CHRIST'S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (5)

CHRIST’S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (5)

Matthew 17:1 - 8; Matthew 17:22 - 27; Matthew 18: 15 - 20

JT It may be remarked for the consideration of all, that we have considerable ground to cover today in two readings. This morning we shall need to touch again on chapter 16, which is the main scripture of our subject, and on the scriptures read in chapters 17 and 18; and in the afternoon we shall need to consider the Lord’s confession of His sonship before the high priest, involving His sufferings — if the Lord give us grace for that — and then the acknowledgment by the centurion, at the cross, of His sonship, and finally, its place in the baptismal formula in chapter 28. It may be well to keep this in mind, so that the ground may be covered, keeping to our subject as much as possible.

HES You referred to the Son and the Son of God, but the confession of Peter is, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The expression “the living God” occurs at the time of the ark going into the Jordan. What is the particular force of that expression?

JT The confession of Peter here is not the outcome of what he gathered from the Lord’s ministry, or even of the announcement from heaven in chapter 3, but it is the outcome of a revelation. The Father having in mind the assembly as taking the place of Israel in the testimony, it was important that the thought of life should enter into it; for the assembly was to be replete with life as over against the deadness which marked Israel at the time of our Lord’s service; and was in keeping with the living testimony rendered to the Jews generally. The idea of life is stressed in relation to the assembly, it is to be in the foundation, and to characterise the whole structure. So Peter himself, carrying out the thought by the Spirit, speaks of the saints as living stones; “yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2: 5), but it is, “To whom coming, a living stone” (verse 4). It is to keep that in mind that it is stressed here: “the Son of the living God”. Of course, it has a great bearing today, because the profession has become dead, corresponding with the condition of Israel in a general way, and what God would stress is the idea of life as one feature of the assembly — it is a living organism.

AM Would the thought of inwardness be connected with the confession?

JT I think so. That thought runs through from chapter 11, taking us away from what is public in the history of the assembly where everything hinges on public events, public confessions of faith and catechisms, creeds and order; all has a public character and is void of the idea of mystery, of secret relations with God, and communications from Him, and to Him, within. This was certainly a new thing, although there had been public evidences of the Lord’s sonship as at the Jordan, because it was evidently taken account of by those present — certainly John the baptist took account of it — and then there was the evidence of His service. He is “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1: 4), which would include what He did as in the case of Lazarus and others. Indeed, it seemed to be a general thought, because the message to John was, “the dead are raised”; and so, in chapter 14 He is owned as Son on account of external evidences; but this chapter is inward and private, the Father intervening of Himself, but in keeping with what the Lord had said to the Father, “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes”. There was the hiding from the public, and the revealing to the babes, and so in the house in chapter 13, and again here: “flesh and blood has not ^[p. 228] revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens”. It was an intervention of the Father and therefore secret. There was no outward evidence of the Lord Himself knowing it; indeed, one would almost assume that He took that ground by the way He speaks; He awaits Peter’s confession. The Father intervened of Himself to bring out this confession from Peter. It was a matter, we may say, entirely personal to Peter until he made it known.

ELM Would the expression “flesh and blood” refer to the public position of the Lord, which is distinct from the revelation by the Father to Peter?

JT I doubt whether the expression “flesh and blood” could be applied to the Lord as marking His ministry. I should think it would be more what belongs to men as such. I should be afraid to include the Lord in such a classification, for His communications, although spoken orally through a man’s mouth, had their own distinctive character which could not apply to any other. I know some have thought that, and there is not much to object to if it is guarded, but I think it would be hardly reverential to classify the Lord under that head; I mean, He must in all things have the pre-eminence. The Lord refers to flesh and blood in this way, in order to shut out what is held in such regard among men, to show that flesh and blood are outside of all this. The Lord referring to the confession as coming from Peter’s lips, implies that He takes the ground of not knowing, which is not derogatory to Him. If He were in the position of dependence here, He would wait on the Father’s movements; for the point from chapter 11 is what the Father will do, which we may always reckon on. The Lord gladly seizes the position as evidence of a movement of the Father, and then He says, “And I also, I say unto thee”. He would say something additional, but based on what the Father had revealed to Peter. He said, “thou art Peter”; it was the discernment He had, as based on what Peter ^[p. 229] had said, discernment as to what was in Peter; and I believe it enters into the mystery, what goes on inside, so to speak, the Father’s operations inwardly discerned by the Lord through Peter’s confession, and so the material would be taken on by Him and used spiritually.

