READING MATTHEW 18
[p. 187] READING MATTHEW 18
RSS In what intervenes it would seem that we not only have the glory of Christ brought before us as the Son of the living God, but also His glory as the Son of man, with which the chapter we were reading this morning closes: “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” Matthew 16: 28. What is the bearing of the introduction of Christ as the Son of man in connection with what we are considering?
JT The Lord spoke of His death, and discipleship is introduced in the end of chapter 16 as connected with this; and I think the mount of transfiguration was to establish and confirm the three apostles in view of their testimony on earth; that is, what they would administer in a moral way they could testify to, having seen it literally. Peter says, “we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty ... when we were with him in the holy mount” 2 Peter 1:16. They were eye-witnesses of the literal thing that they were to administer among men in its moral bearing. I think it is very important to see that administration as in man’s hands is introduced directly the assembly is spoken of as that against which the gates of hades shall not prevail.
RSS You refer to, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” Matthew 16:19.
JT Yes. And then it says, “he enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”, Matthew 16:20. That testimony for the moment is over. The Father had made known the truth of Christ’s Person to Peter, which gave occasion to bring out the truth of the assembly; hence all would now assume a new aspect. It would be administration in the hands of man, as sustained by that which the gates of hades could not prevail against; then He says He must die. So that I think the situation is made very clear: the assembly is now reached. Now He is going to die, and hence the subject of discipleship is introduced. In other words, those who should be His witnesses here should accept all the consequences of the position.
RSS Why does He tell them that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ? I can see the consequences of it, but what is the reason?
JT I think it all hangs on the revelation made to Peter. The Lord accepts that revelation in Peter’s soul from the Father, as the indication that things were now to assume a new aspect. The testimony regarding Himself personally amongst Israel was over. It would be henceforth testimony connected with the assembly in His absence, and administration, not in His own hands directly, but in the hands of Peter.
RSS Does He afterwards speak of Himself mostly as the Son of man from this point in view of His suffering?
JT Yes. And the question of discipleship being raised would be as a test to those who should be His witnesses. He says, “If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whosoever shall desire to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what does a man profit, if he should gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to each according to his doings”, Matthew 16:24 - 27.
[p. 189] That is a most searching thing for all whom the Lord is about to leave here in responsibility.
RSS And the transfiguration is then brought in in order to strengthen their faith.
JB Is the term “Son of man” more comprehensive than “the Christ”?
JT Yes; the sphere of the Son of man is wider than that of the Christ.
JSG Passing through death, He gets universal dominion as Son of man, according to God’s purpose.
JT The term Son of man had a prophetic significance, referring to Him to whom universal dominion belonged. The Lord designates Himself by it as rejected by the Jews, intimating that, being refused as Messiah, He should enter through death into this wider glory. What they see in Matthew is not only the Son of man’s kingdom, but “the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. It is the Son of man in circumstances which in every way enhance His glory. The Person is prominent. In the other gospels the kingdom is prominent. In Luke “there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God”, Luke 9: 27. Peter’s comment on it is that we have not followed cunningly devised fables in making known the power and coming of Christ. His testimony had reference to the power and coming, but He adds that they “were eye-witnesses of his majesty”. 2 Peter 1:16. I suppose we can hardly take in how such a sight would strengthen these men for subsequent testimony.
EJW The fact that the testimony has been established in such a way witnesses to God’s gracious consideration for our minds. That is, God has not merely stated certain things and called on us to believe them without anything to go upon, but has given suitable proof if the heart is ready to appreciate it. These men had seen His glory, and in them an adequate testimony was established here to the [p. 190] reality of it. The same thing is seen, I suppose, in principle in the opening words of John’s epistle, “that which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; that which we contemplated, and our hands handled” 1 John 1:1; also in Hebrews 2:4.
JT Another point comes out at the end of Matthew 17 which is a further element in the constitution of a witness; that is, the principle of association with Christ, “me and thee”.
JSG The power of the kingdom seems to be displayed in the centre of the chapter when He came down.
RSS What was your thought about “me and thee”?
JT I think that it suggests to us the principle of association, that the Lord associates us with Himself. He says, “Then are the sons free”. Matthew 17:26. That is a most touching thing. He associates Peter with Himself as Son of the Father; He to whom the temple belonged.
