THE KINGDOM AND THE HOUSE
[p. 158] THE KINGDOM AND THE HOUSE
I proposed this scripture because it brings together the two thoughts of the kingdom and the house, and in a certain sense, connects them with the gospel.
What do you mean by “the house”?
You get in the passage the idea of God’s house. It says, “compel them to come in”.
You do not speak of God’s house on earth in that way?
Yes, I would. It is rather anticipating, but the house is contingent on the kingdom. You could not have the house without the kingdom.
Is your idea of the kingdom the compulsion? Those who came to the supper are brought into the kingdom of course, but the point to which they are really brought is the house. It is by the reception of the kingdom that they are brought in.
That needs some little explanation.
It is simple, every one that is brought into the house is brought in by the reception of the kingdom.
You mean by being brought under the moral sway of grace?
They believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and they receive the Holy Spirit, and thus come into or form part of the house.
Are the limits of the two pretty much the same? It is rather difficult to say. If you look at the kingdom as to what man has made of it, the kingdom and house are not alike, yet in the idea of them in Scripture I would say they were co-extensive. The Lord gives you a picture here of what was going to be on earth consequent on the kingdom.
“That my house may be filled”. Is that on earth?
I think so; it refers to the present time. God will have His house filled.
[p. 159] Instead of waiting for the blessing it may be had now.
Does that come out in the next chapter?
The point there is the individual rather than the house. It is the kind of guest that comes in.
What is the reception of the kingdom?
“Except you shall receive the kingdom of God as little children, you will in no wise enter in”. A man has to receive the testimony of the kingdom because you only get at the kingdom through the testimony. No man comes into the kingdom except as receiving the glad tidings of it.
Where do you get the glad tidings of the kingdom? It was involved in the testimony of Christ exalted to the right hand of God. Peter in the beginning of Acts goes forth to preach and bears testimony to the exaltation of Christ and the forgiveness of sins; the kingdom was inaugurated here in the power of the Holy Spirit, but a man must be born again to see the kingdom of God.
Being born again is to see it; to enter it is said to be by being born of water and of the Spirit.
What does bring us into it?
Receiving it. The kingdom is not set up in power, it is not yet manifest. There is the word of the kingdom and the kingdom is produced as the effect of seed-sowing. In receiving the word of the kingdom the kingdom is received.
Then how did the violent take it by force?
It was the violence of faith that apprehended the kingdom in the person of a rejected Christ.
The violence of a little child.
Is not the point of contrast between the people’s expectations and that which God is now doing? Therefore they had to press into it and take it by violence.
Yes.
How is the house filled now?
God will have His house filled; but the important point for us is the compelling to come in.
It is God’s intention to have His house filled.
The house is not heaven by-and-by.
It is what is in the heart of God now.
Yes, and He is compelling to come in.
Would you just say something with regard to the great supper and its scope?
Well, I have thought lately that the kingdom is really the celebration of righteousness. The kingdom was a moral necessity to God: and that brings in the great supper. The idea of the celebration brings in the thought of the great supper. In the Old Testament we read, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed”. (Daniel 2: 44) It is the statement of purpose; but in the New Testament the kingdom is a moral necessity.
By ‘a moral necessity’, do you mean the result of His revealing Himself?
Not exactly — it is consequent upon the accomplishment of righteousness. God cannot be silent in regard of righteousness when accomplished.
Is the kingdom the result of Christ being crowned with glory and honour?
It is that. The work accomplished was so great that it was entirely impossible for God to be silent about it, and it must be celebrated.
Is the idea in it the complete clearing of the ground in righteousness, so that the whole scene may be filled by Christ?
Yes, the glory is now at the right hand of God, but eventually it will fill the whole scene, and nothing short of that would be an answer to the cross.
What is the difference between this and the marriage of the king’s son in chapter 22 of Matthew’s gospel?
Simply that Luke takes the one side and Matthew the other side of the truth; Matthew is the side of profession, but the point of the passage here is the compulsion. The parable of the marriage supper [p. 161] clearly presents profession, because you find a man there who had not on a wedding garment.
