THE KINGDOM OF GOD (6)
[p. 121] THE KINGDOM OF GOD (6)
John 3:3 - 11; Luke 4:42 - 44; Luke 6:20; Luke 8:1 - 3
JT We have been looking into the epistles in our consideration of the kingdom of God, which is the subject before us, and it is now thought that we should turn to the gospels as confirmatory of the teaching of the epistles. The kingdom of God is formally treated of in Mark, Luke and John, whereas the kingdom of the heavens is treated of only in the gospel of Matthew; so it is thought that we should leave this latter phase of our subject for a later period; that we should first look at the two or three instances in which the kingdom is found in John and then go on to Luke. The verses in John 3, which have been read, are, we may say, the only ones, which treat of the kingdom of God in this gospel, and should be looked at attentively. John only of all the evangelists treats of this subject basically, reminding us that the kingdom is only seen and entered into by those who are born again; although it may be outwardly entered, yet only those who are born anew are really in it. Luke, in chapter 6: 20, points out the persons who possess the kingdom. He says the poor have it. John says that only those that are born again have it. Of course, Luke is not setting this aside, but stresses the effect of new birth in a characteristic way; that they are poor in this world, not only in material things, but as refusing to be other than poor as in this world, poor in spirit, as Matthew records the Lord as saying. And then in chapter 8 Luke gives us persons who are characteristically of the kingdom as delivered from Satan’s power. It is said that the Lord “went through the country city by city, and village by village, preaching and announcing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God; and the twelve were with him, and certain women who had been healed of wicked spirits and infirmities, Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom [p. 122] seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to him of their substance”, Luke 8:1 - 3. It is thought that this should be reserved for the closing part of our reading as showing the kind of people who are in the kingdom, who have been affected by it, especially a person out of whom seven demons had gone. They were with the Lord and ministered to Him of their substance.
CAM Do you look at that as the result of what takes place in John 3 where we get the very beginnings of our moral history?
JT I would say so; and then the effects worked out from the basic thought of new birth. It would seem as if it is suitable that John should treat of it in this way. It is applicable to the last days; that is, to our own times, because, as is usual in his way of presenting the truth, he would stress what is basic; not simply what is external, or what is professedly held, but basically held, and therefore will survive and go through.
CAM Is that why he stresses this matter of birth? I wanted to ask you whether being born of water brings us to the meaning of the death of Christ at the very beginning. The water represents the moral side of the death of Christ in connection with the believer’s beginning. Is that how you look at it?
JT Yes. It is the element of cleansing.
CAM It was just that matter I specially wanted to ask you about. Do you regard the aspect of the death of Christ in connection with the blood as the judicial matter, and the water the cleansing?
JT Well, inasmuch as one is said to be born of it, the water would be there basically. It is the element of cleansing, not the element of refreshment, as running with the idea of new birth, because the word in verse 5 is, “born of water and of Spirit”. It is as if, in this second reference, the Lord would impress us with the [p. 123] element of cleansing, by putting the water first. The first reference is, “Except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God”. That is, you might say, the most elementary reference to genuineness in the matter; and then the second reference brings in the element of cleansing, being an extension of the first as necessary to entering into the kingdom; as if the seeing is not so important as the entrance into it. Entrance into it implies moral cleansing, somewhat in keeping with Titus — “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”. That would be a further thought of John 3, only it is a carrying on of the truth. It is a continuation of the thing to the full thought of Christianity, the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit; as if it were on full Christian ground in that reference. John 3 gives us basic things which indicate that we are genuine; not only to say things but to move into them and to appropriate them.
HOE Would the Lord’s words in chapter 13 bear on this? He said, “He that is washed all over needs not to wash save his feet, but is wholly clean”.
JT Yes. They express a full thought. “Washed all over” is the idea of a bath, as over against the mere feet-washing.
WFK Is new birth a sovereign act of God?
JT It is. One cannot effect it himself, clearly. It is God’s action, but yet we cannot omit the moral results which bring in exercise with men; those who are to share in it.
