THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL AMONG THE GENTILES (2)
[p. 271] THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL AMONG THE GENTILES (2)
JT The context in this passage would indicate that Peter had spoken to the Spirit, and then the Spirit spoke to him. The voice to him, according to verse 14, said, “Rise, Peter, slay and eat”, but then it says in verse 19, “But as Peter continued pondering over the vision, the Spirit said to him” and so forth. That would indicate that the voice that spoke to Peter at first, telling him to rise and eat, would be the voice of the Spirit.
Ques Would it be thus the voice of the Spirit drawing attention to what had come to pass before God through the death of Christ? That is, Jew and gentile reconciled to God in one body by the cross, as being the basis of this approach to the nations? (Ephesians 2: 16).
JT Well, just so.
Ques Would the second verse which rebuked Peter be the Lord’s? In verse 15 of chapter 10 it says, “There was a voice again the second time”, and in verse 9 of chapter 11, when Peter is rehearsing the matter, he says, “a voice answered the second time out of heaven”. I am enquiring if that might be regarded as the Lord’s voice, rebuking Peter for not listening to what the Spirit said.
JT But then it was God that was really showing Peter; as it says, “To me God has shewn to call no man common or unclean”, Acts 10: 28.
Ques You mean that it is really the voice of God.
JT Yes; that is what I thought. The Spirit is God.
EAL I believe you have said elsewhere that we could not say that it was not the Spirit’s voice because it came from heaven, otherwise it would [p. 272] imply that characteristically the Spirit is an earth-dweller, which would not be right.
JT No. The Spirit is God, and He belongs to heaven as God does, in that sense, only that He has come down to earth. He has been sent down, it says, which is remarkable. He was sent down, according to an earlier passage, by the Lord Jesus, and then the Lord asked the Father to give another Comforter; so that the two voices here can hardly be said to be other than the Spirit’s. The fact that He speaks, as it were, here instead of from heaven does not imply that He is not God. It is God’s voice and it is the voice of authority, the same as the voice of the Lord Jesus would be; in fact, any of the divine Persons has authority with Him, in anything that He says.
EuR Peter recognises that in saying to the Spirit, “In no wise, Lord”.
PHH Do I understand that you are saying that it is the Spirit’s voice each time, and in verse 15, the voice saying, “What God has cleansed”, is the Spirit’s voice, and is really indicating that He is God, that it is God’s voice?
JT Quite so. The Spirit’s voice is God’s voice. Of course, if the Lord Jesus said it, it would be the same, it would have authority too; but I think it is only a question now for us to decide as to whether the voice to him is the Spirit’s voice.
AJG The Spirit says to Peter, “I have sent them”, and the angel employed for that purpose is stated to be an angel of God, in verse 3; whereas in chapter 12 we have an angel of the Lord.
JT Well, that would be in keeping with what we have said.
SMcC Do you have a similar thought in Revelation 14: 13, where it says, “And I heard a voice out of the heaven saying, Write, Blessed the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea, saith the [p. 273] Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; for their works follow with them”?
JT That would mean that whosoever’s voice it was, it was a voice speaking to the Spirit, confirming what has been said over and over again, that the Spirit may be spoken to, “Yea, saith the Spirit”. The Spirit answers “Yea” as if He is answering what someone says.
FJF So they are holding conversation with the Spirit?
JT That is just the point; as Mr. Darby says Rebecca, as a type of the assembly, held conversation with the eldest servant of Abraham’s house, who is a type of the Spirit. Mr. Darby has not come forward very much to say anything to us at any time about the Spirit being spoken to as we have had it recently, but he said, ‘Eliezer, type of the Holy Spirit, talks to Rebecca, during the journey, of that which there is in the house of her bridegroom’s father, precious conversation for the soul ... she has left all; and, conversing with Eliezer, she occupies herself with what interests her heart’.
SMcC All these directions are linked with Peter and his service. In the first instance he went down of himself to Lydda; in the second instance, Lydda being near, he was asked to come; but in this chapter he is governed in his service by the Spirit’s direction. Is there something in that for us?