Going back to what was said in connection with casting out the demon, the instruction that follows is a further element in the education necessary for testimony; that is, prayer. First of all faith, then prayer and fasting. They say, “Why were not we able to cast him out?” Matthew 17:19. It was a good question to ask.
JSG No lack of power, but the question was the ability to use the power, and that necessitated a state of soul.
JT He says, “Because of your unbelief”. And He adds, “for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say to this mountain, Be transported hence there, and it shall transport itself; and nothing shall be impossible to you. But this kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting”, Matthew 17: 20, 21.
GAT What are prayer and fasting for us?
JT [p. 191] Prayer is simple enough. Fasting would be self-denial evidently. It would be accustoming yourself to deny yourself things that are lawful.
JSG Largely denying the claims of nature.
RSS The general thought is that it necessitates a moral state in connection with a person.
WHC For this kind of power to manifest itself?
JT Yes. This kind of power is only manifested in those who are marked by these things.
JSG That is, you get two very important principles — a person walking in dependence so that he is in the habit of expressing it to God and then, on the other hand, so as to be with God, there is the denial of those things which even nature would claim, and which would be perfectly right in themselves.
JT So that we have clearly indicated how power is to be manifested, and it shows how that while we may speak of administration of divine things through men, nothing is attached to the flesh at all, for the recognition of the flesh only disallows the power.
RML You often find Christians taking up that scripture and denying themselves food. That is not the idea of it?
JT No; that is not the thought, I think. Not but that over-eating would damage you spiritually, but I think it is, as was remarked, denying the claims of nature. It would suggest the thought of Nazariteship.
JSG It is not only evil things, but things that are quite lawful and right for the natural man. Fasting is really a principle that is to be maintained in our souls.
JT It would appear that chapter 17 indicates a certain line of instruction for the Christian which involves privilege. In chapters 14 and 15 the Lord is instructing largely as to how to meet things here, but I think for testimony, the saint has to see the [p. 192] privileges that are accorded to him. Not indeed that any of us can ever see the mount of transfiguration, but there is what is analogous to it. And then, moreover, there is association with Christ. First of all witnessing His glory, and then seeing that He associates us with Himself.
JSG In principle, “we see Jesus”. And we read, “beholding the glory of the Lord”.
JT Stephen saw Jesus. He “saw the glory of God and Jesus”, (Acts 7:55) and indeed, as you were quoting in the end of 2 Corinthians 3, we all with open face behold the glory of the Lord. It is that which fits us for testimony down here; and then to see that that same Person is pleased to associate us with Himself. He says, “take the first fish that comes up, and when thou hast opened its mouth thou wilt find a stater; take that and give it to them for me and thee”, Matthew 17: 27.
GAT You say that is association with Him?
JT That is the principle of it. What precedes it is sonship. The Lord does not say, ‘Then is the son free’, but “Then are the sons free”. Matthew 17:26.
RSS Is it exactly association with Him in the way we were speaking of it this morning as the living Stone?
JT What I see in it is the principle. If He says “me and thee” as regards tribute, He will say “me and thee” before the Father. I think the principle of “me and thee” goes right through. “Me and thee” is there in what the Lord says in John 20:17, “my Father and your Father”.
WHC And in Hebrews, “Behold I and the children which God hath given me”, Hebrews 1:13.
GAT I was wondering if the thought of “me and thee” was not the Lord identifying Himself with the people, and not the people being identified with Him?
JT I think not. Sonship came to light in [p. 193] Christ, and if the Son identifies others with Himself as Sons, that is not putting Himself on their level. Peter was not a son by right of birth, but the Lord put Peter on His level by saying, “Then are the sons free”. Sonship comes out in the second chapter of this gospel, “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Matthew 2:15), and in the third, the heavens are opened and the Father speaks to Him as Son. It came out in Christ personally.
EJW It would appear to distinguish between the sons and those who are simply subjects of the kingdom. The Lord alludes to a royal family, which every kingdom has, and it would appear to refer to the royal family of the divine kingdom and the Lord would have us take account of our place, as He thus indicates it.