TEH Would you help as to entrance into the kingdom? We do not see the king, but a sphere where the king has dominion. Is that right?
JT Yes. God has come in. The Lord had said, for instance, in Luke, and in Luke only, “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you”, Luke 17:21. Generally, it is viewed as coming, or about to happen, but Luke stresses that it was here when the Lord was here,
whereas Paul’s ministry would say it is here because the Spirit is present. It is a question of the Spirit.
AR Is that the idea of being born of the Spirit? You must be spiritual to see the kingdom.
JT That is the first point for us to lay hold of at this time — the action of God in new birth. It gives us ability to see; as if the eyes are opened to see this thing without seeing anything more for the moment. There is power to see it, and the fact that the Lord alludes to it would mean that it existed as He spoke.
AAT Would that apply to Old Testament times?
JT I do not think they are in mind. It is a question of the changes that came about through the Lord coming in. For instance. He says, “But from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence, and the violent seize on it”, (Matthew 11:12). He had spoken of John the Baptist as the greatest of those born of women, but He says that a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he. That would mean that it is not in Old Testament times, nor even in John’s time. Whilst John the Baptist laboured and spoke of it, yet it was something coming. The kingdom of heaven, he said, was at hand; whereas in the Old Testament it was not there at all. It was the kingdom of David or the kingdom of Israel, but the kingdom of God depended on God coming in, and from the moment Jesus began to minister, in Luke, it was there. He said, according to chapter 4:43, “I must needs announce the glad tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for for this I have been sent forth. And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee”. The word here apparently is the idea of evangelising the kingdom. The Lord in Luke is saying that the thing exists; it is evangelised. It is a great matter; not simply that it was coming, but it was there.
AAT Does Luke 17 help in relation to John 3? When the Pharisees asked the Lord about the kingdom of God coming, He said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation”, (Luke 17:20). Would that be indicative of the fact that they were not born anew and could not take it in? He says, “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you”, and then turns to the disciples. They were apparently aware of the position.
JT Quite so. They did not accept or understand the great fact that had come about by the incarnation. The Lord said, “The kingdom of God is in the midst of you”, but it did not come in an outward way, like the kingdom of David, or any outward matter that will take place in the millennium. It is a thing to be observed by the Spirit, by persons born again. It comes not with observation; that is, the natural man does not see it. He may see certain effects, signs and the like, but he does not see the moral side at all. It is a question of having his eyes opened to see it.
ABP Is there a connection between John 3 and Luke 9? The Lord says, “There are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God”, verse 27.
JT That is important. I was thinking of reserving that, but it is important to get the full thought. That was the kingdom, as you might say, literally, as it will be in the millennium. What they saw on the mount of transfiguration was what will be displayed publicly presently, and they saw it really in the sense in which it will be displayed. John 3 deals with the moral side of the matter, that one cannot see it unless he is born again, and that shuts out millions who might profess to be in the kingdom, but are not born again.
AR Where do you see it today?
JT It is a question of the Holy Spirit, as it was here in the Lord’s time; but at that time He was not in the saints as Christ was not yet glorified. Still, the kingdom was here in virtue of divine Persons being here; the Son and the Spirit being on earth; thus God was here. It is [p. 126] really the kingdom of God. Now, redemption accomplished, the Son is in heaven and the Holy Spirit is here in the assembly and hence the kingdom of God is here. So that the kingdom of God, as we have already seen, is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; therefore, anyone who sees it sees it in relation to the Lord’s people, where the Spirit is.
DP Why is the blood not mentioned?
JT The Spirit and the water are mentioned; not the blood; but for redemption the blood is needed. It is implied in verse 14 in the uplifted Son of man. Eternal life could not otherwise be given to the believer. The earlier teaching of the chapter leads up to this. Verses 14 - 16 present redemption through the death of Christ and the consequent gift of eternal life — all testifying to the great love of God. Thus the chapter treats of the death of Christ, because the Lord says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up”, (John 3:14). That is, the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness really refers to the Lord’s death; the water also does, but not in the full judicial sense. In the early part of the chapter what is stressed is the new birth — a great practical necessity. It is a basic subjective result in man effected by the Holy Spirit. In view of what the presence and work of Christ on earth brought out (which the Lord knew, chapter 2:23 - 25) the new birth was an absolute necessity to the accomplishment of the counsels of God as to man.
