CHRIST'S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (6)

CHRIST’S SONSHIP IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (6)

Matthew 26: 57 - 64; Matthew 27: 45 - 54; Matthew 28: 16 - 20

JT While these scriptures have been selected in this section, they are not the only ones that refer to the Lord’s sonship. They are the principal ones, and I hope we shall see that each of them stands connected with some special feature of the truth. There is the allusion to His sonship in chapter 22, where it is said that a certain king “made a wedding feast for his son”, and also in the end of the previous chapter, where the owner of the vineyard sends his son, saying, “They will have respect for my son”. Then the Lord raises the question of His sonship with the Pharisees, as to whose Son is the Christ; and, of course, there are the references to His Father implying His sonship.

Ques Would you mind saying a little more on chapter 18: 20, in connection with “my name”? I gather that your exercise has been the bearing of this most important truth of sonship on our present position, and I was wondering whether gathering in the light of His name would be a kind of link with what was before us yesterday.

JT It involves the Person, and so the verse precludes independency. Any two or three christians might literally use the words ‘gathered unto the Lord’s name’, but it might be in independency, whereas, it is noteworthy that the instruction of the verse follows what is said about the assembly in verse 17, and what is said about the “two of you” in verse 19, and expresses the idea of His name, “gathered ... unto my name”. The preposition “unto” makes His name an object, as it were, a known thing which in itself would preclude independency. It involves regard for the Name which is His renown or glory.

HH Would you say that “there am I” is the ^[p. 249] personal presence of Christ, and, in that way, would be more than support? I mean, we can have support without the personal presence of Christ.

JT It involves His personal presence in the Sense in which that is to be apprehended now; it is not His corporeal presence, for He is corporeally in heaven, although Matthew does not say so; but in the sense in which such a statement is to be understood. It is the Spirit’s power, but more than that — the sense that the Lord Himself is present, and not only present, but “in the midst of them”. As we said this morning, it calls attention to the persons, as if honouring them under these circumstances. There could not possibly be any independency in such a position.

HES Why is it that, when the high priest speaks of the Son of God, the Lord answers him by the title Son of man?

JT Well. His use of the appellation “Son of man” has already been alluded to. It is the title He takes very frequently, as was remarked — the title He takes publicly, especially in the presence of His rejection by Israel, intimating His relation with the race of men, with mankind, for the title really means He is the Heir to all that pertains to them, and thus He is qualified to take up all their obligations and clear them.

HFN What are the distinctive features of the truth as to Son of God suggested in this section of Scripture?

JT This confession of His is not voluntary. His attitude is that of a Sufferer now; He is in the hands of His accusers, and so what He says is in the nature of a confession, it is drawn out of Him, the confession meaning that He is ready to suffer for what He confesses. So the high priest’s inquiry is almost in the language of Peter’s confession, but omitting the word ‘living’. “The high priest answering said to him, I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us if thou art the Christ the Son of God”. He brings in the living God in the ^[p. 250] adjuration that he puts the Lord under, and asks Him whether He is the Christ, the Son of God. It is what might have been expected from the ecclesiastical leader. Linking it back with Peter’s confession, it meant the overthrow of what the high priest stood for, and the Lord knew it and did not shrink from fully owning that He was Himself the Christ, the Son of God. We are in the presence of a confession involving the Lord’s martyrdom or death, and He did not shrink from making it, that is, as before Caiaphas, a good confession. A good confession today in relation to the ecclesiastical world is the full confession of Jesus as the Son of God. He is the Christ the Son of God, which means that all that God has to carry out is in His hands, and not in the hands of any man-made officials. The anointing of His head earlier, by the woman in the house of Simon the leper, meant the same thing, that in her mind He was the One to effectuate everything for God. It is a question of confession. Peter’s confession made him blessed: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona”, and constituted him material for the assembly. But now, in the presence of persecution, are we ready to make the confession, involving, as it does, the overthrow of all that is man-made ecclesiastically? It is a remarkable thing that what is forced out of the Lord by Caiaphas is the confession of the Lord’s sonship. Pilate stresses His kingship, but the Lord is not afraid of that either; He is not afraid of a full confession before Pontius Pilate although it involved His death — that there was another king besides Caesar. The two confessions, therefore, that in chapter 26 and the one in chapter 27, involve on the one hand the overthrow of a man-made christendom, and on the other — hand of imperialism according to man. The Lord is to supersede all that.

