PRIESTHOOD IN LUKE'S GOSPEL (1)
PRIESTHOOD IN LUKE’S GOSPEL (1)
Luke 1: 39 - 56; Luke 3: 21, 22
JT Our inquiry at this time, it will be seen, will relate in the main to two sisters. Already it has been remarked that the word ‘man’ as presented in Scripture covers both man and woman. What we have said about sisters, especially those who are mothers, will largely afford the background of what should be before us, hence both Mary and Elizabeth come into view, particularly Mary. We read of the angel’s conversation with her and her holy submission and faith, for the word is, “blessed is she that has believed”. So that sisters are in view in what may come before us, and they are clearly believing sisters, exhibiting not only the maternal side but the intelligent side of priesthood; Mary shines in this. The question often arises as to why sisters have so little part verbally in the service of God, but it is clear that in earlier days women had much part in the service of God, including prophecy. We read of four young women, daughters of Philip, who have a great place in that sense because it is said they prophesied, not simply that they were prophetesses but they actually served in prophecy; so what should come before us now ought to include the prophetic side of service in sisters. But the maternal side is also in view because the Spirit of God is pleased to furnish us with these wonderful scriptures that have been read, the sisters in mind being affected maternally. It is most affecting, sobering, and hallowing that the Spirit of God should say so much to us about such women, especially Mary, who has the chief place in this sense, being the Lord’s own mother. This fact, of course, enters into what comes earlier in the chapter as to what preceded the incarnation and what holy and [p. 324] affecting facts are recorded, facts that require in us all, especially sisters, a priestly state and holiness of mind for otherwise we are not capable of dealing with the matter at all. Both Mary and Elizabeth rise to great spiritual eminence on these lines. The wonderment is why there should be so much said on the maternal side in the facts recorded.
Ques Is it not a lovely suggestion that the sisters are not to be excluded from this idea of bondmanship? We have Mary taking that place, one in which love and affection have a great place.
JT Yes, verse 38 says, “Mary said, Behold the bondmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to thy word”. Then the angel departed from her, as if she could be left in her maternal and womanly glory. She hears much from the angel Gabriel, but he leaves her. So that we can see how the design of the Spirit is to affect us in the very verbal construction of the text of the scriptures relating to this matter.
Ques I wondered whether the matter of bondmaidship became in her the spring which put her in right relationship to another sister. Mary rose up as though there were an inner spring there in the acceptance of bondmaidship.
JT Rising up alludes to movement, bringing together those two women, but it was in elevated territory, the hill country. She went into the hill country with haste showing the urgency of the matter in her mind; there was nothing dilatory about her for it involved travelling some distance and that into an elevated region. Indeed the territory involved affords the suggestion of elevation whereas ordinary conversation among men and women on the subject involved would lead somewhat downward. So much is made of birth and family and the like, ordinarily tending to lead us downward to the level of men and human circumstances, whereas the facts here contemplate elevation which is not simply [p. 325] physical but moral. The hill country would imply that we are led away to a region suitable for holy matters to be dealt with.
RWS Over against Matthew’s gospel where Joseph plays such a large part, are these sisters left to work things out by themselves, as it were, to show the proper dignity of the maternal side?
JT Well, it is remarkable how the male side, the paternal side, is left out or minimised in the facts, the matter being left largely in the scriptures read to two women and they in maternal relations. I am sure it must be for all of us, especially our sisters, to accustom ourselves to holy conversation. As it is said, “What ought ye to be in holy conversation and godliness ... ?” So that in dealing with these matters we are not dragged down to the level of mere nature but led up, for she rose up and went into the hill country to Elizabeth. She was related to her after the flesh but the level of their conversation was much above that, it was on a heavenly line, the elevated line of the hill country.
EAK Mary said, “be it to me according to thy word”. Is that important?
JT Just so; there is entire submission, in contrast to Zacharias. And it is “according to thy word”, not simply ‘according to thy commandment’. The use of the phrase “thy word” conveys a suggestion of the divine mind, what is in God’s mind that may be conveyed.