JT He says, “the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive custom or tribute, from their own sons or from strangers?” Peter says, “From strangers”. Jesus said to him, “Then are the sons free”. Matthew 17:25,26. I think it is beautiful.
JSO I suppose it was our brother’s point that the object of the scripture is not to give us association and the privilege of being connected with Christ before the Father’s face, but the privilege in its application to us here.
RSS Yes, that is what I had in mind.
JT No doubt it is so. This is not for the hearing of man. He spoke to Peter, and in the house, too.
JSO It was for the enjoyment, clearly, of the saints.
JT All I see in it is that the principle is there, and you could not for a moment think that the Lord would drop that principle in regard to us. He carries it right through.
RSS Before we leave this section I would like to go back and ask in regard to chapter 16:26. It says, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain [p. 194] the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:26. You were connecting this with the thought of discipleship. We have rather connected that with people who are unconverted?
JT But then you have to take the whole passage from verse 21.
RSS I see it comes in in connection with their denying themselves and taking up the cross. My difficulty is that if one is a disciple at all how could the question come in of losing his soul?
JT Discipleship is responsibility, and the question is whether he would go to the full length, for many would take up the position of disciples, but the end would prove whether they were so. I think it is responsibility, because the next verse says “The Son of man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to each according to his doings”, Matthew 16: 27.
JSG That is a principle that you have to apply if you take the full and complete fulfilment of the words, it means one that takes the place of a disciple; but it does not do to take away the keen edge of it. What advantage is it to me if I gain the whole world and get fined — that is the thought of it — in my soul? You have to pay the price. Where is life found? In connection with God’s things. What is the advantage if I gain the whole world? I have to pay the great price of my soul.
RSS I suppose it is the great contrast that is brought in — “gain the whole world”. That is the greatest thing a man of the world could have before him.
JT I think these closing verses of chapter 16 are an appeal to the consciences of the disciples: the seriousness of taking up the position of becoming a disciple and coming short of it. But chapter 17 shows the other side, that is, what the disciple comes [p. 195] into in the way of privilege, and we cannot emphasise that too strongly. It is our privilege to behold the glory of the Lord on the one hand, and to be in association with him on the other. I do not know of anything so sweet as “me and thee”, because it is the Son of God who speaks. He who could command the creation, for it is that which comes to light here, is pleased to call a poor fisherman, accustomed to catch fish with a net or hook and line; such an One is pleased to say to him, “me and thee”. I am sure you appreciate that thought: “me and thee”!
EJW This is emphasised by the fact that one coin was used, and availed for both the Lord and Peter. He could as easily have made the fish bring up two coins as one, but it would not have conveyed quite the same precious meaning.
JB He links Peter with himself.
JT And as “sons”. “Then are the sons free”. The fact is, John 20 is the opening up of it. It is introduced here in the way of strengthening the witness.
EJW Here it appears to be the external aspect of sonship; it is sons of the King; thus in relation to the kingdom. There is also the inside aspect, where it is distinctively with the Father. A royal family may be viewed in relation to that which is within and that which is without; that is, they would have certain privileges and joys within, in the family circle, with their father, but they would also have their own proper position, dignity and functions as his sons, without, in connection with his kingdom.
TA Would you say a word as to the difference between sons mentioned in the Old Testament and in the New; we get the term in Genesis 6 and also “Out of Egypt have I called my son”, Hosea 11:1.
JT The latter is quoted in Matthew. Israel was called a son. He was Jehovah’s son. “Let my [p. 196] son go that he may serve me”. Exodus 4:23. “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 refer doubtless to angels.
JSG Sons are generally angels in the Old Testament.
TA I thought in Genesis 6 it alluded to some order of saints.
JT Speaking generally, in the Old Testament sons are angels, but Israel is called Jehovah’s son. In the scripture referred to, “Out of Egypt have I called my son”, (Hosea 11:1) I think it is the special place of privilege which Israel had with God as distinct from all others. “Israel is my son, even my first-born”, Exodus 4: 22.
GAT Will you go back again to association with Christ? I can easily see that it means Peter here, but cannot get my mind to grasp that it means me.