RWS Would the allusion to the wind suggest that there is a certain current in which the Holy Spirit is operating? And would the meetings afford such a current so that a person there might come under the observation of the Holy Spirit and be born again; more so than being out in the world?
JT You are making a point of being at the meetings?
RWS Yes. If the Spirit is free in a meeting would there not be something, in that sense, which is not found [p. 127] elsewhere? The passage alludes to the wind blowing where it will, and then it says, “thus is every one that is born of the Spirit”, verse 8.
JT I would say that fully; therefore the importance of keeping in touch with Christians. Of course, the Spirit operates sovereignty, because the wind blows where it lists; “thus is every one that is born of the Spirit”. Well, that is quite likely to take place where the Spirit of God is known to be. It is a great matter to keep before us, that the Spirit of God is here on earth, and it is known where He is. He is not in the wind. It is known where He is; He is in the assembly. The Spirit came to where the disciples were; where they were assembled. Acts 2:1 - 2.
TEH He hovered over the face of the waters, and then God said, “Let there be light”. Is the latter the result of hovering?
JT That is a good way of treating that passage. The Spirit was there. We do not know how long He hovered there. The earth was waste. Some hand had done it; had created a chaotic condition. But the Spirit is there, nevertheless, to effect something which is seen throughout the first chapter of Genesis.
HOE Would you say that the Spirit is now in the saints preserving and producing the features of the kingdom?
JT Yes. Hence the importance of keeping where the brethren are, because normally they are where the Spirit is. He came to the brethren, as we have noted, and the effect was seen immediately.
AR The sound was “as of a violent impetuous blowing”. It was God really.
JT You might say, speaking reverently, the inwards of God were implied, for it was a question of breathing. It was not as in John 3; the word there is not breathing. But in Acts 2 it was a hard breathing. Thus God signalises the great occasion of the incoming of the [p. 128] Spirit. His affections were involved in men receiving His Spirit; and therefore the assembly is essential to the presence of the Spirit now. His dwelling here is in the saints.
JTJr While Peter was speaking to Cornelius and his company the Spirit fell on those who were hearing the word. Acts 10:44. Does not the hearing involve attention? Would not our meetings be better if our attention were better?
JT Quite so. Hearing is most important. The action of the Spirit in effecting new birth is mysterious, but, still, it is there, and the Lord intended to convey that. “Thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes and where it goes: thus is every one that is born of the Spirit”. But it is a unified action; I mean, it is unified in the person involved, not affecting simply one part of him. The person is affected throughout by the action.
WR Do you think then that the three thousand souls added at Pentecost would get the gain of this?
JT They would. They were genuine. The chapter shows they were genuine cases. They continued, we are told, in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in breaking of bread and prayers. They were so real and pleasing to the Lord that He was free to add others to them, they too being genuine.
JAP Was the eunuch, prior to being spoken to by Philip, a subject of new birth as we speak of it? He was reading the Scriptures.
JT He might have been affected before. You cannot just say that he was not. Nicodemus undoubtedly was affected before, which would show that the Spirit was working, effecting new birth in men during the time of the Lord’s ministry on earth. The Spirit was then operating on this principle, the Lord Himself being the Object in connection with whom the Spirit [p. 129] was working.
RWS Was the Lord doing the work then, and is the Spirit Himself doing it now?
JT Well, the Spirit was doing it then too, when the Lord was here, because the Spirit was here in some sense from the outset. What is said in Genesis 1 would indicate He was here in some sense all the time. He was striving with men even after that, and is still doing so. We are now considering divine Persons. We have already been saying that the kingdom is in relation to the assembly now, or to the Spirit in the assembly. The Spirit is, however, sovereign, and a man might be born anew out in the ocean, or elsewhere, without relation to persons.
AR I know when I was converted, but I cannot tell when I was born again. Why is that?