Ques Why does the Lord say, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”, and then go on to say, “thou art Peter”?

JT It says, “Jesus answering said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”, and then, “And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly”. Simon Bar-jona is Peter in his responsible setting. It is the Lord’s recognition that he is being greatly honoured as having such a revelation in his responsible setting, “Blessed art thou”, He says, but the pronouncement that enters into the assembly is more formal: “I also, I say unto thee”. It is another divine Person speaking, to pronounce on the effect in Peter and, now that material was already present for the assembly, a great point of departure. It will be observed in the New Translation that the I is emphatic “I also”, alluding to the Father’s communications; and so the revelation to Peter, and the Lord’s formal pronouncement should be taken together as inaugural of the assembly, and as entering into the great thing that is now taking form.

PL Is there a type of these activities of the Father and the Son in the dual activities of David and Solomon in relation to the inauguration of the house?

JT Quite so; Solomon was associated with David, receiving his orders from him. The link here between the Father’s revelation and the Lord’s pronouncement should be kept clearly in view as entering into the position of the assembly in this world. It is a wholly new thing, and its inwardness is seen as issuing here in Peter’s confession, the idea coming from the Father, the Lord taking account of what the Father did, and speaking and moving accordingly. So that it says,

“^[p. 230] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples …” “From that time” looks on to the cross; the Father’s revelation, you may say, is the beginning of the matter.

LM The first epistle of Peter begins with “Peter”, and the second begins with “Simon”. Is there any connection there in regard to the responsible side in the second epistle and what he is as privileged of the Father in the first epistle?

JT No doubt there is something in that. What may be observed in our assembly relations, is that we have a public responsibility which is conveyed in “Simon Bar-jona”, involving the truth of Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians and kindred epistles, whereas “Peter” is the wholly spiritual idea, the side that goes through. There is the provisional side of the assembly, its position in localities throughout the world, composed of men and women in flesh and blood conditions in responsibility here, and there is the wholly spiritual side that goes through and is eternal; that is what the Father has in mind.

EuR What is suggested in “on this rock I will build my assembly”?

JT The rock is the confession, what was in the man’s soul, what the man is indeed.

EuR How do you distinguish between the stone and the rock?

JT As has often been remarked, the stone is of a kind with the rock, but the rock is a great thought running through Scripture as foundational. Peter is not foundational; Christ is foundational, but Christ known in this way. Remember, it is not the Christ known publicly — as we may say — but the Christ known as Peter knew Him by a secret revelation.

GJE When the Lord said, “I also, I say unto thee”, does it not show His own peculiar joy in the confession from the lips of a man as the result of the revelation of the Father? Had He not been waiting, as it were, for this ^[p. 231] confession?

JT There can be no doubt at all that the introduction of this matter in verse 13 implies that the Lord was just looking for this. The time had arrived for it, but then He waited for it. His question as to who they said He was, was to bring this out, but nevertheless it is a secret matter coming in from the Father, and that has to be borne in mind as entering into the inwardness of the assembly in the mystery.

COB The Lord speaks of Himself as the Son of man, but the revelation is that He is “the Son of the living God”. How would you speak of the conjunction of those names?