But the point in both cases is the glory of Christ? The marriage supper refers, I think, to what is more personal to Christ, certain counsels that God had in mind to establish in His own Son.
The result of this accomplished righteousness would be the outflow of grace in the gospel?
This goes out in the testimony of resurrection. The glory is the celebration of righteousness, and consequent upon the glory the Holy Spirit has come down to bring souls into communion with the celebration above.
And the things which hinder souls in that connection are the things which belong to this earth?
Yes, and things too which are right in their place. They are harmless in their place; but things that are of God’s providence may hinder a man, to the exclusion of the supper.
And the Lord afterwards refers to natural relationships being real hindrances.
Yes, because they come the closest home to us.
I suppose the compulsion here is the result of the refusal on the part of those invited?
It is the compulsion of grace.
Yes, but in connection with it the Lord says, “none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper”.
Is there a difference between the accomplishment of righteousness and the celebration of it?
Yes, in its accomplishment you have the full testimony of God’s righteousness in the place of judgment; but the celebration of it is the delight, the acclamation with which Christ has been received on high. He is crowned with glory and honour, and a little further on in this gospel we find in view of this the disciples saying, “Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest”. That is the celebration. The Holy Spirit has come down to bring us into the great supper.
[p. 162] That is righteousness, peace, and joy, in the Holy Spirit.
Yes.
Is that connected with the gospel?
If you are a preacher you are bound to set forth the establishment of the kingdom as the celebration of righteousness.
Would it not be the effect of the gospel that souls are brought into things with God and they are loyal to that?
They would accept the glad tidings of the kingdom and come into it that way.
You must accept the fact that God has established Christ in glory. He wears the glory of accomplished righteousness and of having maintained holiness.
The testimony of accomplished righteousness was there before the Holy Spirit came. You get it in John 20. Christ is risen and comes into the midst of His own with the word of peace; but then God will exalt Christ and consequent upon His exaltation the Holy Spirit has come down to bring us into the consciousness of the celebration. All through the Acts of the Apostles we find the preaching of the kingdom, and the Holy Spirit was the power of the kingdom. I used to think that the Holy Spirit was here simply in connection with the house, but I see now that the Holy Spirit came to make good the kingdom; that the kingdom might be established here upon earth.
Would you not say that the coming of the Holy Spirit is connected with both house and kingdom?
The one is consequent on the other. If the Holy Spirit has come to make good the kingdom you must have the house, because the Holy Spirit is not incarnate.
What do you say the house is?
Jew and Gentile built together. The Holy Spirit has not become incarnate as the Son; therefore there must be a dwelling place. With regard to the kingdom, it is moral and individual; that is the great point for us.
[p. 163] Man has made a mustard tree of it, but that is not at all the divine thought as to it.
We find the Lord was here forty days testifying of the kingdom.
It was the great testimony of the apostles; of Peter, Paul, and all of them. You could not be in the power of the kingdom without being in the house. By receiving the kingdom the Holy Spirit is received and then you form part of the house. It is the necessary consequence of the kingdom.
Is there any difference between receiving the gospel and receiving the kingdom?
No, it is the glad tidings of the kingdom.
How is the kingdom individual?
It is pressed by the Lord Himself both here and in Mark, that if you receive the kingdom it must be as a little child.
Is there not some little difficulty in making the house in Luke 14 a present thing; I mean the building together of Jew and Gentile connected with the thought “that my house may be filled”?
I would not make Luke 14 the doctrine of the house; but it gives the moral idea.
God’s house is always God’s house. God will have the full answer to grace.
Is forgiveness of sins and justification preliminary to entrance into the kingdom?
You come into the kingdom by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, you believe on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. You accept God’s testimony of resurrection, and in accepting that testimony you come into the kingdom. In the light of resurrection it is not very difficult to accept the glory of the Lord. If He is risen He is glorified.
It is not simply the meeting of individual needs, but that we should be in the kingdom.
All need was met in the accomplishment of righteousness. You are bound, in preaching, to set that forward;
[p. 164] and the resurrection and glory of the Lord are witness of accomplished righteousness. The kingdom is based on righteousness, and righteousness is imputed to us who believe on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.
