CHRIST'S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (1)
CHRIST’S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (1)
Matthew 1: 17 - 25; Matthew 2: 13 - 15
JT It was thought that we might consider the sonship of Christ as seen in the gospel of Matthew, as found in six settings. The first in chapter 2; the second in chapters 3 and 4; the third in chapter 11; the fourth in chapter 16; the fifth in chapter 17 — the mount of transfiguration; and the sixth in chapter 28. There are other references to sonship in the gospel, but these are the main passages, and I believe the Lord will help us in looking at them as affording a subject which, needless to say, is of immense moment at the present time.
The object in mind is not only that we might get the truth by itself as presented in these passages — that is, the truth abstractly, and perfectly presented in Christ — but that we might see the bearing of it on our own present position, because what may be remarked as to Matthew’s gospel as a whole is that it bears on the assembly, not only as seen at Pentecost, or even as Paul presents it at Corinth and Ephesus, but right through to the present time. It contemplates the whole history or sojourn of the assembly here on earth, and views it as being the vessel of the testimony and the object of incessant opposition; therefore we may look in Matthew’s gospel for provision to meet this opposition with the kind of endurance that is needed for it. With this in view, it may be further remarked that chapter 1 bears on our present position as regards the question of its legality: whether the ground taken today by the saints who are seeking to do the will of God is legal, that is, right according to divine requirements as before [p. 150] God and men; whether the position is tenable from that standpoint. This is the point of view in chapter 1 in regard of the position of Christ, as it is said, “Jesus, who is called Christ” (verse 16). He had acquired that name rightfully — given to Him, of course — but He was called Christ. The genealogy and the whole of the chapter are to establish incontestably the position thus taken up by those who called Him Christ. It was necessary that this should be established, not only as needed to meet current exigencies, but to prove the link with the outset of God’s intervention sovereignly in Abraham. I think the brethren will see the bearing of this as we proceed, for the effort of the enemy is to discredit what God is supporting. External circumstances are so beclouding that the position occupied by those who seek to do the will of God is peculiarly exposed to attacks.
HES Have we here the setting forth of what is available for maintaining what is of God at any moment?
JT Yes, at any given time from the outset, and right through. That is, Matthew has no fear as to meeting the enemy; Luke, being the gospel of grace, has more consideration for opposers. Matthew has no compunction about speaking out and exposing that from which the saints had to separate in his day; but obviously it is important that the position taken in separating should be established as legal, or in other words, as accredited, as supported by Scripture; and not only that, but that there are evidences on the line of generation. So, as most of us know, certain of the kings which had sprung from Jezebel are omitted from the genealogy, this corresponding with the history of the assembly; reproach is attached to these spiritually, as we may say, and hence, Jezebel and all she stands for are in principle eliminated, as having no part in this evidence of the legality of the position, she has no voice in it.
PL Do we get something similar to this [p. 151] in Nehemiah,
where they had to establish purity in relation to the genealogy?
JT That bears on the chapter, so that the position is not only scriptural, but the evidence of the line is present in its moral features, and hence much is made of Joseph. It is said he was “the husband of Mary”, he is called a righteous man, and he is one amenable to divine direction, which is a very important character to bear in the presence of current attacks.
PL Does he suggest a combination of firmness in regard of what is due to God’s throne, and at the same time, of tenderness in regard to Mary, the one mentioned — “unwilling to expose her publicly”?
JT Yes. Matthew’s account makes the birth of the Lord much more vulnerable to attack than Luke’s, and Joseph’s attitude is suggestive of what is needed. He was characteristically a righteous man, a tender, feeling man, a sacrificing man — all necessary features, so that the position should be secured and the enemy have no advantage. Righteousness, therefore, and feeling are of great importance at the present time in view of the efforts to discredit what is well known to be supported of God.
HH Would you make anything of the dreams? Joseph was encouraged by them to pursue the right course.