JT The Lord’s use of the appellation “Son of man” is a matter that deserves enquiry and consideration. He uses it almost exclusively Himself, something like eighty-four times in the gospels. It is only used once in the Acts, I believe, by Stephen, and quoted in Hebrews and in the Revelation, but it does not enter into the ministry seen in the epistles of the New Testament. It does not enter in as formally used, save as a quotation, and therefore it is a matter to be inquired into, why the Lord uses it so frequently. I believe it is to inspire confidence in men; He is thinking of men. It comes out more particularly where His rejection is imminent or evident among the Jews. It is a term which, in a way, He seems to have lived in, as implying His relations with men according to eternal counsels. He uses the title constantly in Matthew, as intending to convey what He was Himself in the midst of His own, as marking Him off publicly; it has His public position in view. The “Son of man” is not a title that enters into the assembly; in this great matter His relations with God, as Son of God, are in view.

Ques In Peter’s confession, he says, “Thou art the Christ”; would it emphasise the knowledge of Christ as the Son of God?

JT It is well to compare this part of the confession with what is mentioned by the other two synoptic writers. Mark just mentions “the Christ”, meaning that what he has in mind, in the confession of Peter, is the service of God in an anointed Person in this world. Luke says, “the Christ of God”, meaning that the Lord is known as anointed for the exercise of grace, that God should be known here. Matthew gives us the whole thought; he includes the idea of the Anointed, which is taken over from the Old Testament, and it was important that the Father should have to say to Peter in regard of this, making known that the One who was the Vessel of grace and service here, was in His mind the Anointed. Both things came out at His baptism, of course, but the point here is what the Father is having to say to the one who had the greatest place among the twelve in the ministry and in the formation of the assembly at Pentecost. “The Christ” is simply that He is to be apprehended as the One at the disposal of God for His work, to do things for God, and His sonship is not only that He is Son, which was publicly announced before, but “the Son of the living God”. The import is that the assembly should be replete with life; it should be a living organism, and continue to be that.

MWB Do you see any connection between the confession of Peter here in specific relation to the rock and Paul’s preaching the Son of God, and the reference to the Son of God in Ephesians 4?

JT I should connect Paul’s service with this, because he also had a revelation, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me” (Galatians 1: 16); not to me, but in me. It carries the inward thought even more strikingly. Then, what had come out already, that is the announcement from heaven in chapter 3, and the attestation of Christ publicly by resurrection, also enters into Paul’s ministry, and is worked out in Ephesians, where it is a question of manhood according to God in Christ: “the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ” (chapter 4: ^[p. 233] 13).

HFN We have spoken of the inauguration; would this confession have a practical bearing in regard of ourselves?

JT The bearing of it is that in the assembly we are to be in direct relation with the Father and the Father with us, and nothing less than that.

HFN But is there a distinct moment in the soul when the Lord is apprehended in this way, which brings us in really as assembly material?

JT That is an exact statement of the truth. Believers stop short of the light in the soul as to Christ. It is here, once for all, of course, but it has to be entered into.

AJG Then is it the apprehension of Christ in this way held livingly in the souls of those who compose the assembly that makes the assembly invulnerable against the gates of hades?

JT That is right.

Ques Is it beyond Deuteronomy 29 where it says, “The hidden things belong to Jehovah our God; but the revealed ones are ours and our children’s for ever” (verse 29)?

JT The hidden things there are over against the revealed things. This revelation comes under the heading of what is revealed, indeed, everything is out now, as we may say. As the apostle says, “according to the revelation of the mystery, as to which silence has been kept in the times of the ages, but which has now been made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures, according to commandment of the eternal God”, Romans 16: 25, 26. The mystery is a known thing now, but then, is it known in each soul? We may know it abstractly, but coming into the thing is the point.

JTS “The spiritual discerns all things” (1 Corinthians 2: 15); would that be important in this connection?

JT Quite so: God has revealed them unto us by His Spirit; everything now for believers is by the Spirit, but nevertheless one is in touch with the Father,

so that we have the “spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of him”, Ephesians 1: 17.

Ques What is the thought in verse 20? “Then he enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”.

