PETER'S FIRST EPISTLE AS BEARING ON THE PRESENT MOMENT (1)
PETER’S FIRST EPISTLE AS BEARING ON THE PRESENT MOMENT (1)
JT The first epistle by Peter is selected at this time because it is believed that this epistle enters peculiarly into the present moment. Perhaps we may also look a little into the second epistle if time permits. The present time involves the government of God, not His direct government but His indirect government. Although His direct government is much alluded to in these epistles it is not the general thought in them. It is a question of the position of the believers at the beginning, that is to say, those who are of the circumcision, and as of it and having had a place with God earlier they are viewed as scattered, as sojourners; that is to say, they are not in their own land. There may be a comparison drawn between their position and ours, for in our case there has been a change, a revival after departure.
The general position of the assembly is, you might say, altered because it has become a mere profession, as judaism had become. Christianity has now become this in a public sense and we have to accept this and to see how we are to move in relation to the assembly in a spiritual sense; not simply viewed publicly but, in a spiritual sense, because the assembly still exists, as indeed Judaism existed when the epistle of James was written and even when Peter’s epistle was written. James says, “to the twelve tribes which are in the dispersion, greeting” James 1:1. That is to say, the position was there, but it was only true spiritually because they were scattered. Peter’s thought is to link them up with [p. 2] the assembly although he hardly ever mentions the assembly. That is another thing that might be noted. At the same time the Lord calls them in, according to Matthew, because of Peter’s confession; not his profession, but his confession. He had listened to what was said as to the Son of man, who He was; and the question is now, dear brethren, as to the titles that the Lord Jesus has, whatever they may be, that whether it is ‘Son of man’ or ‘Son of God’ we should be intelligent about them. Peter hardly ever mentions the Son of God, only once indeed, and that in his second epistle. I am referring to these facts because it is important that the brethren should have them in their minds. So when the Lord raised the question as to who the Son of man was Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16: 16. That is what he said, one of the greatest confessions one could make then or now. The Lord says, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens” Matthew 16: 17.
So that we are on spiritual lines. I mean as regards the epistle of Peter we are on spiritual lines; but at the same time we are on governmental lines. Matters have grown into governmental positions and brethren have to understand that this refers to them in their working relations, in their household relations, and in their business relations, so that we know where we are and know how to speak of our circumstances. The Lord says to Peter, “Thou art Peter”, Matthew 16: 17, a word we should all take to heart as to what we are spiritually. The word ‘Peter’ covers the reality of christianity; it is a question of what the believer is as a christian and because he is a christian. So the Lord says, “Thou art Peter”, Matthew 16: 17, and the next thing is “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens” Matthew 16: 19.
[p. 3] One refers to this so that the brethren might understand what we are, each of us, spiritually, and what our relations with God are. Peter’s relations with God were not simply connected with the assembly but with governmental matters; it is a question of the government of things. So the Lord says, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly” Matthew 16: 17. That is to say, the assembly belongs to Christ, a very important matter to keep before us. The assembly belongs to Christ and to Christ only; it still has that status, so that we know where we are in that sense. But then there is the government that Peter was brought into as the book of Acts shows. Acts 10 indicates that the gentiles were brought into the assembly publicly. Therefore it is a question of the dear brethren having all these things in their minds so that in dealing with matters they know what is meant; because if we are to understand and gather help in our souls in these meetings we have to learn to name things. God begins with the idea of naming things, Adam was constituted with intelligence by which to name things. He named the creatures, and it was he who named the woman, not God. He says, “This time it is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” Genesis 2: 23. So that as rightly understood it is a question of Christ in that sense, the assembly is bone of His bones and flesh of His flesh. So if the dear brethren will be free to say what they have in mind, as to whether what I say is the truth or not, I shall be thankful, for it is a time of speaking the truth and being of the truth.
SMcC Would the thought of “sanctification of the Spirit” 1 Peter 1:2 strengthen what you have been referring to as to what is spiritual, in contrast to fleshly sanctification in judaism?
JT That is a point to keep in mind, that we are not simply christians by name or profession, but by sanctification. The position is that we are sanctified;
as it says, “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit” 1 Peter 1: 2; not simply that we are called such, but we are such because of sanctification. Whatever the word ‘sanctification’ may mean, that is the position. The christians here are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” 1 Peter 1: 2, not only called that, but “by sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” 1 Peter 1: 2. That is a term that Peter would understand as extending back to the Old Testament; it is a question of the “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” 1 Peter 1: 2, that is to say, it is His blood; not the blood of bulls and goats, but His blood.
