THE PRAISES OF ISRAEL (3)
[p. 328] THE PRAISES OF ISRAEL (3)
Luke 3:21,22; Luke 9:34,35; Luke 10:17 - 24; Luke 11:1 - 4
JT Referring to our subject which is the service of the assembly Godward, as seen in Luke, it may be remarked that the formation of the vessel of praise is included in the subject, as well as the praise itself. This gospel furnishes instruction, not only as to the service of praise; but the formation of the vessel in which the praises are to be rendered is also contemplated. That vessel is in the last chapter, as we shall doubtless see, but the component parts or elements are in view in the persons brought into evidence, where the thought of praise appears. We should also bear in mind the presentation of Christ as unborn, and born; then as a Child and as a Boy; then as in the consciousness of sonship without His sonship being stated; then His sonship announced from heaven, but announced to Himself in this gospel; then His sonship announced to others on the mount of transfiguration, with the added word that He is to be heard: “Hear him”; then His inscrutable relations in the Deity, but withal in a known relation with the Father. That is as far as we may get in this reading.
It is necessary to revert to chapter 2. We left off with the shepherds surrounded by heavenly light and then by a multitude of the heavenly host praising God; the Babe born, that is, seen objectively, but a Babe; and then the Babe born to them: “born to you”, as if the thought of enrichment begins, and the formation accompanying it, in Mary who pondered the things in her heart, keeping them in her mind. Then we have the bringing of the Babe to the temple, and the statement that there was a man in Jerusalem who had communications from the Spirit, upon whom the Spirit of God was indeed; he had communications from the Holy [p. 329] Spirit about Christ, and he took the Child in his arms. We have here an added thought of “a man in Jerusalem”, a city as yet the centre of divine thoughts.
Up to this point, we have mentioned a certain priest and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and then a virgin, and then Joseph, without any explanation as to who he is, and then the shepherds without mentioning their names, and then a man in a certain place, namely, Jerusalem, upon whom the Holy Spirit was, and who had communications from Him about Christ. He takes the Child in his arms and speaks about Him, going beyond what Gabriel had said and what Zacharias had said, presenting Him as light for the revelation of the gentiles and the glory of God’s people Israel.
Then a prophetess is mentioned, whose name is given and whose age is given, her history stressing her womanly qualities. So that we have these component elements brought forward, and then the introduction of the word “Boy” attached to the Lord, and His peculiar normalcy in that stage when He was seen in the temple — sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing and asking questions; His understanding and answers are noted. Then that He is conscious of His sonship without it being said formally that He was Son, chapter 2:49; He does not take it upon Him, but awaits the heavenly voice for that; then that it should be said to Himself. I think the brethren will see there is much for us as to assembly formation, and the praise that goes with it, in chapter 2, for it has to be remembered that formation is not to be regarded as a thing by itself. As things are formed they are functioning, as in the tabernacle of old; as the parts were made and set up they were functioning, see Exodus 40.
DLH Have you any thought as to Anna’s history in regard to living with her husband seven years, and then being a widow of eighty-four years? Why are details of that kind given [p. 330] to us?
JT It is to bring out the feminine feature in her. They are mentioned as creditable to her, her virginity, and then the duration of her widowhood, which, I take it, is what is meant by eighty-four years, involving in a woman great experience, which would have a place in due course in the vessel of praise.
EuR In verse 38 she seems to function in two ways — in praise to the Lord and testimony to men. What form would those take on the part of sisters in the assembly economy?
JT Sisters taking part in the vessel of praise now are of course regulated by the law governing it, that is, 1 Corinthians. We have to look at all these elements in Luke from the standpoint of Paul’s doctrine and instruction governing the assembly; therefore, it is a question of the qualities indicated. The idea of virginity is stressed, and then living with her husband from that time for seven years, and then living a very long time in widowhood; and what marks her now at such a great age is great activity, departing not from the temple night and day, praying in relation to the temple, and then speaking of Christ to all that looked for redemption. That is, she has a knowledge of persons, a knowledge of the effect of the work of God, and her activities are to the end that they might be brought into relation with Christ — “all those who waited for redemption in Jerusalem”;(Luke 2:38) that is the way it should read, Jerusalem being of special importance in chapter 2 because of its position then as the centre of God’s thoughts. And she came in at that hour, that is she did not miss the great occasion.