JRHJr Is the spirit of inquiry evident earlier in this sister when she says, “How shall this be?”
JT Quite so, it is right there should be that inquiry, and not simply obedience. It is like obedience, but it is intelligent inquiry, implying that the incarnation of Christ is entirely beyond mere nature. It is supernatural, that is to say it is a divine transaction, and Mary has an intelligent part in it.
Ques What is involved in [p. 326] salutation?
JT I suppose that would suggest courtesy. Peter enjoins courtesy between us, but holy courtesy, not mere human courtesy.
EL Would the song of Hannah be in line with what you have in mind?
JT Yes, we are coming on to that because there is a great relation between them; indeed the suggestion comes up as to whether persons who have part in the things of God may not imitate each other, and do, even to the use of words, because there is remarkable similarity in Mary’s contribution here to the service of God and Hannah’s. Indeed their circumstances are somewhat alike, and so Mary’s word is, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”. That is to say, she distinguishes between soul and spirit. The Spirit of God does so in Hebrews, showing how the inwards of the worshipper are brought into evidence. We often speak of calling on all that is within us to worship, but the inwards are brought into evidence here peculiarly in what Mary says.
AR Why is it we are so defective in regard to the service of God? This word is noteworthy, speaking of her soul and spirit.
JT It is very noteworthy and it may be we do not follow enough the way of those who wrote Scripture. We are to follow things up, and so the Lord in directing John how to write the book of Revelation gives the order in which it is to be written, involving the wording of it. So that we are to be careful about words, actual phraseology divinely used, and to see that we imitate it.
WFK Are Mary’s words prophetic or priestly?
JT They are priestly. We are dealing with the priestly side of our subject.
CN Does the idea of the city of Judah enter into your thought on this?
JT Well, it is not without importance [p. 327] that Judah is mentioned because Judah means ‘praise’, which would be priestly, so that it is not without significance that it is brought in here. We should pay attention to the actual words of Gabriel on this wonderful subject, indicating what would happen, and then the effect on Mary and how maternal she is, how true she is to the instincts of her sex in that sense, but how elevated, dignified and holy. The whole subject is lifted into the realm of holiness, and it should be expected because it is a question of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ and He Himself is alluded to as “the holy thing also which shall be born”.
GMcP Would the conversation of Mary show the dignity that is attached to priesthood?
JT I think it would. The priestly element is seen in all the facts recorded in the chapter. What we are saying now is not simply that we might have the actual truth before us but that we might all be affected by it in a holy way and see how we can deal with such tender and delicate matters in a holy way.
EAK These truths cannot be held historically, they must be held spiritually. Would you say Christendom is greatly exposed at Christmas time as being in a low state?
JT Quite so; you can see how all this is desecrated. We are to be lifted out of what people are engaged with; what is in mind is to deal with things in a holy way.
GMcP I was wondering about Psalm 48, “Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion”. This chapter would set forth the beauty and dignity of the incarnation.
JT Quite so; “the joy of the whole earth”, too, is involved in that.
AB Would the priestly state be seen in Mary when she says, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”? She speaks of the magnification of the Lord over against the low [p. 328] estate of His bondmaid, indicating a right state in relation to the service.
JT Although it was a low estate it was priestly.
SJH When you spoke of how we are to affect each other were you thinking of the way Mary’s salutation affects Elizabeth? She rises to it and responds inwardly.
JT I believe the Lord would direct our view to what we are saying so that the facts of the incarnation might be more before us, because we are dealing with priesthood. We have to take in all the facts; they are not mere incidents “... the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”. The expression “holy thing” is remarkable; instead of ‘holy child’ it says “holy thing”, meaning that He was substantially holy. Children of godly parents are holy, as Paul says, but only in a relative sense, not substantially holy, whereas the Lord Jesus was substantially holy.
