CHRIST'S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (3)
CHRIST’S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (3)
JT We were remarking as to the first onslaught of the tempter, that his effort was to sever the idea of the Lord’s sonship from His manhood, whereas the Lord immediately says “Man”, meaning that His sonship involved His manhood. Although Son, He was in the position of man — the very relationship involved that. I believe the Lord meant that; so the first thought of the tempter was to take Him out of the position of dependence as man, in regard to His circumstances, His food. Then it will be observed that the second temptation in Matthew is religious. There is a transposition in Luke; the religious comes third, but in Matthew it is second.
ASL Why is the order different in Matthew and Luke?
JT Matthew is intended for Jewish christians primarily, and the political side would not be first with them; the temple would have the chief place with them. Luke would bear more on the gentiles, and the political aspect would be more prominent with them. That is what I understand. Matthew bears on Jerusalem; Luke bears on humanity, the nations. So here in Matthew we have the temple first: “the devil takes him to the holy city, and sets him upon the edge of the temple, and says to him, If thou be Son of God cast thyself down”.
PTF Why does the Lord submit Himself to the devil?
JT He is carried into the wilderness by the Spirit for that purpose, hence He allows Satan to do this. It brings out His subjection in a striking way. He must have recoiled from it; it must have been a dreadful thing for Him; but it was a matter, speaking reverently,
of the Spirit; He “was carried up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted of the devil”. He would not go up of Himself, nor should any of us put ourselves in the way of evil, save as God directs us and puts us in that way for the testimony.
AJG What is the special challenge to sonship in this second temptation?
JT The enemy seems to accept that it involved manhood — he is forced to accept it — because he says, “If thou be Son of God cast thyself down; for it is written, He shall give charge to his angels concerning thee, and on their hands shall they bear thee”. He admits in these second remarks, pernicious though they were, that sonship involves manhood and dependence upon God.
ASL Why would you say sonship refers only to manhood?
JT Much has been said to make this clear, and without enlarging on it here, I think the Lord means this in using the word “Man” in His first answer to the devil. It implies that sonship is in manhood; it involves His human estate, and Satan is forced to concede this in the second temptation.
Ques Is that because manhood involves dependence?
JT Exactly; Satan admits that as Son the Lord is dependent, quoting (or, rather, misquoting) the psalm, that God would give His angels charge concerning Him. If His sonship were in deity absolutely, there would be no need of angels looking after Him. Satan is forced to admit that sonship involves manhood, but then, he would tempt the Lord to do something that was unnecessary. Why should He cast Himself down to prove that God would take care of Him?
SJBC Is there any difference between the Son and the Son of God? “No one knows the Son but the Father”. The devil speaks to the Lord as Son of God.
JT There is a difference. The term “Son” is more defined as to His Person, as marking Him off [p. 186] thus from the saints, but the appellation “Son of God” makes room for others. The Son is thus more defined as to His Person, but still it is the Person in manhood.
HES Is the title Son of God more characteristic, and the Son more personal?
JT That is right. Son of God brings out the order of Man as marking Him. The Son is more distinctive as to His Person.
EuR As to chapter 4, is it your thought that the Lord Jesus here is a pattern in relation to the three problems that we are faced with in wilderness conditions, in relation to the testimony?
JT Yes. The first deals with ordinary circumstances; the second having a religious setting in Matthew, and is a very fruitful field for the devil to suggest that we should aspire to prominence in the service; and then the third is political, and although it might be assumed that this can hardly apply to christians, it does so; we are far more national than we like to admit. “The devil takes him to a very high mountain, and shews him all the kingdoms of the world ... and says to him, All these things will I give thee if, falling down, thou wilt do me homage”.
DLH Did all these things take place in the wilderness? It would appear that the Lord left the wilderness actually to go to Jerusalem.
JT It would appear so. It is difficult just to understand how all this happened; we can hardly compass it. We must accept that Satan took Him in some sense to the pinnacle of the temple physically, and that he took Him to a high mountain physically. As to how it happened actually we have to leave and accept Scripture; but, as you say, He necessarily left the wilderness, to reach the pinnacle of the temple. The idea of being in the wilderness, is that He is outside of all human support. It is a question of a single-handed matter between Himself and the devil; there is no one else [p. 187] in view.
DLH Then would it be permissible to think that the Lord was taken to the pinnacle of the temple in mind, or was it in actuality?