JT We shall see later in our inquiry the part revelation has in the present position when we come to chapter 16. It is not only that our position is to be legal, that is, as set out plainly in Scripture, but there are immediate communications from God. Such are given to those who are in the position of Joseph, those marked off as doing the will of God and following righteousness. The dreams here are of that character; God coming in to fortify us against giving way to darkness in our minds. We shall find the principle throughout Scripture, that God anticipates the danger that may arise in the conflict owing to ignorance, or [p. 152] darkness, or weakness, it may be. As in the case of Ananias in Damascus, the Lord anticipated that he could not meet the situation, and so He came to him and instructed him, so that he could meet the requirements of the moment. If we are righteous, the Lord will not leave us in the dark about anything. Joseph was a righteous man, that is the point, and he had no preconceived thoughts; he was amenable to divine adjustment.
RGH As a righteous man he was careful not to jeopardise the testimony in any way; he “pondered on these things”.
JT Quite so. He was a righteous man, and that is what is needed. Righteous men are ready for adjustment, they have no preconceived thoughts, so that Joseph here was amenable to adjustment.
Ques Is that why it emphasises the thought of righteousness as the first principle we have to follow in 2 Timothy 2: 22?
JT Yes, righteousness is the first principle involved. This is a matter of the greatest practical importance today because of what has occurred in many parts among the brethren in the way of inability to meet obligations. Then there is righteousness in other ways as to whether we have wills, motives or fleshly aspirations in the things of God; these all interfere, so that Joseph is an excellent example for us to begin with — a righteous man amenable to adjustment.
MWB In what way would you distinguish between the righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth referred to in Luke, and that referred to here?
JT I do not think the righteousness of Zacharias equals that of Joseph. Whilst Zacharias was a righteous man, he was not a believing man; he had prayed for things, but did not expect answers; and when the answers were proposed, he was unbelieving. There is nothing of that kind with Joseph.
MWB Then have you in mind the external side [p. 153] in connection with the defence of the testimony? Why do you emphasise the legal side?
JT It is legal in that the Jewish law confirmed what Jesus was called. He was “called Christ”; He was the Anointed; so that the genealogy was according to the law governing these matters, in accrediting the thing to Him as the Christ. I do not use the word ‘legal’ in any common or religious sense, but rather as what is scripturally required.
EuR How does that bear on the thought of sonship in Romans 1? It says, “his Son (come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God ... )”. How do they link together?
JT Well, sonship is a matter of power: “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”. We get it in Matthew 2, not as a matter of power, but as carrying forward the Old Testament thought: “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. That is to say, Matthew builds us up in the truth of sonship, as I may say, informally, which is the most effective way; the thing is brought in as I am ready for it. So also as regards the deity of the Lord, which His sonship implies. You have it introduced here in an informal yet emphatic way: “he shall save his people from their sins”. A spiritually exercised person will say the “he” and the “his” refer to Jehovah, to none other. Then again, “they shall call his name Emmanuel”, and we have the interpretation, “God with us”. All this becomes an element in the soul, according to Matthew’s way of presenting the truth, and this will abide.
Ques Is this condition of righteousness with Joseph a moral necessity on our part as making us ready for this further light?
JT That is what I thought. God did not take up merely any man; He took up a man who was betrothed to a woman, the man being righteous. That was not accidental; it was important in view of the legality of [p. 154] the position, that he was truly the son of David and bearing the character of David. So we have much more about Joseph here than elsewhere; he is called the “son of David”.
HD'AC It does not say that Emmanuel means ‘God with him’, but “God with us”, which would surely involve that He is God.
JT “God with us” is a great fundamental element in the soul, brought in informally, as one might say. As we read Matthew in a spiritual way we are prepared for all that may be said informally about the deity of Christ in such statements as this. God was truly with Him, as Peter says (Acts 10: 38), but His presence here is “God with us”, and that runs right through the gospel: “behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. He is no less than God.
SJBC Jesus is the Greek name for Joshua, which means Jehovah the Saviour; He is a divine Person.
JT The original word Joshua is somewhat enlarged upon by Moses in Numbers 13: 16, to bring out this point. It is “Jehovah [is] Saviour”: that could never be said of Joshua himself. So here, only God Himself could be in mind where the “he” and the “his” are brought in in this way.