JHT Would the long and faithful surrender of what is sweetest in nature lead to the development of one of these component parts in the assembly? The apostle says to Timothy, “Younger widows decline”. I wondered if the surrender of the natural would help.
JT It does — the maintenance of widowhood for such a long period. Babylon says that she sits a queen [p. 331] and is no widow. That is the opposite of the assembly; the assembly experiences widowhood in the sense of the absence of Christ.
HES Is widowhood one of the distinctive features of Luke’s gospel?
JT It is. We see it here, and with the widow of whom the Lord took notice as casting her gift into the treasury. Those two together stress the idea. When we come to the widow who cast her all into the treasury we have a distinct landmark. The old system was not equal to her; it was not great enough for her; and so the Lord immediately speaks of the destruction of the temple. We shall see that later.
JD Did she represent the state of the people, and was she in line with the movements of the Spirit of God in regard to the vessel of grace?
JT Yes; the land had been married, but it was now in a state of widowhood; the bonds had been broken and she felt it.
Ques Would you say that with the sense of widowhood there was still praise for Jehovah?
JT Quite so; Anna was capable of it; she was one with capabilities. It is said that “she coming up the same hour gave praise to the Lord”, Luke 2:38. The occasion moved her.
MWB Do you think it being mentioned that she came up at that hour implies that there is a certain sequence as to Simeon, a man at Jerusalem, things proceeding as we find in this widow?
JT I think so; she is a counterpart to the man. If you link the passage with 1 Corinthians 11, you see the beautiful seemliness here in the man and the woman, only she is introduced to us as a prophetess and her name given afterwards. It is that side, following on the other personalities mentioned.
AL Is it like the reference in Psalm 137? Did she remember Jerusalem above her chief joy?
JT Quite so, and especially the temple: “Who did not depart from the temple”, it says, “serving night and day with fastings and prayers” (Luke 2:37). Jerusalem was the area of her evangelical activities, but her living associations were in the temple, and that with suitable habits, fastings, and prayers night and day.
AJB Would her constancy be a fine feature to emulate?
JT Exactly. If we emulate it we shall not miss the great occasions, and we shall be ready to take a suitable part in them. Her part is very different from that of Simeon, but she fits in with it.
JJ Would the intelligence of Simeon be important in that he does practically as Jacob did in crossing his hands? Simeon brings in the gentiles first. Would the volume of praise that was to come from the gentiles be before him?
JT I think that is right. It is a man, not a Jew. If some Jewish feature were to be stressed, doubtless it would have been a Jew. One point in all this is to get the full thoughts of God about the Babe, that is, Christ known in this simple way; and then that we begin to get enlarged as to God’s thoughts about Him; not what He is saying Himself yet, but what God is expressing about Him.
PC Would this be like the hour of incense, as mentioned in chapter 1?
JT There never had been such a day as this in the temple.
PC Would it be in keeping with Psalm 22, where it says, “All the families of the nations shall worship before thee?” (verse 27).
JT Exactly; it is not the inner house here, but the external part; it is the temple and the mind of God made known by a man already there, a man prepared. It is said of him that he was in Jerusalem, the preposition indicating that it was characteristic [p. 333] of Him.
HES Why is it said in regard of Simeon that “the Holy Spirit was upon him”(Luke 2:25), whereas of Zacharias and Elizabeth it is said that they were filled with the Spirit? What are we to understand by that?
JT The difference is between what is inward and what is outward. The anointing is seen in Simeon without the word being used. It is the dignity that belonged to him in those circumstances; he is really a priest without being called that. It is transitional. Zacharias was a priest; he is introduced to us as “a certain priest”. Now, Simeon is really a priest without the name attaching to him, which is in keeping with Luke. It is said of the Lord: “If then indeed He were upon earth. He would not even be a priest”, Hebrews 8:4, but He was a Priest; He was that, although not yet owned officially.
HOS Would taking the little Babe in his arms point on to the heave-offering?
