THE KINGDOM OF GOD (9)
[p. 189] THE KINGDOM OF GOD (9)
Matthew 9:35 - 38; Matthew 10:1 - 7; Matthew 11:1 - 15; Matthew 12:28,29
JT It is proposed that we look again at the gospel of Matthew in pursuing our subject. We have previously considered certain parts from chapter 1 to the end of chapter 5. The kingdom of the heavens is peculiarly marked out in this gospel. We have, for instance, in the last paragraph of chapter 4, an allusion to the work of the Lord, involving the kingdom. It says, “And Jesus went round the whole of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every bodily weakness among the people. And his fame went out into the whole of Syria, and they brought to him all that were ill, suffering under various diseases and pains, and those possessed by demons, and lunatics, and paralytics; and he healed them”, verses 23 - 25. And in chapter 9, which we have just read, there is a similar thought in the closing verses, only that there are certain variations, the Spirit of God calling attention to the extraordinary works of power of the Lord Jesus. All this enters into the idea of the kingdom, which is before us. And in chapter 12, the verses read, “But if by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you. Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his goods, unless first he bind the strong man? and then he will plunder his house”, verses 28, 29. And then, attached to these verses is another point of great importance, namely, a judicial or punitive feature which enters into this matter, because of a word or saying against the Spirit. In chapter 9 it says, “But the Pharisees said. He casts out the demons through the prince of the demons”, verse 34. Another passage in chapter 12:24 is almost identical and alludes to the judgment of God upon any one speaking against the Spirit of God. The presence of the Spirit of God is the leading [p. 190] feature of this dispensation. He is marked by peculiar humility in serving in God’s kingdom — serving men. So it is said in verse 31 of chapter 12: “For this reason I say unto you. Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming one”. I think we do well to have these four scriptures before us, especially in view of the terrible word as to any one speaking against the Spirit of God. It is well known to many of us here that the great servant who was used of God to open up the truth to us, said that the notion of a clergyman is, dispensationally, a sin against the Holy Spirit.
JS Is that because the Spirit is quenched by clericalism?
JT I should think so. He is quenched in the usual procedure that marks the so-called sects at the present time, and of course it began very early in the dispensation. The clerical idea began early. It is seen in Diotrephes, 3 John 9.
CFE Is that seen also in chapter 9:34, in the Pharisees denying the power of God?
JT Yes. “The Pharisees said. He casts out the demons through the prince of the demons”. That is the allegation: that the Lord Jesus was acting in the power of an evil spirit, and that was a word against the Spirit of God.
ABP Is it important that we discern, in any matters that come up amongst us, if the dispensation has been misrepresented?
JT I should think that would enter into what we are saying, and we are reminded therefore of how easily we may participate in what is, in effect, a sin against the Spirit. Therefore we are enjoined not to quench the [p. 191] Spirit and not to grieve the Holy Spirit. Quenching the Spirit would be trenching on His activities and thus sinning against Him.
ABP Was the sin of Moses, which in one sense was provoked by the people, a serious matter because it misrepresented the dispensation?
JT Well, it hindered his entrance into the land, his leading Israel in, but it did not affect the Spirit (typically) for the water flowed out to the people. The action affected Moses and Aaron governmentally, but not in a final sense, for their places in the testimony and in blessing are fixed eternally. But as to this dispensation, it is the time of the throne of grace instead of the Lord’s own throne, which will involve judgment. In general this dispensation is characterised by grace, it is “the well accepted time”, “the day of salvation”. But the question arises as to the general current situation in the world, involving also happenings of the last war and some earlier wars — certain efforts which were tantamount to antichristian attack on military lines — and the question is, are they to be regarded as subject to the punitive dealings of God as entering into the character of the last days, corresponding to what is described in the book of Revelation in the form of judgments. If judgments entered into this dispensation at the beginning, and indeed throughout, as might be pointed out in various events, why may not the present circumstances come under that head? Whether the conduct that has marked current matters, and especially of late, should be called governmental or purely punitive, they certainly have the character of early events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the extraordinary death of Herod. These cannot but be regarded as punitive, only they do not characterise the dispensation, though entering into it.
AR What about the sin unto death in John’s first epistle? Would that fit in here?