EAK Does all that you are speaking of enter into His name given prophetically, “his name is called Wonderful”? Moses says, “Let me now turn aside and see this great sight”. All that enters into the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
JT Quite so. The shepherds are like Moses in what they say. It says in Luke 2: 15, “And it came to pass, as the angels departed from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, Let us make our way then now as far as Bethlehem, and let us see this thing that is come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us. And they came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger; and having seen it they made known about the country the thing which had been said to them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at the things said to them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things in her mind, pondering them in her heart”. So that we can [p. 329] see how Mary is ready in all these phases to take into her heart and mind what was calculated to make her even more priestly.
TS Just what difference do you make in the two kinds of speaking: “Mary said” and Elizabeth “cried out with a loud voice”?
JT It says, “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and cried out with a loud voice”. The phrase, “Mary said”, indicates sobriety and balance, but the cry is also to be noted. The Lord Himself uses it, and it points to the effect of light on the soul that causes wonderment. In fact, it is a remarkable thing that the chief servant of Abraham who sought a bride for Isaac wondered at her at one point as if the idea of wonderment is right, intelligible, and holy too, in the things of God.
WFK It says that Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit. Does a sister need to be spiritual to be priestly?
JT That is the thought to have in mind, especially now that we are speaking of sisters and how the priestly side should not be left to the brothers, because the divine record shows that sisters in the early days were characteristically priestly and even prophetic.
Rem I notice that this is in the house. In regard to the daughters of Philip they prophesied, I take it, in their father’s house. Is that a service that can be rendered by sisters in homes?
JT That is a good suggestion. They are seemingly mentioned to add to what Philip had begun, because in his case he was not simply a gifted evangelist but he evidently took things up of himself. The work was there and he would take it up and in taking it up he would qualify in the service, because clearly he advanced in qualification in his service according to Acts 8, and then later we are told that he had four daughters, virgins, who prophesied.
[p. 330] The facts of chapter 8 would indicate that there was some defect in Philip because he did not discern Simon Magus, nor did his converts get the Holy Spirit at first. He was guided by an angel but it would seem as if he was advancing in his soul, and so he is guided later by the Spirit of God and not only guided but raptured by Him, one of the most remarkable things that is said.
EAK Is there not an advance on Elizabeth in Mary’s speaking in the way in which she brings in God Himself and so magnifies Him, alluding to Him as “the Mighty One”? You were speaking of the thought of advancing.
JT I think there is in this sense that she is attributing mightiness to God. Gabriel’s name would signify mightiness because the word ‘El’ is part of the name. The word ‘El’ applied to God means power, and I think Mary is advancing in herself in that she is not now occupied with Gabriel, although she heard his message of instruction, but she is occupied with God. She speaks of what God did to her, alluding to the wonderful power that operated in the incarnation.
AR She says, “holy is his name”.
JT Just so; but the relation between the Mighty One and Gabriel is striking because power is the thought in Gabriel, but in her mind now there is power in God. Gabriel could not effect the incarnation, although angels in a bad sense had to do with the female side of the human race, but there is no suggestion that Gabriel had anything to do with the incarnation; it was an act of God. So any suggestion that the fatherhood of Christ is other than God is a matter of great importance; I mean to say, any question as to the fatherhood of Christ or saying that the human nature in which He had part simply came from His mother; no doubt it did in a certain sense, but the fatherhood came from God, so that what [p. 331] Christ was as incarnate is mysterious. It is mystery; it cannot be said that it is simply a matter of His mother or that He derived His humanity from her. It is mysterious because the Person, “the holy thing” that was born, is the Son of God. The fatherhood was of God, and we cannot say that what He was as Man was wholly from His mother because His Father is God.
VHC Is that why it says in the Authorised Version, verse 35, “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”, whereas the Darby Translation does not say, “of thee”, inferring that all was from God?
JT Well, these are the literal words of the Spirit of God covering this matter and “of thee” would not affect it in that sense. It is a question of what is born, not so much that He is born of Mary but that He is born, He becomes incarnate through birth. He is called Son of God immediately, as if God would claim Him so as to prevent any assertion that the whole matter of human nature was from the mother.