SJBC That would emphasise His essential deity.
[p. 157] HFN Would you say a word in regard to the contrast between the way in which John presents the Lord’s sonship and the way it is presented in Matthew?
JT As has often been remarked. John gives us the history of His Person, not informally as in Matthew, but abstractly, in view, no doubt, of meeting later conditions. I apprehend Matthew wrote for earlier conditions, with a view to the extrication of the saints from judaism; but the Spirit of God in John had the early part of the second century more in mind, the early introduction of Greek and Jewish philosophy, and the introduction of false thoughts about Christ almost immediately after apostolic times. That was anticipated in John’s gospel, and so, of course, it is the great foundation gospel as regards the Person of the Lord. Matthew builds up his gospel more from the Old Testament — John does not do that — so that the first formal reference to sonship in Matthew is from the Old Testament: “Out of Egypt have I called my son”.
HMS Why is it that the divinely given title Emmanuel in this chapter is not again used in Scripture? We might have thought the very quotation from Isaiah would have greatly supported the truth of sonship.
JT I suppose the Spirit of God considered that the quotation was so well known, and brought in here so definitely, that it would stand throughout. The title Emmanuel has a peculiar place in the minds of the saints, and its interpretation, “God with us”, has a searching effect, too; Corinthians works out the thought that “God is indeed amongst you”, 1 Corinthians 14: 25. It is a question of whether God is indeed with us, and I believe Matthew has in mind to work out in our souls what that means. So the position is not only accredited by Scripture, but accredited, that is, proved to be legal by the presence of “God with us”. What can overthrow that?
PL “Behold, I am with you all the days”.
JT That is really Emmanuel. Every day in the history of the testimony God is with us in Christ.
MWB In verse 23 it says, “they shall call his name Emmanuel”. It does not say, ‘thou shalt call his name Emmanuel’. Does it imply that they would reach that in their experience as realising His support?
JT It is a known thing; He is called Emmanuel because it is known; they do it. It is general, you might say, and left open in that way.
WC Does the passage in Isaiah 8 bear upon it? “Rage, ye peoples ... ! And give ear, all ye distant parts of the earth: Gird yourselves, and be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and be broken in pieces! Settle [p. 156] a plan, and it shall come to nought; speak a word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us” (verses 9, 10).
JT “God is with us” — there is Emmanuel, and if God be with us, who can overcome us? Opposers are only dashing themselves against a wall if God be with His people.
EJMcB Is there not a great deal in the fact that it says, “being interpreted, God with us”? Does not the thing need to be brought as light into the soul?
JT That is good. The first “being interpreted” is literal, but you have in mind that the Spirit of God makes things consciously known amongst us. It is very largely a question of ministry, but certainly the word Emmanuel may be taken up in a very wide sense. The point is that God is indeed with His people, and where the spirit of prophecy is in action, a man falls down and owns it. So that Gamaliel said, “if it be from God, ye will not be able to put them down” (Acts 5: 39), nor can they. The point therefore is to prove that God is with us.
AM Is that borne out in Genesis 21 in regard to Abraham, when Abimelech and Phichol had to say that God was with him?
JT That is right, and so too with Isaac (Genesis 26). Abimelech brought his captain with him to see Isaac and made a show of his power, as people do, but they had to bow to the fact that God was with Isaac; it was that very fact that ensured peace.
HFN Is one great evidence that God is with us seen in the presence of prophetic ministry on the line of 1 Corinthians 14?
JT Well, that is how it is stated, that if prophecy is proceeding and a man comes into the Christian company, he falls down and says, “God is indeed amongst you”. It is not mere profession; the presence of God in the assembly is brought to bear on the man’s conscience by the ministry alluded to.
HFN Would you say a word in regard of that kind of meeting, as bearing upon God being with us?
