READING
[p. 48] READING
JT The name of the second child of the prophet is somewhat of a clue to the point of view here. Whilst immediately the child refers to the Assyrian, yet it is the Assyrian viewed as used of God for the overthrow of the enemies of the remnant; the Assyrian executing God’s judgment upon Syria and Samaria, these two nations forming the combination which the house of David feared so much. So that Maher-shalal-hash-baz represents to us, in a certain sense, the Lord, as intervening for us against our enemies. We have to distinguish between the Assyrian, as executing God’s judgment upon Syria and Samaria, and the Assyrian coming up into Immanuel’s land. When he goes up into Immanuel’s land, that is, when he attacks Jerusalem, then he is the enemy of God’s people directly. These chapters, 7, 8 and 9, I think, represent to us certain aspects in which Christ was to be known by the remnant; therefore they become helpful to ourselves, because the means of deliverance for God’s remnant in the last dispensation would correspond in the principle of it with the means of deliverance now. Here the remnant need deliverance. They are not seen here as delivered; their deliverance is in prospect, but you get the means by which they are delivered.
RSS And Judah is looked at as the remnant.
JT I think so. At any rate, the remnant was there in Judah; and the quotations from these scriptures in the New Testament connect them directly with the birth of the Lord, and what resulted from that; that is, the gathering of the remnant together around His Person and their being separated from the nation at large; and then His committing to [p. 49] them the testimony of God.
RSS That is, the Lord separated them.
JT Yes. God hid His face from the house of Jacob, and the Lord occupies Himself for the moment with His disciples; the children whom God had given Him, and that marked the introduction of christianity; so that you get an entirely new world in principle, formed out of those few disciples delivered and gathered around the person of the Messiah.
RSS So it is fitting that this should be quoted in Hebrews 2.
JT Yes.
WB Peter quotes from this chapter, 1 Peter 2:8: “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence”.
JT The chapter gives, you might say, almost in detail, the Lord’s position in the midst of the Jewish remnant in Israel, and how He delivered them, and how subsequently they became the nucleus of another order of things.
RSS Corresponding with the beginning of John 10.
JT Yes. Whilst He was everything to them, He was “a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel”.
CA In that way the remnant of the former dispensation was carried over into the present one.
JT And every divine thought was deposited there: “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him”.
CA So in that sense the vessel becomes the vessel of testimony.
JT Yes. The present situation, so far as the dealings of God on earth are concerned, is that both houses are abandoned, but the testimony of God is deposited amongst the disciples of Christ, and instead of having the whole nation of Israel He has children.
JP And the expectation of God coming in finally [p. 50] for the deliverance of Israel is maintained amongst the disciples. “I will look for him”. You get that in Hebrews 9:28: “unto them that look for him”.
RSS I do not know that I have caught your thought altogether.
JP I added to what was said, that not only is the binding up of the testimony and the sealing of the law amongst the disciples, but the expectation of what is stated here is maintained in the assembly — “I will look for him”. This is, while He hides His face from the house of Jacob and every connection between Israel and God is broken off, everything connected with Israel is maintained in the assembly, even the expectation of the Lord’s coming, because I do not think it is the rapture in Hebrews, it is just what this chapter warrants. It is a most interesting chapter, especially in view of its connections and the extensive quotations from it in the New Testament.
JLJ How would you say the testimony is bound up?
JT The binding and sealing refer to the fact that the fulfilment of the promises was deferred. The testimony was carefully deposited among the disciples.
JLJ Would you say it was because they were attracted to Himself as rejected?
JT I think the disciples loved Him. The Lord will not commit anything to those who do not love Him.
FL Do you not think that we cannot very well understand the great importance of that little handful — the Lord’s company — unless we appreciate the spirit of the remnant? What one sees in closing days, in the end of the years of the Lord’s ministry, is that He is getting a small nucleus, preparing them and forming them, and then in the spirit of the last [p. 51] chapters of John, He deposits the testimony there, so when He is gone, it is there; otherwise, I think, one can scarcely understand, in reading the gospels, why such a handful of men should be so important.