Ques There seems to be a point where Mary breaks down later, in chapter 2: 48: “why hast thou dealt thus with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee distressed”. The Lord corrects her by saying, “my Father’s business”. That enters into it, does it not?
JT That is important to keep in mind. In that chapter Mary is allowed to drop from the proper level and the explanation would be that she evidently did not miss the Lord from the company and she did not take care of Him properly, although Matthew would say she took care of Him very well. She is regarded in Matthew as in charge of Him, and Joseph was to take the little Child and Its mother. But after the visit in Jerusalem she apparently was not careful of Him because she went a day without knowing the Lord was not in the company, and the Lord had to assert Himself, speaking of “my Father’s business”. It is just what we are speaking of, that the incarnation implies that God is His Father; He is Son of God.
AR Then He did not derive anything from Mary at all?
JT Not in a moral sense, only in a physical sense; but we have to touch the subject with care because she was necessary in the matter.
WFK Would the words “shall be” show that He was not Son of God before?
JT Well, we know how much has been said in recent times about eternal sonship; it is not scriptural because sonship is in time. He is born in time.
Rem The fact that He says “my Father” at the age of twelve would indicate that He was consciously in sonship.
JT Just so. Sonship is there; the Person is there.
JKP Do the words of Elizabeth give some indication as to what you are saying? She could speak of the fruit of the womb before birth had actually taken place as though to indicate that this matter was going through because it was all of God.
JT Yes, she is intelligent in that sense. I think it is of immense importance that the brethren should be entirely cognisant of the facts that are recorded in Luke in view of priesthood and the Lord’s own Person. Great is the mystery of piety. It is not all mystery, but it is mystery because although we can say certain things with certainty, I think we discern as we are with God that mystery is attached to it and holiness is attached to it “... the mystery of piety is great”, and what we have been saying enters into that greatness.
ASB Mary’s salutation is to Elizabeth, is it not?
JT Yes; and then John the baptist before he is born, the babe, has part in what we are speaking of, not intelligently but still a part, a mysterious [p. 333] part, because it is stated more than once here. “And it came to pass, as Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and cried out with a loud voice and said, Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped with joy in my womb”. So that John the baptist has a part in this matter under God and it is really wonderful. You have Zacharias’ part, Mary’s part, Elizabeth’s part, and John the baptist’s part, an unborn child; it is a question of the sound in the ear with these women, that is to say, the sound of Mary’s voice in the ears of Elizabeth. So we are in the presence of mystery but at the same time in the presence of what really involves the assembly, and how sound enters into it. How real the formation of the assembly is!
JLP Would the conversation of these two women fit in with what Peter says about holy women and their holy conversation?
JT Just so.
EAK Would you say this was the commencement of the joy of John the baptist as alluded to in John 3, “but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices in heart because of the voice of the bridegroom: this my joy then is fulfilled”?
JT Very good. So that the joy of John the baptist is a peculiar element in the service of God. He is a prophet but the joy occasioned by the voice from the Lord’s mouth filled him. It is really wonderful for our souls to consider as entering into the matter we are now engaged with and it should tend to make us more spiritual and more holy in dealing with matters.
JRHJr Would it encourage us to bring [p. 334] even young children under the sound of holy conversation?
JT Quite so. We have already spoken of the importance of bringing up children rightly. It was remarked that John was a short time under the notice of his father while he was dumb, and so we see the importance in bringing up children of what they are brought into touch with even in their earliest youth, and how they should be followed up. It was so with John the baptist; you may be sure that under God he was followed up. He was in the deserts and was not allowed to come under the influence of this world.
APT Hannah brought Samuel a coat every year. Do you think that baptism is not enough, we have to follow it up?
JT Just so. She followed him up and brought a little coat every year. That is to say she would mark his growth every year; there would be increase, and it would be so with John the baptist in a moral sense.
GMcP In your reference to the assembly is it in mind that the features seen in these two sisters should be infused into the assembly?
JT Well, that is so. What came out in John, even as unborn, would enter into their part in the assembly, that is, in its constitution. Union is the matter to have in mind, for the assembly is united to Christ which involves the thought of one flesh. The idea is not simply unity but union; there should be unity, of course, but union is the great matter; it was mentioned at Eve’s formation.