JRS Is that overthrow what was in the mind of Paul in 1 Timothy 6, when he says, “who witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession”?

JT It is important to bring that in here: “and ^[p. 251] hast confessed the good confession before many witnesses. I enjoin thee before God who preserves all things in life, and Christ Jesus who witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession”. We are put under obligation in regard of confession, not to provoke persecution, but, as it is called for and insisted on, we confess what we hold at the risk of suffering.

Ques Does the confessing of Jesus as the Son of God in 1 John suggest the full development of what you speak of as inwardness? “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God” (chapter 4: 15).

JT Yes; it seems to me the idea of confessing is very important in what is before us, not to provoke opposition, for that is not the ground the Lord takes; He is already classed as a Sufferer. We are now in the presence of the holy Sufferer in the hands of His enemies, and we see how He acted and how His movements brought out His sonship. This assertion meant the overthrow of all that Caiaphas represented, as it does today, for it is a question of the house, and His sonship in the house. Christ is Son in the house; He is the builder of it and He is Son over it; and so, in addressing Thyatira, He says, “These things says the Son of God, he that has his eyes as a flame of fire”, Revelation 2: 18. Thyatira represents the whole ecclesiastical system set over against what the Son builds, and that I believe is the force of His confession here before Caiaphas.

EuR The ecclesiastical system is characterised by dead works, but in Hebrews it says of the Lord, “who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, purify your conscience from dead works to worship the living God” (chapter 9: 14). Is that the way He is moving here?

JT Quite so. Caiaphas administers the oath of adjuration, as we were saying, in the name of the living God (Leviticus 5: 1). “I adjure thee by the living God”. That is, Caiaphas owns the living God, but does not ^[p. 252] attach it to the confession, whereas Peter did. The confession of Peter implies that the new system is to be living, whereas the high priest is assuming the idea of life in connection with his system, which was pernicious.

JHL Is Psalm 2 similar to what is here? In connection with the declaration of the Son there is the raging of the heathen, “Why do the heathen rage?”

JT Quite so, but the link in this chapter is with the ecclesiastical system, the religious side of the opposition.

AM Would the confession be carried forward to Acts 4, Peter and the others before the council? “Let us threaten them severely no longer to speak to any man in this name” (verse 17).

JT You have the idea of the Name in your mind? It is very remarkable that Caiaphas links on the thought of the living God in administering the oath to the Lord, which the Lord respects, and omits it as to the Lord’s title. “tell us if thou art the Christ the Son of God?” The truth was that He was “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The overthrow of the system at Jerusalem was on moral grounds, that is, God brought in something that superseded it morally, before He did it actually. The new thing is described in Acts 2 and what follows. It is a living state of things, permeated by life and unity, the testimony to the Son of God; and therefore the old was superseded, and the removal of it was on moral grounds. So today, what is available in testimony is what is living, what the Son of God brings in, for He not only builds the house, but He is over it and is in it as Son. Hence, in His address to Thyatira, His eyes are not “dove’s eyes;” they are dove’s eyes amongst those who love Him in the house, but they are eyes of fire against Thyatira, and all this will soon come to light. It has come to light for the overcomer; she is morally overthrown already: “Babylon has fallen”. God has brought in Philadelphia as over ^[p. 253] against Thyatira, in that sense, for there is that which is living there.

EuR And over against Sardis, too: “thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead”, Revelation 3: 1.

JT Quite so.

HH Is it not in contrast to the two false witnesses? I was thinking of Revelation 11, the two olive trees that stand for the truth and whose testimony goes through.

JT They are said to be “sons of oil”, Zechariah 4: 14. It is a question of the Spirit, and two being adequate witness. They sought adequate witness here; it is said, “And the chief priests and the elders and the whole sanhedrim sought false witness against Jesus” — a terrible thing; they sought witnesses, but false ones, “so that they might put him to death. And they found none, though many false witnesses came forward”. There will never be any want of them. Then it says, “But at the last two false witnesses came forward and said, He said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and in three days build it”. Well, He had said something like that, but what He meant was not what they meant.