Ques Do you mean that the expression, “by sanctification”, means that it is evidently so by their filling their part as allotted to them?
JT Just so, it is evidently so. It was not simply a question of professing christians but they were evidently sanctified; that is in our case that the Spirit of God possesses us; we are governed by Him.
JHE Paul could say, “By the grace of God I am what I am”, 1 Corinthians 15: 10.
JT Quite so, but that meant his apostleship; in the main that was his apostleship.
AR Do you think that in John 1 the Lord Jesus is seen as the last Adam? He calls Peter ‘Cephas’, “thou shalt be called Cephas”; so he is called ‘Peter’ in Matthew 16. In Genesis 1 Adam named the animals, but in John 1 Peter is named Cephas.
JT Very good, “thou shalt be called”. The Lord is speaking as the last Adam; He said, “Thou shalt be called Cephas” Matthew 16: 17, and the meaning is that Peter is a stone.
Ques Why, in an epistle that deals so much with the government of God, should this thought of election come [p. 5] in?
JT I think it is that Peter would deal with christianity in a true sense. We shall see that the government of God comes in our relations down here, but Peter is really dealing with christianity. That is what is in mind; although he is dealing with the circumcision, he is dealing with christianity.
ANW Is that why he brings the Trinity in? “The foreknowledge of God the Father”, the “sanctification of the Spirit”, and “the blood of Jesus Christ” 1 Peter 1: 2. He brings in the whole Trinity right from the outset. I wondered if that confirmed what you said, that he has the whole of christianity before him.
JT I am glad you bring that up because it is one of the most important questions that could be asked. Peter has a great place in Matthew. It is said, “first … Peter” Matthew 10:2 there — he is the leading apostle according to Matthew. Matthew tells us about the baptismal formula, that it is “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28: 19; that is, one name but three Persons. It is the Godhead that is in mind, but one name covering it. Hence it is a question of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is covered in that name; if it is mentioned, the Holy Spirit is covered in it.
Ques Is that what you had in mind in Matthew 16, that immediately the relation of the Father and the Son is mentioned you have the Lord speaking to Peter of “my assembly”?
JT Just so.
Rem The Spirit is implied in the economy.
JT The Spirit is implied in the economy; that is a good word. Therefore the importance that the Spirit should have, which I doubt that He has had in a full sense among the brethren. But I do not intend to bring that forward just now, only that it was mentioned before that the three Persons are involved here, and of course They are involved at Pentecost [p. 6] as the Spirit came down. The gospel is preached by the Spirit sent from heaven, not simply come, but sent. The Lord Jesus is not said to be sent from heaven; He is sent, of course, as on earth, but the Spirit is sent from heaven.
SMcC What do you see in that, being sent from heaven?
JT I think it is to show how the blessed Spirit takes a lowly place. He is here as the sent One but He is still nevertheless one of the Trinity, of the Godhead, and if He takes a lowly place we are not to despise Him on that account. We are to have a clear apprehension of Him in His infiniteness as part of the Godhead. If God is mentioned as such, then the Spirit is included.
Rem So that if persons are baptised and brought on to christian ground, it is in relation to the full revelation of God in the present economy.
JT Quite so, and not only that, but the Spirit is a divine Person, and if He is spoken to as indicated in the Old Testament Scriptures, the authority of the Old Testament remains unbroken. The Lord Himself says the Scripture cannot be broken.
JRH What difference do you see between the Spirit of God descending on the Lord as a dove and His being sent from heaven? I had in mind the word ‘descending’ and then ‘sent’.
JT I think it is to bring out the greatness of Christ really. It was at the time of the Lord’s baptism. The one who was sent to baptise was told that he should see the Spirit descending upon Him; “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending … he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit” John 1:33. There it is ‘descending’, not ‘sent’. Of course that is a question of a divine Person, a Person who has power to descend as well as to ascend.
Ques Could it be said that the economy is in full operation when the Spirit is sent from heaven?
JT [p. 7] I think that is good, in full operation, and the Spirit is in subjection in that too.
SMcC Would you say something more as to the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures as bearing on this matter of the Spirit? Generally it is thought that in regard to doctrine we should rely more on the New Testament. Would you say more about the authority of the Old?
JT “Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable”, it says 2 Timothy 3:16. So that Scripture has its own authority whether in the Old Testament or the New. That is, it has authority. It is divinely inspired and whatever it says has to be bowed to; only if it is a question of Paul’s missions and offices, it is only spiritual and intelligent that we should refer to him. If it is a matter under his office, such as the mystery, it is only intelligent that we should refer to him first, but not altogether, because the fact that a scripture belongs to the Old Testament does not weaken its authority. It would be entirely wrong to say that it did.