JT If the Lord is to communicate anything to persons, He tests them first of all. They have proved by previous tests that they are qualified to be the custodians of it. You see this in Noah; the Spirit of God enlarges on Noah’s character. He was a righteous man; “thee have I seen righteous”, Genesis 7:1. The whole world had been alienated from God by wicked works, but, there was one man on whom God could rest and that man was righteous, and God committed to that man all that He treasured on earth; every thought of God as to the earth was committed to Noah. He was the custodian of it all, and you find subsequently that he proved equal to the occasion. He carried everything through the flood; not one thing was lost; all was carried through in safety and established in another world. Then of Abraham He says: “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do ... For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him”, Genesis 18:17,19. He was proved faithful. God could commit His testimony to Abraham, because of what he was personally. I believe in these instances God indicates the kind of men to whom He commits things; so with the disciples, they had been proved by the Lord’s dealings with them to be righteous, and to have affection for Himself.
RSS It was especially so with Peter, as we see at the close of John’s gospel.
JT After he had been fully proved — “Lovest thou me?” John 21:15,16.
RSS That confirms what you were saying, that the Lord does not commit anything except to those who love Him.
JT So I think you get in that way what the [p. 52] assembly was. It was marked by affection for Christ. Acts 1 shows the Lord with the disciples on the mount of Olives, where He was received from them into heaven; and they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, evincing that the hope of their affections had gone into heaven. You can understand how the Lord could have the fullest confidence in committing everything out of heaven into their hands.
JP And that same principle obtains at the present time, does it not?
JT I believe it does: that those who receive light from the Lord are those that love Him.
JB Is not that what you get here in this chapter in regard to the remnant?
JT I think so. That is why I felt encouraged to propose it, because there is an analogy between the remnant and our own times.
WB How do you connect that with Revelation 3? You get a remnant there which refers to the present time.
JT You get a remnant in Thyatira, and there can be no doubt that the principles that are developed here have application to them. That is, it is an immense thing to the Lord on His throne, high and lifted up, and His train filling the temple, when you think of the place that Jezebel has and all the corruption in that which has the responsibility of being the temple here upon earth. Then, secondly, to find Immanuel; that is, the presence of God in the midst of the saints, in spite of all that corruption; and then the victory set forth in Maher-shalal-hash-baz. As we were seeing yesterday, the confederacy between Syria and Samaria was to put another influence on the throne instead of Christ; to put another king there, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies God’s intervention to prevent that, so that you get the confederacy overthrown. But now another [p. 53] question is raised, as to whether those whom God has thus helped appreciate what is of Him; and what comes to light is that they despised the waters of Shiloah that go softly. This comes home to us closely.
TA What do the waters set forth?
JT It was God’s provision at that moment. It refers to the pool of Siloam. It was a provision that God had made for the people at Jerusalem, and the question was as to whether they appreciated it. Things may be very small, but they test us as to whether we appreciate them as being of God.
FL It is connected with the house of David.
JT The prophet says, “Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son”, Isaiah 8:6. That is, there was a treacherous state of things; they were despising what was of God, and in sympathy with the enemy without.
FL I will tell you the remedy; that is, to crown Him with the crown wherewith His mother crowned Him in the day of His espousals. This would be recognising Him in the throne of David. Is not that the point that the remnant comes to in the Song of Songs?
JLJ That is appreciation of Christ.
JT And now that the people are marked as despising the waters of Shiloah, the Assyrian comes up against Judah and Jerusalem; “Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: and he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel”, Isaiah 8:7,8. God is now permitting the Assyrian to come up against them because of their state.
JP [p. 54] If they refuse the waters of Shiloah, they get the waters of judgment, a perfect flood, to the neck.
JT That is very searching. He comes up to where David’s throne was and where the temple was.
ARS You said the waters of Shiloah were what God had provided for His people; so that when these are refused, the truth that God has given is being refused.
JT I think so. It may be very insignificant, but it is of God, and God’s provision.
AAT Is the acceptance of the water that which constitutes them a part of the remnant?
JT The true remnant would be marked by that. Take the Lord in the midst of Israel. He was God’s provision for the remnant. He was a great deal more, we know, but He was for the remnant and the remnant were brought into evidence by Him. Everything in Israel was tested by the presence of Christ, but the true remnant came to light.
