CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 2
FER I think it helps somewhat the understanding of the gospels to see that Matthew and Luke present the Lord to us in the way in which He is to be known on earth, that is, by Israel as in Matthew, and by man as in Luke. In John’s gospel, on the other hand, He is presented to us, in a sense, as He is known in the Father’s house. It is the same Person, but He will not be known upon earth as He is known in the Father’s house. In John it is I know, and am known ... “as the Father knows me, and I know the Father”. That is how He is known in the Father’s house. That is how He is presented in John, not in Matthew. In the other gospels He is veiled, as it were.
Ques Will you complete the circle and say what Mark is?
FER Well, Mark hardly comes in. He is there the spokesman of God.
Rem In the John aspect He could only be known by those whose eyes were opened. In Matthew in His presentation is shown the state of Israel, that when He came they did not receive Him.
FER You will find that repentance and remission of sins to be preached among all nations is the close of the gospel of Luke. I quite admit that you may be carried farther if you take the parables — the prodigal son, for example.
Rem There is a touch of John in Matthew 11.
Rem And there is the church in chapter 16.
FER Yes; but the Lord does not complete the instruction about it, but goes on to speak of the kingdom.
[p. 32] Rem There is just enough in Matthew to show what God was going to do on the rejection of Christ.
FER What was coming in was completely outside the knowledge of man, you are shut up to the Son and the Father; chapter 11.
Ques Do we come into the knowledge of the Father and the Son by the Spirit?
FER We come into it effectually by the divine nature, we cannot enter into it but by the divine nature.
Ques Will it be right to say that in Matthew we have the accomplishment of promise, in Luke the accomplishment of purpose, and in John the revelation of God?
FER A very distinct feature of Matthew is the accomplishment of Scripture.
Ques When you say ‘purpose’, what do you mean?
Answer. God’s purpose in man.
FER In Matthew Christ is viewed as the vessel of promise, in Luke as the vessel of grace. He came to relieve man of every pressure under which man lay, that is pretty much the character of Luke.
Ques Would you say the scope of grace is wider than the promise?
FER Yes. The promises are fulfilled in Matthew, but in Luke humanity is considered. It is the woman’s seed. I fancy it is all leading up to Paul’s doctrine, the no difference doctrine.
Rem The gospel is preached oftener from Luke than any other.
FER And it seems to me perfectly just. I think it is important to see the different views that are given in the four gospels; to remember that it is the same Person presented in different lights, but one single Person in all four.
Rem You let everything go if you do not hold that.
FER If you let that go you have lost all. When you come to Matthew, chapter 1 gives us His name, in [p. 33] the middle of chapter 4 He enters upon His ministry, what comes between is what was presented to the eye of God in connection with His birth, etc.
Ques Is there anything in “seeing his star”?
FER It was something special. The fact is, God met those poor men where they were.
Ques What do you connect with His name?
FER It is His renown, His renown was that He was Emmanuel. It refers to what was set forth in Him, not so much to what He was personally. He was not simply Christ and His pedigree traced from Abraham, but He was Emmanuel, God with them. Name is used to designate, it is renown. At the name (renown) of Jesus every knee shall bow. The sad thing is that the poor Gentiles were looking out for the King of the Jews, when there was no movement among the Jews.
Rem The first intimation they had of His birth was from these wise men. And is it not very remarkable that not Herod only, but all Jerusalem was troubled. Why were they troubled?
FER Because they did not like disturbance, that is the reason people do not like conversion. They would sooner have a legion of devils than a man converted.
Rem This is in keeping with the brightness of His rising among the Gentiles.
FER It was the sign of it.
Rem Some considerable time had elapsed between the birth and the announcement of it at Jerusalem, some two years. Pictures lead us astray, the wise men are seen in the stable. They mix up the shepherds and the wise men.
FER It was all used in the providence of God that the history of Israel might be taken up afresh. Israel in a certain sense is set aside, just as Jacob had to go down to Egypt so had Christ. It was the disturbance consequent upon the visit of the wise men that caused the going down. I saw it pointed out [p. 34] somewhere that Christ identifies Himself with Israel’s history in Psalm 18 right away from the outset, and that is the ground upon which they come into blessing in the future, not on the ground of their responsibility, but of their connection with Christ. Their history has been traced again in Christ. In Isaiah the remnant comes in in connection with Christ, and that is the great importance of seeing the history of Israel complete in Christ, so that God should be glorified in Him. Israel was forty years in the wilderness, Christ forty days. While in Israel it brought out failure, in Christ it brought out perfection.
Ques Would that same principle hold good in Luke as to man?
