SPOIL (7)
[p. 360] SPOIL (7)
Acts 8: 1 - 8; Acts 9: 15 - 20; Acts 11: 19 - 26
JT It is well known that our subject is “Spoil”, and the feature that is now before us is the spoil that accrues to Christ from the assembly, as is indicated in the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31, of whose husband it is said that he is known in the gates and that he shall have no lack of spoil.
At our previous reading, the spoil that came before us was seen as the outcome of discipline in Acts 5, and the outcome of murmuring being met in wisdom in chapter 6. Stephen and Philip stand out as “David’s spoil”, as was remarked. There were seven deacons, but these two were outstanding.
In the passages just read we shall see the further results of assembly conflict and exercise in the scattered ones, and Saul, who is presented in the record as the outcome of all this, is the most outstanding spoil that we have. It would be well to linger a little on Stephen and Philip, particularly on the judicial service of Stephen, which was in keeping with the appearance of his face as that of an angel, and represented the mind of heaven at that time. The testimony was moving, and at the turning, as it were, this judicial side appears, as in Matthew 11 where God’s dealings in the testimony judicially were stressed by the Lord Himself. Now in Stephen’s address we have the same thing. There is a change over; there is a turn in the wall, as it were. The judicial side appears, so that the last word of Stephen’s address is that they had killed the Just One; the murder of that Person who was characteristically the Just One was a crime inexcusable. The answer showed that the indictment was correct. It says: “And hearing these things they were cut to the heart, and gnashed their teeth against [p. 361] him. But being full of the Holy Spirit, having fixed his eyes on heaven ...”. Acts 7: 54, 55. That is the point now — heaven. What he sees inside indicates a change. The mind of heaven is seen in that which came into his view. It is said that “he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God”, and then his testimony to that is, “Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God” (verses 55, 56). The testimony is now turning towards the whole race of mankind, but we have this wonderful spoil in the testimony of Stephen. The accuracy of it spiritually and verbally, too, represented fully the judicial mind of heaven; and then finally we see the moral glory of the Lord Jesus shining in the vessel.
CAM Stephen’s countenance was like that of an angel. The countenance of the angel, at the close of Matthew’s gospel, was like lightning, and it would seem to confirm what you say about the judicial matter. In Matthew 24 it says, referring to lightning, “For as the lightning goes forth from the east and shines to the west, so shall be the coming of the Son of man” (verse 27). Do you think that was one feature of the countenance of this man? It connects with the coming of the Son of man in Matthew.
JT Quite so. Now here the thought of the angel is dropped, and the moral glory of Jesus shines in Stephen, in priestly sympathy for his murderers; showing what a vessel he was, capable of representing the judicial side in the most accurate way. At the same time he represented the dispensation, for he was not losing sight of the fact that grace is still reigning, and that Jesus is still at the right hand of God and standing, ready to serve.
JS Seeing Jesus, as Son of man, would indicate a movement in the testimony toward the nations.
JT I think so; it is a wider glory. Nathanael said to the Lord, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel” (John 1: 49), connecting Jesus with Israel. In answer to that the Lord said, “Thou shalt see greater things than these. And he says to him, Verily, verily I say to you, Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man” (verse 51). The wider glory is what is in mind now.
JS In connection with their refusal of Him, it says, “If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before?” John 6: 62.
ANW Stephen would have all men in mind in making that reference to Jesus.
JT Yes. You will notice the Spirit of God gives an account of what he saw. “He saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God”, but Stephen said, “Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God”. The glory is where it can be diffused universally. He saw the glory of God — but in heaven. The Shekinah had left Jerusalem and had gone up. [p. 363] In the gospel it is the glory of God in the face of Jesus. Paul says, “Because it is the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”, 2 Corinthians 4: 6. It is diffused from that point; hence Paul is the characteristic vessel of it, a competent minister of the new covenant. Stephen reflected judicial glory, but probably Paul the covenant glory. The glory that Stephen sees is undoubtedly covenant glory; a glory in which God is now ready to shine out universally. It had been shining wonderfully at Jerusalem, but now universally from that point — the supreme point above.
WR Would you say that we are all allowed to look upon the glory of the Lord?
JT That is the thought. “But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face ...”, 2 Corinthians 3: 18.
In the gospel it is the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and this is shining in our hearts, for the shining forth (2 Corinthians 4: 6).
CN Is there any significance in Stephen beginning his address with the God of glory appearing to Abraham?