JT It is just in keeping with what we have said already. The Spirit is speaking to Peter, and Peter is speaking to the Spirit, and that may go on now in our own times. It is in order to bring out the liberty in which we have come to see that the Spirit is acting, and that we too may act in that same liberty, that we may speak to Him. There is no need that we should make much of it beyond what the scripture says, but it is right that we should make something of it and have the truth as to it. We must have [p. 274] the truth before us, and the Spirit of truth. We read of the love of the Spirit, too. That is another thing to keep before us, the love of the Spirit and the fellowship of the Spirit.
PHH It was evident that Peter could detect that it was the Spirit speaking. Does that raise the question as to our learning to detect the voices of divine Persons?
JT I think it is very important that we should be able to identify divine Persons as They speak. They are intended to be identified, and what we have been saying would show this. We should be able to discern which divine Person it may be who is speaking at any given time.
WC Will you say a word about verses 3 and 4, the angel speaking to Cornelius by name, and then his reply, “What is it, Lord?”
JT Cornelius would think that he was entitled to respect. He was evidently a divine messenger, to say the least. He was an angel, and he was entitled to respect. At the same time angels are said to be “ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation”. They are therefore, in that sense, subordinate even to the Lord’s people, to ourselves. But if an angel is acting in authority, as representing a divine Person, of course he is entitled to the respect that belongs to that.
Ques What would be the means of detecting the voice of each?
JT Spirituality, I would think. It would require the power that spirituality has in any of us. We are not to be as ordinary or common people.
Ques Would the pondering enter into that? It says, “as Peter continued pondering over the vision”.
JT Quite so. It shows he was not self-willed. He wanted to be right, which is a very important matter. Pondering would mean that he discerned [p. 275] that there was something that he had to know and should know, and he was evidently acquiring the knowledge that was suited at the moment, spiritual knowledge. At a time like this we are actually in the realm of spirituality, and we should expect to be able to discern any voices that speak or are expressed.
RWS Would the Lord’s speaking be more frequent than the speaking of the Father or the Spirit?
JT I do not know, except that the Lord Jesus is made Lord and Christ. That is another point; He is made Lord. The Spirit is not made Lord. Then the Lord Jesus uses the term “Lord” to the Father, “I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth”, Matthew 11: 25. The Father is called Lord, and the Spirit is called Lord, and the Lord Jesus is called Lord, but the Lord Jesus is said to be made that. God has made Him that, which is something to be thought of. He has a peculiar place of authority here on earth, and in heaven too. He is now in heaven, of course, but then another thing comes in in that connection, and that is, the Lord has a right to come out of heaven, as it were, I do not say that He comes out literally, but He has a right to take the ground of coming out anyway. In coming to us, on the first day of the week. He comes to us from the sphere of testimony. It is not simply out of heaven but from where the testimony is.
JTJr Would that be confirmed at the end of Matthew, “Behold, I am with you”, Matthew 28: 20? The Lord is viewed there as in support of the testimony.
JT Quite so, “I am with you all the days”, He says, “until the completion of the age”, showing that He is in testimony here all the time.
LES Do you feel in all this the need for the awakening of our spiritual sensibilities?
JT [p. 276] That is just the point. It is a time of spirituality. It is not simply a time when so many persons, five hundred, or seventeen hundred, or more, are together in any given place; it is a question of the spiritual power that is there.
Ques Do we see from Matthew 16 that Peter had already known what it was to hear the Father’s voice and also the Lord’s voice? “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father”, Matthew 16: 17.
JT Peter does not say that; the Lord Jesus says that. Why do you say that Peter knew it?
Rem Well he had received the revelation from the Father.
JT I know, but you cannot say that he knew the voice. The Lord told him that it was the Father.
Rem And then the Lord says, “and I also, I say unto thee”.
JT Well, quite so. It is a question of what the Lord says, but He determines what voice it is. Peter had not the Spirit then at all.
JEB In his second epistle, Peter says, “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory”, 2 Peter 1: 17. What does that mean?
JT Peter’s epistle is written in the power of the Spirit; it was an inspired epistle. You would expect that what he would say would be right.
PL Does the allusion to the thought of “many kinds of voices in the world, and none of undistinguishable sound” (1 Corinthians 14: 10) show the need for the circumcised ear that would discern the sound?