Ques Is this in contrast to the witness amongst the brethren that we had this morning: “If two of you shall agree on the earth concerning any matter”? We know from another scripture that these witnesses did not agree.

JT What is required in the assembly is competent witness, that is to say, two persons: “the testimony of two men is true” (John 8: 17), the Lord said. The administration of the assembly is based on confidence, that the persons are known. As we saw when we began in our inquiry into this book, the thought of righteousness runs through. It is a question of righteousness, and witness borne by “two of you” — two of the assembly — is reliable. God has His way of accrediting witness. We have to consider the persons who bear witness,

so that “two of you” in chapter 18 would be accredited witnesses of God whose testimony should be acted on; what they witness to is established. But here, they found none. It is false witness, that is, in this setting we have to do with false witnesses, and nothing is more trying than untrue accusations. I am sure the habit of untrue accusation is most distasteful to God, for it really runs with the idea of the accuser of our brethren. No true witness of the assembly would accuse the brethren; he loves the brethren. So the stress laid on false witnesses is striking here. These two are false, although what they say has a semblance of truth.

DLH Besides, is it not the case that the Lord never did say He would destroy the temple. He said, “Destroy this temple” — you do it — “and in three days I will raise it up”.

JT In truth they would kill Him, the true Temple. The false witnesses say that “He said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and in three days build it”.

Ques Would you say that by remaining silent He exposed the false witnesses, and by speaking He exposed Caiaphas and his system — the high priest rent his clothes?

JT Quite so. It has a very important bearing just now. The Lord’s confession here raises the question of what He builds, what the Son of God has brought in, as over against the dead, man-made system.

FSM The incident we are considering must have involved the Lord Jesus in much suffering. Are the thoughts of sonship and suffering linked together here, as in the next section? I was thinking of the scripture in Hebrews 5: “though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered” (verse 8); sonship and suffering seem connected there.

JT Quite so; the Lord’s confession of His sonship here involves suffering. “The high priest”, it says, “rent his clothes, saying, He has blasphemed: what need have we any more of witnesses? behold, now ye have ^[p. 255] heard the blasphemy. What think ye? And they answering said, He is liable to the penalty of death. Then they spit in his face ...” How touching all that is!

JTS You emphasised the danger of quoting, not what the Lord has said, but something resembling it; would there be something like that with the enemy in his quotation of the psalm in the second temptation?

JT Yes; it is not a correct statement. The Lord had said something like this; Scripture had said something like what the enemy said; but these are perverted things, only partially true, but error is in them, and a false impression is conveyed.

PL The Lord says in the psalm, “All the day long they wrest my words”, Psalm 56: 5.

JT One has thought of it with reference to current events, the large amount of unfairness in the accusations that have been made is most distressing, coming from those whom we must regard as christians; they only show how easily any of us may take this part in false accusation, the most spiritual may come under it, hence the need of keeping ourselves in love. Love does not impute evil; it is the only antidote against coming under the influence of the accuser of our brethren.

NKM Did Peter have this in mind in Acts 2, when he said, “Be saved from this perverse generation” (verse 40).

JT Exactly; it is perverse, and the idea of a generation comes out in Matthew and in the Acts. The generation had been exposed as being perverse, and they were to save themselves from it. One of the things we ought to be diligent about is fairness, for “Love ... does not impute evil”, 1 Corinthians 13: 5. They were so far from having love — it was so scarce, alas! at Corinth — that the apostle had to make a sort of picture of it in the abstract.

Rem It says in Ephesians that the new man is “created in truthful righteousness and holiness”, and then it goes on to say, “Wherefore, having put off falsehood, speak truth every one with his neighbour, because we are members one of another” (chapter 4: 24, 25).

EuR Does not the enemy seek to use semblances of the truth oftentimes in relation to local difficulties, to bring in disintegration?