A person then, in the kingdom, would be established in grace?
I think so. The first effect of the gospel is that the soul comes under the sway of grace. It is remarkable that the position in which God is at the present time, His attitude towards man, is that of a Saviour God. It is impossible to know God in any other character at the present time. It is in that character that God presents Himself to man. “He would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth”.
Would you connect the word with the kingdom and the Spirit with the house?
The Spirit has come to make good the kingdom. Authority is at the right hand of God and there is power commensurate with it here. The kingdom which is righteousness, peace, and joy, is established here in the power of the Holy Spirit.
“God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”.
That is, authority is set at God’s right hand, and the Holy Spirit has come here to establish it in power.
You get the same idea in the Psalms; the kingdom and the house always go together. You get it in Psalm 68. You have the authority and then the gifts given, that the Lord God may dwell among them.
Is confessing Jesus as Lord coming into the kingdom? It is the condition of the kingdom. You come into the kingdom by faith, then the condition of it is confessing Jesus as Lord. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus”. If faith has received the testimony of the Lord Jesus you confess Him as such. You believe with the heart and confess with the mouth.
[p. 165] In Acts 20: 24 it speaks of the gospel of the grace of God.
But there is no real distinction between the gospel of the grace of God, and of the kingdom of God. The grace of God finds its full expression in the kingdom.
And again in 2 Corinthians 4: 4, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them”.
There you get the idea of the kingdom in connection with the glory of Christ. We have it also at the close of the preceding chapter, “Beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord we are changed into the same image from glory to glory, by the Spirit of the Lord”.
Does “my gospel” go beyond the kingdom?
You can take up Paul’s gospel in another way, as the presentation of God’s purpose, “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive sonship”. But as regards history of souls the first thing is to know the kingdom, to come under the moral sway and effect of grace. A man must have to do with God and therefore the point is for him to come under the sway of grace, and in coming under it he is relieved on one hand, and supported on the other. As in the kingdom he has boldness to come to the throne of grace.
Is the kingdom individual and the house collective?
The house must be collective, as being formed of many persons. Jew and Gentile built together must be collective. As regards the kingdom you may be sure that God never intended to have a great system under His eye here.
Such as the mustard tree.
Or the three measures of meal leavened. All that God had under His eye in connection with it was the Church.
Does not the millennium come under the kingdom?
[p. 166] We are speaking of the kingdom now. The glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters the sea.
Does the gospel that Paul preached take in the counsels of God?
Everything was in the counsel of God. The kingdom is the way which God has established in order that man might return to Him.
What do you say the kingdom is?
That which is set up in heaven on the part of God and which will break to pieces all the kingdoms of men, in fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy. It will break the whole image of Nebuchadnezzar to pieces.
Is it not true that grace must be established upon righteousness through the death of Christ, but when it is publicly established in the millennium it will be publicly vindicated?
I think so, even now there is the principle of retribution in the kingdom.
What is the meaning of the mystery of the gospel?
Mystery is, I judge, something which is set forth in testimony before it is displayed in power.
Is the testimony of the kingdom the means of securing the Church?
In order that the Church may be formed and the purpose of God accomplished, man must of necessity be brought under the moral sway of God. Nothing can be right until that is effected, so that the kingdom is an absolute necessity.
Does the kingdom put God in His place in the soul? Yes, and man in his place in reference to God. It brings his heart under the sway of God.
You said it was not God’s purpose now to have the mustard tree; do you mean by that, that God will, in the millennium, display it fully?
Oh no, the mustard tree is no testimony at all, on the contrary, it is the corruption of the kingdom. That was never God’s thought of the kingdom. The Lord [p. 167] when here said it would take that form as regards men, but such was never God’s thought.
What is the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven?
Each term presents a different side of the kingdom. You would not entertain the idea that there are two kingdoms.
Christ went on high to receive a kingdom and to return. You find the kingdom spoken of also as the kingdom of the Son of man.
Did not the kingdom of God exist before the kingdom of heaven?
I think not.
Not in the Old Testament?
No. There was faith and the moral hidden government of God.
Why no kingdom?