JT I would think the apostle would be speaking of general principles. We know how voices are to be discerned even now, but that does not mean that in each case we have true spiritual discernment. I would think the apostle’s allusion to voices would be general, and that every voice is a distinguishable [p. 277] sound. Who distinguishes, is not stated; it is just that the sound is distinguishable.
PL I thought it was just an incentive, so to speak, to have an ear that will discern, I am not applying the scripture to divine Persons speaking. It is a great matter, as you say, to catch the strain, the sound and tone of each of the divine Persons.
JT It is a great matter, and, of course, that is the point that we are endeavouring to make. At a meeting like this, and all such meetings, it is not simply that there are so many persons present, but that they have spiritual ability and are being taught. Being taught implies that they are spiritual; they have power to take in the idea of a spiritual voice, and discern it.
GHW Would you mind saying why you think there is a comparative absence of references to speaking to the Spirit, in view of the many references to the Spirit speaking to us? I was thinking of what was brought before us last week, the Spirit speaking to the assemblies.
JT The Lord is saying that the Spirit looks after things, and what the Lord says to the assemblies is said in just a few words comparatively, but the Spirit is speaking all the time, as it were. The whole matter is made known throughout the whole dispensation by what the Spirit is saying. He is saying something all the time to us, as in contrast to the small amount recorded that the Lord says. What the Lord says is authoritative, but the Spirit keeps on speaking, and therefore we can count on the Spirit being here today and in all such meetings. He is here to speak to us, according to the word: “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies”. We can count on the Spirit saying things to us at a time like this.
AJG Would the speaking of the Spirit to the assemblies be through a servant, but does this chapter [p. 278] show that the Spirit may speak directly to one of the saints?
JT I would say that. Why should He not? According to Acts 13, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them”. That is what the Spirit said.
Ques Do we need the Spirit in us to detect His own speaking?
JT I would think that.
Rem I was thinking of the need of making this a wholly spiritual matter rather than bringing our natural senses forward.
JT It is a time of spiritual influence, as well as speaking, at a meeting like this. Therefore it ought to tax us that we should be spiritual, and not merely natural, as people are often at meetings like this. What a change a meeting like this may be, and is, from the things that are generally carried on in public halls. That shows the importance of the change to spirituality, in what christians have, as over against what the world has.
LES The conscious sense of the presence of the Spirit would warrant reciprocity in relation to the matter, would it not? We would be free, in liberty.
JT I should not like to use the word ‘reciprocity’ between us and the Spirit, in relation to ourselves sitting here, and the Spirit with us. At the same time, there is the idea of each taxing himself to be spiritual, because it is a time of spirituality; it is a time for spiritual instruction and influence.
FJF Would the reference, “the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land” refer to the Spirit? (Song of Songs 2: 12).
JT Just so. The turtle-dove is a figure there, of course. Whoever the speaker may be in the Song of Songs, the voice of the turtle-dove would be a figure of what is spiritual. It says it “is heard in our land”, no doubt referring to the millennium, the [p. 279] time for the influence and power of what is spiritual. The turtle-dove would be a figure of spiritual influence and intelligence, so we have the same principle when it is said that “they shall be all taught of God” (John 6: 45); that would come into the millennium too. Of course, it is true now also, and these meetings should be on that principle, that we are “taught of God”.
Ques Does “nothing doubting” suggest that the spiritual influence was to operate in Peter’s heart?
JT I would say that fully. The Spirit was appealing to him, that he should not be doubting, and that he should go with these men “nothing doubting”, for He had sent them.
APB Might I ask whether we might expect the Holy Spirit to speak to us as to where we are to go in service, as He did to Peter, and might that affect our looking up for a long time?
JT I would, I think, check looking up for a long time. I do not think the Spirit would tell us to go to a certain place a year from now. I do not think the Spirit would say that to us, but there is the thought of acquiring spiritual understanding, and if the brethren in any place send an invitation to come and serve them, then I would say that normally the Lord is guiding in the matter. I think we are entitled to take that ground in a proper way, that the Lord’s voice is in it. But I certainly think we should be concerned about taking invitations a year hence, in the things of God, or even six months hence.
