THE HEAVENLY SIDE OF THE KINGDOM
[p. 203] THE HEAVENLY SIDE OF THE KINGDOM
Romans 14:16 - 18; Numbers 2:1 - 9; Matthew 5:3; Isaiah 66:1,2; Isaiah 57:15
JT The two scriptures, Matthew 5 and Isaiah 57, bring in the heavenly side of the kingdom, and that in Isaiah 66 happily links on the earth with the heaven: “The heaven is my throne and the earth the footstool of my feet”; it is quoted in Acts 7, and it helps us, I think. You have that thought in mind?
M I was thinking of the practical, exercising and searching line in order in any measure to come into the good of the kingdom, because there are so many things opposed to the kingdom, so many things antagonistic to christianity.
JT Well, I suppose the great thing would be to have the full thought of it. Our practical part in it would come in later, but the scriptures you suggested certainly bring the heavenly side before us, which is a feature of the kingdom in Matthew’s gospel, implying that Christ is in heaven, so when He was on earth the Father was there and rules from heaven. The idea, I suppose, in the kingdom of the heavens is to lift the government out of the hands of men when it had been falsified in their hands, to lift it from earth to heaven; but that being clearly understood, the kingdom of God takes its place here; God is here by the Spirit. Obviously the kingdom of the heavens is presented in Matthew, and alluded to in the Acts, to lift the saints of God out of earthly rule, and reach them to heaven. The kingdom of God is the great feature in the epistles, but the allusion to the heaven in the early part of Acts — the “sound out of heaven” Acts 2:2, the “light out of heaven” Acts 9:3, and the “sheet ... out of heaven” Acts 10:11, Acts 11:5 is clearly heaven’s assertion of its rule; the seat of rule — light. And it is a matter of importance [p. 204] that we should understand that, so that we might be free from earthly rule, religious particularly, for Jerusalem has acquired a great place, especially religiously, and it is important that saints should be cleared of that, so that heaven should be the place of rule for them. And thus room is made for the action of the Spirit here unencumbered, unhampered, in the souls of God’s people, to develop the rule of God, not simply where He is, but Himself, the rule of God, the moral sway of God amongst His people. It is described to be “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, Romans 14:17. I think the link with Numbers 2 would help us, as seeing in the type how God is dwelling amongst His people at the present day, as indicated in the whole chapter, dwelling in His own abode amongst us, and the people set each in his place in relation to that abode, so that God is there, not a God afar off, but near, indeed in us. Does that afford some idea of the kingdom, would you say, Mr. C.?
CAC Yes, I think so. It is not only the thought of the new metropolis connected with heaven, but the actual control of God down here. Is that your thought?
JT Quite. To illustrate what you say I suppose we might refer to the empire. The centre of rule is in London, but the power is felt, or should be, to the uttermost bounds of the kingdom; the kingdom — whatever it may be — is a question of power, moral sway.
CAC It comes into practical, tangible expression in the subjects of the kingdom.
JT Yes, so that Romans, I think, opens it up for us; the sway of God, not only His authority — His authority is there — in “Jesus Christ our Lord”. I have often thought of that expression in Romans and Corinthians, giving the Lord a peculiar place in our affections, a place of authority in our affections — our Lord! Then “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us”. Romans 5:5 God is brought in; there is moral sway, the sphere in which there is not only direct authority from the throne of heaven, but moral sway. You get the blessedness of subjection, bringing about the material for the tabernacle. Romans does not go much beyond the individual, but the believers are material as possessed by the love of God, subject to His will, material for the dwelling, and God is really here.
WBC The kingdom of the heavens began when the Lord Jesus Christ took His place in the heaven, and the kingdom of God when the Holy Spirit came down from heaven?
JT The kingdom of the heavens existed even before the Lord went up as a Man, because He speaks of it as existing when He was here. The kingdom of God was among them when He was here.
CCE We have the thought of the heavens ruling in Daniel.
JT In the types I think the kingdom of God began as Israel came out of Egypt, delivered from the domination of Pharaoh, “and the people feared Jehovah, and believed in Jehovah, and in Moses his bondman”, Exodus 14:31. They feared God. They “were baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”, 1 Corinthians 10:2. The kingdom of God began in that way, so you have immediately the idea of ordinance, and then, without going into detail, the general opening up of the covenant, involving the law, involving rule in connection with the covenant, which is really in keeping with Romans, the rule of God in relation to the individual in connection with His love. There would be no difficulty in connection with such a rule as that — love.
CAC That would make liberty as existing in the [p. 206] kingdom.