JT It would; the arms are suggestive of power in the expression of affection, compare Song of Songs 2.
HMS Are there not here four things — the temple, the custom of the law, the Spirit, and the Child Jesus? Two of those things were to pass away, and what would be left were the Spirit and the Child Jesus.
JT Then “Jesus alone with themselves” later.
Ques I notice it says that “they returned to Galilee to their own city”, and then we are told that “the child grew and waxed strong”(Luke 2:39,40). What is the bearing of that?
JT It is in keeping with what we had yesterday as to John. It is said of John that “the child grew and was strengthened in spirit”(Luke 1:80). That would be the maintenance of the state of things described at the end of chapter 1. Whilst of course there are other great things entering into this, which we shall not be able to touch, I think the growth of the Lord here may be taken to represent what proceeds in our apprehensions. “They returned to Galilee to their own city Nazareth”, (Luke 2:39) and it says, “He went down with them and came to Nazareth,
[p. 334] and he was in subjection to them. And his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men”(Luke 2:51,52). We have in that the suggestion of the steady growth and maintenance of what is indicated in the chapter; that is to say, the teaching is progressive; there is no retrogression; things are well maintained and go forward, which ought always to mark the assembly.
PL Do we get that thought in regard of Antioch? “As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting” — things are maintained. Then “the Holy Spirit said”;(Acts 13:2) is that advance?
JT Very good. The idea is progress, things well maintained and progressing.
Rem I was thinking of the movement from Jerusalem to Nazareth in connection with the service of praise.
JT The return to Nazareth from Jerusalem represents a great general thought which always enters into the position of the assembly. Nazareth is what you might call a local position, a place to which reproach is attached. How will we do there? What comes out is that Mary is getting on. She had made a blunder, and learns by it. It is a poor thing if we do not learn by our blunders. Mary did. She represents that side all through this chapter, how we develop in relation to what is objective. She is learning. They found Him in the temple, but then the Holy Spirit does not say only that. He says what went on in the temple. He does not leave us with the simple fact that He was in the temple; there must be something there to be learnt. He was “sitting in the midst of the teachers and hearing them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers”. (Luke 2:46,47) Then it says, “And when they saw him they were amazed: and his mother said to him. Child, why hast thou dealt thus with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee distressed. And he said to them. Why is [p. 335] it that ye have sought me? Did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business? And they understood not the thing that he said to them”, Luke 2:48 - 50. There is a state with them which plainly indicates they had been remiss, and now they do not understand, which is a humbling thing. It was plain enough there was another Father than Joseph Mary said, “Thy father and I”; He says, “My Father’s business”, a very different business from that of Joseph. He was occupied in the temple, but they did not understand. But then it says, “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and he was in subjection to them”, Luke 2:51. That is, attention is now called to Christ leaving the centre of things in Jerusalem. He goes down to Nazareth with them and is in subjection to them. There is much practical instruction in this. And His mother is said to have kept things in her heart, showing that precious things are being accumulated, they are not lost. Mary represents a treasury, one who keeps things. David had the idea of treasuries — not only a treasury, but treasuries; and Mary represents that idea, so that things are preserved. Then it says, “Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men”, Luke 2:52. We might say, How will He get on without the doctors? If He were only left in Jerusalem see how He would progress. But all such reasoning is wrong. As in the position assigned under the will of God we shall not suffer. We may be a long way from the chief sphere of interest, but as moving under the will of God we shall not lose: we shall gain.
PC Would the treasuries that you mention in connection with the temple be connected with the fragrant drugs necessary for the work of the perfumer in connection with the altar of incense?
JT Exactly; they would be regarded as valuables; the component parts of the incense were very valuable.
I do not know whether the brethren have all followed the instruction here; it is very practical — leaving the [p. 336] doctors and the great places in Jerusalem for an obscure place. The Lord Himself did it. It was not that His parents took Him down; He did it, “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He was in subjection to them”, (verse 51). Now He is advancing “in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men”, Luke 2:52. Jesus is in the presence of God and men — all in view of the testimony.
EJMcB Is your thought that He was conscious of sonship in Himself by the statement, “My Father’s business”?