JT Well, what you call your conversion may have included new birth. God can act instantaneously both in regard to new birth and conversion. One could bring forward illustrations of what happens; how the Spirit may act instantaneously in one, so that he is affected, though it may not be in the sense of being converted. Something has happened and if the man is normal he is sensible of it. When the Spirit’s action in new birth takes place in one he is sure to be affected.
CN Does the idea of being born of water prove that there is a moral correspondence in the person in whom the Spirit has wrought?
JT I think the moral idea must be there in some sense, even in the first action, because it is an action depending on something. The man is actually affected. “Except any one be born anew ...” It is an action of God, but it is not in the air. It is in a man. It is not in a cow or any other such creature; not in an angel. It is always in a man. It is a human being that is born anew.
WFK Do you think the thief on the cross was born again?
JT He certainly was. He said, “Remember me,
[p. 130] Lord, when thou comest in thy kingdom”, (Luke 23:42). He saw there was a King there and, we may say, a kingdom also. There was a King there and he anticipated the Lord coming in His kingdom. Undoubtedly he was born anew for he saw the King and apprehended that He had a kingdom.
CAM Would you say that the expression “born of water” would be the commencement of a man’s moral being? It is not the same as washing one’s robes. It would not be the same, for instance, as the cleansing of the leper, or other cleansings like Numbers 19. Does it not refer to the beginning of a man’s spiritual history?
JT Quite so. The washing is not what we call judicial. It is a subjective thing. The blood effects judicial cleansing. That is, it implies that the Lord Jesus has been into death; that there has been death, and the word here conveys just the initial thought of cleansing. The Lord had not died yet, but He implies that there is such a thing as this — a man being morally affected in the sense of cleansing. He would speak of things differently from this point of view; he is different; he would speak of things in a holy way from the start.
GBL Does Leviticus 12 serve as a type to show that cleansing is connected with birth? When a child is born cleansing is required in the type.
JT Yes. Sixty-six days were required for a female child for the full cleansing of the mother, and thirty-three days for the male child; so that there is something there to remind us that the incoming into this world, whether it is a male or female, involves defilement; the female involves more pollution naturally than the male, if the brethren are able to follow that. It would mean much as to the condition of the human race in this world, and the polluted condition that is in the race, and how this idea of cleansing must take place. So that the first reference — the eyes being opened to see the kingdom — is not enough. There must be [p. 131] a movement, definite movement, which means that I leave certain things behind.
AAT Is the man in John 9 a sample of what we are speaking of? He was born blind, but got the movement you are speaking of afterwards.
JT Yes. He would illustrate the idea of being born anew and how it works up to full faith in Christ, so that the idea of being born anew is just an initial thought. The believer is not yet fully on the ground of redemption. It is the initial idea, whereas John 9 shows that the man steadily progressed. The Lord waited until he had been cast out of the synagogue, and then He says to him, “Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?” That is the next thing; what you believe after you have been born anew.
WR What is according to the old nature cannot be reformed or improved. Is that why the Lord Jesus speaks the second time, “Except any one be born anew”?
JT It means that Nicodemus who, from the Jewish standpoint, was, perhaps, the best man you could find, and was undoubtedly born anew, had need of this new thing. Whatever we may be religiously, we need this new thing. It says, “Except any one”. The number of occurrences of the word “verily” in this section is remarkable. There are about twenty-four of them in John, but they are very strong here in emphasizing the necessity of the new birth. It is a real truth, an essential truth, and without it there is no Christianity at all.
HOE Does the manifestation of the works of God in John 9 include the work of the Spirit initially in the opening of the blind man’s eyes?