JT All such expressions are to keep the unregenerate from seeing divine things. As soon as the principle of rejection or apostasy sets in, then there must be the principle of hiding or preserving things. That which is holy must not be given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine, so that the natural mind of man may not misuse them.

JJ The Lord says here “my assembly”; would that be the inward side? When we come to Corinthians it is “the assembly”; is that the outward side?

JT The expression “my assembly” is peculiarly fitting here, implying that He has something now of His own that He can use. Whether administratively or in the service of God inwardly, it is His in either sense. He has that, and it enters into our position as sitting down “in assembly”, as to whether it is really His. Sometimes He has to say, “your house is left unto you”, but the primary thought is that the assembly is His, and that ought to enter into the consciousness of every company of saints together in assembly. Can we say that it is His? And that He takes us, and uses us, according to the end in view? And can He sing praises to God in the midst of us?

JJ “I will build”; would that be connected with the building of the woman in Genesis — the inward side?

JT That is the first use we have of the word “build” in Scripture. The woman was for Adam as taken out of him.

EuR Should our great concern be to know this inwardness of which you speak? There is danger sometimes of generalising things and claiming them for all believers, without perhaps being sufficiently ^[p. 235] exercised to promote what is of this character in our gatherings.

JT We have to keep in mind what the Lord meant when He said, “I will build my assembly”; and the question is, does what He meant enter into the assembly in which I may be? Does each local company answer to this? This is the most important passage in all those suggested; and is really the crucial one in regard to the whole subject, as to whether the saints have come to see what the Lord meant when He said, “my assembly”, and whether there is any answer to it when we come together, not with preconceived thoughts, or subjects, or hymns, but as entirely free to be for Him — “to be to another”. So the position is His, and all that, are there in the assembly are His unitedly; this is of immense importance at the present time, to arrive at what the Lord meant and whether there is anything answering to it for Himself now.

HFN In that way, if we miss the importance of what you are saying, would not everything that is distinctive about the recovery of the truth be really lost to us?

JT The truth in any and all parts of it must be held rightly in relation to the assembly, and that in a living way. The assembly is an organism, a living thing, built of living material.

WCG Do persons who have followed as far as you suggest with the thought of inwardness, have their mount of transfiguration now? Is that the privilege that goes with it?

JT What took place on the mount is the next thing that comes in in regard of sonship. Much could be said on the remaining part of chapter 16, but what ought to be noted particularly as to the mount of transfiguration, is the Lord’s remark, “There are some of those standing here that shall not taste of death at all until they have seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. Whilst the thought of the living organism ^[p. 236] is to be stressed constantly, over against that there is the principle of sovereign selection, which must not be quarrelled with: “There are some of those standing here”. The Lord is making His selection, but the statement would place all under concern as to who those are to be. Am I to have part in this great matter — to see the Son of man coming in His kingdom? That is the proposal, to see Him coming in His kingdom.

ECR Why is it put in that way in Matthew? In Mark it is the “kingdom of God come in power”, and in Luke, “the kingdom of God”.

JT The stress here, is on the Person of the Son of man coming in His kingdom, and the glory attaching to the display of it. That is to say, we are becoming acquainted with the personnel of the assembly. What dignity! And what ability to share in glory! For glory is not to be borne by persons unequal to it. We have to learn how to take on glory, so as to bear it rightly, for that is the idea in the glorious scene on high. One has to learn dignity, what one is in the divine thoughts, the greatness of the saints in the divine mind. Moses and Elijah represent that. See how they carry themselves here! It says of the Lord, “he was transfigured before them. And his face shone as the sun, and his garments became white as the light; and lo, Moses and Elias appeared to them talking with him”. Elsewhere it says that they appeared in glory, but here they are “talking with him”. There is not a shade of discrepancy between those persons and the glorious Person of the Son of man, because it is not the lowly man now, but the “Son of man coming in his kingdom”. He is changed and appears now in all the glory that is becoming to such a position, and these two men are equal to it. The intention is that we should learn to take on glory, to be at home in a glorious scene, to understand our greatness in the mind of God, for we are formed for this greatness.

