SPIRITUAL VALUES
[p. 32] SPIRITUAL VALUES
Matthew 11:7-19; Matthew 11:25-27; Matthew 12:6-13; Matthew 12:38-42
JT The thought in mind is that we might consider these scriptures as presenting spiritual values. Spiritual appraisement is necessary, specially in a time of crisis. Principles come first, but we also have to think of persons and to appraise them aright, for persons involved in any given critical state of things have to be considered. It is not to be overlooked, however, that in His sovereignty God sometimes uses persons that are in themselves unsuitable, as illustrated in Balaam, Joab, and many others. In such instances the works speak for themselves. But even as to those suitable, they are secondary to divine principles. Inasmuch, however, that principles work out in persons, so persons are essential, and these passages are read because they bring out this side of the truth; first the greatness of John the baptist appraised by the Lord Himself, and then the greatness of Christ Himself brought out here both personally, and, we may say, officially. He is greater than the sabbath, and greater than such as Jonas and Solomon. Then we have the greatness of those who belong to the kingdom of the heavens. In chapter 12 we have the greatness of man as compared with the lower creatures: a man is better than a sheep, for example. So that in brief we have the greatness of Christ in these passages, the greatness of John the baptist, the greatness of those who form the kingdom of the heavens, and then the greatness of man relatively as over against the lower creatures. I used the word crisis because this section brings out the rejection of Christ in His ministry; it is the turning point in His ministry: hence these values are made [p. 33] prominent as that which is required to stand in critical times.
AMH You said that principles must precede persons, which obviously is right. Have you any special principles in mind at this point?
JT Well, no. I was thinking rather of the persons as I enumerated them, but principles do appear, such as comparative judgment. The fact comes out in chapter 11, that all places and cities come into judgment, bringing out the question of local responsibility, and how the truth has been received; how the evidence of God’s work has been received and appraised. The thought of leadership is another principle that comes out in chapter 12; others too are seen. Chapter 12 is very full, a long and important chapter, leading up to the brethren, and how they are marked off; the sin against the Holy Spirit is significantly seen here. Other most important truths appear additional to what is especially in mind.
Returning to the first scripture read, here is a servant who at this particular juncture is somewhat in the shade. He sends to the Lord asking Him, “Art thou the coming one? or are we to wait for another?” We are apt to overlook the whole history of John and discredit him because of this, but the Lord, after the messengers depart, speaks of what a person John was, ignoring for the moment this shadow over his history, occasioned by his questioning the Lord as to whether He was the Coming One. He was in prison: “John, having heard in the prison the works of the Christ”. We learn here that allowance is to be made for a man’s circumstances if a shade comes over his testimony, his service, or himself, and the Lord takes occasion to say “that there is not arisen among the born of women a greater than John the baptist”. It is an [p. 34] encouragement, it seems to me, for all in the service. But then He challenges those who are listening as to what they went out to see. I think the Lord meant to bring out what John really was. They did not go out to see “a reed moved about by the wind”, or “a man clothed in delicate raiment”. There must have been something more in the man than these thoughts convey, something which drew the people out to John.
AMH That would be the opposite to the sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Are you suggesting that there is substance with John?
JT Yes. John was really the test at the first. All Judaea and Jerusalem went out to him to be baptised; and the Lord did too. It appears here that John has lost power, but personally he is as great now as he was then; they went out to him before, but now they are saying, “He has a demon”. Why is it different now? We are challenged if, having responded to the testimony of God earlier, we are indifferent or opposed now.
AMH I suppose that feature might particularly apply to some locality where the condition amongst the saints is not so good as when they first came to the Lord. It casts them back upon what was their link with the Lord originally.
JT Just so. The substance of the testimony has not altered, so it is now a question of change of mind. They certainly would not have gone out to be baptised by a man who had a demon.
FJF Would that expression “among the born of women” include the Lord Himself?