JT Just so. It is one of the most remarkable passages, because the man is not regarded as a sinner himself. I mean, he is not regarded as having sinned himself, nor his father; showing that God is regarding the man as just existing to bring out His works; that the works of God should be manifested in him. It is not the [p. 132] work, but the works. The first work would be new birth, and that may have synchronised with what happened as the Lord took him up. The man did not ask Him to do it. The Lord spat on the ground and made mud of the spittle and put the mud on his eyes, anointing him with it, and told him to go to Siloam and wash. Much had to be done. The man had to find his way to Siloam. He was still blind, and if possible, blinder than before; but how did he get to Siloam? That is what the mind must follow. How did he get there? But he said that he was sent. The meaning of the word Siloam is. Sent. The moral element is in the fact that he was sent, and he obeyed the commandment, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam”. I would say, that is where new birth is seen. The man is entirely subject and does what he is told to do in order to be healed. It is the same sense in which any person has the obedience of faith; he is a witness to new birth; as he submits to the word of Christ one evidences new birth; so this man went to Siloam. That is the point he makes in speaking of it. The neighbours inquired of him, and he said that having gone and washed, he saw. That is historical, what he said to the neighbours. To the Pharisees, later, he says, “I washed, and I see”. The point he makes is that he sees. He says in effect, if you examine me you will observe that I see.
RWS Would you have the assurance that if a person is born again, the Spirit of God will follow that work up, or might it just be left as we see it in John 3?
JT Nicodemus was long in coming to the full bearing of the truth. The fact is that we must always note a distinction between him and the rest of the people around. It says. But — “But there was a man from among the Pharisees”. There is an adversative force in that phrase in favour of him. So he is not left. What was in him is pursued. He says, “We know that thou art come a teacher from God, for none can do these signs that thou doest unless God be with him”, verse 2.
[p. 133] That is clear evidence that there is some sight in him: he saw that God was with Jesus. That indicates how the Spirit of God would follow up one born anew. The Spirit of God effects the change Himself and He follows on it with an evangelist, I would say. Nicodemus identifies himself with the Lord at His burial, John 19.
AR He came with one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes to the Lord’s burial. That shows he was genuine.
JT It did indeed, but he stayed a long time with the council, and that is another matter that we have to consider; that new birth may take place and yet a man may remain in worldly associations for a good while. Hence there is the need for a clear gospel being presented when there is any such case as Nicodemus; to present the true gospel; a separative gospel. The man in John 9 had the truth in that sense; in fact, he testified it himself. They cast him out, and that made him fit for something else; namely, believing on the Son of God.
DP Is the effect of new birth, in principle, to be seen in Naaman the Syrian?
JT Well, I would say he must have been a subject of the work of God before the Spirit of God calls attention to him, 2 Kings 5. God had used him; God had given deliverance to Syria through him. Why should that be stated there? And why should it be that he was a leper if it does not suggest that God takes up men who are ready to receive the gospel to work in them sovereignly by His Spirit? In this case the evangelist was a little maid. Naaman was already a subject of God’s work; but it is proceeding. The matter is proceeding, and so the maid is affected by his case. She says, “Oh, would that my lord were before the prophet that is in Samaria! then he would cure him of his leprosy”, (2 Kings 5:3). She was the evangelist, and that is what I think the Lord would tell us now — to be urgent about need. If there are people around who seem to be interested; who indicate desire to be helped; who are the [p. 134] subjects of the work of God, we should show that we are concerned about them. In the case of Naaman, the king of Syria took the matter up, which would indicate how the enemy is ready to interfere with the work of God, because Naaman was sent to the wrong man; he was sent to the king of Israel. The little maid did not say any-I thing about him; she spoke of the prophet in Samaria; that he would cure Naaman of his leprosy. The point is to be sure when instructing people as to the gospel, to send them to the right person.
Question. The man in John 5 does not seem to be able to say very much. He did not know who it was that healed him.
JT He is hardly a type of a convert. He caused the Lord persecution. Still, he was the subject of the sign, a testimony of the Lord’s outward work. The Lord did not seem to have confidence in him, for He says, “Sin no more, that something worse do not happen to thee”, (John 5:14). That implies that he is not to be trusted.
TEH Isaiah was very desirous of seeing the result of the work of God. He says, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed?” chapter 53:1.
WR Should we be energetic to seek out others to bring them into what we have of the light of the assembly and of the kingdom of God?