JT I should like to accept the word as it is. “The devil takes him”, it says. It would be rather dangerous to say it was merely in mind. The Spirit of God presents things to affect our minds without making everything known to us; He is not obliged to. We have to accept in our minds the plain statement, “the devil takes him to the holy city, and sets him upon the edge of the temple”, and again, “the devil takes him to a very high mountain, and shews him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory”. The Spirit of God intends that that should impress our minds.
DLH The terms of the scripture would assume that the Lord did actually go to Jerusalem, and also to the high mountain.
JT And it brings out the holy submission of our Lord in that the Holy Spirit carried Him up into the wilderness to be tempted, and that He allowed Himself to be taken by the tempter. The ordeal must have been dreadful to Him, but obedience enabled Him to go through it. The lesson for us is that we are not to put ourselves in the way of evil, or attempt even to meet it, aside from divine direction or from the needs of the testimony. It is just what the will of God requires. The Spirit carried Him up into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. It is to bring out the perfection of His obedience.
Ques Does the expression, “the Lord thy God”, involve manhood?
JT Certainly. You cannot conceive of one divine Person viewed abstractly in the Deity calling another His God. It refers to manhood, and the Lord takes Deuteronomic ground in these temptations, meaning that He did not need to go through the wilderness to learn, as we do. In the position of obedience He took Deuteronomic ground.
[p. 188] SJBC Would the forty days in the wilderness answer to the forty years of Israel’s temptation?
JT No doubt; it was Deuteronomic ground.
Ques Is there any significance in the use of the word “up” in chapter 4: 1? It is the only instance where it is used of the wilderness.
JT It was physically so. The Jordan is very low. But there may be a significance in it, that He went up from the place of death.
ASL Does it not very much enhance the account of the temptations that it was when the forty days’ temptations were over that these three last supreme tests came in, for it says in Luke, “Jesus ... was led by the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, tempted of the devil; and in those days he did not eat anything, and when they were finished he hungered”? There was the reality of His manhood and the need of sustenance, and it was at that juncture particularly that Satan came in with these temptations.
JT Quite so. Here it says, “having fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he hungered. And the tempter coming up to him said ...” As we noted yesterday, it shows the boldness of his effort.
HMS With regard to verse 10, reference was made to Exodus 4, where it is said, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”. Are we to regard the Lord Jesus as claiming the place of Son that He might serve God?
ASL The word here is “worship”.
JT It is the idea of serving God, that we might serve Him in the sanctuary. I understand it is the full thought involving worship, so that the Lord, as you say, would have in mind the divine thought in taking Israel out of Egypt, that they might serve Him in the wilderness. It is now fully seen in Christ. In the presence of the severest temptation He retains this ground, that if any one is to be worshipped it must be God: “Thou shalt do homage to the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve”. So that the victory is complete, and “the devil leaves him”, it says; and then “angels came and ministered to him”. That is, He has no angelic support until the victory is complete.
Ques How do you distinguish between worship and doing homage?
JT There is not much difference. The word which is translated “homage” is also used for worship in the highest sense in John 4. We have to learn what it means in its context. The idea of the original word “worship” in John 4 is a moving forward or towards each other, the idea of prostration before another, but as full of regard and affection for the person.
ASL The word “serve” is lower and more general, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”; it came out afterwards in the wilderness.
JT The order of the service was opened up at Sinai, what God had in mind. It was reduced to the house of Aaron, but Israel was represented there.
SJBC Your remark about worship and understanding what is meant is very good, that we have to look at the context always, for it is a word having a broad meaning.
JT It is a very important thing in regard of that word particularly; we cannot always attach exactly the same meaning to it. There is a fulness in John 4 which is not always elsewhere.
But our subject requires that we hasten on to chapter 11, and what may be further remarked as to the introduction of it in this section — chapters 3 and 4 — is that the Lord is Son. We have to bear in mind that the introduction of sonship in each section bears on the chapters that follow, until we reach the next reference; that is, this section bears on the following chapters until we come to chapter 11. So, as Satan left the Lord, we are told, “having heard that John was delivered up, he departed into Galilee, and having left Nazareth; he went and dwelt at Capernaum”, and then it says, quoting Isaiah, “Land of Zabulon and land of Nepthalim,
[p. 190] way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations — the people sitting in darkness has seen a great light, and to those sitting in the country and shadow of death, to them has light sprung up”. We may notice here that light is springing up, a great testimony to the Person, that the light was in Him, as it were, originating there. It sprang up, not shone down, but sprang up. Then we have the idea of His teaching and followers, for the Lord is now acquiring His normal place. Satan is left behind vanquished, and the Lord respects the ministry that preceded Him; He waited till He heard that John was cast into prison — beautiful dependence and regard for levitical principles in the service. Although Son, and having all rights, yet He abides by levitical principles. Then another thing, He leaves one place to go to another, the move involving real physical hardship, for it was to Capernaum, which was very much below the level of the sea. But the Lord disregards all that, leaving one place for another, because the testimony required it. The Sea of Galilee, on which Capernaum was, was to be the centre of the testimony, a despised place, but although Son He accepts it, and moves there evidently carrying out the will of God; indeed light springs up, showing how completely superior He is to the circumstances. Then He has followers in Peter and Andrew, and James and John, and then we have the great general result of His testimony, which Matthew hastens to give us.