JT Well, it has often been remarked that 1 Corinthians 11 contemplates the saints together “in assembly” — not in the assembly, but “in assembly”. It refers to our attitude as together, without stating that all are there, although this also is alluded to in the chapter; but the first reference to our being together is “in assembly” (verse 18), and the truth connected with that position is the Lord’s supper, which also opens up the service of God. In chapter 14, it is not the saints come together “in assembly”, but “the whole assembly come together in one place”, however many. That is for ministry, so that the meeting is not properly an assembly meeting; it is rather all the assembly, those who are recognised as of it, and the truth of the temple would be known there. But it is for ministry clearly.
PL Is such a meeting part of the normal furnishing of any local company?
JT It seems to be. The epistle to the Corinthians is addressed to “all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”, and is instruction for every local company. “Thus I ordain in all the assemblies”, 1 Corinthians 7: 17.
MWB Would you say just a word or two more about 1 Corinthians 14 not being an assembly meeting? Does not verse 19 of that chapter almost imply an assembly meeting: “but in the assembly I desire to speak five words with my understanding ...”?
JT That is a very general statement. He is speaking of how a person should participate in the assembly, and as there, whether it is in the Spirit that he sings or ministers or prays. “In assembly”, in that connection would be very largely a question of the temple — but as regards praying and singing, of course it would be general — what may be done according to chapter 11; but the passage that I am alluding to as having ministry particularly in view, is verse 23: “If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place ...”
EuR In verse 35 he uses the expression “in assembly” again.
JT Yes, as to women. That would be a question of order; it does not touch what has been remarked as to chapter 11 where the saints come together “in assembly”. In chapter 14 it is simply the character of the thing, that you are together with the saints.
EuR How do you distinguish between that and chapter 11?
JT I think the context helps. In chapter 11 the apostle immediately alludes to the Lord’s Supper as introductory.
HH The scripture says, “If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place”. Would that mean that we should only have that one meeting at that time?
JT I think we ought to recognise the word “if”. It is not a direct word that all the saints should come together, but if they do it. It seems however that the kind of meeting contemplated includes all the saints in any given city. The great thing is prophecy. So that consciences should be reached, and all that follows has that in mind.
EuR Is it your thought that 1 Corinthians 11 is the assembly meeting, and that would give tone and character to the meeting of chapter 14?
JT Properly speaking, the assembly is a weekly matter.
EuR So the first day of the week bears on each occasion, even the prayer meeting.
JT I think so. We may come together in assembly for the execution of discipline. In Matthew the assembly is identified with the testimony as taking the place of Israel. We have also to bear in mind what it is God-ward as the vessel [p. 159] of praise.
EuR In chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians it takes on temple character.
JT Exactly. We never lose sight of the assembly, but chapter 11 is the great thought belonging to the first day of the week.
HMS Referring to Emmanuel, it is said, “they shall call his name Emmanuel”, and it was said to Joseph, “thou shalt call his name Jesus”, but in the chapter in Isaiah it seems to be the virgin herself who should call His name Immanuel (chapter 7: 14). Does that bear in any way on the point of sonship?
JT It does. The passage read earlier — Isaiah 8: 9, 10 — shows that the thing had extended. It would imply that the remnant would take it on, that the Jewish remnant learn to say “God is with us”, and will say it, by and by. Well, we ought to learn to say it, and with meaning, that God is indeed with us; the brethren in different meetings ought to learn to say that God is with them, that is, as knowing and realising it. For in Isaiah 8 it is to meet the Assyrian — the name is a challenge to that nation.
EuR Is it not very important to regard the saints in any locality as being His people? I was thinking of what the Lord said to Paul, “I have much people in this city” (Acts 8: 10); they belonged to Him.
JT Quite so. We shall see when we come to chapter 18 of this gospel that “where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them” (verse 20). That is the same thought — God is there.
FSM Referring to verse 24: “But Joseph, having awoke up from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had enjoined him”. Coupled with righteousness, would there not be implicit and ready obedience in view of apprehending the Lord’s Person — is not that involved in it?
JT Exactly. He is entirely governed by what is told him, which points to a man entirely under self-control,
[p. 160] which is a fruit of the Spirit. “He called his name Jesus”, notice; that is the last word in the chapter.
Ques What would be the evidence that God is with us, for there are other companies who claim that God is with them?