Because righteousness was not accomplished and God could not come out in grace. The first principle of the sway of grace, is that there is no imputation of sin.
Then what was an Israelite’s hope?
He was taught to look for the kingdom.
Which is not displayed even yet.
The kingdom was the great hope of the Old Testament.
That comes out in the chapter we were reading this morning.
But in Exodus 19: 6 we read, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation”.
There the Lord, through Moses, proposes to establish a kingdom of priests upon the condition of obedience. Nobody can, however, be really in the kingdom without being born again. The kingdom of heaven will come out in the heavenly city.
Did the kingdom of heaven exist in Old Testament times?
No, certainly not.
Does it not exist in Matthew’s gospel?
[p. 168] There was the testimony of it, that it was coming, from the days of John the Baptist. But no one enters the kingdom without being born again. The Holy Spirit came as the witness of the reign of grace. The first principle of the kingdom was the setting of Christ in heaven. I think you have to connect in your mind two thoughts, (1) the testimony of righteousness, (2) the celebration of it. The kingdom is connected with the celebration. The Son of God is crowned with glory and honour, and that involves the casting of Satan out of heaven. The moment Man takes His place in heaven there is no more place there for Satan.
And hence you must have the Spirit for the kingdom. He alone can make known the mind of heaven and the Holy Spirit has come to that end. “We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord”.
What do we understand by the two expressions “kingdom of God”, and “kingdom of heaven”?
They are two aspects of the same thing — the latter is connected with Christ in heaven. Properly speaking, the kingdom of heaven does not take in profession.
But what about Matthew 25, the parable of the virgins?
It becomes like that, but if you want to know the mind of the Lord in regard to it, you must read Matthew 18. We do not want to be taught about the great system we find here in the world; we want to learn its moral features, what it was from the beginning in the mind and thought of God.
The kingdom of God was here in Christ.
It was here in this sense, that there was a power here in grace superior to every evil that affected man; but it had to be founded on accomplished righteousness. Christ came here in view of His death; He was presented to man in grace but He really came to taste death for every thing, that the kingdom should be established in grace.
[p. 169] Does the reception of the testimony of the kingdom clear one from defilement and weakness?
You get that by the Holy Spirit. You get priesthood in connection with the kingdom.
It is connected with the house in Hebrews.
I connect it with “boldness to come to the throne of grace”. It follows in Psalm 110 on Christ’s exaltation.
We do see in the Person of Christ here the power of Satan set aside.
Exactly; and, in a sense, the kingdom was presented because He could set aside all that which oppressed man. In Christ there was the power of the Holy Spirit superior to every evil which oppressed man.
All was in view of His death.
Yes, and then you have accomplished righteousness and the glory: the kingdom established. The priesthood comes in to maintain you in approach to God.
Is it correct to say the kingdom of God is more moral than the kingdom of heaven?
Not at all. The one is as much moral as the other.
In Luke 13 it speaks of the kingdom of God.
The only two similitudes there are the mustard tree and the three measures of meal.
Why is that?
I do not know. I suppose it was divine wisdom that gave instruction enough to show what the kingdom would be in the hand of man.
What are the limits of the kingdom?
It is given up in view of the eternal state. It began with Christ crowned with glory and honour and it goes on to the end, when He gives up the mediatorial kingdom.
Why is the expression “kingdom of heaven” used in Matthew and not in the other gospels?
Because it is the gospel that has most distinct reference to the glory of Christ. Matthew leads on to the testimony of Peter and John. They had known Christ after the flesh and the burden of their testimony was that [p. 170] He, who had been rejected by the Jews had been made by God, both Lord and Christ. All the latter part of Matthew, from chapter 15 and onwards, goes on the ground of the glory of Christ.
What are the things new and old at the end of Matthew 13?
The Old Testament is a book of demand and the New of supply. You get many thoughts developed in the Old Testament, but the difficulty was that the old man was still under probation, and therefore, until the New Testament, the Man was not found in whom was the supply. The New Testament presents the Man in whom all is found.
Is the thought of the kingdom of heaven that rule is established in heaven?