JT It may be that there is something that grieves the Spirit of sonship which we have received. The Spirit in us is the Spirit of adoption. The knowledge of being a son now is not merely based on the Scriptures, but on the presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling us.
GAT I think I see that, and it is very beautiful, but I do not feel I am in the full enjoyment of the thing as I ought to be, and in the enjoyment that it is my privilege to realise.
JT It is a great thing first of all to have the light of it. All Christians are sons now whether they are conscious of it or otherwise. They have come to the fulness of time. “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship. But because ye are sons, God hath sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father”, Galatians 4:6. There is the light of it on the one hand, and the consciousness of it by the Spirit on the other hand. There are many who may take up the light of it, but [p. 197] then you want to get the consciousness of it as well, and that lies in the Spirit.
JB Do you think the Lord was bringing Peter into the consciousness of it? You get a double kind of link with Peter; “lest we should offend them ... thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee”. Matthew 17:27.
JT He couples him with Himself three times. Firstly, “Then are the sons free” secondly, “lest we should offend them” and lastly, “me and thee”. “A threefold cord is not quickly broken”. Ecclesiastes 4:12. Peter is representative of all Christians.
RSS Do you not know that you are a son through the consciousness of filial affections, or is that more in regard to children?
JT I think that is how you know. He hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying, Abba, Father. It is the consciousness of our relation to the Father. If we have not the consciousness of filial affections it ought to be a matter of exercise, because if we have not we are not in Christianity.
GWH — N. As a matter of fact Peter was getting the light here, but after that he got the consciousness.
JT He could not get the consciousness here. All these things spoken to the disciples have the coming of the Spirit in view. The Spirit instructed them as to the sayings of Christ. The Spirit makes you conscious of the love of God.
WHF The soul has no consciousness of the love of God till the Spirit comes in.
JT The love of God is not known in the way of light. You can see it in Christ, but He is not known except by the Spirit. The great thing is to give the Spirit room and let Him work in you.
DB Does the Spirit always give [p. 198] the consciousness of the relationship?
JT Yes. Everything lies in the Spirit.
PAES Am I conscious of sonship when I arrive at the source of my origin?
JT I doubt not but what that would take you further. I think the first effect of the Spirit in your heart is to produce filial affections. You answer to the Father. It is the cry of a babe, “Abba, Father”. If you could adopt a child and impart your spirit to him you would make him conscious of sonship. God takes up those who were slaves and gives His Spirit to them, and in His grace He even takes up sinners of the Gentiles, which we were.
EJW That involves also a new state in the Spirit and an entire change of nature. Thus there is moral suitability for the new position, as well as having the consciousness of it.
JSG There is a very important question at the beginning of chapter 18.
JT Yes. I think that chapter contemplates the actual establishment of the kingdom, the presence of the assembly and the administration in the hands of men. So the question is, Who is going to enter into it? This refers historically to what we get in the Acts. It was established there, but who is going to enter into the kingdom, and what is going to mark it? This chapter gives what is to characterise the kingdom of God in its present form.
GAT Do you think the disciples were looking for a place in the kingdom?
JT “In that hour the disciples came to Jesus saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?” Matthew 18:1. It is not difficult to find out who are great in God’s kingdom. This chapter soon tells them. “Jesus having called a little child to him, set it in their midst”. He set a child before them.
JSG One who could do nothing so far as the kingdoms of men are concerned.
EJW In the preceding chapter we were noticing [p. 199] the secret of power in being for Christ here; that is, faith and prayer and fasting. Here we have the way of truly entering the kingdom, and of being truly great in it. One feels that both these things, that is, the way of true power and of true greatness, are very practical and exercising.
JC “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted”. Luke 14:11.
WB Why is conversion brought in here?
JT If a kingdom is established ready for man to enter into, the question arises, How? For the Lord not only answers the question of the disciples, but He points out the mode of entrance. “Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens”, Matthew 18:3.
WB Is that of general application?
JT I think so. An application to all men; for God has instituted the kingdom here for all men. It is open for all, but if God institutes a kingdom He must appoint a mode of entrance, and principles which are to govern there.
WHC Would it give the thought of being turned from one order of man and being formed for another?
