.
JT Surely. “When he was a great way off his father saw him”. The prodigal had turned, and that was the effect of the work of God.
WB-t Your thought in the parable of [p. 368] the prodigal son is that the prodigal is the Gentile and the “elder brother” the Jew.
JT I think the Spirit of God emphasises here the character of that into which the Gentiles have been admitted. The father embraced him and said, “Bring forth the best robe and put it on him”, and he is brought into the house. What a house! You must remember what precedes in Acts 9 and Acts 10.
AMcB The liberty of sonship.
JT Exactly. And then Peter says, “Who can forbid water?” and he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord, indicating that they are now under the protection of the Lord. The Gentile there comes into the kingdom. We get in principle the same thing in chapter 9, where there is the disclosure that the body is here; then the sheet coming down indicates the mind of heaven; everything that constitutes the present house of God was there in principle. The house of God was really constituted by Paul’s ministry.
AAT You were saying that baptism introduced this company into the kingdom. I thought the confession of the Lord did that.
JT Baptism is really confession. In baptism you virtually say that you are on the Lord’s side. The world has put Him to death and you identify yourself with Him.
AAT How about a child; is it in the light of the kingdom?
JT You (the parent) are in the light of it. The parents of Moses were not afraid of the king’s commandment. Why am I not afraid of the king’s commandment? Because I am in the light of the power of Christ in heaven. God vindicated their faith. We need not be afraid for our children because power is in the hands of the Lord.
AFM It is a question of the parents’ faith, is it not?
[p. 369] JT Faith always precedes baptism. If it is in the adult, it must be there before baptism, and if it is a question of the household, faith must precede baptism. Paul says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house”. You are set up in the light of the kingdom, and hence you accept baptism. You are not afraid of the king’s commandment.
WB-t The king’s commandment is death. Pharaoh’s commandment was that they should not suffer the male children to live, and Moses’ parents were not afraid of it. They committed their child to death, we may say.
JT Yes. In baptism you accept that blessing is not on the ground of nature, but through death.
BTF Do you think the steps you have been developing are foreshadowed in the parable of the great supper? There we have first the Jew, who refused; then the invitation goes out to the streets and lanes of the city; and then going further to the highways and the hedges and compelling them to come in so that God’s house may be filled.
JT Quite so, only Luke 15 is a development of chapter 14. Chapter 15 contemplates the rejection of the testimony by the Jews, and the “house” into which the prodigal was brought involves the heavenly system. The “great supper”, Luke 14, refers more to what was set up at Jerusalem in connection with the ministry of the twelve.
BTF What about the highways and hedges?
JT They are included in “the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off”; but in Acts 10 the link with Jerusalem is contemplated as broken.
BTF I thought the historical order was that the Jews refused, and then the testimony went out as far as the Samaritans, and then further to the highways and hedges, and the Gentiles were brought [p. 370] in.
JT That is quite right as to Luke 14, but chapter 15 emphasises the peculiar character of God’s reception of the Gentile and what the Gentile is introduced into. There is nothing said about the best robe in Luke 14, but in chapter 15 it is put upon the prodigal.
WB-t You have given us new thoughts about the prodigal, and they are very precious.
JT There can be nothing greater than what we are brought into.
EPL The idea of the church was not brought out then, because in the church the Jew and Gentile were to be united in one body.
JT Luke is not an ecclesiastical evangelist; Matthew is. Luke sets forth the magnitude of God’s grace. In Acts 10 Cornelius and his company are baptised in the name of the Lord. It is not here baptising all nations to the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; it is rather a question of the authority of the Lord. They were already in relation with the Father and the Son by the reception of the Spirit. The protection of the kingdom is extended to the Gentiles.
AFM How would you baptise today?
JT I would baptise in the name of the Lord, to the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit. Baptising in the name of the Lord ensures the protection of the Lord. But then they are baptised to the whole system of Christianity; the Gentile is admitted to the full revelation of God. It is wonderful to see what you are baptised to — God fully revealed. Being baptised to the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit refers to the relationship in which divine Persons are. It is wonderful that we are baptised to that.
AFM It is to the Father and the Son and the Spirit. How would it apply in the case of a child?
[p. 371] I suppose it is in view of their being brought into the gain of that.
JT You are not to have any lower thought than the full revelation of God. You intend your children to be in the full blessing of Christianity. You may have to wait long to see the result, but from your side that is your object.
JLJ Are there two ways of baptising now?
JT No; the one is privilege, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; that is Christianity proper; but the Lord is in the place of authority.
GFW Do you make any point of being baptised to the name of the Lord first?
JT No.
JLJ Would you go through the form of words? Is it necessary?
JT I would. We should be perfectly clear that baptism introduces into that system of things that is pervaded by the Father and the Son and the Spirit; but you also need protection here, and this is connected with the Lord.
WCR And having your children baptised signifies you want them protected from the world.
JT It is a great comfort to know the Lord has power and can protect them.