SONSHIP
[p. 378] SONSHIP
Genesis 4: 17; Exodus 4: 22,23; 2 Corinthians 1: 19,20
JT The sonship of Christ in its public bearing is in mind. The first scripture read sets out the place sonship had with the man of the world in those early days. The word “son” is found here for the first time. In Cain’s mind the idea was to mark the city which he had built; “he called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch” Genesis 4: 17. Over against that, we have, in Exodus, God asserting sonship as it is in His mind. He sent a message to Pharaoh: “Israel is my son, my firstborn” Exodus 4: 22, conveying that He, too, had the thought of sonship, and that it should appear in service. He appeals to Pharaoh as to his thought of sonship, Jehovah conveying that His was no less, and that the service of God should be in His son’s hand. The thought appears in Malachi, the last book in the Old Testament: God says that He would spare those who feared Him “as a man spareth his own son that serveth him”, Malachi 3: 17. Then, finally, at Corinth, the apostle and those who served with him in the gospel carried forward this thought: the Son of God was preached among the Corinthians by himself and two others. The truth had good witnesses, so that there should be a public result for God in that city.
It seems as if it would help us to have this before us now because it is what is in God’s mind, both in regard of this world and His public rights here, and eternally, too, but particularly now. The husbandmen said of the Son, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours” (Mark 12: 7); but that inheritance will come back to the Son publicly. He will ask for it, for God says, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession”, Psalm 2: 8. So that the stress laid on this side of the truth at the [p. 379] present time is significant, as, indeed, always; for it is a question of one who reflects the mind and affections of God — God, as it were, expressing His best in testimony; and no one really is in the testimony according to God save as in the light of that.
HEF If this public testimony is to be effective according to God, does it depend on those who render the testimony being in the enjoyment of sonship?
JT Yes; sonship underlies testimony — in Christ and in us. The prominence given to it at Corinth would show that it was to be enjoyed, at least in those who preached it. The light of it was evidently attested fully by Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus; it was in mind that it should be in every heart who received the gospel in that town, and necessarily would affect the testimony of the assembly in that town; for it is addressed as “the assembly of God which is in Corinth” 2 Corinthians 1: 1; God’s best, as you might say, involving Christ known as Son in all those who form the assembly.
We might consider Cain’s city just for a moment, because it is well to have the negative side; for the antediluvian world furnished developments that God would meet; and the world of Genesis 4 is Cain’s world presented in its varied features, but the idea of the son is stamped upon it — his son. Evidently he had in mind that he should be a cultured person, a disciplined person (Enoch meaning disciplined), and this, of course, as in the world today, underlies all education and polish. God meets it all in His Son; that is what we may come to; but it is well to look at the world in this way, so that we might see what God would overthrow in our minds, and replace with the light of His Son and His world.
HEF Your thought is that Cain was expressed in his son, in the system that existed before the flood?
JT That is what the name Enoch would represent. We find it, too, in God’s world. Enoch in God’s world is a very pleasing man to God; “he had this testimony,
that he pleased God” (Hebrews 11: 5); Cain’s son did not. No doubt he pleased Cain: Cain saw to it that he did, and the name he gave him would imply that he would be properly cultured and sophisticated in this world. We could not have such a development as this chapter presents aside from education — the arts, the sciences, and the fine arts too, music, and the like: these are the outcome of research and education, and, of course, enter into the world system, making it what it is, men priding themselves in having made it. “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?” is the principle, Daniel 4: 30.
JAP Do you think we have to be careful as to the amount of admiration we bestow on it?
JT That is a good way to put it. The arts and sciences, of course, go largely to make it up, to give it the dignity that it has in its makers’ minds. We pride ourselves, naturally, on what we are and do; and the city which represents the very centre of that system is called by the name of Cain’s son Enoch. Every capital in the world is developed in that way as the centre of the very best which the country can afford. It is well to have before us what the thing is that we are to be delivered from, to see it negatively, and to see how God meets it.
Ques Would naming it after his own son have in mind also the continuance of it?
JT I suppose it would; that son would carry on the idea in his son.
RTW Why is the relationship of son first found on the line of what is evil? It says of Cain that Eve bore him and then that she “further bore his brother Abel” Genesis 4: 2 — not another son.