HFN Does the thought of inwardness come ^[p. 237] into this chapter? Has Peter to learn the great lesson of inwardness?

JT It is remarkably so, because they are taken up on the principle of sovereign selection.

HFN Then, in addition to that, would not the voice coming out of the excellent glory suggest the thought of inwardness?

JT That is the whole thought running through. As Peter so beautifully depicts it in his letter, the voice was by the glory. It is well to notice his statement: “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, 2 Peter 1: 17. That is a remarkable statement, the glory itself speaking, so the idea of glory is personified. It is the Father’s voice, but spoken of as glory personified.

Ques In chapter 16 the Lord says, “thou art Peter”. Is not that a greater thought than in chapter 14? Do we see the same spirit with Peter as with Ittai when he said, “whether in death or life, even there also will thy servant be”, 2 Samuel 15: 21? Peter had the desire of affection to be near the Lord and so he qualifies as material that the Lord can speak of in chapter 16: “thou art Peter”, taking character from Christ.

JT “Thou art Peter” is simply what he was, not who he was. If it be a question of building, then it is what he is, but if it be a question of personal distinction, which John always has in mind, it is who he is. “Thou shalt be called Cephas” (John 1: 42); that was his name and would be personal distinction, but that all comes out here on earth. We are dealing in Matthew 17 with what comes out in heaven. We are so little acquainted with the idea of heaven and the dignity there — such dignity that men can speak to the Lord Jesus on equal terms. Not that He is on our level personally, but they were speaking with Him; this is recorded as calling attention to the liberty and dignity ^[p. 238] they had in that glorious scene above, and I believe that bears on our eternal portion.

EuR Do you link this with 2 Corinthians 3: “beholding ... the glory of the Lord”?

JT I do not think that is as high as this; this is a heavenly scene, 2 Corinthians 3 alludes to the effectuation of the covenant, which is a matter down here; what the Lord is carrying on by His ministry. This is a glorious scene on high bearing on our eternal portion and dignity.

MWB Which we can now enjoy.

JT Quite so. It is a question of entering into it, of whether we can take on the greatness above. We have the idea of greatness on high personified in Hebrews; and in Colossians we have the idea of fulness personified: “in him all the fulness ... was pleased to dwell”; and in 2 Peter the glory is speaking. These are wonderful things, and the Lord would help us to take them in, to lay hold of them by the Spirit, and enter into them, and become conditioned for the heavenly destiny before us.

HD'AC “Having been eyewitnesses of his majesty”, or greatness. It goes beyond Corinthians.

HES Why have we a fuller statement in this gospel of what the Father’s voice declared than in any other passage of Scripture?

JT That is a good enquiry, because we are now dealing, as we said, with the personnel of the assembly, and how the heavenly greatness is to come out here in a moral way. The greater we are as of the assembly, the less we can afford to be down here. I have no doubt Peter’s comment in his epistle bears on Matthew. The announcement here is from the glory: “lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him”. We do not get “I have found my delight” either in Luke or Mark. It is the fullest statement here corresponding with what was said at the Lord’s baptism.

AC In Psalm 90, Moses said, “Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy majesty unto their sons”, verse 16. Would the first part correspond with chapter 16, and the majesty with chapter 17?

JT That is a remark that ought to be well noted — the work and the majesty. The work is chapter 16 and the majesty chapter 17. It was asked whether this glory on high is the same as “we all, looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory”. The “glory of the Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3 is His glory in effecting the covenant, bringing it into our hearts; that is, it relates to His mediatorial service; the glory shines in His face. But this is transfiguration in Himself, meaning that He is taking on the glorious condition that is to mark Him in manhood eternally and in which we are to have part.

LM Would it answer to John 17, “that they may behold my glory”, what the Father has given to Him?