AAT I understood yesterday afternoon that all believers formed part of the remnant, and yet there may not be the state of soul in each that corresponds to what we have before us now.
JT We sought to distinguish between the state that marks the remnant and those that God takes account of as forming it in His mind. You could not exclude any true believer from God’s remnant. It is what God has reserved for Himself. Every believer is sealed by God, but there is something for the conscience in the way the remnant is presented. That is what is to exercise us, and I believe as we read on in the scripture before us we get the marks of the remnant; that is, when the Assyrian comes out in all his power and the people suffer from the “razor”, then a certain class of people begin to speak; they say, “God is with us”, Isaiah 8:10. It is not the prophet now; a certain voice is heard, and it says: “God is with us”.
JLJ Those are the ones that accept the waters of Shiloah.
JT I think if you take it historically, it refers to those that become attached to Christ. They came to a just conclusion that God had visited His people.
WJN As to the remnant of Isaiah’s time, I should like a word as to what marked them.
JT I think they would appreciate the testimony of Isaiah, as an example.
WJN Would it be right to say that what marks the remnant at any time is that they appreciate what God is giving for the moment?
JT That is the point. There is a provision of God for His people, and those who are of God appreciate it.
M The remnant were drinking the waters of Shiloah, and the same characterises those who are feeding on Christ.
JT You appreciate what is of God at any time, however small it may appear.
FL There is another mark about them; they appreciate divine order. A great test came in in the division — the separation of the ten tribes from the two, and you find the true spirit of the remnant in that which follows divine order. It is there that God has more liberty to express Himself, and those that stood by the throne and the house of David are those that really come to light as having the spirit of the remnant. It is very important in a day of disorder to keep clearly before us that God goes along with that which pays respect to divine order.
AB Would 1 Corinthians 14:37, be on that line? “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord”.
JT Very good. I believe that that which is of God is owned by those who are of God. John says, “he that knoweth God heareth us”, 1 John 4:[p. 56] 6.
JB Would you say the remnant really took character from David and what David brought in?
JT They are marked, it might be said, by appreciation of what God has revealed. They let nothing slip of what God has communicated; and I believe, therefore, that the opening of the gospel of Luke sets before us the remnant that God has reserved for Himself. What marks them is that they were engaged with the things that were of God on earth at that time. Simeon and Anna were both connected with the temple, and then they were prepared for fresh light; anything additional that God is pleased to give is welcome to them.
CA I suppose in that light, applying it to ourselves, is it not necessary to be walking with God so that when God speaks at any time we hear His voice?
JT Certainly. You are not afraid of light. If a brother has anything more than you have, it is so much added joy to you. It is not his alone, it is yours as well.
JLJ What do you mean when you say they are prepared for fresh light?
JT It marks the remnant. Simeon was in the temple; he had light.
JLJ I was thinking of ‘fresh light’.
JT He got fresh light. He got wonderful light and he delighted in it; so did Anna.
WJN In one sense he got that which he had been looking for.
JP It is, “he that hath, to him shall be given”, Mark 4:25.
WB Is not the light connected with Judah: “Judah is my lawgiver”, Psalm 60:7. They had the mind of God. They were nearest to God, and that is so now with those who take a place outside of things here for Christ; the true Shiloah; there the light and refreshment of God are [p. 57] found.
JP I think what you said as characterising the remnant is very important. We see it in our own day. The Lord gives fresh light, and the moment that comes in there is a line of demarcation. On one side you have appreciation, on the other side you have depreciation.
JT Yes. It is the envy of Ephraim. Fresh light always tests our state. The true believer always welcomes the light. It cannot detract from him. It cannot detract from any one of us.
AAT Fresh light will stir up the Philistine.
JT But it belongs to all the saints.
WB How is it that some seem to get the light in these days and then to go back? They go so far and then fall off.
JT That is the constant danger, and you feel the weight of an epistle like that to the Hebrews, because the giving up of light is apostasy in the principle of it. Every departure from divine truth and light is apostasy in principle — “falling away”.