JJT Is it the light of sonship in a Man that springs up?
JT It is more than the light of sonship; there is the idea of life. We have to bear in mind, “In him was life”; that is really the secret of the light springing up. “The life was the light of men”; what was there was unhindered by circumstances, it sprang up.
MWB If it is not diverting you, why is the reference to the nations brought in so early in this book, “Galilee of the nations”?
JT It is with a view to what is in mind in Matthew,
[p. 191] that God had the assembly before Him. You have the same thought in chapter 16, where at Caesarea-Philippi He brings out the thought of the assembly. Matthew has in mind to appeal to the Jewish christians, corresponding with the appeal to christians in human organisations today, but he warns us by these early references to the nations that God is not confined to them: He goes beyond them, I think that is the idea.
EuR Not only is Satan vanquished, but every condition he has introduced into the world is met in chapter 4.
JT The great effort of Satan’s attack is met in all its phases. It is a wonderful epitome of the Lord’s work, as we read: “Jesus went round the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every bodily weakness among the people. And his fame went out into the whole of Syria, and they brought to him all that were ill, suffering under various diseases and pains, and those possessed by demons, and lunatics, and paralytics; and he healed them” (chapter 4: 23, 24). It is a wonderful epitome of the works of Christ, who “went about doing good ... for God was with him”. It includes lunacy; Matthew is the only one who mentions lunacy, the most difficult of all diseases, but it fled before the Lord.
HFN Would you say a word with regard to the order? It says. He “went round the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every bodily weakness”. We have the teaching and then the preaching and then the healing: why is it in that order?
JT I do not know. Your thought may be that the healing should come first as a testimony?
HFN Normally speaking, we begin with the preaching, but here in the Lord’s service we have the thought of teaching first, and then the preaching, and [p. 192] finally healing. May it be because of its reference to the professed people of God?
JT I was going to remark that it has to do with the acknowledged profession that God owned as judaism, and as christianity now, and when apostasy and defection have set in, the great need is teaching. I believe that is the need today.
MWB The order in the end of chapter 9 is almost similar to this (verses 35, 36).
JT Yes, but more contracted.
EuR Does it suggest that, before we can consider the Person of the Son, we need to prove the Lord’s ministry on our side, so to speak, in this healing way?
JT Quite so. The order of His service is remarkable. Attention is called to the end of chapter 9, which is a very similar passage, but not so extensive. We have the great general result in chapter 4 which is fitting. A great Personage having come in, you have His triumph over the greatest enemy, and then what He is Himself in living power here, that is, life was in Him. “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”, John 1: 4. He is unhampered by the circumstances at Capernaum; a light has sprung up, that is, the whole scene is illuminated, and then He preaches and calls followers, and then there is the great general result of His service, the result to sufferers, as such. He overcomes all the ills that sin has brought in, and breaks the enemy’s power.
JTS Is that the reason why it is said that His fame went out — in this connection?
JT It went out towards the Gentile world. Whilst it is primarily to Israel, it cannot be hid; it goes beyond Israel’s bounds: “his fame went out into the whole of Syria”.
DLH Is it not to be noticed that the Lord teaches in the synagogues, but He preaches more publicly? The teaching would seem to refer to those who were already in ostensible relationship with God.
JT That is true, and applies today. What our [p. 193] brethren in those places of organised religion need is teaching. In this chapter, the preaching follows, not the teaching, but the light, “From that time began Jesus to preach and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh”. That is, He is announcing a new system, but consequent upon the light that had sprung up.
ASL Is not this a wonderful epitome of the truth of the kingdom, at the end of chapter 4?
JT It is. The Lord says later, “if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you”, Matthew 12: 28.