JT No. He is always unique. “He shall be great” (Luke 1: 32). He has no peer at all. The Lord is referring to persons born of women in the ordinary sense. Here it would be the great ones [p. 35] of that order, as over against persons who are born of God. Those in the kingdom of God are born of God; not that those in mind were not, such as Moses, but they are not viewed on that basis in the Old Testament. It is still a question of men as they were, that is, of the old order. Those in the kingdom of God as the Lord points out, are born anew; “he who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he”. It is the little one. As we learn from other scriptures, they are born of God. It is to bring out, at this juncture, the new thing. It does not say anything just like this before, but now the time has come, He is going to bring in another order of things. He introduces that thought here as a necessary one among what is great.
FW Is that why John is spoken of by the Lord as greater than a prophet? There were prophets who spoke of the coming of the Lord, but John the baptist’s ministry was to direct attention to Him personally.
JT Quite so, and it brought about real movement. Some persons were saying “He has a demon”, but there were others who valued him rightly. The Lord says, “From the days of John the baptist until now, the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and the violent seize on it. For all the prophets and the law have prophesied unto John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, who is to come. He that has ears to hear, let him hear”. He is appealing now to those who were born anew. It is a question of having ears to hear. It requires that because He is bringing in new thoughts. There is such a thing as the kingdom of the heavens, and people are seizing on it. The powerful ministry of John would lead them to it. The law and the prophets had prophesied up to him, but now the kingdom of the heavens is taking form, and people are pressing into it. That is to bring out what [p. 36] John was in his ministry. He was not calling attention to himself, but was pointing to something beyond what he had part in. He was a real witness belonging to the old order, but pointing to the new.
CAI What a man is gives character to his service. John is not officially presented by the Lord, but what he is as great in himself.
JT Yes. What a man! He was Elias indeed, so that the full thought of the Old Testament is embodied in him. He is pointing to another order of things and discrediting the old order in bringing in the new. The way the apostle John presents John’s ministry is that he preached people away from himself to Christ. He heard the Bridegroom’s voice and he was glad to disappear. His joy was fulfilled. What a beautiful tribute to a man in his ministry!
FJF Would you say that in pointing to the Lord he pointed to the One in whom the light of every economy was centred?
JT Quite so. The Lord Himself in His exposition to the two going to Emmaus had this in mind: “And having begun from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24: 27). John was really on that line, pointing to Christ and the new order of things. I think it is very touching that Moses and the prophets pointed to a better order of things than existed, displacing the whole of the old system really by a new.
Ques Is that why the Lord says here, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear”?
JT Yes. You have to pull yourself up and see what all this means. It is a formula that points to a peculiar truth that requires an anointed and circumcised ear, as the ordinary ear would not take it in. The appeal usually stands in relation to [p. 37] parabolic or symbolic truth; you have to get the meaning of the words, which depends on the work of God in you.
CAI Is it important for us in this way to be concerned to get the measure of the servant and the bearing of the ministry which he has?
JT Yes, whether it is a servant or any one of the saints. John here has lost heart a bit, and in dealing with him we must review his whole history. It is a question of values.
FF Had he led them in the ministry of Matthew 3, the repentant remnant, to God’s beloved Son? I am referring to the voice from heaven after the baptism.
JT That is how it culminated. John was baptising. Jesus came from Galilee, and others were coming from Jerusalem and Judaea which were more distinguished than other places, but the Lord took no credit for His locality. He just came up from Galilee to be baptised. He came up like the rest from His own locality, whatever stigma attached to it. He accepted that and was baptised, and heaven owns Him. It was a question of fulfilling “all righteousness”, and John was brought into line; he baptised Jesus, who, as coming up out of the water, is owned from heaven. John is thus in thorough accord with the mind of heaven, in his service. All that enters into what the Lord says here. I suppose none of us would venture to say this about John from the facts given earlier, but the Lord is dealing with it from His own point of view. It is very comforting to have such an appraisement, especially when difficulties arise and crises come. We must not overlook values, for the work of God is the work of God. Then, alongside of that there are the dispensational values, that I have a value, not because of anything in me or in my service, but [p. 38] because of the dispensation. That is another important matter. When the Father names the families, all this will come out, their values according to the dispensation. That is a matter of God’s ordering. How well off we are to belong in our dispensation, the most exalted and honoured!