JT Yes.
EJMcB Before it is publicly brought out?
JT Yes, and then chapter 3 confirms it; heaven confirms the attitude He took up in chapter 2, because in this gospel it is, “Thou art my beloved son”; it is for Himself.
PL The humiliation of Jesus in Philippians 2 — the mind in which He went down — is put in contrast to the opposers in chapter 1. Would that answer a little to His leaving the doctors? And then, after that, we have, “Do all things without murmurings and reasonings”(Philippians 2:24) — would that be the spirit of Mary? She was murmuring and reasoning in the temple, but now she is keeping these things in her heart: is that the effect? It says that Jesus “went down” — would that cover a little the thought of Philippians 2?
JT It is put as if He did it. He went to the place of reproach, and instead of suffering disadvantage. He is gaining — and advancing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men.
MWB Do you think there is the suggestion of the local setting of the assembly in “their own city”, and being in subjection?
JT Yes; Jerusalem represents the general position, and Nazareth is like the local company standing in relation to it. Whilst we do not have the full thought of the local company and the general position as we [p. 337] shall see it later, yet we have the suggestion of it. This is all progressive and constructive, so that the great vessel of praise is being formed in its elements. Mary the Lord’s mother is undoubtedly to have a great place in the vessel of praise, because she is seen in the upper room in Acts, and she is seen at the cross also; and Simeon tells her that a sword should pierce her own soul, that is, the suffering side is to come in.
HMS Is not the Lord in this chapter seen in fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy: “The Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to his temple”? chapter 3:1.
JT The thought is there. He is not yet formally noted as the “Angel of the covenant”, but He is there.
Ques Would you emphasise the necessity of local conditions and exercises in connection with growth in wisdom and stature?
JT That is very suggestive as to brethren who are isolated, and so exposed, like a high mountain, to the bitter cold winds — that the Lord here took this course Himself and was in Nazareth, advancing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men. It should be very comforting for persons who are isolated, that the isolation need not interfere with spiritual progress.
PL It was the daughters of Jerusalem who paved with love the midst of the palanquin of king Solomon, Song of Songs 3:9,10. Would that be a little like 1 Corinthians 13? You spoke of Nazareth representing what is local — a “daughter of Jerusalem”.
JT Quite so; the idea is that local companies yield what the Lord needs. He does not suffer; He has the very best in the palanquin; the material with which it is made shows it is the very best. Where did they get their material? The idea is of wealth used in love, to the end that Christ is, so to speak, suitably carried.
Ques Is your thought that the way the Lord is presented in the end of chapter 2 suggests what should characterise us in local [p. 338] conditions?
JT Yes; how we may progress there .
Rem His mother addresses Him as “Child”, but He is consciously in the enjoyment of sonship.
JT Exactly, without the use of the term “Son”. He is in perfect seemliness at the age of twelve, that, whilst it is obvious He is conscious of His sonship, the Spirit of God waits heaven’s announcement before the word is directly applied. In chapter 1 it reads. He “shall be called Son of God”.
EuR Do we get the suggestion of our moving from the local to the general position, in the psalm touching on Jerusalem: “Whither the tribes go up”, Psalm 122:4?
JT Yes. The general idea of the assembly is Ephesians, and the local is Corinthians. It is a question of spiritual power whether we reach the general idea. We shall come to this later in our readings. I think the Lord’s indicating His knowledge of His relation to His Father at the age of twelve leads to the understanding that the vessel of praise is human. Luke would show that it is not angelic, but that the Lord is in the sense of His relations with God: “My Father’s business”, He says. How wide is that thought!
Then, in Luke 3, we come to the full thought on the same line, but the Lord, as our attention is called to Him, is not yet presented objectively. Matthew says, “This is my beloved Son”(Matthew 3:17), and therefore the idea is there; but in Luke the idea is that the One seen there is in the consciousness of sonship Himself. Heaven announces it to Him, and also that He is to the pleasure of the Father. “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight”. Then we have the Holy Spirit in a bodily form, for the idea conveyed is of substance and entirety; the Holy Spirit is there. Then we are told that Jesus began to be about thirty years of age. Now, making all due allowance reverently for the fact that the Lord’s Person enters into this, there is also the [p. 339] human side, the understanding of which enters into the constitution of the assembly — the presence here humanly of this glorious Person in sonship in His own consciousness, and the presence of the Spirit in a bodily form as a dove, suggesting entirety and peculiar sensitiveness. This is one of the greatest groups of things to grasp in regard of the vessel of praise.