JT I thought that we might see why it should be so. The first mention of the word ‘son’ is in connection with Cain. It seems a relationship through which a man is expressed, or shines; whether it be the father shining through the son, or the son shining in [p. 381] the presence of the father, the position or relation affords opportunity for the very best to shine out. As to our Lord it is said that “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father)” John 1: 14: that is where we see the thing shine according to God — a Son with a Father, an only-begotten One. That is what is in God’s mind in this relation, that He shines out in it. It is His best, as it were; God seen (using the word advisedly) according to how He would have Himself known — in His Son. God had spoken in the prophets; but “at the end of these days has spoken to us in ... Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”, Hebrews 1: 1,2.
Ques Is the culmination on the line of evil seen in Barabbas?
JT “Son of the father”. Quite so.
FWW The statement in Hebrews 1: 2,3, “whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance”, is attributed to Christ as Son.
JT Yes, That shows what is in mind in sonship according to what we are speaking of now; “the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance”. It is not simply that He is great enough for these things, but He is in that relation.
FWW “In Son”.
JT Exactly: “In Son”; it is God Himself, but a divine Person in that relation.
BF Is sonship according to God brought in in answer to what came out in Cain?
JT That is how God meets it; not that it is an afterthought with God; but God’s purpose is worked out as the world develops. The idea of kingdom, for instance, is brought in to meet the kingdom of man after the flood. We do not get that before the flood, but we get this thought of sonship before as crowning [p. 382] the world in its best features according to man. Sonship was in God’s mind before of course, but this development according to man comes in first historically.
Ques Would you say this development provided the occasion for God to bring out His thought?
JT Yes; it reappears in Pharaoh, who is a king, representing the power of the world in royalty. The feature of royalty is an advance in the history of the world. Nimrod was the first in that position, in kingship, and God meets that. Pharaoh is a continuation of it, and he has a son. So that God appeals to Pharaoh in that way: He says, “Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn” Exodus 4: 22,23. That is how God meets Pharaoh; God is dominant now, even in Egypt: He says, “I will kill thy son, thy firstborn”. God must have His son; and, of course, that ought to appeal to any who is in any way influenced by this world, even if a christian, because you are robbing God of yourself in this relation. We belong to Him as sons: God is demanding our deliverance, our releasement.
HEF Do you mean the enemy would retain God’s people so that they might express features of himself, and so rob God?
JT Yes. Our brother just now referred to Barabbas. That is the man they selected instead of Christ. That is the kind of man the world wants. Think of a christian being a companion of Barabbas — a world-builder: even though he was a violent man, he was a world-builder, because violence belongs to the world, it is a feature of it; the world is full of violence, violence in high places and in low places now; how sorrowful that one of God’s sons should be there! That is the present bearing of “Let my son go”.
GWB Does the quotation in Romans 9: 26 come in here: “there shall they be called Sons of the living God”, showing God has this in mind in the gospel?
JT Just so: He is going to bring out Israel in the future in the way you quote: they “shall be called Sons of the living God”, which is an additional thought to that of sons of God, a very significant term too, God has in earlier days stressed the thought of life, and He is now stressing sonship. The thought will reappear in Israel, as it is here; but it is in those who form the assembly in a fuller way. God is leading many sons to glory; it is the heavenly side of the truth that is reflected in the assembly, and that is what God would have to shine out now; it is the heavenly side, but still having a public effect.
HEF Do you think that when the gospel came out — “The gospel of God ... concerning his Son” — it had in view that men should be secured in that way?
JT Yes; and Romans 1, which you quote, goes on to say that He is declared to be that, not simply what He is before God, in His service; but declared to be Son by resurrection of the dead — that is, by resurrection of dead persons, however long or short a time they have been dead. It is an abstract thought, but plural — the full thought of “dead”. He is able to raise the dead: “marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead” Romans 1: 4 — declared publicly to be such. It was announced from heaven when He was baptised; but now He is known to be Son, declared to be Son of God by resurrection of the dead — the greatest testimony to power.
COB The book of Exodus opens with “the sons of Israel”: is this fourth chapter an advance upon that?
