⬇ EPUB

THE BIRTH OF CHRIST

JT The Lord’s manhood has to be considered by itself first. We come in on the line of “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly”, (1 Corinthians 15:48) but the subject of Christ’s humanity must be considered by itself; and what strikes one in Luke is, that he introduces the subject in a priestly atmosphere. That is why I suggested the account of Zacharias and Elizabeth; they were of the priestly family. The priestly atmosphere is thrown around your mind and spirit as a sort of safeguard, directly you are introduced to the Lord in Luke.

RSS That we should approach it in a worshipping spirit.

JT Precisely. Matthew is rather like “the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat”. (Hebrews 9:5) Luke presents the priests as prepared to receive Him. The circumstances into which the Lord was born were priestly. In Matthew, it is the cherubim of glory; a matter of protection from violence. So you find in Matthew 2 the expression “young (or ‘little’) child” nine times. He is dependent on God for protection, and is exposed to violence. There is no violence in this respect in evidence in Luke.

RSS What is the thought of the cherubim in Scripture?

JT Protection; a symbol of God’s government.

AFM The mother is linked with the Child in Matthew: why is that?

JT “Take ... the little child and his mother”, (Matthew 2:13) that is God’s way of protecting Him. No one could protect better than the mother at that juncture, so ^[p. 365] the mother is to take Him; Joseph was to “take ... the little child and his mother”. (Matthew 2:13)

AFM Would that be the form the cherubim would take?

JT Yes. God uses ordinary, or natural means. He did not intervene miraculously to protect the Child, but used Joseph and Mary.

RSS As was said last night, God usually acts mediately, not immediately.

JT Wherever He can He acts mediately. He will do anything He can through us, so that Joseph and Mary become the means of divine protection for the Babe, though it is not presented as if they did it.

WJN Do the overspreading wings of the cherubim convey the thought of protection?

JT I think so.

AFM Would you say a word about John and Mark? You do not get the birth, of Christ in Mark, but it is referred to in John “The Word became flesh”. (John 1:14)

JT It is not an infantile thought in John. He does not present that side, but that He took that condition. It is an act of His own. So both in John and Mark there is no need of protection. He is there Himself in the fulness of manhood.

AFM I was wondering how it would apply to the mercy-seat and the ark as well as to the cherubim. What is in your mind in that connection?

JT We can see how carefully the Spirit of God introduces the subject of the Lord’s humanity, and that, as it were, He throws out a priestly atmosphere so that there should be no defilement introduced. You are struck with that. Ordinarily there would be, but the circumstances were such as to preclude corrupting thoughts, so that Zacharias and Elizabeth suggest that it was the priestly state the Spirit had in His mind.

WGR “That holy thing which shall be born ^[p. 366] of thee shall be called the Son of God”; is that a similar thought?

JB The cherubim are also in the veil as well as the mercy-seat.

JT That is in His flesh as walking and moving about here. The principle of divine government was there, in the Lord’s Person as Man. We know, in fact, that all judgment is committed to Him, because He is the Son of man.

EST That is part of the mystery, is it not? The Lord has not given us to understand all that.

JT The incarnation is inscrutable, but the facts given are sufficient to enable us to have spiritual intelligence of it; indeed how can you confess Jesus Christ come in flesh unless you have that intelligence?

JLJ Does the meat-offering in Leviticus go with this?

JT The meat-offering is, of course, founded on the incarnation, but it represents the character of the Lord’s humanity.

AAT At the time of His birth, did the official priesthood know who the Person was?

JT No, but here is one who feared God, Zacharias, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, a pious woman. They were more than official priests. There was reality about them; that is why so much is made of them here.

RSS “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”. Your thought is that no matter how poor the circumstances were into which the Lord was born, that it was a moral atmosphere of that kind.