DLH Is the idea of maturity in your mind as in the assembly?
JT In the thirty years — exactly. “Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old” — Jesus Himself. (Luke 3:23) This is a notable thing, it is a question of His consciousness, leading in thought to the assembly, which was to be marked by this feature; as there, we are to be conscious, by the Spirit of the things that enter into it.
CCE Does it not refer to the levitical age of service?
JT It does, but the wording indicates conscious manhood in Christ: “Jesus himself”.
JJ Is there anything to be understood by the eighteen years of silence in His history between the ages of twelve and thirty?
JT What is unspoken in Scripture speaks most loudly at times. What years they were! A Boy speaking, as He is said to have spoken, in the temple, and then growing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men. What years they were for any who had anointed eyes to see what occurred in them! Because there was continual growth in wisdom and stature.
MWB Whilst sonship is proper to Christianity and to all Christians, is what you are saying intended to convey the thought that maturity here is normal, and that before we get the real consciousness of the relation there would be growth?
JT Exactly. Maturity is a great thought in Paul’s ministry. The Corinthians were not mature; they were to be grown men in their minds, but Ephesians gives you the full thought — “The measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”, chapter 4:13.
WT So it is Jesus that advances, not simply the Boy Jesus.
JT It is Jesus Himself now; the diminutive thought is dropped.
RB-n At the age of maturity is not the thought very much what the Lord is to the Father, whereas at the age of twelve it is more what the Father is to Him? The Father can now give the public declaration, showing definite committal to Him as a Man here.
JT Yes, the suitable time for this had arrived.
MWB What relation is there between the priestly service of the sanctuary and sonship?
JT The idea of priesthood is to guard the holy things. The priest excludes all that is unholy and unsuitable; it is a term relative to conditions of time, and necessarily comes to an end when there is nothing unholy to exclude; whereas sonship remains. Sonship is the proper relation with God; the priesthood is a typical term used to show that the saints are holy and intelligent, and so qualified to serve God in spite of contrary conditions, rigidly excluding what is unsuitable to God. Scripture says, “The priests’ lips should keep knowledge”, (Malachi 2:7); they know what to do.
EuR Does this thought of humanity fit in with the shittim wood in the tabernacle, and is there the suggestion of the Lord Jesus being a pattern for the assembly, in that it entered into the boards of the tabernacle as well as the ark?
JT Yes; the order of Man seen in Him is in view. At this stage we may well be reminded of the importance of consciousness, that we are to be conscious of things. The Lord, being the pattern as expressing this order of humanity, is conscious of sonship in the temple, and then heaven announces it; and the Holy Spirit accompanying it, points to its becoming extended — redemption being accomplished. I am not, of course,
[p. 341] ignoring the deity of the Lord which ever remains, but we have the human side here. The assembly is of Him and human in that sense, and the Lord takes part in it Godward. It is what God intended in His counsels, a human vessel of praise. Thus, “Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old”(Luke 3:23). Then, in chapter 9, we have the added thought of “Hear him”. That word “Hear him” assumes His rejection. The old system is now to be abolished, that is to say, it has proved reprobate. The going up to the mount is consequent upon His rejection, to bring out His personal dignity in relation to heaven, and that He is to be heard. The suggestion is very wide, because Moses and Elias represent all that had been said. Then, too, there was the current system at Jerusalem; all that has been left, and there is to be a new system. Mary of Bethany comes in in this section, and I mention her here because of her importance in the vessel; she comes in as representative of those who hear the Lord. Her attitude means that she is going to learn everything from Christ. We have to learn everything from Him, and that is the thing that comes out in the mount of transfiguration.
ANW Why is it not stated in either case whose voice it is that speaks?