JT It is; still the reference there is remarkable. They are characteristically sons, because “with Jacob had they come” Exodus 1: 1; that is, they are with their father. Joseph had brought them to that point. Joseph was characteristically a son; and Jacob loved him, we are [p. 384] told. Joseph brought the family to that point, so that they are with their father; and that is the idea, that God has us with Him. He has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love — the most attractive presentation of it, perhaps: He is the Son of the Father’s love.
Rem Moses seems to be introduced, too, in this way in Exodus. We read: “a man of the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bore a son” Exodus 2: 1,2. Though Aaron was first, Moses is called attention to as a son.
JT Yes; he was ‘fair to God’, Acts 7: 20 (note). This idea of being ‘fair’ comes out in Exodus, the ministerial section of Scripture, and correspondingly in 2 Corinthians. The Corinthian epistle has to do with the ministerial side of the position, and it behoves all those who serve in any public way to keep this before them prominently: “The Son of God ... preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus)” 2 Corinthians 1: 19, says the apostle. So Moses enters into this, and the New Testament enlarges on the fact that he was “a proper child”, one with whom God would be pleased.
JAP Referring again to Romans 1: 4, what place has the Lord’s own resurrection in relation to the expression, “by resurrection of the dead”?
JT It has part in it. He raised Himself, as we know from John’s gospel; but the bearing of the statement is to what He did for others. It is not a declaration from heaven, but “in power”, meaning that He exercised it; and, of course, that is the power by which the world is brought down.
Rem Paul’s first preaching was that Jesus is the Son of God.
JT It would involve this; he would have before him the world that God had in mind, however little he understood then. That is the point with him. He says, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me”, Galatians 1: 15, 16. The Son was apprehended inwardly by [p. 385] Paul through revelation; and he goes on to say, “that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations” — it is deliverance in power, but deliverance in sonship, by such an One as that. This makes deliverance peculiarly attractive, God is shining in it.
Ques Do you mean that in the preaching, sonship is always in view?
JT If you take the Roman epistle, that is how it begins: “God’s glad tidings ... concerning his Son ( ... marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord” Romans 1: 1 - 4. He is declared to be that; that is the public testimony to Christ. He raised Himself, of course, but He was not seen publicly thus; it refers to persons that are raised and seen publicly; the testimony is there unquestionably.
Ques Would the resurrection of Lazarus be an example?
JT That is one of the best witnesses to it, because he had been four days in the tomb. The Lord sent a message to John the baptist: “Go, bring back word to John of what ye have seen and heard; that ... dead are raised” Matthew 11: 4,5, without specifying who they were. Lazarus is an outstanding case, because it is definitely stated that he had been four days in the tomb; that is, as Martha said, corruption had set in. The young man at Nain apparently had not been dead so long, but Lazarus had been four days dead.
COB Is “my firstborn” a further thought?
JT It is very beautiful that God should deign to communicate to Pharaoh what He had in His mind as to Israel. Pharaoh would understand; he would be educating his son, I suppose, for the throne, so that he might represent him; and God says, I have feelings like that — of course, infinitely more pleasing and holy — but, still, Pharaoh would understand. It brings out the place sonship has in testimony, because it is in man’s mind. Hence the way God moved was intelligible to Pharaoh. God’s messages to men are intelligible to them.
AWGT Is that why God allows His thoughts to be anticipated, so that when He brings in the real thing it will be intelligible?
JT That is just what I have often thought. “As of an only-begotten with a father” John 1: 14 is characteristic of any such son with a father; it is descriptive, and, of course, Pharaoh would appreciate it in God’s message to him.
Ques Had you in mind, with regard to Exodus, that this challenge is maintained today publicly? God is moving on this line publicly today, is He not?
JT That is what I was thinking; He has been moving on it from the time of the incarnation: “the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God” is Luke’s presentation of the truth (Luke 1: 35). It is a question of how He should be known. What He is called is a public matter.
Ques Would Luke 15: 24 give us a parallel thought in relation to what we have in Exodus: “this my son was dead and has come to life”?
JT That is so; in truth, the idea of death and resurrection came out in Israel, and will do so again, for Israel is dead; God will say presently, He is alive! The principle is worked out in any prodigal. God has nothing less in His mind for anyone than to say of him, He is a son. It is what the prodigal was, you might say, potentially, but he was never characteristically a son until he was back with the father in the house.