JT Yes, and truth mixed with error is the most dangerous lie. We were noticing that the Lord’s confession before Pilate is as to His kingship. Pilate says to Him, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” Notice, it is the “governor” here in the main throughout, meaning that the person in authority is speaking, the one representing Caesar. Is the Lord ready to say something that will incriminate Him in the eyes of the one with power in that way? But He does not shrink from it. Pilate says, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” Jesus says to him, “Thou sayest”.

HFN Would you say a word with regard to what Paul refers to in Timothy, “Christ Jesus who witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession”, 1 Timothy 6: 13. The confession leads on to fulness of light, and one feels it is one of the most profound thoughts that came from the pen of the apostle.

JT He puts on Timotheus the obligation of witnessing, and goes on to say, “that thou keep the commandment spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; which in its own time the blessed and only Ruler shall shew ...” — that is the appearing. Then he continues: “the King of those that reign, and Lord of those that exercise lordship; who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see; to whom be honour and eternal might. Amen”. The Lord Jesus is in the apostle’s thought, and he refers back to His position in the Deity. It is one of the weightiest statements that Scripture affords in that respect, and, as linked on with the confession of Timotheus,

^[p. 257] it becomes applicable to ourselves, as to the bearing of our confession.

Ques Do you think in verse 64 there is a warning that if they missed the blessing connected with the glorious Person before them, they would come under His judgment as the Son of man?

JT It is the “Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven”. There is certainly a warning in that.

DLH Is there a suggestion of His deity in the clouds of heaven?

JT Yes. Psalm 104: 3 would indicate that. These are the things that come in informally; by which we are built up in the understanding of His deity.

Now, the scripture read in chapter 27: 45 - 50 brings us to the most touching and profound scene conceivable, that is, the Lord Jesus on the cross effecting atonement, and, notwithstanding all the harrowing scenes that preceded it, and the effect as to physical endurance it must have had on Himself personally as a Man here, we have the most striking testimony to His sonship, in that it is said, “about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And then again, in verse 50: “And Jesus, having again cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost”. The power that was present in Him, although He was literally dying — at least, about to give up His spirit — is the most striking testimony to His sonship, and to His divinity, so that the centurion, and they who were with him on guard over Jesus — for notice, it is not only the centurion but those with him on guard over Jesus — “seeing the earthquake and the things that took place, feared greatly, saying, Truly this man was Son of God”. So that at the cross, we have the gentiles, as they doubtless were, Roman soldiers, witnessing to this great fact, having its own voice right down the ^[p. 258] ages, for indeed the centurion is the first gentile to witness to this.

HES What is the particular thought in that they were gentiles who first came into this light?

JT It is a feature with Matthew, that things do not work out in any arbitrary way, but the setting aside of Israel was on moral grounds; the work of God was elsewhere and it showed itself. God respects His own work. “Let thy work appear unto thy servants”, as was quoted this morning. Wherever it is, it is to be respected, and it certainly is most striking that this gentile soldier should be the first gentile to testify to the Son of God — even before Paul.

WSS This is the conviction that is to come into every one of our souls as to this Person.

JT That is the point in this gospel — and what you become owing to the light that comes into your soul. Undoubtedly this man came into the light and spoke accordingly.

HFN Are these last three scriptures more in connection with the public side of things, and not exactly the inwardness of chapter 16?

JT The inward is properly the assembly worked out from chapter 11 to chapter 18, where it is seen as owned and having a status on earth, superseding the council the Lord spoke about in chapter 5. We are now dealing with the public side, that is, the side of confession and suffering.

PHH Does the confession of the centurion stand over against the reviling from the chief priests and the scribes and elders, who also mention the term “Son of God”?

JT That is suggestive. You will observe that those that stood round deriding the Lord, alluded both to His kingship and sonship. The enemy took up the Lord’s confession of both, and that requires from ourselves a good confession on both sides — His sonship and His authority, lordship. The enemy would take ^[p. 259] those things up and deride us, aside from the admission of them as seen in us. It was no mere profession with Him. Power was there, because He could cry out twice as He died; when everyone else would be weak. He “cried with a loud voice”, it says.