JT There is; that would include all glory. As to Abraham and his family there was not only one covenant, but covenants, special glory attaching to each. Israel had utterly failed as to these glories; now all is secured above, as presented in what Stephen saw, and to be diffused through vessels here below, but seen finally in the heavenly city which descends from heaven having the glory of God. In this respect Paul was, as the Lord said, “an elect vessel unto me”; a further great trophy of spoil; a new title for one secured by the Lord, that is “an elect vessel unto me”.
CAM Stephen’s attitude changed from the judicial aspect to one of service or priestly grace, and in that setting his spirit was actually received by the Lord Jesus. This seems to be more like the character of Luke’s gospel — grace.
JT I think the idea is the reflection of Christ in the vessel, in Stephen; not now an angel’s face, but the reflection of Christ in His moral glory in suffering. How Stephen reminds us of Christ! Nothing is to be coveted more than that — that one should remind the saints of Christ. He reminds us of Christ, not an angel, at the end of the chapter. You are struck with that. He acts like Christ and speaks like Him.
Ques Is it still judicial?
JT I think it is more grace; he is praying for his murderers. He is a man able to execute judicial service, but not to lose sight of grace. In his own person, he is an exponent of both. His face shone as an angel, but now it is the moral glory of Jesus in him; he is kneeling down, “praying, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (verse 59). You feel how strikingly he was like the Lord.
JS In his displaying such a spirit as he does here?
JT That is the idea, but he now reflects Christ above and that governs all that follows. Saul was there; we want to keep that in mind — that Saul was there; he is to be the leading trophy in this section — the spoil of David.
Ques Do you think there will be a judicial message to the gentiles in the closing days of the assembly’s history, somewhat akin to the message of Stephen to the Jews?
JT I think it is going on now. The ministry has taken on that character, the judicial character. If you read the Collected Writings, the prophetic side of matters, it will be seen how strongly the judicial side is in mind. We have, “God has judged your judgment upon her”, Revelation 18: 20. That is the judicial side, and no one is equal to the present position of the assembly who does not have that. In separating from evil, you judge what you leave; it is a judicial action. God says, You are judging it, but I will deal with it in time; your judgment will be executed. The judicial side is most important in every respect, because it clarifies the whole position and then we can go on with what is positive.
ANW Would it be right to say they were cut to the heart by what Stephen said judicially, but what touched Saul was his prayer of grace?
JT I should think that was the beginning with Saul. The Lord had His eye on him; His eye rested on that young man as he stood there holding the clothes of the murderers. He alludes to it later, saying, “When the blood of thy witness Stephen was shed, I also myself was standing by and consenting, and kept the clothes of them who killed him” (chapter 22: 20).
[p. 365] He says, I was there, and the Lord intimates that something had taken place there when He said to him: “It is hard for thee to kick against goads” (chapter 26: 14). He evidently alluded to this. What a trophy of grace he was; the Lord secured him. Could anything be more appropriate than to say, This is David’s spoil? He is outstanding ever after as answering to the mind of God here below.
ABP Does Stephen exemplify how that in judicial matters we should be entirely impartial? He would bring upon their consciences with full force the sin against the Just One, but the sin against himself he would meet in pure grace.
JT Very good. The Just One is very significant there. James uses the term, “ye have condemned, ye have killed the just” (chapter 5: 6), and that is exactly what Saul was doing; he was condemning the just and ravaging them. I think the fact that the Lord alludes to Himself in speaking to Saul, “Why dost thou persecute me?” (chapter 9: 4), is to show that He is still “known in the gates”. He is known there in those houses that Saul visited. Wherever he visited, he found Jesus formatively in the saints. He was known there.
ARS Is it not significant that he refers to the Son of man, because when the Lord was before Pilate, He said, “Henceforth shall the Son of man be sitting on the right hand of the power of God”, Luke 22: 69? Then they crucified Him. That is the testimony on which they condemned Him, and when Stephen mentions the Son of man, they immediately rush upon him and stone him.
ANW Was not the glory of God and Jesus for his own enjoyment; and the Son of man standing, the point of testimony?
JT Very good. It would greatly strengthen him to see that the glory was immutably secured above,
[p. 366] and Jesus had His own place there, whatever they thought of Him.
Ques Is it your thought that the Lord in speaking to the Father as Lord of heaven and earth, has in mind the change in the economy from what is on earthly lines to what is heavenly, the heavens coming in first there?
JT That enters into what we have here. Stephen fixed his eyes on heaven.