JT One has likened it to sterilisation. You would sterilise a room where anything was to take place that would be endangered by germs. It is well to have an atmosphere like that in a spiritual way so that our thoughts should not be corrupted in approaching the Lord’s humanity. You see the priestly atmosphere even in Simeon. He came by the Spirit into the temple, and took the little Child in his arms; he was a priest, truly. It is not the idea of the cherubim. The idea in Luke is holiness. In Matthew it is more protection from violence. Here it is protection from evil elements that the enemy would use to damage.

AFM Zacharias is seen in a very peculiar light, as by the altar of incense, as if it were the highest view of his priestly service.

JT The priestly state precludes all corrupt thoughts. In Numbers, the Levite was not allowed even to look on the holy things, much less to touch them. They were to be looked upon and carefully covered by the priests. That is what you get here. It is not levitical service, but priestly affection and care.

WGR In connection with Joash you see him protected by Jehoiada from Athaliah; the priest preserved him and Jehoiada was greatly honoured for that act.

JT And Jehoiada was the priest.

RSS And Jehoiada was buried amongst the kings.

AAT Was there not a break-down in the priesthood historically? Were Zacharias and Elizabeth not of Aaron’s family?

JT There had been a break-down, but these two were righteous before Jehovah, so that they were in the spirit of what was there.

RSS They belonged to the remnant of that day. I am sure we have all been greatly impressed by the marvellous grace and condescension of God in giving us the details we have read in regard to the Lord’s birth. When you dwell upon it you feel how gracious it has been of God to go into this detail in ^[p. 368] this marvellous and simple way, and you can only approach the subject with holy thoughts.

GAT In Genesis 3 the Lord said to the serpent: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel”. (Genesis 3:15) Had God this in mind? It was not the seed of the man, but of the woman.

JT The woman is prominent in connection with the birth of the Lord. I think it is important we should see, in order to understand the subject, that you require the priestly state. It is by the Spirit, and we ought not to be afraid to draw near to it. We may draw as near to it as possible in the priestly state; but you are precluded from drawing near otherwise. God would encourage us to draw near to it thus, and the more you draw near the more wonderful it is, so that we can intelligently confess Jesus Christ come in flesh.

AFM Is there not a great contrast between the opening of Luke and what you get in Malachi? The priesthood was corrupted, but directly you get the few fearing Jehovah there is the promise that the Sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in His wings; and what is consequent on that is what we find in this passage: “to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just”.

JT Whilst the Lord exposes through Malachi, the true state in the priesthood, He also brings out what a true priest should be, saying, “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth”. (Malachi 2:7)

AAT The name “Son of God” is declared in connection with his birth.

JT That is a guard. “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”. It is a guard lest the Person should be attacked.

^[p. 369] Whilst dwelling on this holy subject, you always remember that His deity is underlying it, but with all that, we should be prepared to draw near to this wonderful theme and not to dread it. The only thing to dread is your own state regarding it. As priests, we are entitled to draw as near as possible to it.

AAT What have we in the tabernacle that answers to it?

JT The ark of the covenant is the answer, the type of it.

WCB It says: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus”. (Hebrews 10:19)

EST What is the thought of “great is the mystery of godliness”? (1 Timothy 3:16)

JT It is that which the true soul cherishes, and it is the secret of right behaviour in the house of God. The key to these chapters lies in the expression “that holy thing”. It is an expression a true priest would understand.

GBM Would, you say the necessity for the peculiar priestly guard that you speak of is due to the fact that the Lord comes to humanity recognising the corrupt condition that is found there?

JT He takes His place amongst men in the most obscure circumstances, and He grows up in these. The point to get hold of is, that in them He answered in every possible way to what man should have been for God; so when God owns Him publicly He owned the One in whom He had been glorified; not only that He was a divine Person, but that in humanity, He had answered to every divine thought as to man. So when God opened the heavens upon Him, He opened the heavens on a Man in whom every thought He had as to man had been answered to.