This gospel builds up a constitution capable of sustaining suffering, it is the acacia gospel — showing the power of endurance in the face of the awful pressure that is against us — the gates of hades. It is not only formal military power, but the council of evil, the gates of hades, and so the Lord, from the outset, aimed at building up a constitution in His disciples so that they should take their share in suffering. This gospel is especially intended for that, and so it tells us constantly that He was going to suffer, and the kind of people that would cause the suffering: as for instance, in chapter 16, what would happen to Him from the scribes, and the elders of the people; in chapter 17: 22, how He would be delivered into the hands of men; and then in chapter 20: 19, how He would be delivered up to the nations by the Jews to be put to death; so that the whole race is implicated in the death of Christ. We have to bear in mind that not only the religious leaders, but men, as such, will cause suffering, so that we are to be on our guard: as it says, “be not afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul ...” We are not to be afraid of man.

JJ Would that be in the mind of Paul in writing the epistle to the Galatians, bringing in his own suffering to overthrow this legal system?

JT So that he says, “he that was born according to flesh persecuted him that was born according to Spirit” (chapter 4: 29). Our nearest of kin may be found among the persecutors, that is, those that are born after the flesh, which is essentially opposed to what is of the Spirit.

HH The psalms connect the thought of kingship and sonship with suffering. You get is Psalm 2,

“^[p. 260] I have anointed my king upon Zion”, and then it also says, “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”. You have kingship and sonship there, and do not the psalms deal with the exercises that necessarily come in in order that there may be the maintenance of those two thoughts with the saints, and all to be reached at the end in triumph and praise?

JT So that the confession before Caiaphas and the confession before Pilate involved the whole truth of the Lord’s Person, what He is on God’s side as the Son, for the representation of God comes in in sonship. He says, “they have both seen and hated both me and my Father” (John 15: 24); the Father was there. Then the confession before Pilate was of His lordship, and that, too, brings in suffering.

Ques In regard to this matter of suffering, is there any connection with the three Hebrew children in Daniel who would not worship the image and who had the presence and company of one like the Son of God in the fire?

JT Showing beautifully how the Lord comes in as Son to stand by us.

Ques With regard to the subject of the forsaking, is it right to say that the Father forsook the Son? It says, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This blessed Man is the sin-bearer — the Son of God truly — but I find it difficult to think that the Father forsook the Son.

JT You have no difficulty in saying that God forsook Him? We have to bear in mind that there was total abandonment; there could be no atonement otherwise. That the Father is not in evidence is quite to be admitted; it would never do, because it says that the Father judges no one (John 5: 22); but then, it is the same Being, there is no other God; we have to bear that in mind.

Rem I admit that fully, but Scripture does not make the statement, that the Father forsook ^[p. 261] the Son.

JT No; it could not, for the Father judges no one. Our minds have to be controlled by Scripture, and it is God that judges, and therefore it is God that the Lord addresses on the cross. In Gethsemane it is the Father, but it is the same Being. There is only one God, and “to us there is one God, the Father”, only the Father never judges, as the Lord said, and therefore it would be unscriptural to say the Father forsook Him, I mean, in that sense. But then, on the other hand, we must remember there is only one Being, God. We cannot say that the Father is one, and God is another.

Ques Would it be correct to suppose that, while God as such was forsaking Him, the Father as such was supporting Him on account of the delight He found in Him?

JT That is not correct. He was forsaken of God, and we must accept that fully without mitigation. It brings out His own greatness; no one could sustain such a position but One who is Himself divine.

HD'AC We ought to observe the importance of that word, “My God, my God”. No one had ever been to God what Jesus was, and no one had ever been to Jesus what God was. There was an intense delight in God on the part of Jesus. How often He said in Spirit in the psalms, “My God”, and now He has to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” How such a word must have reached the depths of the heart of God!

JT “God is one”, which would imply there is no diversity of thought in anything done, and so the forsaking was absolutely of God, and the fact that there was One there to sustain such a judgment brings out that He was Himself divine.

Rem In Gethsemane the Lord addressed the Father, and He asked that the cup might pass from Him, and did not that account for the intensity of His sufferings, so that His sweat was as it were great drops of blood?

JT At Gethsemane He was dealing with the enemy’s power, so that He brings in His Father. His Father was there, and angels ministered to Him, but on the cross it is not a question of Satan’s power, but of God’s unmitigated judgment.