JT I should not call that a punitive sin in the sense [p. 192] in which we are speaking. Such a sin might be in a person who is really one of God’s people, such as Ananias and Sapphira, and certain others that are spoken of at Corinth: “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”, (1 Corinthians 11:30). I would regard those cases as purely governmental, not punitive.
ANW In tracing these matters you have referred to in relation to the kingdom, are you giving it a wider bearing than the assembly?
JT One of the assembly’s prerogatives is to exercise discipline — perhaps more accurately, governmental acts — in order that the persons involved might be saved in the day of the Lord. They are not merely punitive; they are mainly corrective. The assembly, through Peter, dealt with Ananias and Sapphira. The physical effect, death, was evidently the act of God, although Peter identified himself with it in announcing it. The Old Testament required corporal punishment in maintaining the government of God in Israel, but it is not applied in the assembly. Delivering to Satan and putting away are divinely prescribed, but the cases of Ananias and Sapphira and those at Corinth were direct acts of God. So that there are remarkable expressions and distinctions in Scripture that we should notice, and know how to judge when we meet them. Christians ought to be on their guard lest they may be in any way supporting what is antichristian and so come under the penalty of God. In recent circumstances some indulged in national and personal prejudices and compromised themselves in this way.
AAT Is it not so that the Galatian saints were going back to Judaism and in that way sinning against the Spirit?
JT They were in danger, but the apostle addresses them as Christians. There were persons, who were Judaisers, who troubled them, and the apostle says, “I [p. 193] would that they would even cut themselves off who throw you into confusion”. (Galatians 5:12). But he does not suggest that all were guilty; those who were direct Judaisers were guilty; that is, as bringing in apostate principles. They brought in Old Testament conditions as governing this present dispensation. Christendom today is largely thus affected.
RWS Are you connecting the kingdom with present happenings? I think I followed what you said as to the assembly, but are you connecting present public happenings with the operations of the kingdom?
JT No; they would not be, because the kingdom is not characteristically punitive, as we have said. “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”, (Romans 14:17). Therefore, what we have read here and what generally characterises the kingdom of God is the gospel. It is grace; now grace reigns “through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”, (Romans 5:21).
RWS Does that same thought apply to the kingdom of the heavens?
JT Yes. We are engaged with the kingdom of the heavens now, in Matthew; the idea of Christ being in heaven is implied. It is His present service in heaven that is in mind, and what flows out of it. Other features that we have been considering, especially in Luke, relate to the kingdom connected with the Spirit on earth, which is the same thing in result, but still, there are the two thoughts. The presence of the Spirit on earth is the idea that is conveyed in the kingdom of God. “But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you”. Therefore, Luke tells us that the Lord Jesus went about doing good. That was the idea of the kingdom; God being with Him.
CAM Would it be right to look at the kingdom as [p. 194] not universally acknowledged at the present time? It has its own wonderful sphere, but there are spheres exterior to it, so that these other operations of God in judicial matters, of which you were speaking, would exercise themselves in those surroundings. The words that occur to me are, “in the midst of you”, (Luke 17:20,21). There is something surrounding the kingdom of God that is in measure subject to the government of God.
JT I see your point; that is, not characteristically subject to the government of God, but it might be in some detail.
CAM I was wondering whether the pharisaical element that the Lord is speaking of continues on in the clerical element today.
JT Quite so; hence the whole system of religion that has developed and now has to be classified with heathendom, Judaism, and even Mohammedanism. Can God in any sense be favourable to it? I think that under certain circumstances He can be, in a governmental sense; and that this is illustrated in the present international combinations.
JAP Does the prophecy in Zechariah 4 bear out what you are saying as to the kingdom of God — how it is actually supported? It says, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts ... and he shall bring forth the headstone with shoutings: Grace, grace unto it!” verses 6,7. And then, “These are the two sons of oil, that stand before the Lord of the whole earth”, verse 14. Is that a suggestion of the Spirit coming in?
JT I think so, as giving character to the present time. Haggai agrees somewhat with that. Jehovah says, “The word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, and my Spirit, remain among you”, (Haggai 2:5). That, of course, would be beneficial — it is Horeb, not Sinai. That, I think, would be Jehovah’s way of showing how near the kingdom in [p. 195] the previous dispensation came to our dispensation from the standpoint of good.