JT You mean it is just a voice from heaven? The assumption is that we have trained ears and discern the voice. The importance of heaven is asserted. There can be no doubt whose it is; the word “son” is used: “My beloved Son”. That is to say, the centre of things is in Christ now. It is the transfer from Jerusalem as a centre, although it held a position outwardly to a much later time; but the transfer is already beginning. Heaven is not now speaking to Jerusalem or any one in it; it is speaking to Christ. On the banks of the Jordan we are far away from Jerusalem; that is to say, you have the principle of transfer from the earthly centre brought in there. In chapter 3 Christ is already the object of heaven, and again in chapter 9 He is the object of [p. 342] heaven as over against Moses and Elias. It is imperative in chapter 9 that He is to be heard — an important matter in regard of the assembly, because so much that is of man has been brought in since the apostles’ times; we must come back to this. It is what the Son says.
Ques Why is the change from heaven to the cloud in chapter 9, in contrast to the voice out of heaven in chapter 3?
JT The allusion is to the wilderness position. The cloud was the symbol of the divine Presence; what is presented fits in with the Old Testament position, contemplating that Jesus Himself was now the tabernacle. Peter thought that there should be three tabernacles, but what happens shows that the wilderness position is in view, and the cloud of the divine Presence is now recognising Jesus; it is in relation to Jesus. It is a complete transfer. We are being educated here in the way of transfer in our minds to another centre and system.
HES Is that why Peter says in his epistle that it was the “holy mount”, because the Lord is Himself regarded as the tabernacle?
JT Quite so; you can understand how after he received the Spirit and after his long service, Peter would speak of it in such beautiful terms — the “excellent glory”, he says.
AN I wondered whether there would be a similarity here to the position in Matthew 16: “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”(verse 13) and they looked back to the old economy, but the Lord indicates that an entirely new position was being taken up. Is that your thought?
JT Yes; He would build something entirely new; and it would be His own — “My assembly”. It is the power of transfer through the Person of Christ being called attention to from heaven. We are being [p. 343] accustomed to that in this account, and it culminates in His presence in the assembly, chapter 24.
PL So that Peter is educated just previous to this scene — if he had understood what he had said. “Peter answering said. The Christ of God”, (verse 20) — is that the tent of witness, the anointed vessel?
JT Well, quite so; it is here “The Christ of God”. That is in keeping with Luke — what is to be presented in testimony on the part of God.
Ques You are stressing the point of “Hear him”. I wondered whether that would fit in with what Paul said to the elders of Ephesus, “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He himself said”. (Acts 20:35)?
JT It was a saying not recorded in the gospels, but full of holy instruction: “It is more blessed to give than to receive”, Acts 20:35.
HD'AC Would you say a word as to the cloud overshadowing them as they entered into it? It does not say that the cloud overshadowed Him. Does it correspond with the shekinah glory?
JT They were to become the tabernacle in relation to Him, that is, it was “Jesus alone with themselves” afterwards. They represented what the greater and more perfect tabernacle would be, “which the Lord has pitched and not man”, (Hebrews 8:2).
HH-s In Peter’s second epistle he says, “he received from God the Father honour and glory, such a voice being uttered to him by the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, (chapter 1:17). I was wondering whether there was an advance there: “such a voice”.
JT Peter is now full of this great scene. It shows how we progress in our souls if the Spirit has His way with us; there is no doubt that the use of the word “tabernacle” by Peter links with this position. He represented the tent of testimony in great measure.
Ques Would the “voice out of the cloud” suggest inscrutability?
[p. 344] JT It reminds us that the Father is there. It is the presence of the glory where God was, that is, in relation to the tabernacle, what is here on earth for Him. We do not get inscrutability exactly till we come to chapter 10, although we are being prepared for it.
Ques Would it be right to say we hear the Father’s voice directly, or are we now limited to the Lord’s voice?
JT The Lord says, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”, (John 14:9). But the Father is to be apprehended by Himself, and the Father speaks Himself. How He does it is beyond us; but it is through human language, as we may say; the words are human words, they are words intelligible to men. That I apprehend would be always true; what the Father says is intelligible to men. We cannot say what the mode of communication may be between divine Persons viewed in absoluteness.