AR Would you explain the difference between union and unity?
JT Unity is a responsibility put on us in Philippians and Corinthians, involving speaking the same thing and being of the same mind, but it is to bring out that what becomes the assembly in union with Christ is already united. The ordinary ministry of the word ought to bring about unity practically [p. 335] among us so that we should be fit for union, because union implies that we belong to Him. “... They shall be one flesh”, it says; it is the idea of having part with Christ in that sense.
JRH John was a remarkable child in that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. What would you say about that?
JT Now you are bringing up the matter of what was in him as born. The idea of his birth would necessarily come into what he would be as born, and the Spirit would have part in him thus, but we have certain facts stated about him before he was born and these are the most wonderful things. Next to Christ, I believe that John is the most wonderful child, in that he was moved before he was born.
JRH Would there be any link with the fact that Zacharias addressed him in verse 76?
JT I suppose that John as born and thus actually a being, can be addressed, but you can hardly think of his being addressed before, although he was moved before birth by the Spirit. He is a responsible being as born, that is the only way we can look at it; we must attach the idea of responsibility to a person not as unborn, but as born. Jesus said that there was none ‘born’ of women greater than he, so that we should attach his importance in the testimony and in the service to him as born.
EAK Was it in your mind a little earlier that kinship precedes union? You were referring to the thought of unity which brings in the idea of brethren. Are not brethren according to the divine mind characterised by unity, but then when you come to the assembly is there the deeper thought of union?
JT Well, there is. There is no other family in union save the assembly. Psalm 133 says, “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!”but that is not union. Israel will never know union nor will any other family, the [p. 336] only family that has part in union with Christ is the assembly.
AR Do you think we have to understand the idea of kinship first?
JT I think so. That is the way it is presented in Genesis 2, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”. That is not simply unity but union, and so it is that the bride that was secured for Isaac was kindred to him.
GMcP Does the principle of John 17 enter into your earlier remarks about the assembly? The Lord said in His prayer, “that they may be one as we”. Does that suggest the idea of union?
JT That would not be union, because we are not in union with God. It is a mysterious thing, “but I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”.
We have now reluctantly to leave this wonderful subject of Luke 1, especially Mary’s contribution to the service of God. She says, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he has looked upon the low estate of his bondmaid; for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For the Mighty One has done to me great things, and holy is his name; and his mercy is to generations and generations to them that fear him. He has wrought strength with his arm; he has scattered haughty ones in the thought of their heart. He has put down rulers from thrones, and exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and sent away the rich empty. He has helped Israel his servant, in order to remember mercy (as he spoke to our fathers,) to Abraham and to his seed for ever. And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her house”. That is, she is left by Gabriel and she goes to Elizabeth and spends three months with her there in the hill country and then returns to her house, as if she would fulfil the great [p. 337] mission she had of bearing Christ. Then the verses in chapter 3 are just to bring out the fact of the Lord’s baptism by the Holy Spirit: “And it came to pass, all the people having been baptised, and Jesus having been baptised and praying, that the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon him; and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight”. That is to say, Sonship was announced by the Father. Christ was Son of God, proclaimed to be Son of God at His birth. It had been said to Mary, “the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God”, but now it is the Father, the Voice from heaven, calling Him Son of God. It is another Voice, and it should be a fitting close for our session that we now arrive at the Person in whom the acts of God, in view of priesthood, are seen. He is Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec.
JRH This is the only gospel that speaks of the Lord praying when He was baptised. Would that emphasise the priestly feature?
JT I thought we would come to that in chapter 11, but it enters into this chapter that the Lord is seen praying when the Spirit descends upon Him; and it is very significant as to the place prayer has in our subject.
APT Hebrews 5 says, after speaking of what the Son went through, “addressed by God as high priest according to the order of Melchisedec”. When would that take place?
JT That allusion is, of course, to Psalm 110. The writer of the Hebrews simply alludes to the Psalm and the Psalm asserts that God addresses Him as High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.