AMH That is a thing we have nothing to do with. It is God’s sovereignty. It magnifies His grace.
JT Those who had gone out to see John are addressed in this section. They had left Jerusalem and Judaea to see something. Why did they do it? Now they are saying that John has a demon. The Lord is saying, that whatever people think, the divine values remain, which is a very important thing to see, that what God is doing has its own unchangeable value, and He will stand by that.
FW Would this kind of greatness be illustrated in Samuel — the official priesthood passing, and Saul also superseded? Samuel introduces David.
JT Quite so. And although Samuel himself was set aside by the people, he keeps on serving them. “Far be it from me that I should sin against Jehovah in ceasing to pray for you” (1 Samuel 12: 23). What quality there is there! How the man is above the rejection that he may receive at the hands of the brethren; Samuel is outstanding, and as he dies Abigail comes into view.
AMH What is the thought in Abigail coming into view?
JT A great servant passes away; J.N.D., for example. Where was Abigail when he died? that is, the assembly, as of good understanding and of beautiful countenance and knowing what to do (1 Samuel 25). This is the chapter that tells us that Samuel died. And immediately we have a Nabal who rejects David. Samuel had anointed David,
[p. 39] but Nabal rejects him; but Abigail does not reject David. So that in referring back to the period 1884 - 1890, what happened was that those who professed to be the special friends of the great servant who had recently departed to be with the Lord divided the saints. They acted professedly on what was called ‘the ecclesiastical issue;’ that, as a certain meeting had rejected a letter of commendation from another meeting, the latter must be regarded as ‘out of fellowship’, and all gatherings were called on to bow to this. It was professedly Abigail, but it was not Abigail. Abigail knew how to act, she knew exactly what to do and did it. That is what I was thinking of. If the Lord removes leading servants, what is to take their place, what can be relied upon? David, of course, is there, but even David was not shining too well. For the moment it was Abigail who held the ground; that is to say, if we hold to assembly principles, although servants are removed, the truth will stand. The assembly is the pillar and base of the truth.
LDM The young man of 1 Samuel 25: 14 is a good guide.
JT Quite so. He knew where to place the information. He went to Abigail and told her what her husband had done. He had true judgment about Nabal.
FF Is Abigail the answer to David’s personal features?
JT She corresponds in the beautiful countenance and good understanding, being the feminine side, and she becomes the wife of David (one of the types of the assembly), and she is worthy of it; the qualities are there before she comes to David.
AMH Your point is that she is, as it were, the product of Samuel’s long service, in a subjective [p. 40] way.
JT She would be the continuation of it in a special way, showing the fruitfulness of that service; Nabal, the governing side, utterly void of formation according to God, corresponding with Saul.
ESH The Lord is bringing the assembly forward at the present time, and if we get the idea of it as seen in Abigail we would make room for her. It is the greatest thing at the present time, being of far greater value even than outstanding service.
JT Quite so. We are coming to it here. Matthew 16 gives us the reliability of it; “hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”. I think we are prepared by these chapters for such a thing as the assembly, how precious and invulnerable it is!
FJF Would not what you were saying previously be of great encouragement to those who, like John, have come under the oppression of political powers in the earth?
JT You refer perhaps to our brethren in certain countries, where limitations have been imposed on the people of God. Quite so. It is well that we should have a right estimate of them. The Lord makes much of John being cast into prison.
The next point to be considered is the Lord’s own greatness. We have been remarking, of course, that He is incomparable, because He confines the full knowledge of Himself to the Father. In verse 27 He says, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son but the Father, nor does any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him”. The word “knows” is real knowledge, not a mere objective acquaintance with a person (See footnote, New Trans.). That is, the full greatness of Christ personally is outside the range of all creatures, even the most exalted; it is confined to the Father. The Father is revealed by Him, but He [p. 41] does not say that the Son is revealed. So that we are now in the presence of the inscrutable, which is an important thing to keep before us. We are brought to the inscrutable, and it promotes reverence and worship: He was down here as a Man, yet it is said by Himself that no one knows Him but the Father.