AR In 2 Thessalonians reference is made to that which restrains, and he who restrains. Is that restraint against the spirit of antichrist? The spirit of antichrist seems to be prevalent in the present war, but there is a power holding against it.
JT Yes: that which restrains, and he who restrains has to be noted, and I would say that the latter refers to the Spirit; whereas that which restrains, I would say, is the principle of government that God inaugurated after Israel was set aside; that is, what God has set up in the four monarchies. That still stands as a principle with God, and of course it comes into our cognisance, because we are called upon to pray for those whom God has set up — “the powers that be”, (Romans 13:1).
AR Do you mean that which hinders would be the governments on earth that are favourable to Christianity?
JT In general; they are not always favourable to Christianity, but they are helped of God to keep order, maintaining government generally. We thank God for it constantly now. And beside that there is that which resists evil in the prayers of the saints and the general working of the Spirit in the assembly.
ABP Should we not make room in our thoughts for God to act in His own rights outside of the bounds of the present dispensation in individual cases, or even in certain national matters?
JT I would say that, because “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse sheweth the work of his hands”. (Psalm 19:1). And then it goes on to say, “There is no speech, and there are no words, yet their voice is heard”, verse 3. That psalm speaks of a testimony through which God can speak to man, and we know He did speak to the magi from the East, for example. They were spoken to through a star; through the heavens. That, I am sure, [p. 196] goes on.
HGH Is that suggested in verse 36? It says, “When he saw the crowds ...” Earlier, He was healing every disease, but when He saw the crowds He was moved with compassion for them. There were specific movements in relation to the healing of the diseases, but then there were crowds which would imply those outside of His immediate circle, but He had compassion for them.
JT All that helps as to what has been said as to spheres exterior to the kingdom of heaven. Chapter 9:35 speaks of what He was doing — how immense it was! And then in verse 36, He was moved because He saw that the people were harassed and cast away as sheep not having a shepherd. He was the Shepherd of Israel, but He does not say that here. What He says is, “The harvest is great and the workmen are few; supplicate therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth workmen unto his harvest”. And then He appoints the apostles. They were to carry on as He had been carrying on, but within the limits of Israel. Another thing thus comes up in our subject. Can we discern modification when it is required? We shall see it further in the next chapter, but here they are told to go to the house of Israel; not to the Samaritans. And they are told that their service would continue on until the Lord comes. We cannot, of course, admit of the exclusion of Christianity; we come on to it in chapters 11 and 12, as we shall see, but I think we may see that the presence of the twelve is stressed here, and that they are to be limited to the tribes of Israel. The designation “twelve” implies that they represent administration; verse 2 emphasises this. The legislative side being so far in the Lord’s hands, is seen in chapters 5, 6, and 7. In chapter 10 the twelve are called “twelve disciples”, which alludes to their education, it being derived from the Lord and thus it qualified them for their service, carrying also the administrative idea, as we have seen. And then verse 2 says, “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these ...” Notice, the word is changed to apostles and their names are given; and then again in verse 5 it says, “These twelve Jesus sent out when he had charged them”. That is to say, it is a great administrative position under the three designations here: “twelve disciples”, and “twelve apostles”, and “these twelve”. It becomes very interesting as to how the kingdom took form under the twelve, as it had taken form under the Lord Himself. We shall see presently that John the baptist was not in the kingdom as the Lord was now setting it up. He was not equal to it. “A little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he”, chapter 11: 11.
JTJr Does the Lord send them out as distinct from Himself? It is a question of the twelve. Is the idea that the administration now is going on as if He were not there?
JT That is what I thought might be seen. The time for that has come. His work is plainly intimated in these two settings in chapters 4 and 9, but now He is inaugurating a new thing in the twelve — what they can do — and so this whole chapter has them in mind. So that in verse 1 it says, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and preach in their cities”. He would go on, but they were to go on. Thus the whole position is augmented. We do not have the seventy in this gospel, but we have the twelve greatly stressed in this chapter.
APT In verse 20 of chapter 10 it says, “Ye are not the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you”. Would that be the character of the ministry?