HFN Had you a spiritual thought in mind when you emphasised lunacy?
JT Only that it is the most difficult of all diseases to deal with; indeed, it is beyond human ability.
PL Would it bear on the thought of Matthew being the assembly gospel, that such persons would be secured in intelligence for the assembly?
JT There is a means of dealing with all these matters. The saints are never at a loss, although we may have to contend with things that are beyond us. If we turn to the wall like Hezekiah, God will come in for us, that is, nothing is impossible; even lunacy, as it affects the testimony, can be met.
ASL Would you say that the great characteristic of the kingdom of God is the finger of God? “But if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you”, Luke 11: 20.
JT The finger means that God deals with things in detail with the utmost care. Then the Spirit of God is the power, showing that the Lord, although divine Himself as here in manhood, operated by the Spirit, and that same power is available to us, showing that He brings us into the power that He used.
JJ Would you say a word as to chapters 5, 6, and 7?
JT I was just going to remark that they bring out the full result which is in view. The Lord goes up into [p. 194] the mountain, that is, He is not going to inaugurate a system of things on man’s level. It is a wonderful testimony. God and men together, but it is not to be organised on the low level of man. The Lord has in mind to open up a new order of things, one of His own, in which He dominates; He goes up into a mountain. Matthew reminds us from the outset that the new order of things involves energy and exercise, and so you find mountains, as we have often remarked. I think there are seven in number in this book. We cannot go into them now, but it is well to remember there are these mountains, with a certain teaching attaching to each one. We have already alluded to the “high mountain” to which Satan brought the Lord, but this one in chapter 5 is the mount of legislation. The Lord legislated for the new order of things, and if we are to have part in it we must go up there. In Luke He stood on the plain, but in Matthew it is a question of power to go up.
AJG Is that because the assembly is in view?
JT It is to prepare the way for faith, for the new order of things that Christ is to dominate. So, after He comes down from the mount in chapter 8, the crowds are still there, and there is a leper, and the Lord heals him by touching him. He is dealing now with sin directly — dealing with a state of sin — and He sends the man to show himself to the priest. It is what the person of the believer is in the testimony. That is what comes out, because chapters 8 and 9 are simply dealing with isolated and specific cases. We have the great epitome in chapter 4. The first specific case is a leper, and he is to show himself to the priest. If the believer is to be on this ground, the principle is that he is to show himself for testimony to them, whether they accept it or not.
MWB Is there a moral breaking of the yoke referred to in Isaiah 9, immediately after the introduction of Christ, breaking the yoke from off the shoulders of [p. 195] these believers? The passage in Isaiah 9 refers to the light springing up, to which we have alluded, and then goes on, “For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian ... For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given” (verses 4 - 6). I wondered whether these two chapters would supply that morally.
JT Very good, “A child is born ... a son is given”; it meets the whole position. These specific cases in chapters 8 and 9 cannot be dwelt on severally, but they come into the section with chapters 3 and 4. The healing of the leper is first, and he is to show himself, meaning that the believer is brought now to have part in the testimony, not by gift or ministry, but by what he is himself.
ASL That would be the testimony collectively — hosts of cleansed lepers showing themselves.
JT Exactly.
EuR So, in answer to John’s question in chapter 11, the Lord could say, “Go, report to John what ye hear and see”. He calls attention to these healed cases that were present as evidence of His works of power.
JT The lists of His works in this gospel are very remarkable: the first in chapter 4 and then in chapter 9, verses 35 and 36, and then in chapter 11. The message to John is, “Blind men see and lame walk; lepers are cleansed, and deaf hear; and dead are raised, and poor have glad tidings preached to them”. It is no mere theoretic thing, but practical; and the cleansed leper is the first great result: you are to show yourself.
FWW Are we to regard that from chapter 4 God is speaking to us “in Son”?
JT Yes; we might link it on with Hebrews, which was written to a similar class of people; it had the same class of persons in view as Matthew, and sonship is emphasised in Matthew, not only in regard to the Lord’s Person, but in the way it enters into the testimony and into the truth of the assembly. John has in mind His [p. 196] Person in abstract deity; Matthew would show us how sonship enters into the testimony and the Service, so that as Hebrews says, “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in [the person of the] Son”. The point is the speaking is “in Son”, a divine Person in that relation, so that it was God Himself speaking.
FWW That is emphasised again in chapter 17.