DLH And when the forsaking was over and the Lord Jesus had accomplished His work, He could then say, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”.

JT That is very beautiful and very touching.

JHL Is not this the only time the Lord addresses the Father as “My God”, prior to His death?

JT Only in Spirit, as has just been remarked, in the Old Testament. Of course, He quotes from Psalm 22 on the cross. He had said it in Spirit before, but now He says it Himself. But you do not get it in the New Testament save here. In John 20, He says, “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”.

JHL That is in resurrection.

JT Yes.

SJBC In connection with Psalm 22: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” and then later on when it says, “neither hath he hid his face from him” (verse 24) — would that be the fat of the sin-offering going up? When the fat of the sin-offering, the inward excellence and strength of the victim, was burned on the altar, it was said to be a sweet savour unto Jehovah, so that even as the sin-offering on the cross, there was that which delighted the heart of God.

JT You can only think of Him in the power and excellence that led Him into death, but the fact of the forsaking is not modified by that.

In chapter 28: 16 - 20, we have the final setting of the sonship of Christ in this gospel. It is not now seen in suffering, but in the deity, that is, as revealing the relation which God has taken, in order to effect His thoughts in man. It is not sonship in absolute deity, but in revelation; the relations that God has been ^[p. 263] pleased to take to effect His counsels and to make His love known. The setting is wonderful and ought to induce everyone to be baptised to it; “to the name of the Father”, as it is said, “and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. It is one name, but involving such features — the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is God in grace as presented in the gospel, inviting from men committal in baptism. The light presented should induce this.

AJG Is this name “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” all involved in God being “all in all” eternally?

JT I think so. The order involves not exact equality, but relativeness. It implies gradation of Persons, the Father first, the Son next, and then the Spirit. These are relations taken in love to accomplish the counsels of God and make them known. They involve surrender or sacrifice on the part of the Persons. It is not deity in the absolute which is presented; it is God coming out to be near to us that we might know Him. The relationships presented to us are not relationships involving judgment, but grace. The Father’s name is always connected with grace, and the Son’s position is to carry out the Father’s thoughts in dignity, and the Spirit is to make all effective down here. It is a wonderful economy, the economy of revelation, as we may call it, entered into deliberately in order to make the counsels and thoughts of God effective and to establish confidence in the hearts of men.

MWB Have you any thought why we have no record in the New Testament, especially in the Acts, of this formula being used? In fact, in Acts 19 it is stated that “they were baptised to the name of the Lord Jesus” (verse 5).

JT That opens up a very wide enquiry as to the position of this part of Scripture in the testimony, and whether it was ever really carried out. The commission here contemplates Galilee as its basis. The Lord is in ^[p. 264] Galilee and the disciples are viewed as the poor of Israel’s flock. The Lord deliberately goes to Galilee, and it is a question whether it does not look on to a future day, the disbelieving nations — not the persons of the nations, but the nations — a very great undertaking. Of course, the persons must be involved, but the nations as such are in view. Matthew has in mind that the nations are to be brought into blessing; in chapter 25, indeed, he pictures the Lord when He comes sitting on His throne with the nations gathered before Him, and some go into everlasting punishment, and others into everlasting life; they are treated according to their treatment of His brethren, that is, the Jewish brethren. Now in these verses it looks at those brethren — they are His disciples here, not called apostles — as having power, not simply to enlighten the nations, but to make disciples of them — a very great matter! Whilst there is no evidence that the commission here was ever carried out, it will yet be carried out, and it bears on the position of the assembly, in that the Lord expects power to be amongst His people to influence others, to make disciples (Acts 14: 21). Aside from the fact that they were a broken number, eleven not twelve, and that some of them doubted, it was an imperfect state in the disciples. But He does not stop to repair the position; the Lord simply goes on, and says, “All power has been given me”. That never fails; it never can fail, and He proceeds to say, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”. It contemplates, even in that broken state, that there is to be power to disciple people.

EuR In this connection do lordship and discipleship run parallel with the great thought of sonship? The assembly gives Christ His real rights whilst rejected.