RSS Is it not wonderful that God found in Him everything that He looked for in man, and that ^[p. 370] in every kind of human circumstances here, even from a Babe, or “little child”, or a Boy, as Mr. Darby translates it? God had delight in His Son in those conditions. I rather think we are apt to confine our thoughts to the Lord’s manhood; that is, as one grown up, but the detail that is given in regard to His childhood is deeply interesting. No matter how young we may be, the Lord at one time in His history was exactly the same age, and God looked for and found what was seasonable in Him. When His parents found him in the temple, He was amongst the doctors of the law, not teaching them, for that would not have been seasonable, but He was hearing them and asking them questions. It does say that they were astonished at “his understanding and answers”, but He did not take the place of a teacher.

JT And then after that “he went down with them ... and was subject unto them”. (Luke 2:51) These are the things that Luke presents, and we should feed on them. “He shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground”. (Isaiah 53:2) That is, He drew nothing from the outward soil. There was nothing from which He could draw sap, and yet there He grew up as a green tree; in fact, He so speaks of Himself afterwards; “if they do these things in a green tree”. (Luke 23:31) There was that which God could look on with pleasure where all else was sterile. The prophet Zechariah had spoken about a “Branch”, and that is what Luke presents to us. One that was wholly dependent, as a branch is. He was the One that should sit on the throne, and build the temple and should be a Priest upon His throne. That was the dependent Man.

JB Speaking of “that holy thing”, did you refer to that which perfectly distinguished Him as a Man from all other men?

JT Yes. It was important that the thought of ^[p. 371] holiness should be there and that Mary should receive it into her soul. She was the first to have to do with the Child and it was important that she should receive into her moral being the idea of a priest. She was the first to have to do with the “holy thing”. Aaron never touched a holy thing like this. This is the One to whom the holy things had reference, and Mary was to have to do with Him first, and in the most intimate way. How important that she should be a qualified priest. The angel’s address was intended to qualify her as a priest. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”.

GAT Do you mean by that that a sister could be a priest?

JT All Christians are priests, and we are all given to have to say to the Lord, it is our privilege to be near Him, and near to Him in the sense of His holiness. We are also called “holy brethren”.

E Would you think the Lord came in the Aaronic order of priesthood?

JT No, He was of the house of David, as it says here, but we, as Christians, who are the true priests now, can see the priestly state that marked the introduction of the Lord into this world.

E But the Lord was a Priest, was he not?

JT Officially, He is a Priest in heaven. “If he were on earth, he should not be a priest”, (Hebrews 8:4).

RSS But the point is not exactly what the Lord was, but the atmosphere into which He came.

JT That is it, and I think it is a very great thing to see that Mary was to be qualified. She was to be qualified to have to say to this holy matter.

GAT Was it not a great cheer to the heart of God to have a man like Simeon here in this atmosphere into which the Lord came, so that he could ^[p. 372] welcome Him, and because of the way he was affected by Him, he could desire to depart?

JT Simeon’s presence in the temple was another divine arrangement; but Mary was to be qualified. She was to be honoured above women, but it was important that she should be qualified spiritually.

WCR Were not Simeon and Anna qualified? Simeon took Him up in his arms and blessed God.

JT I suppose so, as far as they had to say to the Lord, but they were not to have to say to Him in the same capacity as Mary. Think of the intimacy and familiarity with which Mary had to do with the Lord! This address of the angel was intended to qualify her for that service. What an impression it would have left on her mind! She was to have to do with the Son of God as a Babe.

JB Does not the salutation of Elizabeth correspond with this: “the mother of my Lord should come to me”? (Luke 1:43)

JT Yes. The whole scene is marked by the priestly state.

AFM Is there a connection between the title here given to Christ, “the Son of God” and sonship, which is the Christian calling?

JT I think it is here more to guard His Person. It is what is distinctive to Himself here.

GAT Would you say God had bestowed more honour on Mary than on Joseph?

JT You could not conceive of a greater honour being conferred on a person than this. Think of the relationship in which she was to stand to the Son of God! How important that she should take in every syllable of the angel’s address!