JT Just so; these cases that have been mentioned — Naaman, the man in John 9, and Nicodemus — all point to persons who are subjects of God’s sovereign work. Now having proceeded so far in John, we should touch on Luke 4 to show how the proclamation of the kingdom goes with what we have been saying as to John. New birth is the sovereign, direct work of the Spirit. The passage in Luke 4 which has been read is the first one that mentions the subject of the kingdom of God in this gospel, but we should remember that Luke mentions that the angel told Mary that the Lord would have a great [p. 135] and everlasting kingdom, chapter 1:32,33. But the verses in chapter 4 refer to the evangelisation of the kingdom of God. It says in verses 42 - 44, “And when it was day he went out, and went into a desert place, and the crowds sought after him, and came up to him, and would have kept him back that he should not go from them. But he said to them, I must needs announce the glad tidings of the kingdom of God to the other dues also, for for this I have been sent forth. And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee”. So now we have to consider Luke’s side of our subject, which depends on John’s side; but the preaching is essential. It is not exactly the preaching of the Christ, but the preaching of the kingdom of God; that there is such a thing as that to be preached, and to be preached universally, as the Lord says, “... the other cities also”. And for this travel is needed. The Spirit of God could reach a point and we cannot specify the time it would take to do it. The Spirit of God might move quickly in effecting new birth; but in order to preach the kingdom, the Lord moved in the ordinary outward way, involving what He came into as becoming Man. I speak of that advisedly, that as in the days of His flesh He toiled, travelling from city to city in God’s service. And later the apostles did it; and so now it is for us to do it; to travel to preach the kingdom. It is in order to preach the kingdom; not simply preaching the gospel in the terms of it, but the kingdom of God, implying that it is in power.
AR What do you have in mind as to the Lord being here in a limited way?
JT He came here in flesh and blood. We have to be careful in saying that He was limited, but it is a question of what He submitted Himself to. He uses the words, “No one knows, neither the angels ... nor the Son”, (Mark 13:32). One has to be careful in referring to such scriptures, but they are intelligible because the Lord, of Himself, entered into certain limitations to bring out [p. 136] the position He had taken for the will of God. Here He says, “I must needs announce the glad tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also”. He travelled from one place to another. There is no evidence that He carried on His service, in this physical sense, miraculously.
JS Do you think He alludes to His limitations when He says, “And how am I straitened until it shall have been accomplished!” (Luke 12:50)?
JT Yes. That bears directly on what we are saying.
APT It is remarkable how Luke in his further record in Acts says, “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 Judea, beginning from Galilee”, (Acts 10:36,37). It is interesting to see how the Lord served, as you remarked.
JT It becomes very testing and humbling in a way, and very affecting, because the Lord travelled, all these distances. It is never said that He used a conveyance except the ass on which He rode into Jerusalem. His feet carried Him. And so the woman of Luke 7 kissed His feet and anointed them with myrrh, evidently because they carried Him to her; that is what Luke would keep before us. It is what the Lord does in His grace and patience. He says, “I must work the works of him that has sent me while it is day”, (John 9:4).
APT If a brother has ability to preach, do you think it is wise to preach every Lord’s day evening?
JT Why are you asking that question?
APT We have had ministry as to our travelling in serving in the gospel, involving possible neglect in caring for local conditions. The matter of preaching the kingdom, as we have been considering it, is interesting, but are there not other things that are to govern our responsibility? It is important to look after the local company.
JT The home front has to be attended to. It is not [p. 137] simply that we are good platform men; we must care for the saints, as well. So that in carrying on the service and testimony of God there is much more to do than to preach.
HOE Going back to your reference to the Lord moving in a limited way, do you mean to convey the impression that the Lord would not always use His miraculous powers in service?