WW Does it not require in us the trained ear, that you spoke of?
JT Yes. We cannot have a vessel of praise without trained ears; there must be discernment of sounds and voices.
EuR Do you get the suggestion of the Father by Himself in relation to the assembly in 1 Corinthians 8? “To us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him”, verse 6.
JT Yes. Each of the divine Persons may be apprehended separately. When we think of God we can only think of one God; but the Father may speak, or the Son may speak, or the Spirit may speak. Each Person may speak; we are to live in Scripture’s way of thinking and speaking. We cannot explain or compass these things, but as born of God we are brought into an environment in which these things exist, and we must grow up intelligently in them. So that we learn how to speak and think in that environment, the Holy [p. 345] Spirit being the power for it in us. The angels in heaven are in an environment of their own and they think accordingly. It is impossible to compass these things — that the Father can speak out of the cloud in human language; we just accept it.
JJ The scene in chapter 9 may be regarded as taking us out of what is merely local.
JT We have now reached the end of one great chapter in the Lord’s history. His sonship is asserted, and then the great fact is worked out by the anointing in the succeeding chapters; and then the mount of transfiguration, which has His rejection in view, so that we may get a view of His relations up there; but still in regard of the testimony, to show how He is superseding everything. Not only is He personally the centre on earth, but everything is to be learned from Him now. We have to listen to Him. Then, chapter 10 brings out His inscrutable relations in the Deity, and yet His perfect humanity is in evidence; He rejoices in spirit, showing how perfectly human He was in that way.
PL Would that touch as to His deity tone the vessel of praise in the spirit of worship?
JT It does. You can see how we are drawn into heavenly relations, and, to contemplate the relations of Deity in so far as we are able to apprehend them. So that we are now in the presence of the greatest things, and all is with a view to formation in us; and formation, as I apprehend, in relation to the local company, because chapter 10 contemplates that. It contemplates “every city and place” to which the Lord was about to come; and then in the end of the chapter we have “a certain village” in which things were not right — at least, in Martha’s house; and then the Lord praying “in a certain place”, chapter 11. Those are the great facts in chapter 10 and the beginning of chapter 11.
DLH Would you explain the distinction between what the Lord says here and in Matthew in regard to Himself? In Matthew it is, “No one knows the Son but the Father”, chapter 11:27. Here in Luke it is, “No one knows who the Son is but the Father”.
JT Well, the mind is brought to think more directly of the Person, in the way Luke presents it. Without stressing the relation or appellation “Son”, the mind is brought to think of the Person, “who the Son is”. I think, without assuming to understand the full bearing of it, that the Spirit of God looked on prophetically to the great activity of theologians in the second, third, and fourth centuries, which, I believe, the Lord is now showing to have been, very largely, in disregard of this verse. Although honest in many cases, there was the attempt to make the Son’s personality logical, such as the human mind could take in. Doctrines which are not right were laid down and have been handed down to us.
Ques When the Lord Jesus uses this title “Son” in chapter 10, is He referring to what had been given from heaven in chapter 3?
JT Of course. He was the Son as become incarnate, but the acknowledgment of this by the Father is necessarily in view.
Rem So that His personality is greater even than that title.
JT Surely; He is and ever was God. Although remaining a divine Person, equal with the Father, His sonship involved obedience and subjection, as Scripture shows throughout. Luke has in mind to occupy us with the Person, who He is, and to make it clear that it is not for us to know. It seems to me that that had a powerful bearing on the theologians and on the way creeds were formulated, in which it is stated that the Lord was begotten of the Father before all worlds. This was evidently needed, according to the theologians, to make the idea of His sonship before incarnation, intelligible. It is not true, and the Lord [p. 347] resents it.
HD'AC If so, where was He before He was begotten thus?
JT The statement is contradictory of other statements in the creed, and is derogatory to the Lord.
DLH I do not know that I quite catch the distinction in your mind between the two thoughts. “No one knows the Son but the Father”; that is absolute, but here it is, “No one knows who the Son is but the Father”. In a certain way I thought John told us who He is, that is. He is God, the Creator, and so on, as in the first few verses of John’s gospel. So that if we were to be asked. Who is the Son of God? we should have to say. He is God, He is the Creator.