AMH Not knowing the Son is a difficulty to many. Is the Son used here as a name for that Person, not suggesting that we have no knowledge of the Son of God. For instance, John bore witness to Him as Son of God. Is the term used here to indicate that Person? We do not know Him in Deity.
JT It is to designate the Person. Ephesians 4: 13 says, “until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man”. That is what is knowable, but Matthew 11 is knowledge of Him in His abstract Personality. He is compassed only by the Father.
FJF That marks Him off from every other person.
JT It certainly does. It is to bring out that He is inscrutable.
AMH We can know Him objectively as Son of God, “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” (Romans 1: 4). That would be objective knowledge.
JT That is right. We get instances of this as in Matthew 14: 33, “Truly thou art God’s Son”. They knew by the miracles.
FW Is it perhaps the difference between comprehending and apprehending?
JT That is so. Apprehending is more limited; comprehending is that you go all round a thing, taking it in fully, which is impossible for the creature in regard to the Persons [p. 42] of the Deity.
LDM What is the force of the expression “Until we all arrive”?
JT This is from our side and is the effect of ministry, which is to help us on, to promote interest and movement. A definite point is to be reached in connection with the Son of God here, but the Son of God apprehended in this public way, “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead”. Alongside this there is the revelation of the Father to Peter, which is the greatest thought of it, perhaps, but there are all these objective things which point to Him as Son of God.
WHU Are the gifts given that we might arrive at the knowledge of the Son of God as stated in Ephesians?
JT Quite so.
CAI Is that exemplified in the man in John 9?
JT Well, instead of some gifted man going to that person, the Lord Himself went to him, and asked him the question, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” (John 9: 35). He was ready for it.
Ques Does the Father reveal the Son to us in some measure?
JT The revelation to Peter, Matthew 16, is complete and we come into it. You come into what is already there. It is a fact brought into the testimony — the revelation by the Father to Peter — the Spirit brings us into that. I believe that is how it works out, not that you have a further revelation, but the thing is there. That is where the foundation of the assembly lies.
AMH Paul’s statement is very remarkable, as to God’s Son being revealed in him (Galatians 1: 16). Is that an inward comprehension of the greatness of the Son of [p. 43] God?
JT I think so. Perhaps not exactly what Peter had, but it is a remarkable statement, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”. It had the proclamation of the gospel in mind more than the structure, because the foundation of the structure was already there.
WHU Would God’s Son be set forth characteristically in Paul, as a result of what was revealed in him?
JT I think so. Paul would exhibit sonship in all that he was, more than Peter would, although one would not detract from Peter, but Paul was taken up in a heavenly way. Sonship properly belongs to heaven, while Peter comes in more with the foundational side. Paul would work out the inward thoughts in the heavenly city, the most intimate relations between Christ and the assembly, but in the saints viewed as heavenly.
WHU Take John 3: 35: “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand”. Would we come into the knowledge of the Son of God in that way?
JT Yes. Wherever you get administrative thoughts attached to Him the testimony is in view. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16: 16), was the revelation made to Peter in relation to the testimony down here; a living God as over against an apostate dead religion. With Paul the revelation is in view of the gospel. Then Paul goes much further in connection with the thought of sonship and speaks about the heavenly side of it. God is “bringing many sons to glory”. Ephesians works it out, and it is in that connection that we have the intimate relations of the assembly with Christ, and how the assembly comes down in [p. 44] the dignity and fulness of sonship. She has the glory of God, Revelation 21: 10.
FJF The inscrutability connected with the Son makes it impossible for the human mind to view the Lord as Man and as God at the same time.
JT Viewing Him as Man leads to what we have been speaking of — the full-grown man in us. It is remarkable that in this gospel Satan says to the Lord, “If thou be the Son of God, speak, that these stones may become loaves of bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone” (Matthew 4: 3, 4), meaning that sonship was in mind, and that would be developed in us. We come to what sonship is in man; sonship in man in testimony here is implied. According to Matthew 11: 27, sonship in Christ, although in manhood, implies that He was a divine Person, and had part in the Deity. No one knows the Son but the Father. Elsewhere we read that He is His equal, so only a divine Person can know a divine Person in the sense of this passage. If He were less than God, if He were a creature even in the most exalted way, He could be compassed by creatures.