ABS Do you not think the reason they go back is, they have ceased to hold this light in connection with God?
JT And things in the world become attractive.
WB Are there not some true believers who have light but who are so mixed up with things here, that they seem to be prevented from coming out distinctly?
WCR It says in Hebrews 4:2: “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it”, Hebrews 4:2. Would that be our difficulty?
JT I think so. And “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God”, Hebrews 3:12.
RSS In regard to the division between the tribes, I refer to the Levites and the priests in the ten tribes, it was pretty difficult for them, because [p. 58] many of them were true to God, and what were they to do? The remnant was evidently connected with Jerusalem. And so it is recorded that they left their suburbs and their possessions and resorted to Rehoboam — that is, David’s son. It involved great sacrifice. That is involved in the position of the remnant. I suppose it might apply to many of us who found ourselves with light and yet in surroundings, ecclesiastically, that were not according to God. A good deal of giving up was involved for many who are present, but a scripture like 2 Chronicles 11 would greatly encourage us.
JT I believe the ten tribes at bottom were always marked by envy from the moment David was taken up. While the Lord acted in judgment on the house of David in rending the ten tribes away, yet when they are carried away captive, God brings it up that they had severed themselves from the house of David. There was envy there, and that always works out in an attack on Christ. We see this in the calves that Jeroboam set up; it was not that Jeroboam was specially an idolater; I do not think he was. What actuated him was self-occupation. He wanted to establish himself. He knew perfectly well that the house of God being at Jerusalem would have the effect alluded to. They would necessarily go to the temple. They would gravitate in that direction; therefore he set up the calves in Dan, simply as a rival system to Jerusalem. That gives a true idea of the conditions that prevail today. Envy and the desire to retain power are at the bottom of it.
JP Jeroboam attempted to hold the people together by the calves — to form a circle for himself.
RSS Why were they calves that he set up? You would have thought the children of Israel had had a lesson about that in the wilderness.
JT I have no doubt it is an allusion to that. Note the same expression, practically, on both occasions: “Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt”, Exodus 32:4, and 1 Kings 12:28.
FL Is not the idea of the calves imitation? A great thought in connection with the temple was sacrifice, and the calves of gold set up by Jeroboam may have been a sort of imitation of that which is of God. But another system was set up.
JT The sin of Jeroboam was never judged by the ten tribes. Even Jehu did not judge it, though he was the instrument of God in executing judgment on the house of Ahab. As an analogy, the clerical principle in Christendom has never been judged, even by Protestants. Jeroboam established the sin and it was never judged.
EST What is the principle you speak of?
JT The envy of Ephraim was at the bottom of Jeroboam’s sin, and it worked out in rivalry to Christ; the clerical principle is rivalry to Christ.
WJN And what made it so solemn was that the calves were set up at Bethel, where God’s house had been.
ST That rivalry continued in Samaria down to the Lord’s day.
JT Quite so; they said that Jerusalem was not the place, but mount Gerizim was the place where men should worship.
JLJ Jehu did many things pleasing to the Lord.
JT A wonderful vessel so far as he went, although not a spiritual man as we speak of it. He acted most ably in executing judgment on the house of Ahab, even connecting with himself a man who represented the remnant of God’s people; he said to him, “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?” 2 Kings 10:15. And Jehonadab answered, “It is”. And he takes his hand and took him up into his chariot. He found a man who was with him, and he associated him with himself in the execution of God’s judgment on Ahab; and yet with all that he did not depart from the sin of Jeroboam who taught Israel to sin. The clerical principle is the most baneful thing that has been introduced into Christendom.
JP And nothing short of a positive work of God in the believer can deliver him from it.
JT I think Luther was, in a sense, like Jehu, anointed by God, as it were, to bring judgment on the house of Ahab and Jezebel; and yet the sin of Jeroboam was never judged, and it continues to this day.
JP Was it not judged in that young man in Ireland, who, after he got delivered, wrote the pamphlet, ‘The Notion of a Clergyman, Dispensationally the sin against the Holy Ghost’? What characterises Christendom at large is the thing we have to be delivered from, and if people come together to break bread and are not delivered from it they will have a hard time of it, because the envy of Ephraim will be found there. You may get a meeting where they break bread every first day of the week and yet there may be the envy of Ephraim.