JT I thought that, and as Dr. E. suggested in regard to the heavens ruling, the kingdom of God seems to convey that idea in the types throughout the wilderness and in the land until the days of David and Solomon. I think the idea of a rule from heaven is in Jerusalem; that, passing to the gentiles, was misused, just as in the days in which christianity, in which the Holy Spirit, came, rule had been abused. Rule committed to men had been abused and lost its real character as rule committed by God to a monarch. The idea of a monarch is what is above. Jerusalem stood for what is above.
MWB We are transferred from earth to heaven, and hence the new metropolis.
JT The rule of God has lost its true character and become corrupted in the hands of men. And so the book of Daniel is to assert that the heavens rule. The first great gentile monarch has to learn that — that the heavens rule; and I think that the link is in Jerusalem, to say nothing about Rome, the rule of Rome which is still recognised in Romans 13. In Jerusalem the idea of rule, religious rule particularly — and that is what saints are largely suffering from, the authority of darkness — had become corrupted; it was darkness, and I think the kingdom of the heavens is an important feature today on account of many of our brethren being under religious rule, which is darkening. We need another metropolis, and that metropolis is furnished in the heavens.
MWB It is interesting that the term “kingdom of heaven” is dropped when earth government is put into the hand of the Lord. It seems so, does it not? We have no mention of it in the millennium.
JT There is no need. The expression, I think, is over against the misrule in man’s hand, to set that aside in the souls of God’s people, particularly religious rule, because christendom is dominated largely, and has been for centuries, by religious rule;
[p. 207] that is darkening, and it is a question of the people of God being delivered from the authority of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love Colossians 1:13.
TP The introduction of the Son of God coming into this world was to give Israel, and us, the knowledge that He came to deliver.
JT Matthew would show at the very outset how rule was misused in Herod’s hands. Think of a man slaying a lot of infants! Where is his idea of rule there?
TP In Luke everything was in order outwardly when the Lord Jesus was born.
JT I think Luke refers to the Roman Empire in a kindly way, which is in keeping with his line, but Matthew is ecclesiastical, and his thought is to deliver the people of God from religious rule — misrule, and he sees at once that Herod represented that.
MWB We would recognise what God has said — be subject to rule.
JT We are enjoined to respect the powers that be, and, in Timothy, to pray for them.
WJH Rule at the outset, as suggested in the sun and moon, is entirely beneficial. You cannot conceive of the sun and moon ruling to the injury of anyone, can you?
JT So that in the light of that, from the standpoint of Luke, we respect the authority, for authority of any kind is better than no government. The time is coming when “the sun shall be darkened, and the moon not give her light”, Matthew 24:29 terrible contemplation! So that we are thankful to God for any rule now. But all that is nothing to do with the kingdom of God; the kingdom of God goes on.
Ques In what way do we enter the kingdom of God?
JT Well, I think the first way is seen in John’s gospel; he brings in new birth in chapter 3 to show [p. 208] the initial idea of entering. Matthew and Luke make much more of it; John just touches on it to tell us that unless one be born again he cannot see it. John 3:3 Well, that is very sweeping. You might take the cleverest man in the world, the most educated, and yet he could not see that! The most polished statesman cannot see that, cannot even see it! John brushes aside everything but what is of God. And then the Lord says in answer to Nicodemus, “Except anyone be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. John 3:5 So that he can neither see nor enter without new birth — that brings the thing down to the work of God.
AMH You connect both of those thoughts with new birth?
JT Yes, it is in the chapter, is it not? The idea of “water and the Spirit” is initial. Water suggests the cleansing element, which is to shut out the natural, and bring in the thought of holiness or purity, new birth. Without new birth, you cannot see the kingdom of God, or enter it! The latter is the greater, and therefore the Lord adds the idea of water, to shut out the natural first, in regard of man’s conception, he cannot see it; and secondly, in connection with man’s estate, he is impure. The water suggests the idea of the cleansing element. First as to his mind, and then as to his moral state, man is impure. It is to sweep the board of everything that man is naturally, he has no part in it at all. And then there is the idea of the testimony presented, and that is what John makes so much of, and what the Lord makes so much of, the presentation of the thing in testimony, the preaching of the kingdom.
AMH “Righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, a spiritual sphere.
JT And it was intended to be brought in by the witnesses. When the Lord spoke of it in Matthew, He referred to what He was doing by the Spirit of God: “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you” Matthew 12:20; that is, it was there upon them. And in Luke He says, “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you” Luke 17:21; that is, in Himself, grace acting in power in Himself for the deliverance of man. So that I think the Lord intends, as He went up into heaven, that the thing should be carried in themselves; they were to go to the city and preach, and if the people did not receive them, they were to say: “But know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh”, Luke 10:11 not only the light of it, but the thing itself.