APT I just wanted to know its historical setting, because it seems to follow on after the Lord’[p. 338] s suffering and becoming perfected, Author of eternal salvation.
JT It is to bring out the greatness of our High Priest; so the word is, “Now consider how great this personage was”. There are many things stated of Him in Hebrews, and one of them is this quotation from Psalm 110, indicating that He is addressed by God. He is addressed by God in Luke 3: 22 but what is referred to in Hebrews is what God said beforehand, that is to say, the Psalms were written long before Christ was born and He is addressed before by God as Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. The link is with Genesis 14; Melchisedec was a priest that came out to bless Abram and the lesser is blessed by the greater, so that it is all to bring out the greatness of Christ.
GMcP Does verse 22 bring out His greatness, “the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove upon him; and a voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight”? The word ‘beloved’ is added.
JT Just so, it is the Father’s voice. It greatly enters into what we had this morning as to what preceded the appearance of this great Priest, showing how God had been moving and what had been said in all the previous generations, and bringing out what God could identify Himself with in the time of imperfection; because the law made nothing perfect, but still there was something there that God could identify Himself with.
JW Is that why the apostle Paul says, “but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship”, Galatians 4: 4, 5? Would that be a delivering thought?
JT That bears out what we are saying, because [p. 339] the time of sonship had come. There had been a time when sonship could not apply, the people of God were minors, but God identified Himself with them in some sense. It was a time of imperfection but now we come to a time of perfection. Galatians speaks of sonship as having come, and not only for Christ but for us in the Spirit of sonship, for it says, “because ye are sons”, showing that the principle can be applied to us, “because ye are sons”.
FC Why does Luke say that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove?
JT I think to bring out the distinction that attaches to Christ. He is the One who baptises with the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit coming in bodily form applies only to Him. The totality of the Spirit is what is meant, yet the word ‘bodily’ is really mysterious. John could say it, and he says he saw and bare record that this is the Son of God. He could see what happened because the idea was that there was a bodily form, but descending as a dove.
VHC Why is Matthew’s gospel different from Luke’s? In Matthew it says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, but in Luke it says, “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight”. Would it really be for God in Luke, you might say, and in Matthew for public testimony?
JT Well, it is just a question of the person addressed. The Lord Jesus is addressed personally by the Father in Luke, whereas the verse in Matthew is in the third person; only you can see there is something very beautiful in that He is addressed by the Father personally as His beloved Son. It is a question of His personal dignity and glory.
AB Is this a fulfilment of the prophetic word in Psalm 2, “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”?
JT Well, the Psalmist could not rise fully [p. 340] to the heights of what we are dealing with. The Psalm refers to sonship in time, and sonship is in time anyway, only that the Psalm just links the word ‘day’ with it, whereas “Thou art my beloved Son” leaves the thought of day out, making the idea of sonship of more importance.
Ques Is there a suggestion of pattern in this, the next move on the part of the Lord being into the wilderness? It seems that one of the functions of priesthood is to keep out everything unholy and tainted by sin, and it is a wonderful thing to have an inward sense of sonship and delight to God in meeting these things.
JT I think that is good and it brings out the necessity for priesthood in our service on the first day of the week. All outside is unholy, and there is a power in the Spirit to keep out all that is unsuitable to the service as we are gathered together.
AEH The Lord is seen going into the wilderness led by the Spirit, and these suggestions are made to Him by the devil; though He, of course, is intrinsically holy and I wondered if there was a pattern for us in it.
JT I am sure that is so. We have part in service and part in sonship and the power of priesthood enables us to maintain that. So Paul says, “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh”. That is what marks real Christians.
FC Would Paul’s movement into Arabia have some correspondence with this? How priestly he was!
JT Just so. That would be akin to what we said about John the baptist dwelling in the desert. I suppose Paul did it deliberately to be in the solitude and presence of God Himself.
NOTE - Reading No 2 of this series is missing. It has not been possible to trace its whereabouts.