GRD You spoke earlier of the personal and official greatness of Christ. Would the inscrutable attach only to what is personal, or also to the official greatness of Christ?
JT Well: it is the same Person. Another person might be Lord, but nobody but the Son of God could be spoken of as Scripture speaks of Christ, even in official positions. Even as He casts out demons, or does anything, it is different from anybody else. Only a divine Person could do such things as He did them; so the Lord’s Person is guarded in every way. In Matthew 12: 8 the official is seen particularly. “For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath”. It is a very remarkable [p. 45] statement here because He is dealing with the liberty of the saints. A very important item of the truth is contained in verses 1 to 8 of chapter 12. We have the greatness of John and those who belong to this dispensation, and the inscrutability of Christ as to His own Person, but He is to be learned from, He is a model for us at the end of chapter 11. We are called upon, as labouring and heavily laden, to go to Him to get rest. Then He shows how we are to be in liberty, not only to be relieved and at rest, but in liberty. It is in that connection that He is Lord of the sabbath, because the sabbath stands here as His, and not as used by the Jews for judaism, as it is often brought in amongst us; tying up the saints.
FF This would be God’s sabbath centering in Christ.
JT He is Lord of it, but in truth it is God’s sabbath, and that is what you get in verse 18. “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom my soul has found its delight. I will put my Spirit upon him”. That is what He is to God, but He is Lord of the sabbath and why can He not relieve man on the sabbath? Why cannot His disciples eat corn on the sabbath? It is to bring out the liberty that belongs to us. He is in an official place, He is greater than the sabbath because He is Lord of it, and He is bringing us into liberty, so that I think the idea at this juncture is that you come out of the sphere of judaism.
LDM The liberty is a spiritual liberty. Is the turning point in this gospel in the rejection of the Spirit? The Lord speaks very solemnly about the Spirit in this chapter.
JT Quite so. The force of His language is remarkable. Indeed He was doing things by the Spirit of God. Judaism has a great place with [p. 46] many, I mean the legal outlook, but these first eight verses are intended to set us free, not simply by doctrine, but by the Lord’s example. Verses 1 - 6 say, “At that time Jesus went on the sabbath through the cornfields; and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears and to eat. But the Pharisees, seeing it, said to him, Behold, thy disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on sabbath. But he said to them, Have ye not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God, and ate the shewbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only? Or have ye not read in the law that on the sabbaths the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, that there is here what is greater than the temple”. He is greater than the temple. Then He goes on to say, “But if ye had known what is: I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless”. It is a remarkable word that we are guiltless in doing the things that legal people say should not be done; but the Lord is setting us free.
CAI Things can be done if there is the knowledge of the Lord in the situation.
JT Quite so. As He walked through the cornfields His disciples were hungry, but what they needed was there. It is a question of what is needed, and they appropriated what was there. He defended them, making them guiltless. We are here now in the midst of great values in Christ, not only Himself personally, but the power that is operative in the kingdom, the Spirit of God.
Rem Would the right appraisement of persons, disciples, in relation to the Son, keep us from being [p. 47] legal?
JT That is what I was thinking. In a crisis we are apt to lose sight of these values, what persons are, and principles too, principles coming first, for, as already said, God may use persons to maintain the truth who are not in keeping with it, such as Joab, Jehu and many others. The truth is always the truth.
FF Would the force of the quotation, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice” mean that we should have mercy?
JT That is it. When trouble arises in a meeting, we are apt to lose sight of these things, and then, of course, the assembly drops out of view.
LDM Is the apostle helping the Galatians on this line? “Christ has set us free in freedom” (Galatians 5: 1). Is that the greatness of what God has brought us into?
JT You can see how He brings in great things, such as Jerusalem above.
LDM I was thinking of that.
JT Yes, and new creation. “Neither is circumcision anything” (Galatians 6: 15). Think of the greatness of the things mentioned: new creation, eternal life, the Israel of God, and others you get in Galatians, great things brought in to lift us out of the smallness of legality.
LDM We have sonship too, another of the great things.