WCR Ephraim seemed to be jealous of Gideon when he slew the Midianites, and they chode with him sharply.
WJN I was going to remark as to what you say as to clericalism: your reference is to the principle. You are not speaking of individuals as such.
JT But there the thing is. Jeroboam taught Israel to sin, and the sin was never judged even by the best of Israel’s kings. It did not refer to Judah, but to the ten tribes. I refer to clericalism as an analogy in Christendom.
GFW There was a point in the history of the church where the principle of clericalism was established, and it has never been judged by Christendom as a whole since that time.
JT “The works of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate”, Revelation 2:6. This may refer to it; at any rate, the fact remains that clericalism exists in Christendom, and it is rivalry to Christ.
JP I think it is immensely important to recognise this, because the principle of it may be found even where there is not a clergyman.
RML Why do you say clericalism is rivalry to Christ?
JT Because it involves another Head. Take any flock, as they call it, in Christendom under the charge of a clergyman; he is occupying the place that belongs to Christ in that assembly.
RSS He speaks of them as my flock.
WCR He usurps the authority of Christ.
JT It is anti-christian. Antichrist is that in its fulness. He takes the place that belongs only to Christ.
JP And it finds its full bloom in the case where a man openly declares himself to be the vicar of Jesus Christ on the earth.
WB It might be seen in any leader amongst so-called brethren who gathers a few around himself, and when a testing time comes they all go with him.
WHF I think we have suffered more from that principle amongst ourselves than anything, else. Look back at the last forty years at the principle of clericalism.
AMcN Would you say that anything that interferes with the work of the Spirit is clericalism?
JT Not quite. There are some things that interfere with the work of the Spirit that could not be called clericalism; for instance, a partisan feeling and the like. What would you say?
JP I would say that most certainly.
GFW Would not any desire to be something amongst the saints be clericalism?
JT Such ambition would result in it [p. 62] no doubt.
AAT There are other hindrances that we should be on our guard against besides the clergy.
JT I think radicalism is a dangerous thing. That would be the opposite of it, but it would be of the flesh just as much.
AAT It becomes the remnant to keep the house in order. Clericalism and radicalism would be some of the tests.
JT The principles in the house of God work by love. If love is in activity it precludes all that is contrary to God.
JP Hence the remark made by Mr. Raven in a late reading, that the only thing in us that God would trust is the divine nature; that is love.
JT Now returning to Isaiah 8, the Assyrian was allowed to come up to the neck, but he went beyond his prerogative. He was God’s instrument of judgment, to a certain extent, but he went beyond that. He stretched out his wings over Immanuel’s land, and from that point you get deliverance and a people in the midst of the land who are conscious of divine support.
JP The moment he goes over the line God comes in.
RSS What would the neck represent?
JT That he had covered the whole land, coming up even to Jerusalem. As a matter of fact we know that Sennacherib did that; so in order to see the thing fully we have to consider the historical part that shows the invasion of Sennacherib and how God acted for the remnant, but the discipline was there first. The Assyrian really came up as a judgment of God, but he went beyond his limits. He interfered with God’s rights.
GFW What did he do historically that amounted to that?
JT He blasphemed the living God, 2 Kings 19; and then you get the remnant taking it to heart;
[p. 63] when discipline comes upon the saints those who are near to God take it to heart. Hezekiah says to Isaiah, “lift up thy prayer for the remnant that is left”; Isaiah 37:4; and when the letter comes from Sennacherib he spreads it out before the Lord, and then you get deliverance.
JP That is a great place to spread your letters out.
JT The incident is touching. The issue now is between God and Sennacherib. Sennacherib ceases to be an instrument of discipline. He has touched Immanuel’s land. He has touched what belongs to Christ.
WB He touches Him then in His own land.
JT Yes. The remnant then say: “Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces, ... Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us”, Isaiah 8:9,10.
JP That is the answer: “O Immanuel”. “God is with us”.