JT That is a very important question, and has really been anticipated to some extent. The spirit of prophecy amongst us, ministry in the power of the Spirit of God is one evidence. If people claim to have God with them, there surely should be some evidence in that connection, something in the way of spiritual ministry. There are other evidences, of course. We cannot say very much in a practical way, but I think there is ground for assuming that there is evidence of the presence of God in the midst of His people who are seeking to walk in the truth at the present time.
Ques Does that maintain the people of God in a spirit of humility, so that He should continue to be with them? It says that He inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57: 15), but He dwells with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit. I was thinking of Joseph as having no fleshly aspirations, content to be connected with the work of God, small or great, wherever it was.
JT And the work of God which was very exposed to public criticism. The statement is: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: His mother, Mary, that is, having been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit”. What God was doing was exposed to the enemy’s attack peculiarly, and it is a great matter that there are those who will come forward, whom God can use in such circumstances, to protect the position. What God is doing is under reproach, but a man like Joseph is of immense value for the moment to protect that position.
JJ Would the principle of reproach be seen in the four gentile women in the genealogy?
JT Quite so. It says, “Joseph ... being a righteous [p. 161] man, and unwilling to expose her publicly, purposed to have put her away secretly; but while he pondered on these things ...” He was not a wilful man, he was a thoughtful man, and God came in for him, and for the testimony.
HES As the assembly is in view, I would like to ask why there are these frequent quotations from the prophets in Matthew.
JT The thought is to build up the truth from the Old Testament in Matthew, so that it is one whole. Beginning with Abraham, we are in the presence of the sovereign selection of God, as seen also in the careful selection of the genealogy, in which is omitted the corrupting element which came in through Jezebel, so that the legal position is incontestably established, and then in the actual qualities found in Joseph, the Son of David, we have practical proof that the line is there.
The next thing is, “Jesus having been born in Bethlehem” (chapter 2: 1). We have now the historical position, one also accredited, for the enemies themselves have to admit by their information that that is where the Messiah should be born. The historical position is now in view, because the passage should read, “Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judaea”, and the presence of the wise men leads to an enquiry which shows that Scripture calls for the birth of the Messiah, naming the place where Jesus was to be born. The historical position is thus accredited, but then the next thing is, what heaven is doing. The angel had communicated to Joseph in a vision, but now heaven is moving. Chapter 2 brings in heaven, that is the star, and the persons who saw it are moved by seeing it; they are persons of feeling. It has been enquired, what are the evidences of the presence of God? Well, these are the evidences, men coming from afar, enquiring for the Child born, and calling Him “king of the Jews”. Who told them that He was “king of the Jews”? Heaven is acting now, and this leads us to the passage in Hosea: “out of Egypt I called my son”. I think the brethren will see that the testimony of the magi from the East has some corresponding feature now in persons who are guided by what is heavenly. We have the Scriptures in chapter 1, and the character of Joseph, all bearing on the name Emmanuel, the presence of God amongst His people, and now we have the heavenly testimony aside from the Scriptures.
AMP Why is the expression “little child” used seven times here?
JT I think it is to bring out the weakness of the outward position. He is not called a babe; a little child is a development on a babe, I am speaking now of the bearing of the truth on our own position. Things are small, but it is a “little child”. The little Child is always put before the mother, showing that the spiritual element is now obtaining. The wise men, it says, having come into the house, “saw the little child with Mary his mother”. Being a divine Person, He has of course a place before His mother. Then we have the direction to depart into their own country another way. That is, the spiritual matter is now in evidence; these men represent the spiritual side. There is increase in that way. Not only are the legal and historical positions established, but men are moving now spiritually in relation to all this. The wise men see the little Child in the house with His mother and they depart “another way”, which is a sure way of escaping from what is at Jerusalem, that is, the established religious system at Jerusalem. All this makes way for the introduction of Hosea 11: 1: “out of Egypt I called my son”.
Ques Would you say that wise men find on earth what is in perfect correspondence with the light in heaven, untainted by the flesh or the theology of man? It was a small light in heaven, and there was perfect correspondence in smallness on earth, untouched by man.