JT We shall come to that in regard of the assembly’s foundation, and the service or functioning of the assembly in chapter 18. The personnel that enters into the assembly is in mind from chapter 17 to the end of chapter 18, which is another section.
EuR Should we be in the assembly now as persons who were blind, and see; and lepers who are cleansed; and lame who can walk on both feet?
JT That is what Matthew brings out. In the great epitome in chapter 4, things are presented from the standpoint of what the Lord did, but chapter 11 is more the effect — what the people see. After the epitome of chapter 9, we have the apostles. Now we have material, as the result of the Lord’s work for the great ministry. We have already touched on ministry, not as ordained by Christ as Man here, but in John the baptist coming down from the Old Testament. “The law and the prophets were until John”; he was the end of all that, and he is brought in in chapter 11 to confirm the truth that the law perfected nothing, even John perfected nothing. It is not to discredit John, but to bring out the principle that perfection is not in that order of things, but in the Son; finality is in the Son.
SJBC What the Lord told them to tell John is almost a quotation from Isaiah 35: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf be unstopped; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing” (verses 5, 6).
JT It stresses the idea of results; that is the thing.
[p. 197] We want results; God wants results. Of what value is ministry apart from results?
EuR And results that call attention to the Person: “blessed is whosoever shall not be offended in me”. It is the Me that is drawn attention to.
JT That is the thing. God is looking for results, and that is what the Lord stresses when He speaks to John. The law really perfected nothing; results according to God must come in through Christ and by the Spirit, in christianity.
Ques In Isaiah 35 the word is, “behold your God ... He will come himself, and save you” (verse 4). Is that God speaking in Son?
JT Exactly; that is what we had yesterday in chapter 1: “God with us”; He is now to be seen. It is God in a moral way, but nevertheless there, not as He was seen in the prophets, but in a Person who is Himself God, and the results are there.
EG Would you say a word on the last clause of verse 3? “Art thou the coming one? or are we to wait for another?” John does not seem to acknowledge the Person.
JT He had lost faith. Whilst John the evangelist does not say anything about this in recording the ministry of John the baptist, Matthew stresses the failure of John at this juncture, and, of course, it would imply that he had lost the truth of the Person he had so beautifully testified to earlier. According to John 1: 15, he said, “He that comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me”. Now he has lost heart as to Him.
Now you will notice in chapter 10 what is implied in ministry. John the baptist represented it, as we had yesterday, but in chapter 10, after the references to the Lord’s works in chapters 4 - 9, we have the twelve: “having called to him his twelve disciples”, meaning the cream of the result for God, as we might say, twelve being a number representing potentiality, in [p. 198] the activity of love. The use of this numeral in Scripture confirms this; particularly in the tribes of Israel. What can be divinely realised apart from those in whom love can be active? The numeral twelve denoting that they can be manipulated according to love. The exactions are heavy, but “Love never fails”. The chapter has to be read carefully by those who serve, but love would take us through all that. Then, at the end of the chapter there is the great thought of representation. The outcome of the Lord’s works involves representation: “He that receives you receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me. He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward”. That is, the idea of the representation of God here is brought down even to a disciple. It brings out the greatness of the work of God, as brought out in the number twelve and worked out in love.
JOS Would you say a word as to “the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you”?
JT The idea of “your Father” is brought in informally in Matthew. The Lord does not say, “my Father and your Father”, in Matthew. The idea is brought in informally, which is characteristic of Matthew, that His Father really is ours, and that it is His Spirit that speaks through the ministers, viewed under the heading of the twelve.
HFN Is your thought that this representation is the result of the ministry of the twelve as serving in love?
JT That is the idea. The place representation has in the chapter is the moral outcome of the activity of love, for after all, “God is love”, and this in a moral sense, in the way He acts and has come out. So as [p. 199] the saints serve in love, to that extent they represent God, and then the disciple acquires such a place that a reward is attached to what is given in his name.
HFN Would these features — the prophet, the righteous man, and the disciple — represent certain divine principles?
JT We might profitably run over them, as to what they mean, from God down. There is Christ, then a prophet, then a righteous man, and then a disciple. There is the idea of the representation of God in each.
HFN Might we regard the prophet in that way as one bringing in the light of God’s world, and the righteous man as establishing the principles of it, and the disciple as showing its true character?
JT A disciple is one who has learnt or who is learning. There is not so much said about him as the others, but still there is a reward attaching to giving a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple.
EJMcB Would the thought be that when the leper showed himself as cleansed to the priest, he manifested what was done in him, but when the man sets a thing forth representatively he is rather describing the One who did it?