APB Do you think we might directly refer to the Holy Spirit to help us as to all this?
JT I think I should. Why not? He is a divine Person and here to attend to us. He looks after all we have to do, spiritually. I should not ask Him anything about my business, or things like that, but I should certainly ask Him about spiritual things and what refers to the things of God.
[p. 280] Ques Would you say what is in your mind as to arranging meetings six months or twelve months ahead?
JT That is another matter, because of the difficulty of finding halls and the like, and we may have to do it. It is only a question of wisdom, and of what God would approve. I know well enough that it is difficult to get halls. I suppose it is difficult here as it is elsewhere, but we just have to do, as it were, the best we can, but God is helping us in a general way. We are not making any point of it, for no brother would make much point of the fact that the Lord told him, or guided the brethren, to hire this hall for six months ahead or the like. I think we just simply act in a general sense of intelligence, and do what is suitable, and comely.
Ques What about the Lord in regard to directing our service? Does the Spirit act on behalf of the Lord, would you say?
JT Well, at times; but in general the Lord is over things, as I was remarking. God has made Him Lord and Christ. He is given that peculiar place, and I would refer to the Lord for all these things, or, of course, to God Himself, but Christ is made Lord and Christ, by God.
AJG Would you say a word as to the distinction between chapters 9 and 10, because chapter 9 is very much a matter of the Lord’s administration and chapter 10 seems to be very much a matter of the Spirit’s administration or direction.
JT It is, very largely, only that Peter says, “To me God has shewn to call no man common or unclean”. Therefore I would put God, as it were, in the same position as the Lord, and the Spirit has graciously taken a more subordinate position and we therefore have to regard Him in that light, but we must not say that we cannot speak to Him, because the Scriptures prove that we can speak to Him. The word in Numbers 21, “Spring up, O well; sing ye unto it” is a word to the Spirit, directly to the Spirit. So also in Revelation 14, “Yea, saith the Spirit” in answer to some voice, the Spirit is answering it.
RWS Is “the communion of the Holy Spirit” (2 Corinthians 13: 14) an individual matter, or is it to be enjoyed collectively?
JT I would say individually or collectively. Fellowship is having things in common. It is both.
WBH Would the word in Luke 15 confirm that? The woman says, “Rejoice with me” and calls together her friends and neighbours.
JT I have no doubt she is a type of the Spirit, and therefore what you say is right.
PHH It says, “the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” 2 Corinthians 13: 14. Does that mean it is an active matter, involving speaking and communications from the Spirit to us and from us to Him? That is, it is not just a title of fellowship, but it is the communion of the Holy Spirit with the saints. I am wondering whether the communion of the Holy Spirit with us is to be regarded as something active.
JT I would say that. It is, of course, a general way of bringing in the three Persons by the speaker. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all”. It is a general way of bringing in the three Persons in order to impress us with spiritual understanding and activity. It is Paul’s gracious way of dealing with things, to make them general, and the whole influence pervading the saints. It is a collective thought there, I would say.
PHH And would therefore be characteristic of the Corinthian saints?
JT They would be capable of taking that in. We have to regard the Corinthians as a sort of [p. 282] representation of the local assembly generally, because the local assembly is in mind in the letters to Corinth.
WLC Would you help in regard to the early part of chapter 16? When Paul was going to Asia he speaks about “having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” (Acts 16: 6), and the next verse says, “they attempted to go to Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them”. Then, after the vision of the man of Macedonia, it says, “concluding that the Lord had called us to announce to them the glad tidings”, Acts 16: 10.
JT That shows that divine Persons are acting together, in infinite unity. The Father says something, or the Lord says something, or the Spirit says something. It is a question of the divine Persons acting in unity, and I might add, infinite unity. What One says, They all say, or would say.
RH Why does the address to the well in Numbers 21, “Rise up, well! sing unto it”, come in in a military setting?
JT It is a call to believers, I would say. “Sing unto it”. Sing to the Spirit, in other words. It is quite true that there is generally a military tone throughout the book of Numbers, but not always so.
Ques Would the verse in Numbers, “Rise up, well! sing unto it”, be a warrant for a hymn specially to the Spirit?