CAC That is very important and throws a great exercise upon all who present the kingdom in testimony — that it should not only be in word, but also in power.
JT Paul supports what you are saying, clearly. That is exactly what he said to the Corinthians.
WJH That is confirmed in the rejection of Samuel. God says to Samuel when they desired a king, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me”, 1 Samuel 8:7. In rejecting Samuel, they rejected God. That is a test for us.
JT That is very good. If one who represents God is rejected, God is rejected.
PL “For ye know yourselves, brethren, our entering in which we had to you, that it has not been in vain”, 1 Thessalonians 2:1. You get there the thought of our entering in. Paul is bringing in the kingdom in his ministry, is he not?
JT Well, I thought so. As Mr. C. was saying, the kingdom of God is not in word. You may get a good word, you know, from any pulpit, a well spoken word of doctrine, and yet the man may not be converted. You can hardly think the kingdom is there, it is just a word.
CAC So that Paul puts together the two things. He says, “In the word of truth, in the power of God”, 2 Corinthians 6:7.
[p. 210] The latter would really be the kingdom.
JT I thought that; the thing was demonstrated in their midst. The sphere of the Holy Spirit at the beginning had that place; it was really there, heaven was ruling.
CAC It would raise the question as to how the testimony is received and how it works out, rather than how it is presented, would it not? I thought the kingdom might have been presented in power, say, by Paul, but when you come to the reception of it and the working of it out in those who receive the testimony, there might be such elements as lead to the deterioration of the thing.
JT That is very helpful, because it is exemplified at Corinth; the testimony was not rightly received.
WJH So in Galatians the apostle could say, “Before your very eyes, Jesus Christ has been portrayed, crucified among you” Galatians 3:1.
JT Both at Corinth and Galatia, in spite of the perfect testimony, the word was so poorly received that a mixed state of things ensued, and now that has become so corrupted that it has become a great tree, a huge thing in this world, in which the birds of the air find a resting place; so that Paul in writing to the Corinthians sent Timothy, his son, to them so that they might see in him the apostle’s own ways: and that is the position, I think, today, that the gospel is announced more or less rightly in the doctrine of it but without the exemplification — the power — in the witnesses, in the preachers.
CCE Do you not think that that accounts largely for the poor results of modern missionary work?
JT It is a mixed worldly state of things, you know. It is just the spread of the worldly corrupted things. Not that there are not really conversions,
[p. 211] but it is not exactly portrayed before them, before the ones to whose notice it is brought.
MWB How would you connect the thought of the kingdom of God and the assembly?
JT The kingdom of God is a good work in our souls for the assembly, I think. That is to say, to be simple, Romans is to bring the saints into the kingdom. The question has just been brought up as to how we enter, and we have been speaking of John 3 as presenting God’s side and sweeping away all that man is morally, but then there is, apart from new birth, apart from one who qualifies to see and enter, the idea of the thing presented in testimony, and I think that is Romans, so that the way in formally, publicly is: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved” Romans 10:9. I think that one is publicly in the kingdom thus. And Corinthians adds to that; the apostle says, “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12:3. Thus one calling on the Lord Jesus by the Holy Spirit is publicly and practically and in power in the kingdom of God. It is a very real thing. He is in an invulnerable position, and he is free thus to have part in the assembly, without fear.
T Would the kingdom of God have a subjective effect in us?
JT Well, I think the thing is presented objectively in the testimony; it exists here; it is here in virtue of the Holy Spirit having come down from heaven. God is here and that is a very great fact, you know; it is a fact, not a theory, and we should be aware that God is here in our gospel meetings. There is a sway, an influence, that effectively keeps us out of the world; a positive influence, not only that Christ is in heaven, but that God is here. Man is here, and [p. 212] God is here, and the kingdom of God is presented in an objective way for men to come into.