JS Why do you think there is a direct refusal of the testimony of the Son of man?
JT It marked the Jews. When Paul, in speaking in his defence in Jerusalem, quoted the Lord’s word to him, “Go, for I will send thee to the nations afar off” (Acts 22: 21), they attacked him again. It is their jealousy against the gentiles and the grace of God; jealousy that God should visit them and take them in at all.
RWS Does the plural of the word “heaven” indicate the fulness that marks the dispensation?
JT I suppose so; “I behold the heavens opened”. The plural would indicate that the whole idea is there. Paul went up to the third; that was the complete thought. So the plural here would be the whole idea of heaven, I think.
JS Jesus passed through the heavens.
JT Yes; far above all heavens, but Paul went to the third, which is the full thought in experience. Here the plural would mean that the whole thought is in mind.
ANW It says he fixed his eyes on heaven.
JT I suppose that was the immediate thought — what was immediate to his eye. The plural, I think, in testimony, would mean the whole idea of the heavens. Heaven is now acting.
AFM When the Lord spoke to His Father as the Lord of the heaven and of the earth, would that carry the full idea of [p. 367] heaven?
JT I think so. These expressions allude to the working out of God’s ways, with His counsels in view.
WS “The heavens do rule”, Daniel 4: 26.
JT Quite so; the fact that there are more than one brings out also, that there is that which may be implied by the heavens, even in the way of judgment. We have the thought of the windows of heaven being opened in the way of judgment in the flood, and wrath being revealed from heaven, too, but heaven is also in view in the way of privilege and blessing, the special intervention of God. So it has a great place in the testimony in the Acts.
Now having said so much about Stephen, I think what we ought to have clearly in mind, is this most important matter in the turning of the wall in the testimony. What a man Stephen was; how fitted he was for the service, combining in himself the judicial service and the dispensational grace, in the presence of a man who was about to be taken up by the Lord as His greatest trophy or spoil. So that it is all working out on these lines, and hence we have the assembly immediately introduced again in chapter 8. Great persecution arose against the assembly, and then again it says Saul ravaged the assembly. Now we see the virtuous woman, as it were, and what is going to accrue from all this — this new point of departure. “Those then that had been scattered went through the countries announcing the glad tidings of the word. And Philip, going down to a city of Samaria, preached the Christ to them” (chapter 8: 4, 5). Philip represents the second phase of the spoil here, a man that moves of himself, not judicially, but evangelically, carrying out and expanding the second part of Stephen’s service.
Ques The virtuous woman considered the field and purchased it. Does that fit in with this and with [p. 368] Antioch?
JT I think that is good. The field is something outside of what she already had; she acquired it.
Ques Is the assembly assuming more importance now than the apostles in this part of the book?
JT That is it; she is coming more into view and acquiring a field. “And the report concerning them reached the ears of the assembly”, Acts 11: 22.
JS There is a direct attack upon the assembly in the beginning of chapter 8.
JT That indicates what we are saying. The enemy sees it coming into view now. The apostles are undisturbed; they remain in Jerusalem; the attack is on the assembly, and in view, I believe, of the Lord’s having to say something to Saul.
Rem The word to Saul is also out of heaven, not from Jerusalem.
JT That is another thing to consider. The position of the assembly here is of great importance in our subject, because it is the virtuous woman we have to keep in mind — her husband is known in the gates. That is what comes out. When the Lord speaks to Saul, He says, You are persecuting Me. He is known in those houses.
WB-w You were referring to the turning of the wall. Do you connect that with this scripture here, the Son of man?
JT That is what I understand, corresponding with Matthew. The Lord was turning over to the assembly, leaving Israel, and the position required strengthening. It was critical, and so, although it is critical, the assembly is equal to it.
WB-w Do you get the idea from Nehemiah where they turned the wall at the angle?
JT That is what I am alluding to. Here the testimony was moving round from Jerusalem. The Lord had said to the apostles, “Remain in the city till ye be clothed with power from on high”, Luke 24: 49. Then He goes on later to show that the [p. 369] testimony should go out wider. He indicates that in Acts 1 — “but ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come [p. 374] upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (verse 8). Now it is Son of man; the testimony is going out to the nations. “That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations”, Luke 24: 47. He had said this before; now, it is about to take place, but not by the apostles. That is the thing to keep in mind; they remained at Jerusalem. They are, in a sense, in the shade. The course of the testimony now depends upon the assembly itself, its endurance, whether or not it could stand this attack.