RML Verse 48 shows that; “for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed”. (Luke 1:48) She had that sense.

JT It ought to impress us, if we now have ^[p. 373] to say to the Lord, because as Man He is on our side. He has been pleased to identify Himself with us. Luke’s gospel presents the Son of man, and that He has come in in connection with man, and inherited all that attached to man and in that way retrieves the race, that which was lost. We may say, He reinstates man before God, but not in Adam.

RSS I think the point you make about Mary, having to care for Him from the moment He was born, is very beautiful. A brother when here last summer, was calling attention to the fact that it was usually women who had to do with the Lord’s Person. For instance, it was a woman who anointed His feet and washed them with her tears, and a woman that anointed Him for His burial; and women ministered to Him of their substance. I think there are other such instances, where women are largely prominent. Where it is a question of levitical service, men are in evidence.

JT I would go with that fully.

RSS The same thing is true in regard to the saints. We are here together and we have need of two things, a spiritual ministry, that is ministered by men, by those who are qualified, but there are other things that we have need of in regard to our sustainment here, and that is supplied to us not by men, but by women, by the sisters, so that both have their place.

JT In Mary you have that priestly care in ordinary circumstances at home where He was born, and all that was required for Him personally. The intention was that she should be qualified, so that every touch should be priestly. We have to own that she failed in this, because in the end of chapter 2 she says: “thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing”, (Luke 2:48) she is reproving Him. That was not a priestly touch. He says: “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49)

LTF “Mary kept all these things in her heart”. The others did not understand.

JT The Spirit of God accredits her with everything, though she did reprove Him; but perfection shines in Him. “I was cast upon thee from the womb”. (Psalm 22:10) There is the perfection of dependence from the very outset of His being there. Then, as a Boy, He is hearing and asking questions in the temple in perfect comeliness; no pretension to teach the doctors; but it was nothing out of the way to hear and ask questions; and when He says, “wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49) He asserts, we may say, what He was as the Ark of the covenant. In the temple, God had His priest in Simeon. When the Ark came into the temple there was a priest there to receive it, and that was Simeon. There is no disparity there. He comes into the temple by the Spirit and he says: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation”. He sees the Ark. What Mary did not see, he saw, but it was by the Spirit.

RSS Perfectly beautiful, when you think of the Ark being brought into the temple, because He was really carried by His mother. Of necessity, there must be some one there to receive it. It was morally answered to and Simeon comes in here most beautifully.

JT He is on a higher plane than Mary. It is not said that she is filled by the Spirit when she came into the temple. She came to carry out a rite of the law, but he took Him in his arms. Mary was, in a way, superseded.

AFM Where does Anna come in?

JT She speaks of Him to others. That is the counterpart of Simeon. Simeon spoke to God, but Anna “spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem”.

ECE ^[p. 375] Where would the priestly service be carried out today?

JT Priestly service is very wide. The most important function of the priest is to take care of the holy things; they were in his care. That is in the book of Numbers. The book of Leviticus shows that the priest approaches. He has title to approach.

AFM Is your thought that we should answer to these particular persons we have been speaking about, to Mary, Simeon, Anna and Zacharias?

JT Yes. That we might see how the priestly state shone in them. They were divinely prepared to receive the Lord as become incarnate.

AFM And we need priestly condition in order to enter into these things.

JT Yes; in order to have to say to holy things.

JLJ Do you get that thought in Ephesians 3, in the prayer that the saints might be rooted and grounded in love so as to lay hold of God’s purpose, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge?

JT Yes. But we have to touch divine things. One great feature of Christendom is the touching of holy things in an unholy way. People think nothing of touching divine things simply in a natural way with natural ability. The mark of being a priest is that you love Christ. What produces that is the Spirit. If you love Christ, God can entrust Him to you, as it were.

RSS Why do you say the mark of a priest is that he loves Christ? What do you base that on?