SMcC What you have now said is very helpful indeed. Do you mean that the matter of the Holy Spirit as you have been referring to Him does not necessarily lie within the scope of Paul’s commission, although involved in it?
JT Yes, not necessarily. The types speak of Him in a very full way, especially Genesis 24; it speaks of the Holy Spirit in type and that type has the same force as if it were in the New Testament.
Ques Is it noteworthy that Paul’s word in Timothy, “Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work” 2 Timothy 3: 16, refers largely to the Old Testament [p. 8] scriptures?
JT Very good, I am glad you bring that up, “every scripture”; so that we must have every Scripture to have the full thought.
EAL Should we be helped by bearing in mind that the Lord quoted from the Old Testament?
JT Quite so. The New Testament did not exist, you mean. The Lord said, “The scripture cannot be broken” John 10: 35, and that stands as much now as it did then.
JRH Does not the Lord Jesus raise the question, “If ye do not believe his [Moses’] writings, how shall ye believe my words”? John 5:47.
JT Quite so. What we are saying now is, I would say, fundamental for the brethren to have in their minds. Not that we wish to emphasise this particular phase of the truth. We have Peter before us at the moment — but at the same time what we are saying now is fundamental and very important at the present time. And that is the idea at these general meetings, to bring out what is important at any given time.
Rem If a certain matter that is before us is not referred to in the New Testament, but is in the Old Testament types, it is still authoritative.
JT That is fundamental, I would say. I use that word designedly so that the brethren might be on sure ground in what we are saying.
Ques The Lord Jesus spoke of making void the word of God. Would that confirm it?
JT Just so; how easily it could be done, too, in the similes we use and the like! In our preachings and in our teachings how easily we can make void the word of God!
Ques Is it by vain conversation? Peter speaks of being redeemed from the “vain conversation” of the fathers in this very chapter 1 Peter 1: 18.
JT That is another thing from which we are redeemed: here it is not from the world or from our [p. 9] sins, but from vain traditions. We are redeemed from them, and the world is full of them, vain traditions.
Ques Going back to your opening remarks in regard of the government of God as it descended on Judaism as refusing Christ, has it not descended on christendom as having turned away from the truth? The position is governmentally fixed on mere profession; is that what you have in mind?
JT I am not so sure that I would say that of the profession of christianity, because after all there are many genuine christians there.
Ques I mean mere profession. Is it not noticeable now that the deterioration in what is established is extraordinarily accelerated?
JT It is accelerated, as you say. At the same time, while real christians exist in the profession you hesitate to make the pronouncement too general because you have to distinguish when we speak of christianity or christians as to whether they are real or not. The unreal ones might appear to be real and therefore I think we should hesitate to fix a judgment on them.
Rem I can see we need to guard that. I was thinking more of the pernicious doctrines which are gaining ground that have not a shred of truth in them; which is so much a phase of the last days.
JT Just so: Unitarianism, for instance, and Christian Science, doctrines that simply make men apostate. But at the same time you take the mass of those in christendom, Baptists and the like, there are many of them real; so that I just wonder if we should not make the distinction, because God has not yet cast off christendom altogether. In fact He is going on with the assembly and that is His chief interest on earth. But whatever the Jews are doing today, the Jews are simply apostate.
[p. 10] Ques What had you in mind in using the word government just now?
JT What I have in mind immediately is in the opening words of our chapter: “Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ, to the sojourners of the dispersion”, 1 Peter 1:1. Where were the sojourners? Where were they dispersed? That is a question of government; God did that. That is all that I had in mind, because the dispersion alludes to something that has happened among the Jews, even the real ones. These are real ones and they are dispersed; they are not in their own land.
Rem I just wanted to get clear in my mind how far you wished us to go on that line.
JT The government of God extends too to what is current with God in the world today; what the brethren are now engaged in, for instance. The word in 1 Peter 2:13 is, “Be in subjection therefore to every human institution … whether to the king as supreme …”, that is spoken to christians. If they were living in the reign of David they would think of him as king; but the king today is not David, nor anyone who has any place with God spiritually, but he is an official to maintain government. Therefore I would say that the President has his place, that he has a governmental position over us as we sit here today. And we respect him; “the king as supreme”, as Peter says. “Be in subjection therefore to every human institution for the Lord’s sake; whether to the king as supreme, or to rulers as sent by him, for vengeance on evil-doers, and praise to them that do well” 1 Peter 2: 13,14. Well now, the President has that position today, and we respect him; but he is not David, he is not Christ. Still, he has a governmental position and God has placed him there as He placed Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus in their offices.