JS The lines of the conflict are more clearly defined. The hostile religious leaders in Jerusalem took advantage of Saul’s offer to make a direct attack on the assembly in Damascus.
JT That is important. Is the assembly capable of standing this turn of affairs? Well, she is capable. That is the thing to see. The scattered ones “went through the countries announcing the glad tidings of the word” (verse 4). A new theme, “the glad tidings of the word”, a very remarkable thing; and then Philip went down to Samaria and preached the Christ; that is the Man who does things for God.
AFM Does this represent an independent action of the Spirit moving outside the apostles?
JT I think so. It is what was in the assembly; it shows the resources of the assembly; its endurance, so that Christ is known in the gates, and He is not lacking of spoil in all this.
AFM It says he went down, as if it were his own exercise, and “preached the Christ to them”.
JT The suggestion, I think, is that our young men are not to wait to be invited to preach, but to seize opportunities, by making way for themselves.
[p. 370] The idea arising from these deacons is that they obtained “for themselves a good degree”, 1 Timothy 3: 13. Some may ask, Why am I not asked to preach? Obtain for yourself a good degree, and you will be asked to preach. It is up to yourself.
CAM You were emphasising the foundations previously. This great matter of Stephen seems to involve a gate issue; the husband being known in the gates would admit of all this coming out.
JT Quite so; He was known in the gates in Stephen’s beautiful spirit. It was the reflection of Christ in the spirit he manifested, so that in chapter 8 we are in the field of operations again. The judicial side is over, but who is going to take up the work? Well, you may say, the apostles; but there is not a word about them. It is the scattered ones; it is a new development altogether. The Lord has the spoil, and these men go out by themselves and preach the glad tidings of the word, a very remarkable appellation of the gospel. I think it means they were sober men, and were more concerned about God’s mind being known, than about exploits. The glad tidings of the word means the mind of God is in view; a very important thing in preaching the gospel, not simply to get souls and be able to count them, but to spread abroad the word of God.
AFM Does not that expression occur in connection with Paul’s ministry? Repeatedly we get that Paul and others spoke the word unto them.
JT Quite so; wherever the word is preached in that way, there is concern about the mind of God. It says, speaking of Corinth, “And he remained there a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God”, Acts 18: 11.
ABP Would the fact that Philip comes into view here link on with the previous crisis, and suggest [p. 371] that the fruit of one crisis provides material that will stand in the next?
JT That is the idea; it is progressive. So now a new field has been sought. The virtuous woman sees the field, and she acquires it. That is the idea here, a wider scope. We are on that field now, so that it is new conquest. Philip goes down to Samaria and preaches the Christ. The scattered ones preach the glad tidings of the word; the mind of God is to be known, but Philip brings in One who can do exploits. It is Christ who can do exploits; He does everything.
JS Do you think the apostles were clinging too closely to Jerusalem, and then in the ways of the wisdom of God this scattering is allowed?
JT That is how the matter stands; they clung to Jerusalem when they might have gone into the field, “But when they persecute you in this city, flee to the other”, Matthew 10: 23. That was the principle, but the apostles did not act on it. Not that one would say much about them, but still the course of the testimony is to be noted, and it involved God taking up others.
JS Over against this beautiful spirit of the Lord Jesus as seen in Stephen, you have a murderous spirit brought to light in Saul.
JT He was diametrically opposed; “breathing out threatenings and slaughter” (chapter 9: 1); and then in chapter 8 it says, “But Saul ravaged the assembly” (verse 3). Note, that it is the assembly — that which is so precious in the eye of Christ — that Saul was attacking. Satan understands. The murmuring was pacified by the remarkable provision of seven men who had the Spirit, “full of faith and the Holy Spirit”. That was the provision at that turning of the wall, and now the Lord is putting forth two of them; Stephen in chapter 7, and Philip in chapter 8, now in the sphere of operations.
[p. 372] Nobody sent him into the field, but he goes; not to do exploits, or to tell the number of converts, and that sort of thing, though he had them immediately. It is the Christ Philip preaches; He is the One who does exploits. Everything that God does is done by Jesus Christ, the anointed One. What spoil Philip is — he is spoil out of the murmuring; he is the man for the moment, the man who preached Christ to the Samaritans.
WB-w Of the woman of worth, before it is recorded that she acquires the field, it says, “And she riseth while it is yet night and giveth ... the day’s work to her maidens”, Proverbs 31: 15. That precedes the field. What does that refer to?