JT Well, there is something in that, but it is what He is Himself here, and His personal change, and what Moses and Elijah are, how they can speak to Him in this glorious position in perfect liberty. That is what is in mind, and Peter is so out of accord that he is unable to see the difference between the persons. That is a poor thing, because we shall ever see how distinguished Christ is; it will always be manifest, for He is the “firstborn among many brethren”. There is always a distinction in Christ, however glorious the saints may be, and that is where Peter failed here.

PL Does the bride in the Canticles understand it? She appreciates His movements, and says, “The chiefest among ten thousand” (chapter 5: 10).

JT Quite so; it is a suggestion of myriads among whom He is chiefest, and enters into eternity.

AJG Does the Father’s voice confirm the sense of this? Peter says, We heard such a ^[p. 240] voice.

JT These are specially distinguished men in the Old Testament that God brought up. The one had actually gone into heaven without dying, and the other died and was buried by God Himself. God can do anything in this sense, and can bring any man up for a purpose. He brought these up as samples, as to what you and I can be, for it is specially stated that Elias was a man of like passions to ourselves (James 5: 17). So the change is a question of God’s operations in every one of us, and we are going to be changed; as it says, “who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to his body of glory”, Philippians 3: 21. That is the point, and He brings these two men up as illustrative of the thought; God is able to do that. He brought up Samuel, for instance; it was no demon that He brought up, it was Samuel, an old man covered with a mantle — what he used to be. But here it is not what Elijah used to be, but a man able to speak with Jesus in the glory.

WC Is the privilege accorded to Moses and Elias the answer to their faithfulness in suffering for the rights of the throne here?

JT That may be right, and, moreover, they represent the law and the prophets, and they are withdrawn when it is a question of what is to be said. Now the whole thought is transferred to Jesus, and it is as the beloved Son in whom the Father has His delight. It is to bring out the change of the speaker, as Hebrews stresses, that God has spoken “in Son”.

EBG You have mentioned the thought of the inward working and also the greatness of the Person of the Son of God; do those thoughts run collaterally with us? You alluded to 2 Samuel where it speaks of building inward; the scripture goes on to say that David became “continually greater”. As the inward work goes on, is there a greater appreciation of the glory of the Person of the Son of God?

JT It is wonderful to ponder that the more insight ^[p. 241] we get into the heavenly greatness and glory of Christ, the more He becomes to us — “continually greater”.

HFN What do you gather as to the contrast between the baptism and the Father’s voice here in relation to the thought of sonship?

JT “Hear him” is added here, but then it is Christ in heavenly glory now; that is to say, it is the communication of what has particularly come out through Paul. I do not set aside what came out through the others, but it is particularly what came out through Paul. It is Christ in heavenly glory that is the Speaker now, and that enhances what is said. Hence the Lord is said to have appeared to Saul himself and spoken to him in the Hebrew tongue, and he says, “have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” 1 Corinthians 9: 1. How that would enter into his ministry!

MWB Do you think this has any counterpart in the assembly’s experience now in listening to His voice?

JT It is a word to us to hear Him. The others are withdrawn — the greatest of the Old Testament saints, as we may say, and now, as the Son, He is alone with His disciples. In Luke (we have already touched on it elsewhere) we get an example of what is meant after the transfiguration, in Mary sitting at the Lord’s feet hearing what He is saying, an example of one who paid attention to the voice from the excellent glory.

Ques What is the point in “Jesus coming to them touched them”?

JT It is to convey the sensibility that goes with the glorious scene that we are in there. Ministry would take on that.

JJ Is your point that we come into this glory now?

JT We take in the idea and see how suited we are, according to God’s thoughts of us, for companionship with Christ — that there is no disparity between Him and us.

Ques Does this link on with Psalm 16 where it is said, “Thou art the Lord: my goodness extendeth not ^[p. 242] to thee — To the saints that are on the earth, and to the excellent thou hast said, In them is all my delight”? Here it is the voice of the Father to the Son, “in whom I have found my delight”, but the saints are referred to as the excellent in whom is all His delight.