I think so. You get a figure of it in Genesis. God set two great lights in the heaven to bear rule on earth, one to rule the day, the other the night. We have now authority set in heaven in the Person of Christ. The rule of the heavens is begun. Now it is in mystery, but it will yet become public. “The heavens do rule” was the lesson that Nebuchadnezzar had to learn; that was the providential rule of God. Man has chosen to take up the kingdom and humanise it, but God holds him responsible. If Queen Victoria reigns by the grace of God, I can understand her being responsible. If man chooses to take up and play with divine things, he must incur responsibility.
Has not man corrupted everything?
Everything that has come into his hands.
What does Peter mean by an entrance into the everlasting kingdom?
He brings out that if you go on in a certain line you will have an entrance ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom.
The truth of the kingdom is individual?
Essentially so. And in this way the relationships of life come under the Lord. A father should be a good [p. 171] representative of the grace of God and the Lord’s authority in his house. Let a father govern his house by law and see if he has not to pay the penalty of it. A father in a house should be the representative of the Lord whose government is in grace.
There is a danger of making children formally religious.
I plead for this — take into consideration what your children can bear.
Is that the force of “Provoke not your children”?
Yes.
Would you say a word now about the house?
The house brings in the collective idea. It is a sphere which is marked by the economy of the Holy Spirit. A man qualifies himself for the house of God by the way he orders his own house. In the house of God you have the light of God and everybody in communion with it, and thus the testimony goes out from the house. It is where the testimony of God resides. Everybody who composes the house is in communion with the testimony. You are so affected by the glory of the Lord that you are in communion with the testimony. The testimony comes out in 1 Timothy 2, where we have the men praying everywhere for all men, because God’s testimony is toward all men. He would have all men to be saved. His attitude is the same towards all. In the Old Testament you get David’s kingdom, and David’s house, and indeed God’s house, but not as yet His kingdom.
I should like a little more about connecting the kingdom with priesthood.
No one could enjoy access to God if it were not for the priesthood, which is the practical link between earth and heaven. The effect of the priesthood is that you come boldly to the throne of grace.
Is it right to say that priesthood is properly connected with the house?
No, I think that it brings in more the thought of the [p. 172] sanctuary. The priesthood of Christ in its application is in the first place individual, and I doubt if we could enjoy access to God without priesthood; but access is enjoyed in the consciousness of our being perfectly represented at the right hand of God, which gives real liberty with God.
That means more than being relieved from every disability.
I think so. The effect of priesthood is that the distance is completely bridged between one’s self and God. It is a serious thing for a poor weak man down here to approach God, but if you know you are represented at His right hand by One who sympathises with you here, then the difficulty at once disappears.
You make a distinction between the sanctuary and the house?
Yes, the sanctuary brings in the calling of God, and the calling of God is in connection with the sanctified company of which Christ is Head.
“I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine”. Is that future?
I take it so. The Lord was speaking to them in the remnant character.
Do we get any benefit of Christ’s priesthood except as known in the soul?
Peter got it when Christ prayed for him. He got the proper sense of it afterwards in John 21.
What is the great house in Timothy?
Man would not let Christianity alone; it came into the world and they have made a great house of it.
What about those who would not come in to the supper, do they perish under the judgment?
They had great responsibility. The gospel greatly increases man’s responsibility. The parable refers a good deal to Israel.
Will a man be judged for his sins and rejecting the gospel?
Men will be judged for their works.
[p. 173] Is not man responsible for the rejection of the gospel?
He is responsible as man. God is God, and man is man. You will find two lines taken up in preaching, one is pressing upon man his responsibility, and the other presenting to him the glad tidings, but they are in themselves quite distinct.
The light of God is presented to man, and if man turns his back upon it, he greatly increases his responsibility, but he was responsible before. But to return to the kingdom, in the Old Testament we see things in the hand of David, but now we see things in the hand of a Man at God’s right hand, not only David’s Son, but David’s Lord. The conduct which becomes you in the house is what is suited to the presence of God, and you could not touch that if you had not first been brought under the moral sway of grace. To understand what is suitable to God, you need to be here in the power of the Holy Spirit.