JT Well, she is a good housekeeper. “He maketh the barren woman to keep house”, Psalm 113: 9. That is one thought that marks the assembly — good housekeeping. The word is: “Prepare thy work without, and put thy field in order, and afterwards build thy house”, Proverbs 24: 27. The field must be contributory to the house. The house is one idea, that you look for order and affection. The virtuous woman sees well to the ways of her house.
ANW The virtues have come into play like the river in the garden of Eden; it was there to water the garden, but it flowed out from there in four streams.
JT It is a spontaneous movement here. The field that she acquires is now necessary, for it provides a wider scope of operations. She had been limited, but now it is wider, in keeping with the “Son of man” of Acts 7: 56.
JS Do you regard the field as a productive sphere?
JT We get the thought from Jacob: “See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which Jehovah hath blessed”, Genesis 27: 27. The field is [p. 373] now the gentile world, which the Lord had blessed potentially. Philip is the man the Lord is using now, not Stephen. Stephen had his own part and work, and he did it well, but there is no lack of spoil. This is another piece of work and Philip is available for it. So that it is what the Christ will do now. He “preached the Christ to them”, it says, “and the crowds with one accord gave heed to the things spoken by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs which he wrought. For from many who had unclean spirits they went out, crying with a loud voice; and many that were paralysed and lame were healed. And there was great joy in that city” (verses 6 - 8). That is the idea. What spoil is being secured now!
Ques Would you link this with John 4 in connection with Samaria? Philip seems to select territory that had previously yielded fruit to God. Israel being abandoned, he goes to Samaria again. The Lord, it is said, “must needs pass through Samaria”, John 4: 4.
JT It would seem that there is a link there. No doubt Philip knew what happened as recorded in John 4. If you knew of some little spot where there was movement, and a person such as the woman, whom we call the woman of Sychar, you would be inclined to go there. I think that is the link. Philip makes his own selection.
ABP The Lord had likened Samaria to fields white to harvest.
JT Yes; He also said, “Lift up your eyes and behold the fields”. I suppose Philip lifted up his eyes and said, I will go there, and he did, and the Lord was with him and blessed his labours.
RWS In Acts 1, when they came together, they asked him saying, “Lord, is it at this time that thou restorest the kingdom to Israel?” He replied, “But ye will receive power, the Holy Spirit having come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (verses 6 - 8). This seems to be the order the testimony is taking as under His command.
JT Quite so; I think we ought to use care in making selections. The Lord lets you do that; He leaves it within your range to do that; so that if you hear of someone being in a certain place, who has received Christ and spoken well of Him, an evangelical instinct would lead you to say, I would like to go there. The woman had said, “Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?” John 4: 29. That was her point, the Christ, who was really in her formatively now. So that Philip has in mind the spiritual link. He begins at that point and preaches the Christ.
JHE If you saw a movement of God in a certain territory, you would be concerned about the house.
JT Quite so. You would say, Why are there no meetings in that city? Well, why not? It is a question of what there is of God in a place, because, after all, everything is divinely caused. God says, “In all places where I shall make my name to be remembered, I will come unto thee, and bless thee”, Exodus 20: 24. God was behind Philip’s labours; the cause was there. God had been there, and the blessing arises from that. It is the blessing of God, I believe.
GMW Would the joy in this city of Samaria be over against the hatred in any city against Christ?
JT Just so; if the preaching is real, there is joy in the city. In Samaria there was great joy in that city.
EEH Do you think this service and activity of Philip agree with the open [p. 375] heavens?
JT Quite so; the glory is at the apex, to be diffused. It has spread even to this country, and is still shining. It has shone into our hearts. Did it not shine into Philip’s heart? — not as Jesus, but the Christ? Later on, he announced the glad tidings of Jesus to the Ethiopian, but in Samaria he preached the Christ.
ARS Why did Philip not discern Simon Magus? It was Peter who discovered and exposed him.
JT That is another point. The apostles are now brought in. They were not discarded. The old brothers are not put on the shelf, so to speak. Their service was invaluable to the assembly.
ANW Paul himself went up to Jerusalem, did he not? To that extent he recognised the position of the apostles; he went up to see Peter.
JT Quite so; the apostles were there under the eye of heaven, ready for service. As has been observed with Samuel, when David comes on the field prophetically in 1 Samuel 13. Samuel leaves Saul, but he does not go far away. He rose up and went to Gibeah in Benjamin. He was within call. Let Saul work, let Jonathan work, and let David work when he comes. Samuel says, It is their matter now; God has a man. He has David, and Jonathan also, for he is working for God. Samuel, so to speak, says, I am near by. He does not turn his back on them, nor did the apostles disregard these scattered ones.