JT That is an important part of the chapter. It is the Spirit Himself speaking in them. He was speaking in the Lord, of course, but now He is speaking in them.
CAM What is the difference between the administrative [p. 198] and the legislative? Is it a principle with God that after laying down the truth, like a statute, the working principle is brought in?
JT Yes; in detail; how the thing is done. But the legislative side is most important to get into our minds, because it involves principles, and deals with Christendom as it is. Each so-called denomination has its own rules and methods, but they all have to be tested by this chapter, and indeed, by this gospel as a whole.
WR Is there not something significant in the fact that the Lord taught in their synagogues and then the glad tidings followed the teaching?
JT Quite so; then we have a wider thought, as has already been alluded to in chapter 11: “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and preach in their cities”. These would be the cities of Israel, because it is said later that they should not have gone over the cities of Israel until the Son of man had come.
AR Is it a divine system set up operating against what is evil here below?
JT Yes; although its main operation is in good. The punitive elements, I would think, are outside the kingdom as in its present form. It has a great many aspects. It would be instructive to us all to look over the various titles which designate the kingdom, but it would seem, from what we are dealing with now, that the kingdom of the heavens in Matthew and the kingdom of God in Luke are set for good.
WCR Is the throne of grace a kingdom thought?
JT It is the very centre of the kingdom. It is a thing, not a person. It shows what our dispensation is. It is a throne of grace; not of judgment. And yet, we are told in Romans, “For there is revealed wrath of God from heaven”, (Romans 1:18), but it is not yet put into execution, and so in another epistle also marked by grace it says, that the Lord Jesus is our deliverer [p. 199] from the What you say is confirmed by the words of the Lord Jesus in chapter 10:7: “And as ye go, preach”. It is the positive side of their ministry. And then to confirm the thought of judgment being withheld, it says, “It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in judgment-day than for that city”, verse 15. The judgment is in abeyance. In the meantime the disciples keep on doing the work of grace in the kingdom.
JT That is right. Judgment is in abeyance. The beneficent character of the kingdom is in operation and is not to be interfered with. The judgment is deferred, even for the cities in which the Lord had wrought in such a marvellous way. His works of grace and goodness were the testimony, and hence the serious judgment to come later — in the day of judgment. Therefore, in verse 7 it says, “And as ye go, preach, saying. The kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh”. It is already intimated what the kingdom of the heavens is. And then “Heal the infirm, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons: ye have received gratuitously, give gratuitously”. That is the idea. That is the position of this whole dispensation.
APT What is the present bearing of this on all of us who would seek to be in the kingdom of the heavens? How does it operate today? How is it positively carried forward through the saints?
JT I think as we have already seen — in the doctrine of it; it is Romans in the main, and the other epistles that we have gone through, but the way of it you get largely in the gospels, seen particularly in the personal way in which the Lord did things. Hence, we have these things that He tells the twelve to do. Also, when John sends to Him, as seen in the next chapter. He says, “Go, report to John what ye hear and see. Blind men see and lame walk; lepers are cleansed, and deaf hear; and dead [p. 200] are raised, and poor have glad tidings preached to them: and blessed is whosoever shall not be offended in me”, verses 4 - 6. That is what He was doing. John wanted to know whether He was the Christ or not, and that is the answer He sends. John had heard in the prison of the Lord’s works — why did he not know whose they were?
JS Could anyone know better?
JT Quite so. What needs to be understood now is that the kingdom is here by the Spirit. The kingdom of heaven alludes to Christ in heaven, but the kingdom of God to the Spirit here, and hence in the assembly. Therefore, it should mark the assembly; good works are implied: “Having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has before prepared that we should walk in them”, (Ephesians 2:10).
FSC How do you bring the last verse of this gospel into what you are saying — “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. (Matthew 28:20)?
JT That would be to help them, to augment them in their great mission. “Behold, Iam with you all the days”. He had led them up to that. You might inquire, Where is He now? Matthew does not record the ascension. He contemplates the Lord as here. He is here, we may say, mysteriously, to support us in our service and testimony. The promise to the two or three in chapter 18 is included in this. The Lord does not include punitive works in the service committed to us. God reserves to Himself the judgment of enemies. “Vengeance belongs to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord”, (Romans 12:19). We are to hold aloof from that, and therefore John says, “For neither does the Father judge anyone”, (John 5:22). The Father is connected with grace.