JT As soon as anything of Christ is touched, all the power of God is against what is opposing. It was the end of the Assyrian: “God is with us”. He is more than a match for all the power of the enemy.
JB Is Assyria heard of any more? Does it not then become Babylon?
JT In the last days it appears again.
JP Babylon goes and Assyria comes into blessing.
ST Is what you were saying as to God defending the remnant a similar thought to what we get in Saul of Tarsus? — “Why persecutest thou me?”, Acts [p. 64] 22:7.
JT Yes.
FL The prophet Zechariah gives us God’s judgment in regard to that: “I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction. Therefore thus saith the Lord; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the Lord of hosts”, Zechariah 1:15,16. And then again he says: “For thus saith the Lord of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye”, Zechariah 2:8.
ARS I was going to say that what the remnant say here is like Romans 8:31: “If God be for us, who against us?”
JT And what is so interesting is they are up to the light that God had given to them. I refer to chapter 7: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”, Isaiah 7:14. That is the light. Now they say Immanuel — “God is with us”. They are equal to the light they have received.
GFW The prophetic voice says: “Thy land, O Immanuel” (verse 8). The indignity offered to God is recognised.
JT It is very beautiful in the historical part to see how the servants of Hezekiah and Hezekiah himself feel the reproach offered to God by the Assyrian and his emissaries; and then they turn to God. Rab-shakeh says: “I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them”, Isaiah 36:8; and it was true; but Hezekiah turns to God; and when the saints turn to God, woe be to their enemies!
AAT Who raised this cry in verse 12 about the confederacy?
JT It is prophetic, but it expresses the exercises of the remnant. They see the rights of God are being [p. 65] touched, and they know that God is for them, so He says: “The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee”, Isaiah 37:22. It seems to me a beautiful touch; God acts through the people. The people thus would be the opposing element to Sennacherib.
JP He does not act outside the remnant, does He? The destruction of the enemy’s power and the deliverance of God’s people are brought about in that way in connection with the remnant, but in connection with their great exercises.
GFW Is not that the way deliverance is effected today?
JT I think so. God acts through His people.
GFW What I meant was that the enemy is defeated in regard to any one when the claims of Christ are set up in his soul. When any soul is set at liberty in the appreciation of Christ the enemy is defeated.
JT And the same thing may be seen more clearly in a company; where the claims of the Lord are fully asserted you may depend on their deliverance.
CA So the confidence that God is with us gives us great boldness as a company, because we know we cannot be overthrown.
WJN Why is it that historically the Assyrian was destroyed before Babylon, but in prophecy the last enemy is Assyria?
JT I think the Assyrian represents the world-power viewed politically. When the Lord was here I suppose the Romans had the place of the Assyrian.
RSS Has verse 19 of Isaiah 8 a reference to what the remnant are liable to in the way of departing from God?
JT It is a kind of warning to them; but the verses immediately preceding are most interesting as showing how the Lord cared for them in the presence of all these things. He was Immanuel in their midst, and He cared for them. Judaism was given [p. 66] up, and they were the children whom God had given Him.
RSS And He shall be to them for a sanctuary.
CA Would you say a little as to verse 18: “for signs and for wonders in Israel?”
JT That is what the disciples become, I think. The Acts shows how that worked out. They were God’s sign in the midst of the nation.
FL We must remember, too, all this will be of great importance and value to the remnant that succeeds the church of God. They will take all this up and have the light and the good and the comfort and the encouragement of it. It will have a very great place in the day to come. They will look back and read of the Lord here upon earth amongst His disciples, and the way the testimony was deposited and carried through and has come to them.
JT I think so. The prophets will be a great stay to them in that day.
FL And they will read them in the light of the Lord’s own interpretation in connection with His disciples.
JP The healing of the lame man at the beautiful gate is a sign.
JT They were to be for signs and wonders in Israel.
JP That was both a sign and a wonder.
WJN In the first seven chapters of the Acts they are seen in the remnant character.
JT On God’s behalf in His long-suffering patience to Israel.
JLJ Is that the way Hebrews views them?
JT Hebrews is in view of departure, and what characterises Hebrews is that God had opened up a new system, of which the centre was in heaven and not on earth.