JT Just so. Dear Mr. Revell wrote a hymn on it. We used to have it in our houses, and some of us have it yet.
Rem There is some doubt in the minds of brethren as to whether it would be appropriate to address the Spirit in a hymn that does not contain a reference to the other divine Persons, or to one of the other divine Persons.
JT Well, I would allude to Numbers 21. That is a hymn, whatever we may call it, I do not see [p. 283] why it should be said that we must address the other Persons if we address One. Why should we? If it is right to address One of Them, why should we not do it? There is nothing amiss about that.
Ques You do not think then that every prayer should include addressing the three Persons of the Godhead?
JT There is guidance in the epistles as to that-”Whatever ye may do in word or in deed, do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by him”, Colossians 3: 17. The Spirit is not mentioned there, and if He is left out there is nothing wrong at all. It is quite all right. The Spirit of God is saying that.
Ques Would you always bring in the name of the Lord Jesus?
JT That is what it says, I think, “Do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus”, “If ye shall ask anything” the Lord says, “in my name, I will do it”, John 14: 14.
Rem Even in speaking to the Spirit, I mean.
JT You mean we should bring in the name of the Lord Jesus then too? I would think that is right too.
AJG Is not the Spirit sent in Christ’s name?
JT Just so.
PJB Why is it stated in Numbers 21, that it was by the direction of the lawgiver? When we come to John 1 we get the statement, “the law was given by Moses: grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”, John 1: 17.
JT The scripture says, “Thy commandment is exceeding broad”, Psalm 119: 96. If the scripture says something that refers to a type in the Old Testament that is applicable now, well, it is quite all right to follow it, and the lawgiver now would be the Christ. If we use the word lawgiver in any of [p. 284] our hymns now it would be Christ. He is the Lawgiver. He is made Lord and Christ. In general He is the One. “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14: 37. That is how Paul spoke of it. So that if we bring in the thought of lawgiver now it would be Christ. Similarly we read of “the law of the house”, Ezekiel 43: 12. That is the Old Testament, but it has an application now to the law of the house of God.
PJB So it is in your mind that when John says, “Grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”, it does not shut out what came by Moses?
JT Not at all, and besides there was the time of the law when we were under tutors and governors, but now it is a different thing. The epistle to the Galatians shows that we are in liberty; it is the time of liberty in the Spirit.
JTJr Peter thought that it was unlawful to rise and eat the things he saw, did he not?
JT That was just an allusion to what he thought the law was; that is what he meant.
WSS Is not this chapter which we are considering a liberating chapter itself in relation to the Spirit, a completely new situation having now come in in consequence of the Spirit falling upon the gentiles?
JT I would say so fully.
GHW Is not “God’s dispensation, which is in faith” (1 Timothy 1: 4) brought in by John when he says: “Grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ”?
JT Faith is a feature of the dispensation. This is the time of faith. The millennium will be the time of seeing, but this is the time of faith, in contrast to that. It says, “Whatever is not of faith is sin”, Romans 14: 23. That would show, therefore, how serious it is if we are not in the exercise of faith in what we are saying and doing.
PHH In view of Peter being sensitive to the voice of the Spirit, can we the more easily understand how the Holy Spirit fell at the end of the chapter, “while Peter was yet speaking”. Was the way, so to speak, prepared easily for Him?
JT Just so. In order to come to that, we might just proceed now from the passage that we read down to what is said in the beginning of verse 24, “And on the morrow they came to Caesarea. But Cornelius was looking for them, having called together his kinsmen and his intimate friends. And when Peter was now coming in, Cornelius met him”. We have, in this section, the liberty that servants should have with the persons they serve. “When Peter was now coming in”, it says, “Cornelius met him”. There was a spirit of liberty between them, and it goes on to say, “and falling down did him homage”. Well, he was mistaken there; he should not have done that, “But Peter made him rise, saying, Rise up: I myself also am a man”. There was great humility there, taking his place just as a man, “And he went in, talking with him”, another beautiful touch as to the liberty the servants should have with those they serve. He was “talking with him, and found many gathered together”. Wonderful features! What a good opportunity for a meeting it was! “And he said to them, Ye know how it is unlawful for a Jew to be joined or come to one of a strange race, and to me God has shewn to call no man common or unclean. Wherefore also, having been sent for, I came without saying anything against it. I inquire therefore for what reason ye have sent for me”. Now we can hear what Peter had to say, and I think we do well to look at what Peter said to this company of persons gathered in a house, perhaps [p. 286] in a drawing-room, as we might call it, to hear what the servant of God has to say.