JT I think so. It is as though He said, ‘I have opened the door of this kingdom to all who begin as babes. I am going to form all, that my thoughts may prevail’. If you bring in full-grown men, with all the characteristics of men of the world, into God’s kingdom, what would be the effect? God says, ‘I will not have them, If you are to enter you must be converted’.
EHT Does that mean new birth and the Spirit?
JT I think it means that there must be an abandonment of what you have been going on with. You are not going to carry into the kingdom of God what you had in this world.
WHC The disciples needed to be [p. 200] converted.
JT Doubtless, as all men do. The Catholics say, ‘Give us a child for the first few years and we will make him a Catholic for ever’. You can see what God intends. He wants children because His idea is to form us from the outset for His own order of things, so to get on in God’s kingdom you must begin as a child.
PAES That fits in nicely in regard to your thought as to education.
RSS It does not debar a man of fifty. He can be a child.
JB Are conversion and becoming a child the same thing?
JT In the passage, becoming as little children follows conversion. You assume to be nothing. The Lord takes a child and sets him in the midst. That is the model. A child is unpretentious, natural and frank. There is no guile. That is the kind of man God wants. Woe to the man that touches that little child! The passage following is most touching as showing the intense interest in heaven regarding a little child.
JSG Afterwards He begins to give the characteristics of one great in the kingdom of heaven. Such an one does not stumble one of the little ones. There is no sparing of anything in connection with himself.
JT Thus in having to do with the kingdom these instructions impress you in order that you may not become a stumbling-block to those who have been converted by the gospel. It is a serious thing to become an occasion of stumbling. The world causes offences. It is the great means the enemy has of causing the people of God to stumble, and the Lord says, “Woe to it”, and then He says, “if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut it off”, Matthew 18:8.
GFW What is the application of what He says regarding the hand and the [p. 201] eye?
JT I think that refers to natural tendencies: things that would become a snare to you.
JSG He does not spare what is most precious.
RSS Of course, it is not literal, but moral.
JT Quite so, Then in verse 10, “See that ye do not despise one of these little ones; for I say unto you that their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens”. Matthew 18:10. So you must not stumble nor despise them.
DB Would you say it is not taking advantage of their humility?
JT We know the natural man does take advantage of a humble person. In the world you are placed at a disadvantage. In the world a little child is easily imposed upon. You can easily take advantage of him, but the Lord takes care of us according to these verses.
EJW This would appear to have some reference to Christendom. Looking at this warning in its wider bearing, it has a solemn voice for Christendom; for Christendom has despised and oppressed the little ones, and has been a great cause of stumbling to them. It is significant in connection with the Lord’s words here, that when the time for judgment comes for Babylon, the figure used (Revelation 18:21) is that of a great millstone cast into the sea.
JT “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus”, Revelation 17:6.
GFW What is the connection between verse 11 and that which precedes? It is not quite clear to me.
JT I think you see the value of the little ones in that the Lord came and died for them. They were lost, and He died for them, and that is a further incentive to you to care for them, and to treat them well. And then “their angels do always behold the face of my Father”. Matthew 18:10. How infinitely important they are! I suppose their angel now is Christ Himself.
[p. 202] He is there in the presence of God, their representative, and if He is so interested in us we should be interested in one another.
EJW Do you think there is a double meaning; that it refers to the disciples, morally, and also literally to little children — their angel being before God?
JT Doubtless you would recognise little children, but I think it is moral: what the Lord intends among Christians. I am sure you could think of it as referring to little children, but from the way the subject is introduced I think it is a question of the Lord’s people having that character.
JB Does not the Lord set forth how the Father regards them? “My Father which is in heaven”, and then, “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost”. Matthew 18:10,11.
JT Just so. The Father and the Son are both interested in them.
JSG The great in the kingdom would tread in the same path as the Son of man.
EJW I suppose we may rightly desire this greatness, only not in the way of self-occupation, but as that which is God’s pleasure about us.
WHC You mean, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister”, Matthew 20: 27.
JT There is plenty of room for the exercise of that kind of greatness.
GAT Would you say we ought to be noted in the eyes of the world as great men? I was thinking of what we had last night about David. He was noted in the world as being ten times greater in his exploits than Saul, but he was not occupied with his greatness.