CAM You alluded to their cities — “He departed thence to preach and teach in their cities”, chapter 11:1. Has that a present bearing in connection with our [p. 201] localities?
JT By extension, I think it raises the question of assembly position.
CAM Some years ago there was ministry entitled, ‘The Upper Room and the City’. The upper room was regarded as a moral idea, but the city thought was greatly stressed and has continued to be since. Do you think that would be in line with this thought?
JT I think it would, and of course in line with the formation of assemblies. The preacher in Ecclesiastes is the former of assemblies. The two things — preaching and the formation of assemblies — go together. We have here “As ye go, preach”. Note that! The Lord directs them to preach as they went. Then there is the additional thought in Christianity; namely, the number of assemblies; that is, the constitution of the assembly is not only one great general thought, but it is seen as in its local positions, and hence the apostle refers to all the assemblies. The first mention of the word in that sense is in (Acts 9:31): “The assemblies then throughout the whole of Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified and walking in the fear of the Lord, and were increased through the comfort of the Holy Spirit”. So we have the assemblies founded. The assembly in its general thought is the residence of the Holy Spirit here; but the operative and administrative thoughts are in local companies, each having its own responsibilities and prerogatives to carry out the government of God in itself.
TEH Would you help as to the Macedonian man? He says. Come over and help us, but the suggestion is that the apostle went specifically to Philippi. He went to a city.
JT The assembly was in mind. The man was probably a Greek, belonging to the old Greek system. Philippi was a city in Macedonia. And apparently there was a work of God there ready for the apostle’s ministry. I suppose Philippi may be taken to represent a characteristic local assembly more so than Ephesus. Ephesus is more official and represents the assembly as a whole in [p. 202] some cases, but Philippi would bear the general characteristic of grace. It is the epistle that speaks of the “supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ”.
JS Much is made there of the gospel.
JT Quite so; they had fellowship with it from the first day until the time Paul wrote.
RWS Does the extension of the teaching involve each one of us? You alluded to the Lord’s preaching and teaching in chapter 10, but then the end of that chapter brings the ministry down to “a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple”.
JT That brings out the feature of chapter 10 — the general spirit of it. Verse 28 says, “And be not afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but fear rather him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?” and then, later, “He that receives you receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me. He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward”, verses 40 - 42. It shows what runs along with the great principle of the chapter; that is, the administrative service of the twelve, including the thought of “a righteous man”. Then, as you say, it comes down to one who gives something in the name of a disciple. The name of a disciple is important administratively, and it is a question of administration here.
ABP Is there any point to the fact that the twelve apostles are listed in twos? The evidences of the power of the kingdom which the Lord refers to in answering John are also listed in twos. Would it mean that the persons who are administrators are themselves a testimony as also the fruits and power of the kingdom?
JT Showing that “two are better than one”; and of course if you have more you can multiply it accordingly. Whatever number there may be in a local company, the principle of two would be there, and therefore Matthew stands out as representing the assembly, because the principle of two or more enters into it — “two or three”, or “two of you”.
ABP Peter and John at the Beautiful gate of the temple would represent this?
JT I think so; that feature is seen in the early part of the Acts; that is, in Peter and John, and especially in Paul and Barnabas. Much was bound up in the idea of two, and it may hold now. The question is whether it holds practically, whether we can work it out.
JTJr Thomas must in some way have gotten away from Matthew, according to John’s record. He was away from one meeting. The idea of two would hold us in right channels.
JT I think so. I think it works out, perhaps, in ways that we have not thought of. Matthew’s gospel is pre-eminently a part of the Scripture that makes much of the idea of two; so that we ought to seek to find out the advantage in it. But it is seen in good and bad senses.
ABP Simon the Cananaean had a great responsibility as being paired with Judas.
APT Would the service of God in a locality, being held by two, result for the better?
JT The idea of two works negatively as well as positively. The company you keep comes into it. If it be a question of the service of God, two in special friendship are apt to damage each other. And it may work out in partisan feeling.
CAM While we cannot make too much of leadership, yet leadership is never without support, is it? Even at the end, Paul said. Only Luke is with me. There was always some support to leadership, was there not?