JT If all the service of the gospel were miraculous you can hardly say there would be faith. God came here in Jesus. Luke gives us the most beautiful touches about Him. He was a Babe in a manger, and grew up to boyhood and manhood. All was of God, but it was in normal growth. His conception and birth were miraculous, as we all know; but afterwards all was generally normal growth, until full manhood was reached. “The child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and God’s grace was upon him”, (Luke 2:40). The moral side is more stressed than the miraculous. After the Holy Spirit came upon Him and the consequent public testimony was rendered, what is stressed is that God was there. Nicodemus makes the great point, as to the Lord, that “none can do these signs that thou doest unless God be with him”; whereas Peter says He “went through all quarters doing good, and healing all that were under the power of the devil, because God was with him”. Acts 10:38. In Luke 3:23 it says that Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years of age. That is to say, the Lord took on the service of God according to Levitical principles. That is the age at which the Levite began his service. And He waited until John was cast into prison. That is another thing; He would follow John. John began to serve before the Lord did, and the Lord would come after him. In John’s gospel that side is omitted, but in the synoptic gospels it is clearly pointed out that He waited until John was cast into prison. John was beheaded. The [p. 138] Lord is affected by these things. And, therefore, we have in Mark, who introduces the subject of the kingdom earlier than Luke: “Repent and believe in the glad tidings”, chapter 1:15. That is the first thing the Lord said in Mark. He came and said that. Therefore, it is important to see how He was governed by Levitical principles and waited until the time came to enter on His service. Mark begins at once as to the actual service. He opens his gospel saying, “Beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, Son of God”. That is the way Mark presents Him. He is abrupt, and his narrative is marked by the word “straightway”.
AR What are the features of the preaching of the kingdom of God? Paul spoke about “my gospel”.
JT The Lord alludes to the matter of preaching here. “And when it was day he went out, and went into a desert place”. He was evidently alone there, and probably taking up time doing something with a purpose. “And the crowds sought after him”. The idea of a desert is to be noted. The flesh will not be ministered to in a desert. And then it says, “... and came up to him, and would have kept him back that he should not go from them”. We might say that the Lord should stay with them, but He is working out Levitical principles here, and He is saying to us that we must not be detained unduly. If it is on your heart to do something for the Lord, take the time to do it, but do not delay in it; do not spend too much time. So that it says that they “would have kept him back that he should not go from them”, but He said, “I must needs announce the glad tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for for this I have been sent forth”, verse 43. Now I have already remarked that He was not sent from heaven. Some one might say that this remark would indicate that He was, but it does not mean that. He was sent out as already here. It is after the Spirit came upon Him that He spoke of Himself as sent, as seen in verse 43. He is [p. 139] telling those with Him that He has been sent forth to preach, that He is here on a mission, and this mission includes the idea of the kingdom of God. So it says, “And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee”. It was a question of the kingdom.
WR It would seem from these verses in Luke that the Lord was under orders, and He was using His power at every moment to reach as many as possible that might be subjects for the kingdom.
JT Quite so; and how wonderful His work was! The amount of work He did is in evidence. Of course, all is not written, but what we have shows that what we do should be done well and not with negligence. Verse 20 of Luke 6 ought to be in our minds before we conclude this reading. “And he, lifting up his eyes upon his disciples, said. Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” — it is persons who are thus characterised. Psalm 41 says, “Blessed is he that understandeth the poor”. I mention that because the Lord Himself is included in the idea of the “poor”. The footnote there says, attendeth to, giveth head to, owneth. Heaven takes account of a man who is so viewed. The Lord is now speaking about the position of the apostles, and, indeed, the remnant that was here in His own time; how they were cared for by heaven. “He, lifting up his eyes upon his disciples, said. Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”. It seems to me that this is something which should be in our hearts. The kingdom of God is regarded as belonging to such; it is their proper portion — the poor — and the Lord says that they are blessed because of that.
JS Is not the King doing His own preaching in Luke? I am thinking of Ecclesiastes.
JT You mean king Solomon was the preacher. That is true. And then there is this other word in chapter 8 that we already alluded to and which I think would be a sort of [p. 140] finish to our subject in this section — the kind of people that were attached to the Lord in His service in the kingdom. He was an Object to them. They were ministering to Him of their substance, but it says, “he went through the country city by city, and village by village, preaching and announcing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God; and the twelve were with him, and certain women who had been healed of wicked spirits and infirmities, Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to him of their substance”, verses 1 - 3. The kingdom is seen here in a rich, flourishing way, and the Lord is seen in it as the Object of the twelve and others who had been blessed through His ministry.