JT Exactly, he brings God in, and it is well to bear that in mind. It is a question of the representation of God, from Himself down to a disciple. Think of a disciple having a name! It lifts an ordinary Christian above the level of men. He has a name: “in the name of a disciple”. This principle is really worked out in Moses’ rod (as we had it last evening), indicating experience. It is a question of experience, that God brings us to His side of things by what He does in us. He brought Moses to His side, and then said to him that he would be God to Pharaoh — the article should not be there. It is not that he would be a god; that would make him a god in himself, a different person — that is not the idea. It is that God Himself was represented in Moses, and Aaron was to be his prophet. That [p. 200] runs through, and under the heading of the twelve we have the acme, as we may say, of the law in this section, love working out — and love is of God. “God is love”, and in the measure in which that is expressed, God is expressed, and God is represented down to a disciple.
EuR This last verse would be a great stimulus to simple acts of love amongst the saints generally in every locality, and would elevate them to this character — hospitality and all that kind of thing.
JT Quite so; it is representative of God.
WC Would the reference to receiving imply reproach, for the whole position is that? So that what is genuinely the work of God is separated from what is merely profession.
JT Exactly. These terms — prophet, righteous man, and disciple — allude to what is genuine, what is representative of God. There may be reproach attaching to receiving them, and hence the reward.
SJBC Why does He bring in “one of these little ones”?
JT “Whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water”; I suppose you are one of those. It suggests that you are an object of care.
HES You said that Matthew sets forth what is maintained here. Are we to understand it is set forth, not only in Christ personally, but in those who represent Him, and these works are the result of it?
JT That is right. It all works up to chapter 16, where we have the assembly, which is to bear the brunt of everything, and then in chapter 18 you see it functioning. So that it is a question of what is of God here in a moral way in us.
HFN What is the distinctive feature of sonship in chapter 11?
JT A further feature is brought into view as following upon the greatest born of women — that is, John the baptist. What hope would there be in any one’s heart other than that of Jesus under these circumstances? Chapter 11 brings out the complete breakdown of everything that had been representative of God: even the greatest of those born of women would seem to have failed. But the Lord is careful to distinguish between John and the cities where he had been labouring; that is, He shows infinite divine fairness to those who are in the testimony. He says beautiful things about John; He says nothing against him. John’s questions are only recorded to show where he was for the moment, but the Lord’s tributes are beautiful, and ought to be assuring to every servant. How fair He is in appraising what is done! But then there were the cities, as it says, “in which most of his works of power had taken place”, that is, the area of those works of power and corresponding today with the area in which the Holy Spirit has been operating. Take this land, for instance. What testimony has been rendered! What power has been shown! And it is most solemn that the Lord is raising the question here as to the area in which most of His works of power had taken place, and what the result would be. As it says, “Woe to thee, Chorazin! woe to thee, Bethsaida! for if the works of power which have taken place in you, had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they had long ago repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in judgment-day than for you. And thou, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven ...” These are very solemn things as regards the area in which the testimony has been carried on in our times. Taking them to heart, we see how right feelings should prevail in the presence of this terrible rebuke of the Lord to the areas in which the testimony has been carried on, but then, on the other hand, we see the buoyancy of sonship in Him, the buoyancy of Christ Himself. As it says, “At that time, Jesus answering said, I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth ...”
AJG Was that because the Father and His will were more to the Lord than His service?
JT Exactly, and if everything appeared to fail at this juncture, after all, God is supreme, as He says, “Lord of the heaven and of the earth”, and He is acting now from Himself sovereignly, carrying on His work from His own point of view, hiding things from some, and revealing them to others, hiding things from the wise and prudent, and revealing them to babes. So the little ones, the babes, are the safe ones; those of no account are the ones that get the light from the Father.
JJ Would it be right to say that the Lord is speaking here as the second Man from heaven in this part of the gospel, whereas previously it was as the last Adam?
JT I think that would be right. It is a question of the life-giving Spirit. It is not only now a new order of things legislatively, as in chapters 5 to 7, but we are now approaching a new order of things in life, in quickening power. “Babes” denote the beginning of a new and living order of things. The Father is disclosing things to the babes who have to learn everything.
JJ Would that not turn on the character of the second Man out of heaven?
JT Quite so: “such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones”, 1 Corinthians 15: 48.