Ques Is the attitude of Peter, in verse 29, essential to the understanding of all truth-”having been sent for, I came without saying anything against it”?
JT Just so. Anyway, it fits in nicely, for he was ready to come, and therefore he says, “I inquire therefore for what reason ye have sent for me”. Then Cornelius speaks; so we might as well listen to what Cornelius said, and then what Peter says in answer to it: “And Cornelius said, Four days ago I had been fasting unto this hour, and the ninth I was praying in my house, and lo, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, Cornelius, thy prayer has been heard, and thy alms have come in remembrance before God. Send therefore to Joppa and fetch Simon, who is surnamed Peter; he lodges in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea (who when he is come will speak to thee). Immediately therefore I sent to thee, and thou hast well done in coming. Now therefore we are all present before God to hear all things that are commanded thee of God”. We have first of all what Cornelius said to Peter, and he refers to the man in bright clothing, which would be an angel, of course, and the whole passage is very beautiful as showing how things were, as the service of God went on in those days, “And Peter opening his mouth said ...” Peter’s mouth is referred to several times, which is another matter in those who serve, pointing to the kind of mouths we may have. And so “Peter opening his mouth said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him. The word which he sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, (he is Lord of all things), ye know; the testimony which has spread through the whole of Judaea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism [p. 287] which John preached-Jesus who was of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went through all quarters” (Peter had done this too, himself), “doing good, and healing all that were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We also are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they also slew, having hanged him on a cross. This man God raised up the third day and gave him to be openly seen, not of all the people, but of witnesses who were chosen before of God, us” (that is, the apostles) “who have eaten and drunk with him after he arose from among the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he it is who was determinately appointed of God to be judge of living and dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that every one that believes on him will receive through his name remission of sins”. Now, that is what Peter’s word was, and I think it is very beautiful. How simple and how practical, and what an evangelical touch there is in it! We might well imitate what he says and how he says it, and the familiar touch or feeling that he had towards Cornelius, in that he did not assume to be anything superior to him, being just a man like Cornelius. Then we have what has been remarked, “While Peter was yet speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word”. So that we have now the Spirit acting of Himself, as Peter was speaking.
Ques How do we reconcile the addressing of the Spirit as Lord with the epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians which both state that there is “one Lord”?
JT Well, that means the Lord Jesus, of course, because He is made Lord. The application is to Him, not that the other Persons could not be called [p. 288] Lord too, because they are called Lord. The scripture says, “There is ... one Lord”, that one Lord is Christ, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”, Ephesians 4: 5. At the same time the gospel of Matthew says that the Lord Jesus called the Father “Lord” (Matthew 11: 25) and then the Spirit is called the Lord; “The Lord is the Spirit”, 2 Corinthians 3.
ANW The Spirit quotes in that connection, “And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord” (that is, ‘despot’), “Lord, thou art the God who made the heaven and the earth”, Acts 4: 24.
JT Very good. Quite so.
Rem There is a similar reference in James 3: 9: “Therewith bless we the Lord and Father”.
JT Besides that, the word ‘Jehovah’, in the Old Testament, is sometimes translated ‘Lord’ in the New. It is a question of understanding the truth and following it up, and comparing spiritual with spiritual.
Rem To apply logical thinking to divine things is disastrous. It calls for spirituality.
JT That is good.
ECM Would you say another word with regard to verse 44, “While Peter was yet speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word”? Would you regard that as being normal today?
JT Even if it is only once, it is there, and there is scriptural authority for it. And this may be compared with how the Spirit came in in Acts 2.
HJE Is what happens in verse 44 governed by the end of verse 33, “Now therefore we are all present before God to hear all things that are commanded thee of God”.