JH Would you say more in regard to Philip’s selection? You mentioned that Samaria was the field he selected to labour in; now he leaves Samaria according to the word of the angel of the Lord.
JT It shows he was a true levite, although acting on his own initiative. We may be sure he had great exercise before God, but the Spirit does not tell us about that; He wants to show us that [p. 376] one side of the levitical work in a young man is to find his sphere of employment — find out what he is to do and do it. Instead of thinking I am going to do exploits, I say, Christ is the One who will do them. Not that Philip could not preach Jesus, for he did immediately he got into the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch. He “announced the glad tidings of Jesus to him”, Acts 8: 35.
JTJr Would you say that what Peter did is now carried on in the assembly in the converts?
JT I think so, and I think the Spirit of God would keep the apostles before us in all this. We have alluded to them as perhaps being a little in the shade. “And the apostles who were in Jerusalem, having heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent to them Peter and John; who, having come down, prayed for them”, chapter 8: 14, 15. They are right in the work now, thoroughly in it. It is not the assembly at Jerusalem, but the apostles, showing they are kept in view, but the main thought is the assembly here and what issued from it.
AFM Is that the way God would have Samaria recognise that they were indebted to Jerusalem?
JT I think so. There was enmity between them, I suppose. God is represented now in Jerusalem by the apostles.
Ques Would you say that the Holy Spirit would not be given until the apostles came down, so that the link might be established?
JT I think it is an administrative act. The apostles’ authority is still kept in mind. They are not lost sight of, and they link on with what God is doing authoritatively — the apostles which were at Jerusalem — but they do it in a comely way; they pray — “who, having come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for he was not yet fallen upon any of them, only they were baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus. Then [p. 377] they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (verses 15 - 17). It is an administrative act.
ARS When Peter preached to Cornelius and his company, they received the Holy Spirit while Peter was yet speaking, but in the instance of Samaria, Philip’s work waited on Jerusalem.
JT What is in mind throughout is the idea of the one tabernacle; a line that is well for us to observe. All these movements are one in the mind of heaven; Philip’s work is linked on with Jerusalem administratively in this unification of the work of God. Samaria is brought into the anointing, being linked up with Jerusalem by the administrative act of the apostles. It is not the assembly here; we get the assembly setting in chapter 11. Here it is a question of keeping the apostles in mind, for God is not losing sight of them. They represent Him authoritatively in Jerusalem, and they link on the work at Samaria with that. Now in chapter 11 it says the ears of the assembly in Jerusalem hear about the work at Antioch, and they sent out Barnabas. That was an assembly matter.
JTJr Then was Peter’s word to Simon Magus judicial?
JT I think so. No one but an apostle could speak like Peter spoke: “Thy money go with thee to destruction, because thou hast thought that the gift of God can be obtained by money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not upright before God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and supplicate the Lord, if indeed the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee; for I see thee to be in the gall of bitterness, and bond of unrighteousness. And Simon answering said, Supplicate ye for me to the Lord, so that nothing may come upon me of the things of which ye have spoken”, Acts 8: 20 - 24. It does not say that Peter did it, but it was put upon Simon himself.
AFM It says that they were baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus, as if that were the point in view. Receiving the Holy Spirit would be the next step after they answered to their baptism, which Simon Magus failed to get, on account of his unsuited state.
JT Quite so. Those in Cornelius’s house received the Spirit before baptism — a remarkable thing, but here the baptism must have its place. It was a sign of recognising the rights of the Lord Jesus.
WB-w Do we get light in this chapter on how to open up the work in other cities? Philip was not sent to Samaria. Evidently his desire and exercise was to go and preach the gospel there. Is that the way it should be carried on today?
JT I think so. What is said of the virtuous woman helps. She had her eye on the field. It is what the assembly is characteristically, and Philip is just moving on that way. Doubtless Philip had possession of the facts at Samaria; the Lord’s service had borne fruit there, because that is another thing we should be acquainted with in the history of the assembly; the accumulation of knowledge and of facts concerning the field. Where am I to go in my service? The testimony came to the west; why did it travel westward from Jerusalem? It must have been on the principle that the mind of heaven was indicated and those who served moved accordingly. The field of the future will be the east, I think. The angel who flies in mid-heaven is evidently to carry the gospel to the east. While we have to wait for that, yet the assembly is in possession of the facts. It is cumulative, of what has come down from the service of Christ.