ASL In saying, “Lord of the heaven and of the earth”, does the Lord maintain His place of service? Because He Himself is Lord of heaven and earth, but has not yet taken that place.
JT It is to bring out what is at the end of the gospel — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is now brought into view as operating from His own point of view, and the Son is buoyant in it. He is an example for us when things look dark; they are really brightest if there is opportunity for God to come in.
FCH What is the force of the expression, “Jesus answering said ...”?
JT I suppose the allusion would be to what was going on between Himself and His Father. It is a spiritual suggestion; I mean, it is like the turning of the corner where there is the greatest pressure (Nehemiah 3: 24). It is more inward now, as David built inward. There is the great general outline of the city to be built, but it is inward here. Really this touches on John’s gospel, and we have to learn to look inward and see what is going on between divine Persons. It is a wonderful thought, and glory seems to be opened up to us a little, “Jesus answering”. Whom is He answering? He is speaking to His Father; it is an inward thing, and we have to learn what building inward means (2 Samuel 5: 9). We are now approaching the level of the assembly and we have to understand this inward thing, what is going on between the Father and the Son here in manhood.
EJMcB Would not all those activities and the mighty works that had been refused but open the way for the development of the inward side?
JT He is in the presence of His Father here. That is, those of us who have had any little spiritual access to God as entering the holiest, see everything according to God. There is not a thing wanting; all His thoughts are there. But we see things are not right where we are, but the answer is, “I praise thee, Father ...” God will come in, and He has got His own thoughts.
SJBC Then He speaks of the Father as “Lord of the heaven and of the earth”; would that bring in the sovereignty of God?
JT Yes; as sovereign Ruler He has right of way.
HD'AC It is most encouraging at the present time, when outwardly things are very poor and small, that the Lord is teaching us to fall back upon divine counsels and the operations of divine Persons.
JT God would put it upon us as to what we think of things around, of current things, what is going on in christendom, that we should feel things; and what [p. 204] hope is there for us but in this answer, “I praise thee, Father”. God will meet the whole position, and is meeting it. Still, it is important to have a right estimate of everything. “God has judged your judgment upon her”, Revelation 18: 20. That is, God expects us to have a judgment as to what is current in the world.
PL Is it encouraging that the epitome of good in the movements of Jesus is brought in before the epitome of evil as suggested here?
JT That is very good, and the answer to everything is the Father who is the sovereign Ruler of heaven and earth. When the ark went into the Jordan, it was as “the ark of Jehovah, the Lord of all the earth”, that is, He had right of way, and now He has right of way in heaven, too. So there is every encouragement, and hence the Lord rejoices and says, “I praise thee, Father”. So God would have us in a state of holy spiritual buoyancy, and yet feeling things, so that the worship of God goes on in what is outwardly the darkest moment.
Rem In Isaiah 49 it says, “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought and in vain; nevertheless my judgment is with Jehovah, and my work with my God” (verse 4); and then Jehovah’s answer is, “that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth” (verse 6).
JT His judgment was with Jehovah. The Lord felt the thing — that is a point to be noticed — but in feeling it He was superior to it, and the service of God went on. What a note that was for the Father under those circumstances! “I praise thee, Father”; and that praise goes on all the time; the Lord maintains it.
PHH In connection with that, would you say a word about the “well-pleasing” in verse 26, and then in verse 27, “he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him”.
JT The Lord says to the Father, “Yea, Father, for thus has it been well-pleasing in thy sight”. It is the idea of divine pleasure entering into these [p. 205] things.
JJ Would you say there was a close connection between the revealing here and that in chapter 16?
JT The revelation in chapter 16, as we shall hope to see, is by the Father. The Father reveals things to the babes, but in chapter 16 it is more than things. The things that are hid from the wise and prudent are revealed to the babes, but what was revealed to Peter goes beyond that.
JJ I was thinking that as the Son is calling to Himself here as the centre, the revelation would be of a similar character, although more advanced, in chapter 16.
JT It is the Father’s action. It brings out here the Father’s activities as to the babes; He reveals to them, meaning that those of us who take the low place, get the revelation from the Father of things that are hidden from the wise and prudent. Sonship and many other precious things; things which are hidden from the great teachers of christendom, God is pleased to open up to any of us who take a low place.
JTS Is the position at the present time at all like Thyatira? “I gave her time that she should repent” — was that to be felt? But then in Philadelphia, “thou hast a little power, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name” — are we coming now into the region of divine pleasure?