It is a great thing if I am subject; God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him, that is what Peter says (Acts 5:32). As soon as the Holy Spirit comes into my heart, then you can talk about something subjective. What a mighty thing, given to all those who obey Him! It is not only the rule, but the influence, the blessedness, “Righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. I thought that Exodus shows how the individual comes into all that. There is the idea of God entering into covenant relationship with His people, and in these covenants are certain rights; they are not against us; in Deuteronomy 33 the law was the inheritance of the people, and the “king in Jeshurun” means that He is enjoyed, He is valued. That is what comes out in Deuteronomy, on the individual side, I think. And then you get the position of each of us as believers in relation to divine dealing in Numbers. There are four camps of three tribes each, and it opens up the local position. Judah’s camp is eastward, towards the sun-rising; in Judah’s camp I would be full of hope. And then Reuben (and the two other tribes mentioned) on the south; how delightful to be in that camp, on the south, in the favour of God! Ephraim was in the rear at the west, where naturally men would be without hope, because the west is the going down of all our hopes, the sun going down; but before Ephraim and Manasseh the Lord shone forth; He shines where hope might wane. And where does He shine from? From the very midst of the groupings! He is very near. How one would lie down at night with the sense that God is there, what can harm us! And then Dan at the north; the bitter wind of persecution or suffering of any kind is there, but God is there; “we also boast in tribulations”, Romans 5:3.
[p. 213] WJH Benjamin was also in the group in the rear at the west.
MWB He was in the grouping behind. In Psalm 80 they followed in the wake of the Shepherd of Israel.
Ques What is the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the Son of His love?
JT The kingdom of the Son of His love would be to bring in the affections of Christ known as the Son, God’s dear Son. It belongs to Colossians, you know. We are advanced more; we are away from the Red Sea. We know God better; we come into the light of God’s dear Son. It is the kingdom, it is the rule, but it is the rule of such a One as the Son, God’s dear Son. The passage in Numbers is most touching, and everyone should get into his soul that he is at the east or the south or the west or north, and the centre is the blessed God, whose interest goes all round! The kingdom of His dear Son! It is not the rule of Moses now; it is the rule of God’s dear Son. Moses had sons, but they do not come in much. But David had a son — referring to the type — Solomon. I think that “His dear Son” in Colossians is for us now; so that we should be in the land of Canaan, you know, we should not stay in the wilderness.
WJH There should be the recognition of each of these princes; they are named sovereignly by God. Each tribe has a captain. It really involves subjection to one another to get the gain of God being with us.
CAC You were saying this has reference to our local setting. I should like just a word in that connection.
JT Well, as Mr. H. has just remarked, the princes of each tribe would represent rule, only rule in one very familiar to us. He would not be a stranger. I think that local rule, rule in a local company, has not the character of anything foreign or [p. 214] oppressive, but we are known to each other, and if there are those who are known to be in the character of a prince, that is, spiritual stature, we readily come under his rule. It is simply and easily accepted because we know the person. Not that we should slip in any way under clericalism, but there is such a thing as moral stature, personal influence. And then “the ensign of their father’s house”, — the pedigree sets me in my place family-wise. There is a link of affection in the local company. Whilst there is rule in the prince, he is my near relative; my pedigree shows that I am related, so that the rule becomes very easily accepted. That is, if the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts we readily accept the rule of those who are of greater spiritual statute. So that our local companies do not become democratic. Of course there is the mutual side, but mutuality may be carried too far. There is the idea of rule — the Son of the Father’s love! Well, that is rule which is very happily accepted. I think it should be expressed in us locally. We are related to one another, and the rule of God prevails locally. And then, in a wider way, as under Judah or under Reuben or Ephraim or Dan, we stand in relation to the dwelling place of God.
L Would the leaders be the same as we get in Hebrews? We are to obey them.
JT Well, that is the same idea. “Obey your leaders”, Hebrews 13:17. You are to know them. I do not see how we are to get on save as we each locally are submissive to those who have moral ability to rule. We are all of the same pedigree, and that equalises things. So that the names were not in order of birth on the breastplate of the high priest. On the shoulders of the high priest the names were according to birth: the pedigree brings out the birth. You have the idea of subdivision on the shoulders of the Lord, my relation to the tribe; and the twelve [p. 215] are divided into two parts. The order of birth involves the pedigree, where my setting is, my father’s house, I am supported by the Lord there. But then on the breastplate it is not according to birth; the breastplate is the question of the sovereign counsel of God. It is the question of sovereign arrangement; He places Judah on the south! Reuben had the birthright, but he lost it on account of his behaviour; Judah was the prince, because he prevailed among his brethren, that is, there was moral stature there. God will raise up princes in every locality, but the prince has to bear in mind that he is one of the brethren; even the king is one of the brethren. It would save us from autocracy. In taking up Numbers in this sense we are to understand that each has to take his place according to pedigree, and then come under the further groupings which are according to God’s wisdom, that I do not do this and that as I please. I question myself as to the will of God, and what is in the will of God under my grouping. Whether it be Judah, Reuben, Ephraim or Dan, I am under divine influence; how blessed to be there! There you have the priests coming and going; we are wonderfully provided for! That is the position in Numbers. The link between Exodus and Numbers would be the link between Romans and Corinthians.