Ques What do you refer to as the east?
JT [p. 379] Asia is the great sphere, as far as I see, for the future operations of God.
CAM East from Palestine?
JT Palestine is spiritually the centre of the world.
CAM It would really involve the glory at the end of Ezekiel.
JT Quite so; it is toward the sun-rising.
JS Would this section show how thoroughly Philip was in the mind of heaven, that he should go to Samaria?
JT I think so; it is put that way. He selected the field of his operations, but it was the mind of God; the assembly had possession of the facts.
JS It seems to be morally right that he should preach the Christ after the indictment of the nation by Stephen.
JT Yes; you feel that Philip is working out the testimony of grace displayed by Stephen at the end of his indictment to the nation. He was so like Jesus, and in accord with what he saw in heaven; the glory was there. It seemed to be just right that Philip should say, Let me preach that Man, but in the sense of being anointed; not as Jesus, but as the Anointed. The word Messiah has two meanings — one, the Messiah of Israel, but then it has a wider meaning, too, for the Christ — the anointed One — is the One who is now doing things for God. He is anointed in regard to the nations, too. We learn that in Luke 4; He was anointed to preach the gospel, and so Philip was preaching Christ to the Samaritans. The Jew might say, Christ belongs to us, but He belongs to Samaritans, too. The woman had already said that much.
FNW Would that feature of the Christ, the anointing, come into Peter’s confession of Christ in Mark’s gospel — “Thou art the Christ”, Mark 8: [p. 380] 29?
JT I think that is just the point that is emphasised in Mark’s gospel.
FNW The One who does things would be the theme of Mark’s gospel.
JT That is what we need; those who can do things, but do them in the light of the opened heavens. Our scripture shows that there is a change of things in heaven now. The scattered ones knew what to do; Philip selected his field, and he knew what to say.
Rem The end of Mark’s gospel — the levitical gospel — indicates that the Lord is working with them.
JT He says, “Go into all the world”, chapter 16: 15. The world is the place that is opposed to you. You will find plenty of opposition there — “And preach the glad tidings to all the creation”, (verse 15). And the Lord was with them.
Rem It was a question of those who believed doing it. It was not so much the apostolic side.
Ques Does chapter 9 show us that the Lord works by Himself?
JT Quite so. That is the next thing to remember; that He is working in relation to what we have in this chapter — in view of the young man who held the clothes of those who stoned Stephen. It is all one thing. This young man is going to be a leading trophy as spoil for Christ. “For this man is an elect vessel to me”, says the Lord to Ananias, Acts 9: 15. You do not get such an expression about Peter, for Paul is an exceptional trophy as spoil for Christ.
JS He is introduced to Ananias as an elect vessel.
JT That is right. We must regard Ananias as representing the assembly in Damascus. The assembly is to understand that the Lord is going to have this trophy, as “an elect vessel to me”.
AFM Would you call him a ‘let-out’ man? In his baptism he was let out to the nations, to bear Christ’s name before “both nations and kings and the sons of Israel” (chapter 9: 15).
JT Peter really opened the door to the nations, in chapter 10; so that Paul could go out rightly.
CAM It is remarkable that Damascus was the first city to get the communication.
JT That develops another point: the beautiful thought of getting information from heaven. Damascus is the first to get this information. After Saul is reached, the Lord Himself goes into the city immediately. He had told Saul to go in, but He went in before him really, so as to make the way for him, and you might say, to inform the assembly there.
FNW Would it be like the heart of her husband safely trusting in her?
JT That is it. The Lord was trusting in Damascus. He says to Saul, They will tell you what to do there. Indeed, the Lord went in so as to make sure that they should. The heart of the Husband safely trusted in that little gathering in Damascus.
CAM Ananias was quite aware of the power that Satan had against them, through Saul. In a sort of way, they must have been in terror.
Rem This house of Judas in Damascus must have been a very remarkable place. It was not afraid of Saul. The Lord knew He could safely trust those in it. There seemed to be some little defect in Ananias, but the Lord repaired that before Ananias saw Saul. The Lord saw to that.
JTJr He adjusted his “wife”; Ananias would represent the wife. She was adjusted first in relation to what was coming in.