JT Very good. The position today is very similar to what is depicted in this chapter, the wise and prudent alluding to the leaders in christendom, those who say they know and see, but as the Lord says, “now ye say, We see, your sin remains”, John 9: 41. But the Father proceeds, and will proceed, till the end of the dispensation, to unfold things to the babes. So the position now is that of babes who are in the hands of the Father.
MWB Is there the thought in the babe suggestive of the condition that would prove that “God is with us”?
JT It is the believer viewed potentially. The babes [p. 206] represent a state that is taken on which is impressionable. The term is not used in any reproachful sense, but indicates a condition that can be built up from the very bottom, and the Father has us in hand in that way. There is nothing to set aside in a babe in relation to what is acquired; he is available as in the Father’s hands for impressions from Him.
EuR Does not the Lord stand in relation to us as the Father did to Him? I was thinking of the expression in the last chapter, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”. That verse precedes the one as to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The power is available now in relation to the development of what is pleasing to God.
JT It says, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, nor does anyone know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him”. This is exclusive at this juncture. The Lord is shutting out the wise and prudent from this great knowledge, this inward thing. There is an inwardness in the position of Christ in this world. Matthew has been dealing with the outwardness of the testimony, the springing up of light, the great works, and so forth; but now there is an inwardness coming into view and a corresponding exclusiveness, for what is in view is outside the range of the greatest men viewed as men. “No one knows the Son but the Father, nor does anyone know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him”. As has been remarked before, and as the note in the New Translation indicates, it is not a question of His external position as marked off by works of power as the Son of God, but the infinite inwardness of the thing that is impenetrable, not merely an external knowledge which is possible, but a real knowledge of His Person is beyond any and every creature.
HES Is there the thought both of heart and mind [p. 207] in those two verses? With regard to the things revealed, is it a question of the mind particularly, but with regard to the Person is it really a question of the heart?
JT Just so; the mind must have to do with knowledge.
Ques Has the expression in Proverbs 9 any bearing on what you are saying? “The knowledge of the Holy is intelligence” (verse 10).
JT It has. The “knowledge of the Holy” is no part of the curriculum of the universities, but it is everything in regard of this inwardness that we are speaking of. We may go a certain way in the inwardness in regard of the Son, what He is, but a real knowledge of Him is beyond us. Yet the Lord would lead us a long way; He would convey to us that there is much opened up to us — the “knowledge of the Holy”.
DLH Would you say something as to the contrast between the full knowledge of the Son of God as in Ephesians, and this thought that no one knows the Son but the Father?
JT That links on with what has already been before us as to the bearing of the appellation, Son of God. Whilst involving His Person as Man, and the Leader of a race, others are brought into that relation. So that Ephesians 4 would be Christ known as the Son of God, and as such coming under the notice of John, for instance, and others who “contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1: 14. They had a view of Him as Man in His relations with His Father, and in that way they were admitted into much. When we come to John 17, for instance, the Lord “lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee; as thou hast given him authority over all flesh, that as to all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal ... and now glorify me, thou Father, along with thyself, with the glory which I had along with thee before the world was”. You can see how those listening — John, for instance, who had a place in His bosom (what inwardness would be there, especially!) — as they got the Spirit afterwards would have power of inward perception as to sonship in Christ and as to that in which they had part. But then, there would always be this, “no one knows the Son but the Father”. There is a point beyond which we cannot penetrate, and I believe that is what is in view. But still, the thought of inwardness and the “knowledge of the Holy”, as has been remarked, the acceptance of the babe state, the impressionableness, are all in view here.
ASL In Revelation 19, His name is called “The Word of God”, and then, in the same connection, He had “a name written which no one knows but himself”.
JT There you have the inscrutableness of it.
DLH I only thought “the Son” was, as we may say, exclusive; no one can come into that title; but we do have part in sonship in association with Him as sons of God.
JT That is what Ephesians 4 contemplates, but the title “the Son” here, is really to direct our minds to the Person in His inscrutableness.
JJ Why is this inscrutableness brought into this assembly gospel here?
JT To educate us as to the inwardness of christianity, how much there is, and yet there is a point beyond which we cannot go. This is the beginning of assembly instruction directly, and this thought of inwardness should be kept in view, the infiniteness of it.
EJMcB I was wondering whether this would not draw attention to the Son as being able to reveal, and give Him a peculiar place with us.
JT It does; it places Him as Man on equality with the Father; He is pleased to reveal the Father. You could not think of a stronger statement of His deity in manhood than that; He is capable of revealing the Father.