EJF Referring again to Genesis, is there any significance in the fact that the matter is mentioned again in Genesis 5: 3 — “Adam ... begot a son in his likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth”? Is that bringing forward what is in God’s mind, that image and likeness should be worked out in sons?
JT Quite so; Seth would be Christ in type. Seth was to take the place of Abel whom Cain slew; and he [p. 387] is characteristically equal to the position, appointed, as his name signifies. He calls his son’s name Enosh: that is, he brings in the idea of man naturally as weak and perishing, as over against Cain’s thought. Cain would not think of his son as a poor, weak, perishing creature; he would make him an outstanding man, with polish and education. So in relation to Enosh you have the testimony: “Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah” (Genesis 4: 26); that is, in the light of Christ as bringing in the truth as to man’s state; for Seth is Christ in type.
EJF Would the complete thought on God’s side be seen in Romans 8, where it is said that we are to be conformed to the image of God’s Son? Would that be the complete idea you have in mind?
JT Quite so. What we are engaged with especially, however, is to stress the idea of sonship in power. It enters into the gospel, the public testimony of God. It is no less than this; God has nothing less in His mind.
AWGT Is that why in Mark’s gospel the Lord is brought in at the outset as the Son of God?
JT That is in line with what we are saying; it is the public presentation of the gospel: “Beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, Son of God” Mark 1: 1.
GWB Would the seven sons of Sceva, Jewish high priest at Ephesus, illustrate what has to be met in the way of imitation on the part of the enemy?
JT Quite so; it is the full expression of the idea in evil — “seven sons” — characteristically; and at Ephesus, too, where the greatest power was demonstrated in the gospel.
GCG Would the reference to the prodigal in Luke 15 mean that the gentile is secured in sonship, the elder brother apparently being in the place of Israel?
JT I think so; that gives force to what we are saying, how God has wrought especially in our own times in relation to the thoughts of life and sonship.
[p. 388] Sonship particularly applies to those who form the assembly, and it is only as we are in it really that the gospel can be rightly presented. How can I present the gospel of the Son of God rightly save as I understand it? Many, of course, present Christ as a divine Person, but then the thought of sonship characteristically must be carried into it: sonship itself enters into it.
COB Sonship as to the assembly carries the thought also of firstborn ones.
JT Just so; that is what we are every one: “the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven”, Hebrews 12: 23. The idea of firstborn attaches to every christian. There is no inferiority in any from the point of view of sonship: they are all alike in that sense, all of the same dignity.
WLC You mean we should preach the gospel from the standpoint of being sons ourselves?
JT I think one should exhibit the thought — one is free in one’s soul, exhibiting what is presented, an exponent of what one preaches; one is to preach as in sonship.
MHE Does the fact that Joseph is sovereignly chosen for the firstborn’s place suggest that in the last days this thought should very much come into evidence? He was almost the last of Jacob’s sons.
JT Well, it does look so: “the last shall be first”, Matthew 20:16. In the parables of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, there is what appears before the assembly is introduced, and there is what appears after it is introduced. There are two phases of the kingdom in Matthew; and in the second phase sonship in regard of ourselves, of believers, is seen: “Then are the sons free”, (Matthew 17: 26). In the further parables of the kingdom there are the workmen whom nobody would hire. The leaders of the religious world will not hire people who are characteristically sons; they want labourers developed according to human requirements.
[p. 389] That is what the clerisy is based on — and then the vicar is a one-man thought, the service must centre in him, which never can be sonship; it must lead to bondage; it must gender to bondage. Well, there are workmen not after this principle in the market-place, who will not be hired; but the householder goes forth and brings them in at the eleventh hour, and they are given their wages first, receiving the same as the others. God says, as it were, It is My pleasure! — the householder says, It is my pleasure; I can do what I please with my own. That is liberty; it is a question of divine pleasure. These are the kind of men I want in my vineyard, he would say; they made no bargain with him. Sonship in us will never make a bargain with God; we serve in love. We never expect wages in the ordinary sense, making a trade of the word of God. We get the idea of wages in 2 John 8, but that clearly refers to what the servant receives at the end in a spiritual sense. It is a question of serving in love, and thus in liberty; the divine thought underlying service in sonship.