JT All this, I am sure, strikingly illustrates what we have been saying — the Lamb’s wife is [p. 382] the virtuous woman, how He safely trusts in her! One has often thought of the importance of being trustworthy. Can the Lord trust me with anything at all? How He would trust us collectively, even about matters connected with His interests. Getting information from heaven, in this connection, is one of the most important things.
CAM Looking at this glorious vessel, coming in at the end of the Bible, and the setting there, helps us to understand, do you not think, all that we have been speaking about? The glory of the Lamb’s wife is meant to have a definite meaning in our souls.
JT Quite so; it is intelligible to us who follow this thread of thought, what the assembly is to Christ, and what she yields to Him, and how He can trust her, and that He has no lack of spoil; she makes much of Him; in so doing He is known in the gates.
CN What was it that prompted Ananias to address Saul as brother? Was it some feature he saw in him?
JT I think the Lord impressed him with the idea that he was going to be that. If the Lord told you about a man like Saul, you would greet him as brother.
ANW Is it like the gold rings that were receptacles for the bars in the tabernacle, Exodus 26: 29?
JT That is very good. The Lord forged those rings; what He said to Ananias linked him on with this brother in his heart. It appears that Saul was praying when he found him.
CAM In that way, the first intimation that Saul got of the heavenly city was in Damascus.
JT That would be the idea. The Lord says to Saul, “Why persecutest thou me?” These men are Christ in character; they are His body. From [p. 383] this time onwards we are to be prepared for the truth that the body is of Christ — the heavenly thing.
AMacd In view of what we have been saying of Stephen’s witness to the Son of man, how would you link up Paul’s ministry: “And straightway in the synagogues he preached Jesus that he is the Son of God” (chapter 9: 20)?
JT That is another thing. Stephen had his own line; Philip had his line — which was the Christ. He was able to speak of Jesus, too, as we have said, but here is a man that can speak of the Son of God. You do not hear of Peter calling Him the Son of God, although he knew He was — the Father told him He was the Son of God — but we do not hear of Peter speaking of Him in this way in his ministry except once, in his last epistle, and that is to quote what was said from heaven, when he was about to put off his tabernacle. It was not his line; what we have to see is the levitical instinct in all these ministers; they know what to say, and what they say is in keeping with their own particular line. Here is a man, “an elect vessel unto me”, he is first to start with this — to preach Jesus that He is the Son of God.
Ques Would the use of the name “Jesus” be suggestive of intimate acquaintance with Christ?
JT That is how the Lord introduced Himself to him. He says, “I am Jesus”. We would think Saul would announce Jesus, but he went on to the Son of God. How did he come to that? Did he get it among the disciples? Was it part of the inheritance of the meeting in Damascus? Did they know? Or did he get it directly from the Lord? I would assume he heard it in Damascus. At any rate, he is able to preach it. It goes beyond the thought of the Son of man, because the Son [p. 384] of God is the One who does things in the way of building up.
JTJr He was preached in a three-fold way at Corinth: “For the Son of God. Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus)”, 2 Corinthians 1: 19.
JT Laying the foundation of God amongst the gentiles really involved that He was to be presented as the Son of God.
ANW Would you link it on with what Paul says in Galatians, “when God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”, Galatians 1: 15, 16?
JT I should, but I would connect that with a later transaction.
CAM Is there not something unique about the truth of the Son of God, as to how or when you learn it? One thing is very certain, it cannot be learned by mere logic. Those who argue about it never learn it.
JT Paul speaks of it as revelation: “God was pleased to ... reveal his Son in me”; with Peter it was revelation, and with the man in John 9 it was revelation, too, by the Lord Himself. These are important points as to the knowledge of the Son of God.
JS What did you have in mind in connection with chapter 11?
JT To bring out how the assembly appears there, having ears for the work of God in the wide field, as far as Antioch; not sending out one of the twelve, but Barnabas.
ABP Paul develops the thought of faces in his ministry. He speaks of the unveiled face; having seen the face of Stephen reflecting the glory; and then, on the Damascus road, the glory in the face of Jesus, would probably form a basis for what comes out in the new covenant [p. 385] ministry.
JT Well, it does. He says so: “who has shone in our hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”, 2 Corinthians 4: 6.
ABP Would the face of Stephen be representative of the face of the wife, or virtuous woman?
JT Quite so. All that is said about Stephen and Philip has to be accredited to the assembly, because they began with deaconship, which is particularly assembly work.
ANW It is striking that they are both the choice of the assembly. Though chosen with the other five, they are put first.