Ques In your prayer at the beginning you mentioned that the government of this country is only [p. 11] provisional until such time as the Lord comes. Would it not help us to be subject to the governments if we saw them in that light?
JT I think it would. And so if a question comes up of need among the brethren, even physical need, there is no reason why we should not recognise the authorities of the city in accepting help because God has appointed them to look after these things.
Rem They are God’s ministers for good.
JT Exactly. Many do not see that; they think of the authorities as if they were synonymous with the world; whereas they are not just that. We have to be intelligent as to these things.
ANW “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” 1 Peter 1:2 would be beyond, outside of all government?
JT It would be; in that connection we are dealing directly with God.
Ques In speaking of government, had you in mind the government of God in relation to us as His children as well as in the more general sense through the provisional governments of the world? It says, “If ye invoke as Father him who, without regard of persons, judges according to the work of each, pass your time of sojourn in fear” 1 Peter 1: 17. I wondered whether you had in mind that side as well as the more public position.
JT The position of children is more directly under God.
Rem I wondered whether you had that in mind in your opening remarks and whether the sense that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” 1 Peter 1: 2 would not greatly help us to get the gain of all God’s dealings with us?
JT Quite so. We are under the Father, of course. Therefore we treat our children accordingly, and point out to them that we are invoking God as Father for their benefit.
GMcP [p. 12] How would the government of God work out in the assembly in the local setting?
JT It is a question of what item you refer to. We are speaking now of the king as supreme and of those appointed by him. If we are doing anything involving relations with him it is a question of the government of God and we have to regard him; if it is your employer, you have to regard him.
GMcP I was thinking of how Peter was used of God in the book of the Acts to discern Ananias and Sapphira, and of how the government of God exposed the whole thing.
JT You mean that what happened to Ananias and Sapphira was the government of God? Well, that was so; but Ananias and Sapphira were not simply professors of christianity, they were real and therefore were buried. They had a burial. They are recognized as christians and the young men would bury them. Peter did not slay them; Peter did not have anything to do with their death; God did it. Therefore it was a question of God dealing governmentally with two of His children, I would say. They are people who are christians and have to come under the government of God. They die. Paul said, “Many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”, 1 Corinthians 11:30. That is government, but it is on those who are really God’s people. It is quite in order to bring that up; but what I had in mind was this question of sojourners and the position of the Jews, and then the relative connection with our position now, because we have come into a revival. Peter was dealing with the ancient people of God and they had come into a revival. They were born again. Now the word ‘again’ means, not simply that they were born again in the ordinary sense, but that, as belonging to an ancient system that God had honoured and instituted really, they are revived. And we are revived into [p. 13] christianity. We are revived in relation to that which has a great place with God; that is, the assembly.
Ques You are speaking of the recovery now?
JT That is right, one hundred and fifty years ago. That is to say we are revived to something that had been there before.
Ques You mean the truth of the assembly?
JT Yes, it had been lost.
ECT Your exercise is that we should be in it livingly, as real christians?
JT That is the idea. That is what Peter meant. It is a question whether we are in the genuineness of it, whether we belong to the revival, not simply to christianity but to the revival of it.
ECT The more spiritual we are the better sojourners we should be.
AR Do you mean we should all be living stones?
JT We shall come to that in the next chapter; that is true; it is a question of being living stones. Verse 3 says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his great mercy, has begotten us again” — not simply ‘begotten us’ but “begotten us again” — “to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead, to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance” 1 Peter 1:3. That is, He has “begotten us again”; what was there before is now revived. It is a living hope, a real one.
CAM In connection with revival in Peter would you say that he is looking back through the Old Testament, and every matter that was referred to there is made living, as for instance the thought of the inheritance, and the sprinkling of the blood and everything that God had suggested in the books of Moses?
JT Just so. Then he adds to what we have already quoted, “to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance, reserved in the heavens for you” 1 Peter 1:4; that is to say, the christians are now, through Peter, being reminded of their heavenly part, not in the literal Canaan but in the heavens, He goes on, “you, who are kept guarded by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”, 1 Peter 1:5. “The last time” refers to all the dispensations; because it is a question of dispensations. The salvation is ready to be revealed in the last time, and that is most precious to us because we are on the eve of the last time.
Rem That is the world to come?
JT Just so, that would be in mind.
Ques There is one more dispensation after this?