JT That is quite true. Very good. And so verse 44 says, “While Peter was yet speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word”, showing that there is virtue attached to hearing the word. The word is logos there, ‘the Word’. “And the faithful of the circumcision were astonished, as many as came with Peter, that upon the nations also the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out: for they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God”. So that we are now coming to the conclusion of the subject, although in chapter 11 the question is raised again because of Jewish opposition to it; but now the positive side is in these verses, “Then Peter answered, Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did? And he commanded them to be baptised”. Peter raises the question, “Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptised?” Now, in regard of the man that Philip had spoken to, in chapter 8, water was not forbidden. He says, “Behold water” and Philip went down with him into the water and baptised him. Here it is, Peter says, “Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did?” But the point he makes is that if the Holy Spirit is given to a man, or a person, why should he not be baptised? He certainly should be baptised. Nobody should forbid it.
Ques Would you refer to the Holy Spirit in the gospel preaching?
JT Certainly. It is referred to here; Peter is really preaching the gospel here.
WC Would it be right to say that the gospel is not complete if the Spirit is not brought in?
JT I would say that, because the dispensation has to be complete, as you say, and our dispensation is really the dispensation of the Holy [p. 290] Spirit.
EuR In a day of great profession, it would be good to raise the question: “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” Acts 19: 2.
JT Very good. That was Paul’s question to the twelve men at Ephesus. They did not know, they said; and it is the same now; how many people are ignorant of the truth!
Ques Why were these not baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
JT Because Peter is an apostle, and Peter would have authority and he commanded them to be baptised. He has the authority of Christ; he is made an apostle.
APB When they were to be baptised, “he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord”. That would not shut out their being baptised in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, would it?
JT Not at all. If it says, baptising them in the name of the Lord, then the Lord is God. We must make allowance for God, I would myself always use Matthew 28, because it is so complete and in the assembly gospel, but both are right. If I am allowed to speak of what I do myself, I quote Matthew 28 and also what Peter said here, what is done in the name of the Lord, but both are effectual; only what is done in the name of the Lord makes more of the idea of the authority of the Lord. In Matthew 28 it is, “To the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, whereas here it is “in the name of the Lord”.
Ques Do you think Peter would be influenced at all by the fact that they had already received the Holy Spirit?
JT He certainly is influenced, because it says, “Then Peter answered, Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptised, who have received the Holy Spirit”. He was influenced by it; it was because the Holy Spirit had been given to them that he is asserting that they should be baptised.
FJF And the gift of the Spirit is a pure sovereign gift of God?
JT Quite so; only it is based on redemption, of course, and based on faith.
JH Had it in view bringing Cornelius and his household into the same liberty with the Spirit which Peter himself had known?
JT Well, just so; if we saw that household probably we would be fully impressed by it. At the same time I should not think they had come fully into what Peter had come into; he was further on than they would be even then, I would say. But anyway, what we are dealing with now is that Peter’s address to these men, to Cornelius and his house, is the gospel. It is the introduction of the gospel and christianity to the household of Cornelius and to the gentiles, and a very important point is that the gentiles are now brought into christianity.
JTS Did you say that the Holy Spirit acted of Himself when He fell on all those who were hearing the word?
JT Certainly.
JTS Would there be some thought of affectionate delight in that?
JT Very likely; because the Spirit is God Himself. As we have said over and over again here, the Spirit is God Himself; if the Spirit did it, God did it.
JTS I was thinking of the word in Luke 15: “His father ... ran, and fell upon his neck”, in affectionate delight.
JT Quite so. When we preach the gospel from that passage, we take it that the Father did it. Well, if the Father did it, the Son did it; the Son would ratify it, whatever it might be. Any One of the three Persons can act [p. 292] as God.
JTS In Acts 2: 33 it says, “Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear”. Now we have the Spirit falling on those who receive the word.
JT Well, it asserts the power and the liberty that the Spirit has. It asserts too that He is a divine Person, with the same authority as the Father and the Son. We cannot insist on that too much, that He is a divine Person as the Father and the Son are divine.
WBH May I just ask what might be learned from the expression, “the gift of the Holy Spirit”, Acts 2: 38, and then “Have ye received the Spirit”, Galatians 3: 2.
JT The Spirit is a gift and they received it.