[p. 163] JT That involves volumes as to the present position: as regards the testimony, where is He at this moment? Here He is with His mother in the house; and the spiritual instincts marking these men lead them to worship Him, small Child though He was; they then departed to their own country another way.
PL Does it suggest the activity of heaven with exercised souls, whereby they can locate what is of God in a locality? It is the fruit of a journey of exercise under the guidance of heaven.
JT That is the thing. God is working in accord with the dispensation; the dispensation involving the voice and guidance of heaven which are peculiar to it, bringing out the thought of the kingdom of the heavens; then the work of God in these men involving instinct, seen in the way they move in departing another way, corresponding, we may say, to what marked Rahab, the particular element that was in her. She sent the spies out another way — not the ordinary way.
Ques What are we to learn from that — another way?
JT It is not on the common level, not the current religious way. Many christians are governed by the ordinary way; they have not departed from judaism in principle; whereas heaven’s way is another way. It is the spiritual side that is stressed in these men.
Rem If you are divinely instructed you do not follow the beaten track of theology.
JT It is not an independent way, but the heavenly way — another way in the sense of not being current.
PL “The proud beasts have not trodden it, nor the fierce lion passed over it”, Job 28: 8.
JT Herod did not see where they went.
EuR In referring to the mother in the house, have you in mind that there is a suggestion of the assembly, as to where these features are centred?
JT There is just a suggestion of it; the little Child is with His mother. It is what was normal for the [p. 164] moment, and under these circumstances we have Hosea quoted. It says, “Now, they having departed ...” The wise men are in evidence as to what they do; they represent the spiritual feature: and then it says, “behold, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph, saying, Arise, take to thee the little child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be there until I shall tell thee; for Herod will seek the little child to destroy it”. We see here that Joseph comes in still in the service. He gets no such distinction anywhere else; it is only in Matthew. It is the responsible side amongst us. He is owned of God as righteous, and can now be trusted with the little Child to go into Egypt, showing what must have developed in this man, a carpenter, as he was, that he should be taken on for an extensive service; to go into Egypt with the little Child and His mother. What a charge he had! There is in that the suggestion of God taking up unlikely persons, persons of no religious status at all, and entrusting them with the greatest things. For what could be greater than this charge — the little Child and His mother to be carried into Egypt?
PL Would there be spiritual instinct with him in that he went by night?
JT “Having arisen, he took to him the little child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt”. Notice the “to thee” of verse 13; and “he took to him” (verse 14), meaning personal interest in the great charge. Applying it to ourselves, see what a charge we have, what there is to be looked after in the way of the testimony! “He took to him the little child and his mother”. It was not a burden taken by anyone, but by one genuinely affected and interested, having relations with God, and valuing what he had.
Ques Would that emphasise the importance of righteousness?
JT What is said about Joseph sets forth the great recognition by God of righteousness in any of us.
[p. 165] HES Are we brought to care for the spiritual features that we have appreciated in the little Child?
JT God has brought the sonship of Christ before us and helped us as to it. Well now, the question is, What am I doing with it? “Take to thee”. I have to take the thing to myself. The truth of the Person of Christ is a wonderful thing — “Take to thee the little child and his mother”. He was going to an unknown territory, as far as he was concerned; it was a long way off literally; the journey was extended and exposed. What exercises are required when we consider what God has graciously given to us! Have I taken the thing to myself? And am I carrying it as Joseph did?
EJMcB It is rather remarkable that Hosea, referring to this, says that when Israel was a child Jehovah loved him (chapter 11: 1), indicating how precious he was to Jehovah’s heart.
JT Was ever a child loved more than this “little child”? “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. Called out of Egypt, He was a Son. What He was as a Child under God’s eye, who can say? What an incentive to draw out divine affections!
JTS I suppose there would be no careless exposure in this journey. He took the Child by night.
JT That is very good. In dealing with holy things we are apt to expose them. We are enjoined to “Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before the swine”, Matthew 7: 6. The things are to be kept secret and cherished.