JT Love is a fruit of the Spirit, and a priest has the Spirit. That is what a priest is. He has the Spirit; but you do not know if a man has the Spirit unless there is an evidence that he loves Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is that you love Christ, and on the other hand, you love the saints. That is a ^[p. 376] mark of a priest. In the garments of glory and beauty, there were the breastplate and the two shoulder-pieces; on each of the shoulder-pieces there were six names of the tribes. On the breastplate the twelve tribes were inscribed; that signifies that the believer loves the saints, and that is the proof that you love Christ. You have them in your heart, and if you have them in your heart you will support them on your shoulders. That is the evidence of priesthood. That is what marked the Lord. He went into the presence of God with those two things. The reflection of that is to be in us, as with Paul, who had the saints in his heart. If you have the saints in your heart you will support them according to your ability; the shoulders are for support.

WJN When you speak of support, do you mean intercession?

JT I mean you use your pocket-book. You pray for them, but then the saint may need clothing, and help. I quite admit that prayer is the greatest thing we can do, but the idea of the shoulder is that you use all the power you have, spiritual or temporal, to help the saints.

GBM With Paul, the care of the assemblies went with having the saints in his heart.

RSS A priest is one that is anointed. That is about the first thing, and as you were suggesting, when it comes to the fruit of the Spirit, the first thing is love. We are all anointed as believers, and the first thing that should characterise us is love to Christ and to one another.

JT The proof that we love Christ is, that we love one another, and the proof that we love one another is, that we support one another; so the breastplate and the shoulder-pieces go together.

RSS The Lord was born into an atmosphere of love.

JT Yes; you can understand with what reverence ^[p. 377] and affection these persons would hold this wonderful Babe. They were qualified beforehand for His reception. He was laid in a manger, it is true, but the heavenly beings, the angels, are active there. The whole scene taken together shows the wonderful thought of God in regard to the introduction of Christ here.

WGR The shepherds who came to the Lord by night were also qualified.

JT I think they were honoured in that it is said that they kept their flocks by night, showing the energy they had; the shepherd’s heart appears. While all else lay in slumber these people were vigilant, and the angel came to them. Then they went and sought out the Babe.

M What about the wise men from the East?

JT That is in Matthew. It is more the political side in Matthew. They come in quest of the “King of the Jews”; but what is remarkable about them is, that they went to Jerusalem without the star. It does not appear that the star led them there. I think they followed the star till they thought they could safely trust their own minds, which many of us do; and their own minds suggested that the King of the Jews must surely be born in Jerusalem; but they were mistaken, for He was not born there; and when they departed from Jerusalem the star appears again. They missed their way, like many a Christian. We are led to a certain point by the star, as it were, and then we think that surely we will find Christ in the religious organisations around us; but we do not find Him there. We find often, alas! opposition to Him there, and when we leave, the star moves on again and leads us to where He is. The great thing is to follow the guide.

JLJ That involves love.

JT It involves our following the appointed means of guidance. Many a soul says: ‘Surely I ^[p. 378] shall find the Lord here; His name is attached to this place’; but instead of finding Him there, you may find murderous opposition.

AAT No priestly atmosphere.

JT No. And then they go and find the “little child”. That is Matthew. That is a diminutive thought; He is dependent on protection. When they find the little Child and His mother they open their treasures. They worship.

AFM Would you say a word on Zacharias in relation to his prophecy? Is there not recovery in relation to the naming of John and then when he gets into line with God’s thought, his tongue is loosed and he begins to praise and the whole subject is Christ?

JT Yes. It is not John that is before him, but Christ.

AFM I think you have said somewhere that he really offered the true incense here.

JT Yes. He blesses God; it is a priestly utterance.

WB-s Does this line of things apply to the Supper as to the suitability to touch these things? We discern the Lord’s body.

JT I think the Supper is preparatory, in that sense, to coming into direct touch with the Lord. You discern His body, that in which all that is contrary to God was set aside. There is to be the disallowance in our spirits and minds of all that is unsuited to Christ.