JT No. That would be Christ personally, but David’s mighty men were made great through their association with him.
JSG We should be exercised about displaying [p. 203] these marks of the great ones. We are not stumbling a little one; we are not sparing ourselves; and we are able to gain a brother.
JT That is it. It shows what is to be exercised. You will gain your brother. That is the way the greatness comes out in Christianity. You have to surrender all you are as man. Like the Nazarite with long hair, you have to surrender all your manhood according to man’s idea. It is a continual humbling process if we are to get on with one another.
JSG Is it not a solemn thing, if you take God’s people generally, that they are not set to gain? They are not moving on that principle.
JT The principle in the kingdom is that you are set for the good of others, and if you are offended you are thinking of the man who offended you.
JSG You are not occupied with the loss or what you have been defrauded of, but you think of the King and His interests and glory. You are occupied with Him.
WCR In chapter 17 the Lord made provision lest they should be offended. In chapter 18 we must take care lest we offend.
JT It is a moral victory if a brother is able to wear long hair, figuratively speaking; for everything in the world incites to the opposite. In most countries the thought of manhood is so much cherished, but the Christian surrenders his manhood.
WHF I was thinking of how you would reconcile that with, “if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him”, 1 Corinthians 11:14.
JT The apostle in 1 Corinthians is seeking to bring in manhood according to God. He is not to wear long hair before God. That is a shame. It is a shame to be other than a man in the presence of God, but in the presence of men you do not assume manhood according to their thoughts, you surrender.
GAT You get the principle in [p. 204] Samson.
JT Yes. Directly his hair was cut his strength was gone, and so it is with us before men. If you assert your manhood you lose your strength. If a man offends you in business and you assert yourself you have not a bit of power. The Spirit of God is not with you, but if you surrender, God is with you.
JSG If a man offends me, if there is any true greatness about me, I do not resent it.
GAT If a man comes and takes away my goods, am I to let him do it?
JT “From him that would take away thy garment, forbid not thy body-coat also”, Luke 6:29. That is what the Lord says.
WHC I suppose there is nothing more difficult than to submit to unrighteousness.
JT It is a terrible test, but God is with the one who is prepared for it.
JSG This is the hardest. This is your brother. A person says, ‘I would expect it from the world, but I am not going to allow it in my brother’.
JT The brother is the greatest test of all.
JB And this is the kingdom of heaven.
JT And it is particularly the brother that is near to you that tests you. But true greatness in the Christian is seen in that he lays himself out for the recovery of his brother. We are being continually tested in this way.
WHC Is that what Paul means, “I endure all things for the elect’s sake”? 2 Timothy 2:10.
JT Quite so.
JNH What do you mean by the one near to you?
JT Those in the meeting with which you are connected. Those are the persons that test you. The man at the other end of the world is a nice brother.
JSG I suppose the point is that the person is set to gain the brother and does everything conceivable [p. 205] able to bring it about. It is not just going and taking one or two and then telling it to the assembly as the last thing.
JT That brings us to the point of the church in relation to the kingdom. It is now the court. The Christian has done all he can to recover his brother, but if his brother is irrecoverable another mode of procedure has to be entered upon; “tell it to the assembly”. Matthew 18:17. If he does not hear the assembly he is unfit for christian fellowship.
JSG I suppose he would feel rather small if he has to tell it to the assembly, because he has not succeeded in gaining the offender. I have known a person saying, “My brother could not be won”. But that is not my side. My side is I was so small I could not win him.
WHC That is, there was not sufficient good in the one to overcome the evil in the other.
JT However, we must remember that there are cases that are irrecoverable, and in that event you have to tell it to the assembly.
GAT I find if a brother has offended me that I have tried to get him right with me, but I have to get myself right first. If I have not I have always had a failure.
EHT Would you say the one that offended is the one that is wrong?
JT The one that trespasses is the one in the wrong evidently.
RSS Why are verses 12 and 13 introduced?
JT Is it not in the same connection — the Father’s interests?
RSS In regard to the children, He says, “The Son of man is come to save that which is lost”. Matthew 18:11. Then, “if a man have an hundred sheep”, etc. Matthew 18:12.