FL Hebrews goes further than the first seven chapters of [p. 67] Acts.
JT It shows that the Hebrews were introduced into a heavenly system rather than into an earthly one. Hebrews supposes the abandonment of the Jewish system.
WJN And it is interesting that in Peter’s preaching heaven is spoken of only in connection with Christ being there.
JT It was a provisional state of things that God had introduced in heaven; He would wait on Israel. God would send Jesus Christ to them.
WJN He speaks more of what is here for man: the Spirit and salvation.
CA Looking at things in that way it gives the remnant a wonderful place.
JT They were for signs and for wonders in Israel. God was bearing patiently with the people still.
WHF What is significant in Stephen’s testimony is seeing Jesus at the right hand of God, standing, that He might be offered to the people again.
JT I think He was in the attitude of waiting.
WHF The putting to death of Stephen closed up the whole thing.
JT And then the centre of operations is transferred to heaven. Jerusalem had been for the moment the centre, but after the death of Stephen the centre of operations is transferred to heaven.
CA It would seem that the full truth of the church was held back until the testimony to Israel, rendered in such patience, was rejected.
JT God graciously waited upon them; but then after the death of Stephen the Lord is seen by Saul on his way to Damascus.
FL Up to the time that Stephen sees Him standing, Peter expresses it: “Repent therefore and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and he may send Jesus Christ, who was foreordained for you”, Acts 3:19,20. He was in the attitude of readiness to come.
JT And I think that, taking the Acts in that way, you see how Syria and Samaria are typically overthrown in a moral way. The territory of Rezin and of the son of Remaliah come under the influence of Christ. Immanuel’s — that is, the Lord’s — influence is so extended that He overthrows the great champion of the enemy in Syrian territory. It is as if the Lord had universal sway now; Saul went into the synagogue of Damascus and preached the Son of God. This corresponds with Matthew 16; the true foundation of the church.
FL Philip goes to Samaria, which is really in the land, and preaches Christ. He preaches the anointed Head. Paul goes to Syria, which is outside of the land, and preaches the Son of God, who is the foundation of the church.
JT That means that the foundation is of a universal character. The Son of God is in heaven.
CA The wonderful triumph of Christ!
JP “That I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”, Galatians 1:16.
JT That was after He was revealed to him as Son.
CA What has come out in connection with the Acts has given development to what has been before us in connection with the remnant.
JT You see the great moral overthrow in the territory held by these enemies of God’s people. The Lord is in heaven and He has supreme control of the universe.
RSS What do you mean by saying the foundation — the Son of God — is universal?
JT Because the Son must have universal influence. God “was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”, Galatians 1:16. It was as if Paul, apprehending [p. 69] the greatness of the Person, must announce Him universally.
JP Hence the opening of Romans: “God’s glad tidings concerning his Son”, Romans 1:1,3.
RSS My difficulty is ‘the foundation’.
JT The foundation of the church is in the gospel. It is a question of what is presented in the gospel. That is where the foundation lies. It is Christ made known in the gospel in the souls of men.
FL I suppose the specific foundation is in Matthew 16; the Son of God; and then the preaching of Paul takes up that point in Damascus; and then you get the mystery — the church.
JLJ Would you say there is a difference in the preaching to the Jews before Acts 8 and that which follows?
JT Certainly. The first seven chapters set forth God’s long-suffering to the people; these signs and wonders in the testimony of the apostles; but all that was rejected in the death of Stephen.
WJN Paul preaches much in common with Peter and the eleven; for instance, repentance and forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit.
FL But the line of the preaching in the first seven chapters of Acts was in view of the Lord returning to Israel. In chapter 8 Philip goes to Samaria and preaches Christ; and then Paul preaches the Son of God, who is the foundation of the church.
ST You were saying that preaching the Son of God is universal. Is that like Hebrews 3 — Christ as Son over God’s house? Is not the house of a universal character?
JT Quite so.
JB The last word of Stephen is, “Jesus standing at the right hand of God”, Acts 7:55.
JT That is the last word to Israel. They gnashed on him with their teeth. They were putting him to death when he said that.