FGB Would you say that the enemy’s great effort is to eliminate this feature of sonship from the people of God?
JT God has been helping us on this point. I believe it is entering into the public service of the brethren. As to sonship in Christ Himself, it is not that He was begotten of the Father before all worlds: it is derogatory to Christ to make Him ‘begotten before all worlds’. The truth is that a divine Person became a Man: that is incarnation — coming in through birth, but still a divine Person entering into this relation. “The Word became flesh” John 1: 14 — a divine Person taking on manhood, but in the relationship of Son, taking it on designedly in this relationship. So as He is seen, Luke records He “shall be called Son of God” Luke 1: 35. How could anyone who saw Him with divine perception fail to call Him Son of God? So John the baptist says, “I have seen [p. 390] and borne witness that this is the Son of God” John 1: 34. He saw the Spirit coming down upon Him and abiding upon Him — there was One on whom the Spirit could abide. Now God is going to operate, He has this Person in this relation. John the evangelist says, “we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father” John 1: 14. That is the kind of thing they saw; how could they but speak of Him in that way? John the baptist leads in it, being directly ordered to do it; so he testifies, “this is the Son of God”. So it is that God is operating through the Son, and I believe the Lord is helping us in our ministry publicly, but He is aiming at helping us more to see what is in His mind. “When he brings in the firstborn into the habitable world, he says, And let all God’s angels worship him” (Hebrews 1: 6); that is preceded by, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee” Hebrews 1: 5, quoted from the second Psalm, which says later, “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way” (Psalm 2: 12). That is God acting in One who is reflecting Him as in this relationship; and so it is, that all of us are to reflect God in our measure in this relation — “Let my son go, that he may serve me”, Exodus 4: 23.
AG Is that why in John 9 the works of God reach that climax, the knowledge and worship of the Son of God?
JT Exactly; “To this end the Son of God has been manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil”, 1 John 3: 8. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son” John 3: 16; that is the line of testimony.
Ques Does the expression, ‘son with a father’ mean that the son enters fully into the father’s mind, and fully responds to the father’s affections?
JT Quite so. We have been speaking of being translated into the kingdom of the Son of the Father’s love; that is the thought — we are in that kingdom; the Father has put us there. He translated us into it,
[p. 391] having delivered us from the authority of darkness. What do we see now? that is the point; we contemplate His glory. Proverbs opens up this position, the Son of the Father’s love; the writer of the book of Proverbs was in that position. So he says, “I was my father’s son” — or, “I was a son unto my father, tender and an only one in the sight of my mother” Proverbs 4: 3. There is affection in it, affection radiates in it, and is to be expressed in the brethren. We lay hold of the thought by the Spirit of adoption in our own souls, hence we testify effectively. Anyone can see the difference between the man who is trained to be a teacher by human methods, and the man whom God has made a preacher; the latter is in liberty; he reflects Christ in sonship.
Rem So that although it is service, it is to be carried out in liberty.
JT That is the idea: “Let my son go”; it is one let go.
Ques Does the thought of firstborn mean rank or beginning?
JT It is the beginning of the thought, I should say; there is a family following; and it is in the mind of God that this idea should be universal; nothing less than the whole universe is to be in this liberty. There will be grades, no doubt — Israel and the angels; though their sonship is somewhat inferior to ours; but it is all expressed in Christ.
JAP Why does Paul link the thought of the promises with what you refer to in 2 Corinthians?: “whatever promises of God ...”
JT It is to bring out that God is faithful; that is mentioned three times in these epistles. In this last case Paul goes on to say, “whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen” 2 Corinthians 1: 20; he buttresses what he is going to say by the fact that he and Silvanus and Timotheus preached the Son of God, not simply that Jesus is the Son of God. What He was [p. 392] in testimony is in mind. Paul says, We preached Him, among you, and He is not yea and nay. In Him is the verification of everything in the mind of God, but particularly of what has been promised; for the faithfulness of God refers to His promises; they are all carried out in Christ — “in him is the yea, and in him the amen”, and then this is to be reflected “by us”.
JH Is there a link with Isaac in that way in relation to the promises?