JT The world to come is a dispensation, the millennial world is a dispensation. He goes on, “Wherein ye exult, for a little while at present, if needed, put to grief by various trials” 1 Peter 1:6. Notice that, it is the government of God in the midst of persecution. It is being credited to them — “that the proving of your faith, much more precious than of gold which perishes, though it be proved by fire, be found to praise and glory and honour in the revelation of Jesus Christ: whom, having not seen, ye love” — that is important — “on whom though not now looking, but believing, ye exult with joy unspeakable and filled with the glory, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls” 1 Peter 1:6 - 9. All these verses are full of precious instruction for us, looking toward the end. We shall see all this; the end of what we are going through is the salvation of our souls in the true sense.
CT Would the thought in verse 3 as to “great mercy” be the basis of all these thoughts?
JT Quite so: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy …” 1 Peter 1:3. The Father is the source of all this. Therefore what Peter received from the Father, that is to say, the knowledge of Christ as the Son of the [p. 15] living God, enters into it. The Lord recognises him as blessed because he received that revelation from the Father; “my Father who is in the heavens” Matthew 16:17, He says. So that we are dealing with the precious things of the Father although in a governmental position like this.
RWS It says they were exulting. Should not the things of the assembly and heavenly matters help us locally to be buoyant and joyful and not unduly occupied with the breakdown?
JT Very good. The idea of buoyancy is a great matter, that the brethren are not here enjoying a holiday or the like, but buoyant in the things of heaven, having to do with the things of which God is the source.
Ques Why is it the present tense in verse 9, “receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls”?
JT I think the meaning is that it is imminent; it is not at a distance, although Peter does distinguish as to how God reckons time. Therefore he says that one day is as a thousand years with God, and a thousand years as one day; we have to bear that in mind. Things may be deferred but at the same time we are already in them; the Spirit of God makes everything present.
Rem That is very good, because while the inheritance is reserved, when you come to believing you touch what is open to us at the present time.
JT The actual things are here. Christianity is here; we are dealing with it. It is not something at a distance or merely objective, we are dealing with it, we belong to it.
AB In your opening remarks you referred to Genesis 2 twice. You referred to Adam naming the animals wholly according to God, and to man naming the woman. Is there a link in your mind with the Spirit in the earlier verses of that chapter? It says, “A river went out of Eden, to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four main streams. The name of the one is Pison: that is it which surrounds the whole land of Havilah, where the gold is” Genesis 2: 10,11. There are precious stones there. Is that in your mind?
JT Just so. The word ‘surrounds’ involves an enclosure, something that the Spirit is surrounding, the British Empire, for instance; God is mercifully surrounding that system, and this is part of it; this very country we are in now is an extension of it. That is to say, God is mercifully surrounding certain persons or things and we are happy to be in such an enclosure, because we are free in it to go into the things of God. The basis of the surroundings you speak of in Genesis 2 is the first chapter; there the Spirit of God moved on the face of the deep. Well, that is precious, because He is the basis of all this. It is a universal thought.
Rem That would give us more freedom in prayer in regard to such matters.
JT Just so; it is what we began with today; we gave thanks for the President and those in power. I believe that under the government of God the President of this country at the time of the last war was used for its cessation. Some may say we are going far afield to talk like that, but it is right to talk like that, and we can count on God to come in again; we are in the midst of strenuous matters and God is coming in for us from time to time.
AB I was linking Genesis 2 with what Peter says here in regard to the gold that perishes; the gold that the Spirit surrounds is hardly seen in that character, is it?
JT If the Spirit of God is surrounding the gold, it is there to be secured. There is, for instance, something to be secured in what we are having here [p. 17] today, something in the way of precious light for us by which we should be built up.
SMcC What you said a little while ago as to government would help us very much as to trade unionism which the governments are taking in hand in different parts of the world.
JT We had that matter up a few months ago in New Zealand, and it was a very precious thing that God came in too, in Detroit, on that point. I think He is coming in again, not only in Detroit but in the United States generally. Trade unionism has not the same place in the United States that it has elsewhere and God has done that.
Ques You would distinguish most definitely between the enactments of such bodies and the enactments of governments?
JT Certainly. I have no respect for enactments of trade unions because they are not of God at all; but government is of God.
Ques So that the “human institution” does not cover that?
J.T. No indeed!
AR Do you think that what goes on in the governments is what goes on in the hearts of the saints to begin with?
JT Well, it is a question of divine thoughts in our minds, because what goes on in the governments may exceed what we are talking about; but in general there is the thought that God has used this country in His governmental ways, even down to the matter of food. God is using it, and we should not despise it.
Ques So that in praying for governments we would have the testimony in mind particularly?
JT Exactly. We have the greatest liberty every Monday night in praying for the governments. Some [p. 18] among us, alas, have put us through distress in that they despise the government and would not receive from the government, whereas government is of God and is toward us for good.