AAT Why do you say His body? I do not catch the meaning.

JT If you eat unworthily you are not discerning His body. As allowing that which is unsuited to the occasion, you are eating unworthily, not discerning the body.

AAT I can see the necessity for the suitable state.

JT I think the Lord’s supper is calculated to produce a priestly state in us so that we are now qualified to be in intimacy with the Lord. You are priestly.

RSS When it says, “not discerning the Lord’s body”; (1 Corinthians 11:29) the loaf represents His body, and we should maintain, that thought in our minds and treat it as a holy thing.

JT It is that in which all that is contrary to God has been set aside. He has died to it. That is a very solemn thing. If we are eating unworthily it is surely indulging the flesh in some way; the flesh is unjudged in us.

INH It has been stated that it is not discerning the Lord’s body in death.

JT That is what is before us in the Supper. The blood is separate from the body. It is a dead Christ in that sense when the cup is there. What brought that about? What was the necessity for it? Because of what we were. How solemn, then, if we are allowing that which brought the Lord into death!

RML I suppose that those at Corinth who were taking the Supper and acting in a wrong way were not discerning the Lord’s body?

JT They were not doing things according to order.

EGMcA Would you say in the first part of Luke it is guarding His humanity, but in 1 Corinthians 11 it is why He gave up His life?

JT That is it. Why is the blood separate from His body? There was nothing in Him to bring it about. He was entitled to live. That is the solemn part of the Supper. The body and blood of the Lord presented separately speak most solemnly of His death. Our communion is in that.

WB-s The death of Christ is brought before us even in Luke 2, and in speaking of the Lord as a ^[p. 380] Child things are mentioned which point to His death. He came into this world to die, and He could not put away that which was offensive to God unless He was holy.

JT He had title to live personally. There was absolutely no liability to death in Him; that is why there is such a solemn challenge in the Lord’s supper.

GAT What effect would it have on us?

JT You disallow that which brought about His death.

RML Would not the effect with us be seen in “let a man examine himself, and so let him eat”? (1 Corinthians 11:28)

JT Yes. God judged everything at the cross; now we judge it in ourselves. We have no title to judge anyone else, but to judge ourselves. The blood being separate from the body speaks of death.

RSS There are four indications of the Lord’s death in Luke 2; His circumcision, the turtle-doves, “a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also”; and when He went up to the passover; these are all in the chapter which treats of His birth.

AFM Why did Simeon want to go?

JT I think he understood that things were not to be established in this order of life. They were to be established in another order of life; that is, in Christ risen. Simeon will re-appear. His eyes saw Jehovah’s salvation. He said to Mary: “a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed”. That is, all the secrets should be brought to light; but then the thoughts of God’s heart should also be revealed, and Simeon had a place there and so have we. If Christ died out of this world, we do not want to stay here. Partaking of the Supper is the acknowledgement of that. We know that we shall re-appear in another order of things.

WCR Did not the eunuch feel like ^[p. 381] that?

JT I was thinking of him. That is where the assembly comes into evidence. It is said of Jesus, “his life is taken from the earth”. (Acts 8:33) If that precious life is taken from the earth, then the earth is not my place. Christ’s place is my place, and His life is elsewhere, so “your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory”. (Colossians 3:3,4) So that in Acts 8 we read that His life is taken from the earth; in chapter 9, is the announcement of Himself in heaven, and He owns the suffering saints on earth as Himself.

RSS Anna belonged to the right tribe. Her strength was to be as her day.

WGR Her foot was dipped in oil.

JT She spake of Him. The Spirit gives her honourable mention, but it is because she spake of Him to those that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

AFM When Simeon held the Child in His arms, why did he bless God, not the Child? What is the point there?

JT I think he is the priest in that sense; like the sons of Aaron with the consecration-offering in their hands. They were sanctified. Simeon’s whole soul was filled with Christ, and that leads to God getting His portion.

← Previous Article 32 of 42 Next →