JT It says, “the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them”. It contemplates distance, and that they come under ^[p. 265] His direction. It is His dignity as in authority, which the chapter contemplates. Then it says, “when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”. I believe this section of Matthew is brought in, not because it has ever been carried out, but to show what is possible in a place that in no way enhances the position, that is in Galilee; it has no distinction religiously; it contemplates a position of reproach, but the power being there the reproach is not in the way. The power is enough. Who can dispute the power of God, whatever the outward circumstances? So, I believe, the apostle Paul acted on the principle of this chapter in going to Corinth. He made no pretence about appearances; he was no religious leader at all, he was a tent-maker, but then he said the power was there, and you cannot dispute the power.

PL And must one be in Galilean conditions to understand the stoop of divine Persons?

JT The stoop is a word to be noted. God came down. Even in the Old Testament it is contemplated that He humbled Himself to behold the things in the heavens and the earth, and He humbled Himself, speaking reverently, in coming into this economy, and in coming into Galilean conditions. But you need not mind that. The presence of God among His people is enough, and whatever the circumstances it will make itself felt, and so you have influence and the means of affecting people.

JJ Did Paul have that in mind in the last verse of 2 Corinthians? He speaks of “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit”. Was it to bring them to what we have in the end of this chapter?

JT I am sure he had. The principle in this chapter, as it bears on Christianity, runs right through Paul’s ministry at Corinth, the determination not to know ^[p. 266] anything but a certain thing, that is, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. A man like that is one that knows he has power, and that power will show itself, it cannot be disputed. So “the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power”, 1 Corinthians 4: 20. Hence God has been pleased to come into this economy. Paul speaks about the weakness of God; we have to use the word reverently, but it is remarkable, he says, “the weakness of God is stronger than men” (chapter 1: 25); that is the point. If God can establish His superiority He is ready to come down and take a lowly place to gain His point, and that is what this chapter means.

PL The ark is the great symbol of that in the Old Testament.

JT Exactly; it was a small thing, but it was the glory of God and the power of God, and even if it is in the hands of the Philistines it overthrows Dagon and returns by itself, as you might say.

AJG Power to influence others would be the outcome of the inwardness we had earlier, would it not?

JT Indeed, all that enters into this. The greater we are inwardly, the smaller we can afford to be outwardly. In his letter to the Corinthians the apostle was prepared to surrender anything in order to reach his point with them.

Ques Does this scripture suggest a voluntary movement on the part of the eleven disciples?

JT The Lord said, “go, bring word to my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there they shall see me”. They moved under direction. It is important to see the thought of authority in this chapter. The angel said, “Behold, I have told you”. It is a question of the authority of the Lord, “An angel of the Lord, descending out of heaven, came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his look was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became as dead men. And ^[p. 267] the angel answering said to the women, Fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus the crucified one. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said, Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and say to his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goes before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him. Behold, I have told you”. There can be no doubt as to what the angel meant, and there is a voice in that from the standpoint of Matthew and the assembly; it is a question of the commandments and the authority of the Lord. So the disciples moved in that way, and now they are to teach, as He says: “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you”. We can see the force of the commandments here, and how the moral bearing of this chapter was carried out by the apostle Paul as seen in Corinthians. He does not represent the formal carrying out of this commission, for I believe it is still future. It is a question of the nations, as such, but Paul carries out the spirit of it and insists on the commandments, and that as far as he was concerned he was ready to go to any lengths legitimately to gain what he had in mind for the Corinthians. The Lord had much people in Corinth, and the Lord had gone to the cross and the forsaking of God to gain Paul, and the apostle was ready to move on this line.

DLH And are we to understand that now during this period the formula should give place to the name of the Lord?

JT I do not think that this formula should be ignored in baptisms. Whilst this gospel contains the mind of God as to a future dispensation and as to movements towards a godly remnant, it was written by a christian apostle, one of the apostles of Christ, especially to christians, and I cannot see that the beautiful formula should not have its full place, for it is a question of God coming in and taking up this attitude in lowliness and humility, as I may say, so as to gain our hearts,

^[p. 268] for what could be more attractive than this presentation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a presentation that denotes the service of love that man might be delivered from the authority of darkness?