JT There is a beautiful link, but I do not think Psalm 16 takes us to heaven. It is the Lord amid the remnant here. The reading, as you will observe, is “To the saints that are on the earth”. We are now dealing with saints in heaven and what is becoming to them up there. In the Psalm it is the Messiah sharing with His own on earth, whereas here it is the Son of God sharing with those who participate with Him in sonship, according to the mind of God — His companions in heaven.

WCG So we sing, ‘There in effulgence bright, Saviour and Guide with Thee ...’ (79:5).

JT It is important to notice that the saints in Psalm 16 are on the earth, but now we are dealing with a heavenly company.

JTS Does it go farther than “we see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour” (Hebrews 2: 9), and then, “bringing many sons to glory” (verse 10), and then the absence of disparity in that “he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one” (verse 11), in view of the service in the assembly?

JT That brings it together beautifully; how we are in the assembly — all in this passage in Matthew enters into that, and how He praises in the assembly. That, indeed, comes out in the closing part of the chapter, I mean, as to what we are down here. The Lord anticipated Peter in the house, “What dost thou think, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive custom or tribute? from their own sons or from strangers? Peter says to him, From strangers. Jesus said to him, Then are the sons free”, and then later He says, referring to the piece of money, “take that and give it to them for me and thee”. Now, this ^[p. 243] opens up to Peter the way to bring in those glorious things on high that were seen in Moses and Elias, and to apply them to himself, and to all the saints, as having part in the assembly — “me and thee” — in sonship. The Lord is the Son owned in His distinctiveness, but then we are sons, too, “Then are the sons free”; He is including Himself there.

WW Why is the subject of lunacy raised as the Lord comes down from the mount of transfiguration? The man says, “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is lunatic”, and he is healed by the One who had been acclaimed Son by the Father. It was remarked that Matthew is the only one that refers to the healing of lunacy.

JT The allusion is to derangement of mind which, as far as we can see, is incurable by men’s efforts, but coming under the notice of the Lord it can be cured, meaning, I think, that men naturally are senseless, unable to take in divine thoughts, indeed, everything is distorted with them, whereas the Lord has given to us “a spirit ... of power, and of love, and of wise discretion” — or a sound mind, 2 Timothy 1: 7. A sound mind is so essential to entrance into all these great things, a mind great enough in the power of the Spirit to grasp those thoughts above and carry them out down here. So it is remarkable that we have this case; he is definitely called a lunatic, but he is cured.

Ques Is there any point in that the Lord rebukes the man and not the demon here?

JT It is in keeping with what we are saying. It is a question of man here in responsibility.

EuR Does the last incident involve that the Lord would enable us to meet obligations here, so that we may be preserved in the liberty of sons?

JT That is a suggestive question. We certainly should not be under any reproach for not fulfilling righteousness here. The tribute was really not due from the sons, but the Lord gives what is asked so as not to ^[p. 244] be an offence to those who made the demand.

Now the closing remarks ought to be in relation to the next chapter. What we have been saying ought to be viewed in connection with the assembly in its administrative service. It is essential that the substance of what has been already stated should be apprehended and enjoyed in order to enable us to come out as in chapter 18: “tell it to the assembly”. It is not now “my assembly”, but “the assembly”, meaning that it has now a definite status. As the Lord says, “But if he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly”, and so on. The Lord now contemplates in the course of instruction, that what He calls “my assembly” in chapter 16 has a known status here — the assembly, and I think the great thoughts we have been engaged with must be laid hold of and enjoyed in some way, if we are to be qualified to have part in such an august body; for it is the assembly here as qualified to give a judgment.

JJ Is there allowance for the public side in chapter 18?

JT There is. The position of the assembly is the assembly, without any reference to its history or origin; it has now acquired a known status on the earth, and is a court of appeal — as you might call it: “tell it to the assembly”, and if he will not hear the assembly, that settles the matter.