JT “So it is not the will of your Father who is in the heavens that one of these little ones should perish”. Matthew 18:14. It shows the Father’s interest in us in going after the one sheep.
JNH I should like to know in that connection why it is not to seek and to save. I have heard it was in view of little ones that they would be saved by Christ’s death apart from the seeking, in contrast to a case like Zacchaeus, for in Luke 19:10 we get “to seek and to save”.
JT The point here is, any one of the little ones is of intense interest to the Father. The man would leave the ninety and nine and go after the one.
JSG The instruction is given in connection with a little child. The little children are suitable for the kingdom. While the instruction is in regard to God’s people, a little child is the basis of it.
GFW In what sense did God leave the ninety and nine and go after the one?
JT It is a figure here. “If a man”, etc. I suppose “the ninety and nine” would allude to those who had outwardly remained with God as Israel claimed to have done. The elder brother claimed to have remained with the father, whereas the prodigal had gone astray.
JSG It does not say that God left the ninety and nine. It takes up the figure of an ordinary man. An ordinary man would go after the lost one.
JT The point is not that he leaves the ninety and nine, but that the straying one is before his mind. Therefore the moral is, “it is not the will of your Father who is in the heavens that one of these little ones should perish”. Matthew 18:14. He is interested in one of them.
JSG It seems to me the instruction is this: if we have taken character from Christ, we shall act toward one another according to the way in which He has acted, that is, in going after that which is lost.
JB Is there not also force in the word “moreover” in verse 15? It takes up the care regarding [p. 207] the will of the Father, and the word “moreover” connects it with us.
EHT Is not care one of the great principles of the kingdom?
JT I think the chapter up to verse 14 takes up the intense interest of God and of Christ in regard to the little ones. Then you are put to the test, and what are you going to do? You must take your lesson from the way God has acted towards you, for we have offended God seriously.
JSG There is the same connection at the end of the chapter in regard to forgiving.
JT The general principle is that of forgiveness in relation to one another, and where that is not found we come under the discipline of God. It says, “his lord being angry delivered him to the tormentors till he paid all that was owing to him. Thus also my heavenly Father shall do to you if ye forgive not from your hearts every one his brother”, Matthew 18:34, 35.
GAT It says, “from your hearts”.
JT Yes; not verbal forgiveness, but from your hearts.
GAT I had occasion to hear of two brothers who had a difference. The one who was offended went to the offender and said, I forgive you, but I think the same of you still.
JT He did not forgive him from his heart at all.
JSG One who is great is really set for the good of others, and if sinned against he seeks to gain the offender. When a difficulty arises he is a man who can forgive largely — seventy times seven. That is being morally great: forgiving like God.
JT The fact is this, you never hold anything against your brother. You rather try to remove what is defiling.
JSG This is trespass — positive sin, and [p. 208] it is the word that is translated trespass; it means, I defraud you.
JT The word offence means a fall trap; something you would stumble over. It is not something that merely offends a brother, but you do something that he stumbles over; something that causes him to fall.
GAT You would have a very peculiar opinion of me if I came to you seventy times on the same subject.
JT “Seventy times seven” shows the state of the Christian’s heart. It is disposed to forgiveness. There is nothing else there. It does not retain anything against its brother.
GWH — N. How would you tell the brother his fault according to verse 15? It is rather a delicate matter.
JT Tell him what he has done.
RSS “Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone”. I think you can do it privately. You do not make it public. You can say a great deal to a man personally, provided you have not been talking to others about it before you go to him.
EJW Love will prefer that way; it hides a multitude of sins, instead of making them known.
JT Then there is another thing which it would be well to mention. A man may sin when it is not a question of personal trespass, and also where it is public in connection with the things of God; that man must be rebuked before all, 1 Timothy 5:20. There it is not a question of dealing with it privately; the sin is public, and the rebuke must be made public; so when Peter came to Antioch he sinned, not against Paul, but in connection with the truth, and Paul “withstood him to the face”. Galatians 2:11. He “said to Peter before all”. Galatians 2:14. So that in dealing with a brother for a sin of that kind, you convict his conscience of what he has done before all the saints.