FER Yes. The coming of these wise men brings out the condition of Israel. It is most painful to see how the Jews and the Gentiles were all mixed up in this matter. It was a kind of Satanic plot to cut off the line. It had been attempted before to cut off the royal line. The great red dragon of Revelation gives it to us, only there it was to swallow up the man child that was to rule all nations. The point of great beauty to me in this chapter is that if Israel is to be identified with Christ in blessing, He must be identified with them in suffering. He goes down into Egypt that He might be completely identified with what Israel had to pass through, that you get in detail in Psalm 18; He identifies Himself with the remnant at His baptism, but He had been into Egypt first.
Ques You said just now that the first intimation the Jews had was the visit of the wise men, but were there not a few in Jerusalem who were in touch with God about these things before?
Rem But there is nothing about that here.
FER The Spirit of God takes up every trace of piety in Luke, all the fruit and remains of piety that existed; but what you get in Matthew is the responsible side, the responsible people are presented.
[p. 35] Rem In Luke He is separating the precious from the vile.
FER You can very well understand when you come to Matthew that the responsible people come more into view, the heads, they were the husbandmen, in that sense even Herod was responsible. I quite admit that Herod was an Edomite, he used his place, if he could, to cut off the true line of David, he usurped the kingdom, and to keep it would cut off the true line.
Rem It is remarkable how the Lord here is in the completest sense in the place of man. Herod’s effort is not met by divine power but by providence. It was not Mary but Joseph takes Him down to Egypt. Everything is natural.
FER It is exceedingly beautiful to see what was then under the eye of God in the young child.
Ques You said the first thing was the name, what was the next?
FER What came in next under the eye of God was the perfection of the One who had taken Israel’s place. He goes to the wilderness to be tested, but the testing only brings out the perfectness. I think it is an immense thing to recognise what has been under the eye of God upon this earth. We are very little acquainted with it.
Ques I suppose Herod and Jerusalem knew who He was?
FER I think they had a sense of it. People know uncommonly well where the truth is, in the present day people know a great deal better than you think where the truth is; they would not allow it, but it makes very little account to me what they allow. Look at the way, for example, that they will not let Scripture alone. Men do not like the truth being brought home to them, because it means displacement for man. If you preach the truth you will not fill a room with a popular audience, but you may fill it with souls with whom God is working.
[p. 36] Rem I do not think our empty rooms are because we have too much of Christ, but because we have not enough.
FER We get another remarkable thing at the close of the chapter, that is, His going to Nazareth. It was through Joseph’s fear, but the voice of the prophets had to be fulfilled.
Ques Do you read verse 22 as in spite of “being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee”?
FER I think it was in consequence of it; I suppose as far as that goes He would not have gone into the land at all otherwise. The Lord had to be identified with the Nazarene, it was the fulfilment, not of what any particular prophet had said, but the prophets.
Ques I have never been able to find out where that is spoken?
FER It is not apparently a quotation from any particular prophet, it is a term of reproach as I understand it, and the prophets had spoken of this.
Ques You do not connect it with the Nazarite?
Rem There might be a connection with the Nazarite, as the root for Nazareth has the same meaning, separation.
Rem It is another root really, though similar in pronunciation.
FER Term of reproach, I think it means.
Ques What is the connection with Rachel weeping for her children?
FER I think they were indifferent to Christ, and had to weep for their own children.
Rem Benoni is son of my sorrow.
FER Israel was God’s son and stood in relation to Him, but only in anticipation of Christ. It gives place to Christ.
Ques If the Jews had been in a right state would it have been necessary for Jesus to go [p. 37] into Egypt?
FER It is impossible for us to reason in that way. God always carries out His purpose through the evil of man.
Ques Were the wise men true to the testimony God had given them in creation, while the Jews who had the law were unfaithful, Psalm 19? They had a link with God outside the Jewish order of things.
FER It was scarcely the heavens, they saw a meteor. They must have had the idea of the King in their minds in coming up to Jerusalem.
Rem I thought it was from the prophecy of Balaam, God spoke of a star there, no doubt symbolically, but God met them with this star.
Rem It seems remarkable that the Spirit of God should recognise them as wise men.
Rem I should think they were wise men if they had taken heed to what God had said.
Rem It is remarkable that they came from the place where the line of kings had disappeared. I have no doubt they came from Babylon.
Ques Was not the hand of God in it in making known to the uttermost parts of the earth? They did not stay in Jerusalem but went back!
Rem The point here is what they did, and not their private history.
FER The subject before us is the relation of Christ to Israel, the taking up again of Israel’s history, in this chapter. It has been taken up afresh in Christ, it is the accomplishment of God’s promise. You see the same thought in John 15, “I am the true vine”. Israel in the future is to come in under Christ. They cannot come in under calling or promise after the flesh, but simply under Christ.
Rem The thread of everything in which man has broken down, has been taken up in Christ, and in redemption a ground has been formed on which we can come in under Christ and be blessed.
FER Nothing is more important than that.