FF It gives force to the expression “All things have been delivered to me by my Father” (Matthew 11: 27). All things, pointing to and centering in Christ, where liberty is.
JT Yes. You are impressed with that thought, that all things are in God’s hands. Here is a Man rejected personally in a most murderous way, but He “answered;” see the holy buoyancy with which He answered: “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the [p. 48] heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes”. He was not disturbed. If the heavens and the earth passed away, He would be the same.
FF So the man with the withered hand was healed, that he might lift up both hands in the sanctuary and bless God.
JT Quite so. The Lord brings into this chapter the entire overthrow of Satan, “the strong man”.
Ques What is the thought in having mercy and not sacrifice?
JT We should emphasise the thought of mercy. A man might be a legalist, and yet give a good contribution to the box, but it is better to be liberal spiritually. What God regards as of greatest importance is the state of a man’s soul. What is proper to christianity, is what God is thinking about. A person may sacrifice and gain a reputation in that sense, and yet be a legalist. God would stress at certain times, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice”. It is a question of what God is doing. I may hide my true state by my sacrifice.
AMH “If I shall dole out all my goods in food, and if I deliver up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I profit nothing” (1 Corinthians 13: 3). Do you think the phrase “Lord of the sabbath” includes the thought that He could dispose of it as He will? It was set on a certain day in legalism, but now He introduces it in another way, or setting. Is that His action as Lord?
JT Quite so. I suppose the principle of it, as has been remarked, is Himself, and so it would be for us the ability to lie fallow and absorb the truth. The Lord is pleased to change it, and it is [p. 49] a great matter to us that He is Lord of the sabbath and can turn it round.
AMH I was thinking of Hebrews 4: 3, which speaks of those who enter into rest. Has that a moral application?
JT I think so. The legalists amongst the Jews, as we see here, were using the sabbath as a weapon against the liberty wherewith Christ sets us free. The Lord implies that He can take it out of their hands, because He is Lord of it, and He did that.
WHU Would you say a word about lying fallow?
JT That is what the sabbath means in a spiritual sense. It has often been remarked that the proportion of time that sabbath keeping required in the types, was about twenty-eight per cent of an Israelite’s time. That in itself speaks strongly as to how God has more to do in us than by us. We have to learn to lay ourselves open for divine workmanship. As clay in the hands of the Potter we have to be formed. We all know in manufacturing how certain elements have to go under certain conditions so as to be usable, and that is the idea, we must come under certain conditions to be useful for the divine service. The sabbath indicates some of the divine conditions we have to go through.
CAI The sabbath was for man and not man for the sabbath, so God reaches His end through it.
JT The sabbath is in this sense a means to an end. The Jews were using it to bind up the people of God. The Son of man is Lord of it, which would imply that He has made it available to all mankind, not only to the Jews, and it has become available spiritually now. We are to understand it and take it up. God has great things in mind and He is working with certain materials. So before we have [p. 50] any material for the tabernacle brought forward, after the instructions to Moses on the mount, a great deal is said about the sabbath. That is the divine thought; before the material for the tabernacle is brought in, the sabbath must be kept, and we have a word added, that God rested on the sabbath and was refreshed (Exodus 31: 17). That is not mentioned before. The sabbath is formally mentioned first in relation to the manna, and later, in Exodus 31, after the unfolding of the pattern of the tabernacle, which spoke of Christ, it is said that God rested and was refreshed.
Ques Does the scripture, “Sacrifice and offering thou willedst not; but thou hast prepared me a body” (Hebrews 10: 5), bear upon this?
JT That is to bring out that the mere typical offerings in themselves were nothing to God. “For blood of bulls and goats is incapable of taking away sins” (Hebrews 10: 4), so that a divine Person had to become Man. “For by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified” (Hebrews 10: 14). It is to bring out that state. The offerings in the Old Testament, in themselves, could not effect anything. They were types of Christ’s coming in, but when Christ came these offerings were set aside. “He takes away the first that he may establish the second; by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10: 9, 10).
FWW In Exodus 16 they go out and find the manna and after that they called it Manna. Do we get things substantiated in our souls before we name them?