JT Yes; that is how the truth comes out in the history — in the types. When Jacob was going to Egypt, God appeared to him at Beer-sheba, the place of the promises. It is spoken of just as a place in Genesis 21, but it is called a city in chapter 26, but it is a city in relation to Isaac, meaning that things are administered now; not only are there promises, but administered things. So Jacob is found at Beer-sheba on the way to Egypt going out of Canaan — which might imply that the promises are failing, as is often the case with believers; he comes away under the stress and feels God is not what he thought He was. That is the state of soul in Jacob while at Beer-sheba; but the passage says that Jehovah appeared to him, and said, “I am God, the God of thy father” — that is, Isaac, not Abraham (Genesis 46: 1 - 3), Isaac typifying Christ as Son, in whom everything is verified; every promise of God is yea and amen in Him. Hence God says to Jacob, ‘Fear not to go down to Egypt; the promises will not fail you’. So it is in sonship that all these things are verified. Those of us who are in the light of sonship are sure about things; we have no question about God or His promises; we know everything will go through. How needful that is in these last days, when the enemy is doing his utmost to baffle us, whether socially, or commercially, or politically; but he will not be able to baffle us if we are in the light [p. 393] of sonship.
WEB Does the idea of mutuality come in in relation to Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus preaching the Son of God at Corinth?
JT It is suggestive of humility that Paul should place himself in this way with those two men, because they were not apostles properly. I suppose Paul would sit down and hear Silvanus preach; no doubt he would be the best listener to the gospel at Corinth! They may have had three or four places in which to preach at Corinth, as we have in our little way in our cities; but no doubt Paul would be very happy to hear Silvanus or Timothy preach the Son of God.
GCG Does what you are saying indicate that with any of us who serve in the glad tidings, seeking to preach the Son of God, it is vitally necessary to be in the liberty of sonship ourselves?
JT That is what I was thinking. With these three there would be no feeling of rivalry, I am sure; or, leaving Paul out, there would be none between Silvanus and Timotheus. I am sure they were in happy liberty with each other, and would listen to each other with pleasure. They preached the same truth; there would be nothing but the unity of the faith in their preaching. There would be one mind with them. I can understand Silvanus asking Timothy, How did you get on? Well, I preached the Son of God! Timothy would reply; and Silvanus would say, I did that, too! They might not confine themselves to their mere words; they might have preached many things about Christ, but all bearing on the fact that He is the Son of God.
Rem That preaching is beyond the range of the enemy’s power.
JB Is the development of sonship in Paul’s ministry among the things Peter says are hard to understand?
JT I do not think that would be one of the things, because Peter understood sonship before Paul. You will remember that Peter confessed Christ as the Son [p. 394] of the living God, according to Matthew 16; so that Peter knew sonship; but he was not appointed to preach it. Paul was; he was the one whom God selected to preach the Son of God. We do not need always to preach all we know, because preaching is not a matter of what we know, but of what God gives us to preach: “the preaching that I shall bid thee”, says God to Jonah (Jonah 3: 2). What you are to preach is the message you get. So, according to the scriptural record, Peter did not preach sonship, but Paul did; the first thing he preached was the Son of God; there were other things he spoke of. I suppose the things that were difficult to understand by the Jewish believers were things entering into the mystery, the assembly. Paul had that ministry. Peter did not have the ministry of the assembly as his service; Paul did. I do not suppose Peter meant that he did not understand; but there were things difficult to understand. Many did not understand. Peter’s first epistle supports Paul’s doctrine as to the local assembly; but he is concerned about many who did not understand. I believe what was difficult was the truth of the mystery. Sonship must enter into all preaching.
Ques Is the preaching of the Son of God more what he is to God than to the individual?
JT It is what He is in power — of course, what He is to God, but what He is as in that relationship, able to reflect what God is. God is known in Him. Hence the need of power, and He is declared to be the Son of God “with power” by the resurrection of the dead.
Rem Is that also for all men? It says in Galatians 1: 4: “according to the will of our God and Father”: that is, in relation to deliverance from the world; that has sonship in mind.
JT Quite so.
Rem And it is for glory to God also. “For glory to God by us”.
JT That is what comes out in our passage in 2 Corinthians 1: 20. “For whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us”; so it is carried on in us. Then it goes on: “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God” 2 Corinthians 1: 21.