DLH Does not the assembly represent the full expression of divine grace here?

JT It does. Luke and John help as to the inward formation in addition to what we have been saying. According to Luke, the Lord appeared, after He arose, to His own who were “gathered together”, as it says, and they were saying, “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”. Well, that is the grace side. What they were saying means they had taken in the position that Simon was appeared to, the most undeserving one, as you might say, for he had denied the Lord. The idea is that the Lord exhibited grace in ^[p. 245] appearing to him, and that certainly is a great element in the assembly in dealing with disciplinary matters. It is like the cities of the levites of old; they were the residences of grace; they were marked by that, and occupied by the firstborn ones, enregistered in heaven.

MBW Do you link the thought of the name Emmanuel with verse 20 of this chapter?

JT I thought we might see that. We have clearly in view what has already been remarked as to the position of the assembly, that it has a definite status on the earth: the assembly viewed thus as a final court of appeal. Then, in view of possible declensions, the Lord says in verse 19, “Again I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on the earth concerning any matter, whatsoever it may be that they shall ask, it shall come to them from my Father who is in the heavens. For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”. I think these verses contemplate a change from the verses, 17 and 18; which provided for conditions that marked the assembly at the outset, so that decisions were ratified in heaven: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven”, the Lord said. There is however a change from that in verses 19 and 20, but the change does not preclude the idea of heaven acting, that is, the Father still having part in the thing, and the presence of Christ on earth. For Matthew never gives us the ascension; he always keeps in mind the presence of Christ here in the way of power and support, and so it is really in keeping with the name Emmanuel, which is “God with us”.

SJBC Would the two or three that are gathered together for prayer on behalf of the erring one be the two or three who had seen him and told the matter to the assembly?

JT The point is “two of you”. There would be no point in making the “two of you” correspond with the persons who had enquired. Of course, you might ^[p. 246] bring them into it, but the point is “two of you”, two of those dignified persons that the Lord had been speaking about to bring out the greatness of the members of the assembly, even in regard to administrative matters down here.

SJBC It has been questioned whether the two or three gathered to the Lord’s name applies to the assembly gathered for the Lord’s Supper or for other purposes — or is it an individual matter?

JT We shall get help if we follow the order of the verses. There is a change in the use of the word, “Again I say to you”; there is another thing now to be dealt with, a possible reduction from the great position spoken of in verse 17, “the assembly”. There is a change contemplated, and so the Lord brings the thing down, not to another two, but “two of you”, that is the persons He had been speaking to, to bring out what is there, and what power they have in heaven. The point in verse 19 is that they move the Father, so that what they ask for shall be done unto them — those two. It is to bring out the persons — “two of you”, and then, “Where two or three are gathered together ...” It does not say two or three of you, but “two or three” who are “gathered together unto my name”; that is, they recognise the Name, and the Lord is with them: “there am I in the midst of them”, not simply “in the midst”, but “in the midst of them” — the persons are in view that are there.

Ques Why does the Lord use the word “again”?

JT Just as I have said, to bring out the change of circumstances — it is another bit of instruction.

FI Would these in chapter 18 be those who pass through the experience of Luke 24, that you spoke of, and then John 20? In Luke 24 He came into “their midst”, and then in John 20 He came into “the midst” and breathed into them. Does the administrative side in chapter 18 follow the experiences of Luke 24 and ^[p. 247] John 20?

JT John 20 is the great general thought: “the midst”, including the whole assembly, all the saints. But “their midst” in Luke 24 contemplates the persons that were thus gathered; they were so distinguished that they were talking about the Lord’s resurrection, and the fact that He had appeared to Simon, that is, they were occupied with grace. Then, the others came in and spoke about His being known to them in the breaking of bread. The Lord honours them in being gathered thus and in what they were saying. So Luke 24 would correspond pretty much with this, because it is “there am I in the midst of them”, that is, those persons; it is the honour that marks them.

EuR Does it in that way involve the local position?

JT Surely; administration is always local.