JT Are you stressing the idea [p. 204] of with?
CAM Yes, it would work out in ways we had not thought of; for instance, the two sons of oil in (Zechariah 4:14), in some ways they are existent, would you not say?
JT I would say that Paul and Barnabas were such, at first, at least. And also Paul and Silas. “Luke alone is with me” would be a reflection on others.
JAP Does it involve that one of the two has to take the second place?
JT That is another thing to accustom ourselves to — to take the second place if necessary; not to be aspiring to the first place.
WFK Peter is mentioned first in the list of apostles. Is it in mind that he is to have the keys of the kingdom?
JT I think Peter is especially in mind in Matthew. Matthew himself comes in in chapter 9. He is seen as a good brother; a man that would give an entertainment for the Lord.
JTJr It is remarkable that you get his vocation. He was a tax-gatherer.
TEH Would Peter be a good second man when occasion called for it? He beckoned to John at the Passover as if he would realise there was one nearer to the Lord than he at that moment. Lord than he at that moment.
JT He would take such a place in recognising that John had greater discernment, but Acts appears to hold throughout that Peter is first among the twelve.
EEH Would you say a little about John the baptist; as to how one of the least in the kingdom is greater than he?
JT It is to bring out what is in mind. We should not forget that there are gradations in this matter; that the dispensation of Christianity is the best that God has devised, embracing the house of God, and the assembly. We are prepared for the superiority of it by the Lord’s word as to John here: “Verily I say to you, that there is not arisen among the born of women a greater than John the baptist”. That should be particularly before us, for [p. 205] the idea of grade comes into this section, and shows that the greatest of the old order that God went on with in Old Testament times is less than the least in the kingdom of the heavens. We are prepared for Christianity, I think, in this remark which the Lord made. While He eulogised John in speaking most wonderfully about him, yet, being the great regulator of everything. He placed him as less than those in the kingdom of the heavens.
WWM What is involved in violence? It says, “The kingdom of the heavens is taken [p. 208] by violence, and the violent seize on it”. (Matthew 11:12). Is that spiritual energy?
JT I would think so; it is a tribute to what John taught. It 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”. The word violence would be in a good sense, I would think; that we must be prepared to do violence to nature and to family links, if necessary, for the kingdom of the heaven’s sake. The kingdom of the heavens must be first. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness”, (Matthew 6:33).
HGH Is there a suggestion here that the kingdom of the heavens should find a great place in our preaching today?
JT I think so; Matthew would help us in that way, because he says in chapter 12: “Behold, more than Solomon is here”. I think the allusion is to the kingdom; to what was attached to the Lord and in Him personally and what is now in the Spirit, because the last verses of chapter 12 bring out the position of Christianity, in relation to the brethren.
AR Why should the Lord link Jonah with Solomon?
JT I suppose he had a great place in the mind of the ordinary Jew. Both Solomon and Jonah were preachers. The devil is endeavouring to depreciate Jonah; to make him a mere myth, whereas he is outstanding in the Lord’s mind and in His teaching. The reference would be to [p. 206] bring out what the new thing was, that it was greater, and this would involve the greatness of the preaching, I would say. Both Solomon and Jonah were eclipsed by the Person who was here and by the preaching.
ANW Will you say a word about the little ones, and the comparative degrees in the kingdom?
JT There is a diminutive thought attached to them. “One of these little ones”, referred to in chapter 10: 42, carries the thought of humility or insignificance. In John’s case it says in chapter 11:11, “He who is a little one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he”. The little one there may be the least. It is somewhat different from the end of chapter 10 but a similar idea, I would say. The footnote to chapter 11 is, “It is the comparative degree; whoever else is taken, the ‘one’ is less; the idiomatic force is more preserved by ‘a little one’”. Paul would carry this with him, that he was not behind the other apostles in any comparative degree even if it be used in this sense. He was a little one in truth. His name meant ‘little’ but he was “less than the least of all saints”, (Ephesians 3:8). I suppose that is the best way to illustrate this word.
FSC Do you think there is any link with the idea of the little child earlier in this gospel?