CFE How do we acquire the substance seen in these women here?
JT I would think that, viewed spiritually, it is acquired in the kingdom. Entering into the kingdom, you acquire spiritual wealth.
AR Why does Luke speak specially about women here?
JT It is remarkable; it is the subjective side. I believe the kingdom is worked out in them peculiarly, as making Christ an Object.
JAP Is it a feature of the kingdom to minister substance, in that way, to those that travel?
JT Well, the passage intimates how the work was carried on in the Lord’s own times, and how we are to be patient in it; “city by city, and village by village”. Of course, we use means and methods that are available now for travel, but I think the idea is one city after another. When we come to chapter 10, we see that the seventy were sent out on this principle. “Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to [p. 141] them. The harvest indeed is great, but the workmen few; supplicate therefore the Lord of the harvest that he may send out workmen into his harvest. Go: behold I send you forth as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry neither purse nor scrip nor sandals, and salute no one on the way. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say. Peace to this house. And if a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it; but if not it shall turn to you again”, verses 1 - 6. Now this is a large number of workmen. They do not appear in chapter 4. These are the Lords men, seventy in number. The field is widening, and we have instructions to govern us, and I think the basis is laid for assemblies to be formed, because they were sent into “every city and place where he himself was about to come”. And sons of peace is a leading idea. A son of peace is a man you can get on with. He is building material. The Lord coming to a place points to assembly formation. Thus not only is preaching contemplated, but also the result of it. For assemblies, as in Judaea, (1 Thessalonians 2:14), there must be sons of peace.
TEH Would Acts 13 give us a wonderful example of this? There was the ministering to the Lord and then two of His servants were sent forth.
JT This chapter undoubtedly is in mind, because, as we already remarked, the gospels are intended to confirm the epistles, and the apostles’ service. The Lord’s own example, as seen here, is similar to the case of Barnabas and Saul.
ABP Luke 8 seems to be “richly furnished”, as Peter says in his epistle. “The twelve were with him”, it says. Would that be administration? And then, would the women who ministered unto Him, afford the full scope for the kingdom, in that way?
JT Yes. You feel the administration is most important — as seen in the twelve — and must go with the service kingdom-wise, because if we are going from city to city, we encounter various elements; there were many [p. 142] assemblies in Judaea after the Lord went to heaven, and these cities would imply need for administration, and I think it is the one thing that is not being used properly. It is remarkable that the twelve are there; and then these women would be there to afford fellowship, and to minister to those who serve in the gospel, that they are not wanting in anything.
ABP Is this seen in the early Acts where the saints are referred to as continuing in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers? The whole scope of the kingdom seems to be operating there.
JT Just so; I suppose the women here would represent the idea that there was no need. They “ministered to him of their substance”.
JTJr And then we must link the great regard for His feet as seen in the previous chapter. “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that announceth glad tidings, that publisheth peace”, (Isaiah 52:7). There is something in regard to the Lord’s feet that is very precious.
JT I think that is especially to be noted, because there can be no doubt that Mary Magdalene is very like the woman in the end of chapter 7. She was a woman such as Mary Magdalene who was evidently devoted to wickedness at one time, but now she valued the feet of Jesus. She kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment. It would seem as if we are to be reminded that what is needed in the ministry, is seen here. In Acts 2, what a furnishing there was! No one said that anything he had was his own; they had all things in common. It seems as if that is presented to us at the outset of Christianity to show what the mutual side is. There is no doubt that these persons seen in Luke 8 are intended to show us how the kingdom works out. They are subject persons and Christ is everything and in all to them.
ABP It is significant that the apostles’ feet were [p. 143] prominent at the beginning, as also the feet of the lame man.
JT In what we have had before us today, I think there is a lesson to remain with us; especially those who are doing anything in the way of preaching; to see that the thing we preach is already here, because the kingdom is not mentioned until it is here. As we have seen, Luke contemplates that the kingdom was here in the Person of Christ.