JT That is so far good; but there is more than that involved. I think it is an exclusive thought to shut out the human mind; because it is certain that if the human mind were admitted, there would be an effort to define the Person of the Son. The note by J.N.D. to Matthew 11:27 helps a little as to the use of the word ‘know’. It is said to be “a real knowledge, not merely objective acquaintance with a person”; that is, as I apprehend, a real understanding of the being and relations of the Person become Man. It is in that sense, and as if the Spirit of God were to say to the theologians. Do not touch this, you cannot fathom it. It is a prohibitive thought, guarding the Person of the Lord Jesus. We must think of Him as presented in Scripture, and the Spirit gives us understanding in keeping with creature limitations.
HD'AC Have you any thought about Ephesians 4: “the knowledge of the Son of God”?(verse 13) Is there any distinction in your mind between the two thoughts?
DLH It is the same word in Ephesians as in Matthew.
JT We have to read it contextually, which is always important as we read Scripture. Paul is treating of the Lord as Son in relation to man, those addressed [p. 348] being also sons of God; the appellation has importance there, for it is a question of knowing the Person in that relation — the Son of God. But Matthew 11 and Luke 10 are not treating of the relation of sonship, but of the Person who has taken that relation.
EuR Does this involve that He has come down into humanity? Is there not an indication of what you are suggesting in connection with the manna? It would leave us rather on inquiry, do you think, “who the Son is”?
JT There is some link there, I think. We have noted elsewhere that a big question mark may be on the face of Exodus 16. What is it? The natural man will never arrive at an answer to it. What is it? But here it is, who the Person is? It is prohibitive of the natural mind; no one knows, nor is it suggested that any one ever will know. That He is God is a great general fact which John states, but a thorough knowledge and understanding of that Person no creature is capable of.
HES Is the attempt to define who the Son is, something akin to the mistake of the men of Beth-shemesh who looked into the ark?
JT Pretty much, and I think the Lord is raising the whole question of what I may call theological Christianity, and what He thinks about it. He would have His people revert to what Scripture presents and of which the Spirit gives understanding. Faith is in relation to the Spirit; we are to “keep, by the Holy Spirit ... the good deposit entrusted”, (2 Timothy 1:14).
MWB Do I understand that in Matthew and in Luke it is the Person that is emphasised; while in Ephesians 4 it is the divine thought for man, as set forth in Him as Son?
JT That is the idea exactly, so that the relation is in view, to apprehend Him as the Son of God.
Ques In Matthew 11 it says, “All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the [p. 349] 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”(verse 27). Would you say a word as to revealing in connection with the Father?
JT Well, we have to accept the statement. One great point in understanding divine things is to settle yourself in the presence of a statement whether you understand it or not, and in due course the Holy Spirit will give you its bearing. In that connection I would remark that I believe we fail to keep our sabbaths. The keeping of the sabbath implies lying fallow, especially the land. The land may be taken to represent a person; in lying fallow divine things settle into him, and he begins to see something of their meaning. Now this passage is one that is constantly before us, thank God; and I believe what has been said here today is right, that what is said about the Son is a prohibitive thought to shut out the human mind; whereas there is no prohibition in regard of the Father, because it is that Person who is God; He is said formally to be God: “There is one God the Father”,(1 Corinthians 8:6) and it is obvious that He is to be known, as the Lord could say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”(John 14:9). So that revealing the Father is the bringing out of God in the sense of love and grace, but more than that, by a specific revelation; because the word is not “declaration” here, but “revelation”, which is always to persons: “he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal him”. It is intimated that the Son may give one a full understanding of the Father.
Ques Would the word coming from heaven indicate that we must listen now to what He would say about the Father?
JT Quite so.
JHT Would the word in Proverbs 30 indicate the prohibitive thought? “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?”(verse 4) And the word says,
“[p. 350] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar”, (verses 4 - 6). Would that apply to the theologians?
JT Very directly — to the additions found in the creeds.