JT Just so. The manna and the sabbath are parallel thoughts. As I appropriate Christ as manna I am restful, a new line comes into view in [p. 51] the sabbath; we are to be restful and develop on this new line. Manna is food for development and formation; in the sabbath keeping formation takes place. Undue activity hinders formation.
LDM The feast of booths follows the injunction to keep the sabbath (Leviticus 23).
JT Quite so; where the saints would be in love together. The sabbath is the beginning of all the feasts in Leviticus 23. It is the prime thought of God. He begins with that, and the end of all these feasts is that we may come into restfulness with God. You come into rest where God rests in Christ. If God is resting, you are also, in Christ.
Rem It really involves formation, I suppose?
JT That is the point, it is formation, and, while you get the pattern, you get no material for the tabernacle until the sabbath is accepted (Exodus 31: 12 - 17 and 35: 1 - 3).
CAI So a wrong or legal view of the sabbath would depreciate the value of man, but the Lord says, “How much better then is a man than a sheep!”
JT It shows how distorted things were, a sheep must be saved, but not a man. Legality is really malformation. You have no assembly material in legality as shown in this scripture. It is in the liberty of Christ setting us free we have formation. There is no formation apart from keeping sabbath.
AMH Would legality damage perhaps by causing us to enlarge on detail, and thus we might lose a brother? A sheep would be something important to their minds but they are forgetting the brother. I was thinking of how many things come up amongst us and we may be perturbed at the thought of losing some detail or some activity, which might be encroached upon, but in the meantime [p. 52] we are losing our brother, who is of far more value to us as a live element towards God.
JT The final thought is a comparison between Christ and certain servants who went before. It is in connection with the sign as in verse 38: “Then answered him some of the scribes and Pharisees, saying, Teacher, we desire to see a sign from thee”. There had been many. This gospel especially stresses the great number and variety of signs the Lord had performed; still they are asking for a sign. He says in verse 39, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonas the prophet. For even as Jonas was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, thus shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. Ninevites shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold, more than Jonas is here”. He is making the most of Jonas and the effect of his ministry, but He says there is more here, and the effect is not seen. A sorrowful state is seen here. The Lord is calling attention to the hardness of the soil, and even as to Solomon and his glory, “behold, more than Solomon is here”. It is well to keep that word here in mind in this section; indeed the important point at any time in the testimony is what is actually existent in any given place in the power of the Spirit of God. It is a question of what is in this town now by the power of the Spirit of God.
CAI To lack discernment and appreciation of the value of what is here has a solemn consequence in the next section in connection with the evil spirit coming in.
JT If the truth is not valued, room is made for the evil spirit to come in, and he will come in. Alas,
[p. 53] he has come into christendom. Things swept and garnished are more pleasing to Satan than ever judaism or paganism was. He takes on the refinement; generally the best sites in every town are occupied religiously. Satan promotes that sort of thing.
GRD Would this last thought of yours connect with what we speak of as the moral greatness of Christ as distinct from His personal and official greatness?
JT It is what is here and would imply what is actually operative. It was by the Spirit of God He was doing things. It implies the Spirit. It is not who but what is here — the great power operating for men.
CAI He had that which He could draw attention to at the end of the chapter, “stretching out his hand to his disciples”.
JT That is a beautiful thought. It is now a question of values, and that is the culminating thought in the chapter. Christ has brethren in the true sense, they do the will of God, operating — now, at least — as Christ did in the power of the Spirit. They fit in with all these great thoughts. Among the brethren values will be recognised.
AMH Do you think the days of Jonas are something like looking back to the days when the gospel was largely blessed in a revival, but that it is a greater thing to see the assembly coming to light, and more place given to the Son of God?
JT I think that is right, it is what is here, the assembly, and God is bringing it forward through the light being given, in contrast to the great gospel activity of earlier days. One often realises how little we understand the things we are engaged in, how poor our estimate of things that are here.
[p. 54] AMH Would the wisdom of Solomon come in in the way the Lord has helped us of late in our care meetings, in the matter of appraising things as you have been speaking?
JT Quite so.