JT Yes. It is not a babe there; it is a little child; one that has some intelligent sensibility, I would think. The Lord Himself is thus described. He used the word babes in chapter 11 when speaking to the Father about the disciples, but the term in which He is referred to in the beginning of the book is “the little child”.
RWS Is John’s failure in this chapter dispensational and is what is better coming to light? Is the kingdom in relation to the assembly in view?
JT What you say is important. But John’s is a very bad failure. Although he was in prison it was nevertheless failure that he should have in his mind to send his disciples to the Lord with questions which [p. 207] imply doubt as to His position as the Christ. That is what John did. He caused it to enter into the mind of others as well as his own, that the Lord may not be the Christ. It is a terrible thing that he should have that thought in his mind, especially as he had been so clear in the matter earlier.
RW S. I thought you had the up-grade in your mind as leading on to the assembly, that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. I wondered if he might represent failure in that way in his dispensation.
JT And we must consider as to John personally that he does not lose the place the Lord gives him as regards the greatest born of women.
ABP Does it serve to open up the idea of seeing the kingdom? It is referred to in John’s gospel. The Lord told John’s disciples to return to John and tell him what they had seen and heard.
JT That was the message; it was what was to be seen, and apparently John accepted the testimony. We have to think of him in that way, because John the apostle follows on that line and gives John the baptist a great place. If he has not a dispensational place as great as those who are in this dispensation, yet it would seem that he has a place morally equal to it, from what John the apostle says about him in the end of chapter 3. Nevertheless John’s failure, as we have said, was great.
APT Verse 3 is emphatic as regards the Person of the Lord. “Art thou the coming one?”
JT That was in his mind.
ABP Was his weakness that he judged the matter by the fact that he was in prison?
JT I would think he was judging by external circumstances. He would wonder why he should be in prison if the Christ were here.
ANW What makes the days of John an epoch to entitle the Lord to say, “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”? Why does He make that a distinctive period?
JT I think it is to honour him. We have that phrase in various connections, such as the days of David, the days of the Son of man, and many others. I would think it was in the Lord’s mind to honour John; that he gave character to the period. We never hear of Paul’s days, as far as I know; I suppose it is because he brings in what is heavenly; he is a heavenly man like Abraham. The Son of man refers to the Lord’s relation with men, not specially as in heaven, but generally.
JTJr John was well known. The people regarded him as a prophet. He was in the public eye, but I suppose this little one is over against that idea. The Lord never intended the assembly to be a great public matter in the way of display at the present time.
JT So Paul represents the idea: “less than the least of all saints”; not of all servants, but of all saints. You wonder how he could say that, but he must have been able to say it by the Spirit.
WFK John prophesied, “I must decrease”. He was not ready for his own prophecy.
JT I think Paul was intended to bring in Christianity in all its characteristics, even exceeding the ministry of the twelve.
WWM Paul says, when in prison, “And in this I rejoice, yea, also I will rejoice; for I know that this shall turn out for me to salvation, through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ”, (Philippians 1:18,19). That was his attitude in the prison position.
JT “For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”, (Philippians 2:5). The use of the word also is remarkable. That mind was in Jesus but Paul had in mind that it should be in the Philippians.
RDG Were even James and John in danger of misrepresenting the kingdom when they wanted to call down fire from [p. 209] heaven?
JT Just so. It shows how, as we already remarked, we may misrepresent things, while intending to be right and even zealous.
RWS I think it is remarkable the way the Lord answers John. He speaks well of John throughout, even intimating that he was Elias. Is that a kingdom feature?
JT Quite so. It is a kingdom feature, because the Lord would lift him up. He knew that in general he was worthy of it.
JHH Would it mean that John was thoroughly adjusted?
JT I would think he went off the scene adjusted. He was honoured too, in that he was beheaded; he suffered martyrdom in that way. Elijah and John the baptist are linked together. The Lord says. If you will receive it, this is Elijah which is to come. Malachi tells us he is yet to come to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.
TEH If we are tested in the last days in our apprehension of the truth, there are those like John’s disciples who can hear and see and be of help to us.
JT What a need there is for the young men! There is a large group of them coming on, and their letters are good. We may say that their letters are weighty, but we have to wait generally to get their bodily presence, and what they are in character, but we have good hope that they all will prove worthy and that they will quit themselves like men and be strong.