Matthew 26:36 - 46; Matthew 27:32 - 56; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22,23

J.T. Feeling that the Lord would remind us that this subject is to be approached in an intelligent and sympathetic manner, I thought it would be helpful, by reading the verses in chapters 16 and 17, to call attention to the Lord's preparatory instruction to His disciples in view of His suffering. It is to be dealt with in no sense academically, but reverently, sympathetically and feelingly, for it concerns a Person known to us and whom we love and adore. The verses in chapter 16 call attention to the Lord's thought for His own in view of His sufferings, so that they might be able to enter into them in some measure. He looked for sympathy from those that were with Him, and therefore instructed them as to His sufferings and death beforehand. In entering Gethsemane He made provision that there should be selected ones near Him in His agony. He says to the disciples, "Sit here until I go away and pray yonder;" then He takes the three known and trusted ones to be nearer to Him. It seems to me that the Lord would press upon us that the subject is to be considered by us as being feelingly interested, sobered, and holy. The apostles Paul and Peter would be representative of the saints in this sympathetic way, especially Paul who shared more than anyone in the sufferings of Christ. Peter refers to them very touchingly as a witness of them. The Spirit tells us in chapter 17 that the disciples "were greatly grieved". There were two instrumentalities of suffering: first, He must "suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be

killed"; then in chapter 17, "The Son of man is about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him"; that is, you have the Jews and their leaders, and then men, so that the race, as well as the Jews, is brought into responsibility for the killing of Christ. In Mark 8, He teaches them about it as if to fix it in their minds; and in Luke 9:22, He says, "The Son of man must suffer"; and in John 3:14, "thus must the Son of man be lifted up". All these statements are to impress upon us the character of the sufferings of Christ, and to draw us in accord with them.

W.B-w. Is chapter 16 the first reference He makes to His sufferings? It says, "from that time Jesus began to shew".

J.T. Yes. After the truth of His Person and of the assembly came out, He began to speak of His sufferings. That subject stands peculiarly in relation to the assembly. In chapter 17 He is seen as coming in His kingdom, then as descending from the mount He says, "Thus also the Son of man is about to suffer".

J.S. Is it as the Son of man you view His sufferings here?

J.T. The Lord uses that designation of Himself as over against His special relation with Israel. He stands related to the whole race of mankind, which would include Israel as well as ourselves. It ought to touch every man, woman, and child, that the Son of man had to suffer.

A.F.M. It is as the Son of man that He is on the side of man.

J.T. Yes, He is the only hope of the human family; the light that shone in Him was the light of men. The race must have gone into utter oblivion apart from the Son of man taking on its obligations. This should touch every one in the world.

C.A.M. In chapter 16 the Lord refers to the religious element.

J.T. Yes; it is in keeping with Matthew, to call attention to Jerusalem in this way. "He must go away to Jerusalem", it says, as though it had become the place of opposition to Him, and consequently the place of suffering. It had become that -- a terrible fact. Elsewhere He says, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those that are sent unto her", (Matthew 23:37). It is called "the holy city" even as Satan takes the Lord to the temple, in chapter 4:6; it is also called "the city of the great King", in chapter 5:35. These are abstract thoughts, but the murder of the Son of man in that city is all the more dreadful in view of its place in the counsels of God.

F.H.L. Is there any significance in the elders being mentioned first in chapter 16?

J.T. I suppose the elders represent the responsible element in the people; the chief priests have the official place with the scribes, and would represent the religious side. The whole system was thus embodied in these three classes; so that there is no escape for that nation in the day of judgment when this crowning guilt of Jerusalem, and of that nation, will come up. This crime of murder was done after full deliberation; the leading classes of the nation were all in it, and since the crucifixion of Christ was accomplished by their united and determined decision, what must have been the terrible state of these heads of the nation! You see the chief priests and scribes taking a judicial attitude, in formally condemning Him to death, but in verse 22 of chapter 17, it says, "The Son of man is about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him". The killing would be the act of the nations of chapter 20:19, but here it is men. The race is guilty.

A.B.P. Is there any significance then, in the article "the" coming before "Son of man"?

J.T. I think so. One Man only is in the Spirit's mind, whether the title occurs in the Old or New Testament.

Referring again to Gethsemane the pressure would be dreadful, as the facts show: "Then all the disciples left him and fled", (chapter 26:56). These were the Lord's own picked men, but they all forsook Him and fled! The pressure was so dreadful that man, aside from the possession of the Spirit of God, could not stand it. No creature under any circumstances could endure Gethsemane and the cross.

A.F.M. Would you please distinguish for us the sufferings of Gethsemane from those of the cross?

J.T. The sufferings in Gethsemane were anticipatory, occasioned by the pressure of Satan -- "the power of darkness". He was bringing to bear on the Lord anticipatively the terribleness of death as the judgment of God, of which he had the power; it was the penalty of sin, and Satan pressed it on the Lord.

A.F.M. Do you think the reference in Matthew to "a place called Gethsemane", and not to a garden as in John, would be significant? The name itself would have some meaning.

J.T. It is possibly meant to convey the idea of pressure. He "comes with them to a place called Gethsemane". It was deliberate; He had been accustomed to go there. Luke 22:39 says, "he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives", and John 18:1 says, "beyond the torrent Cedron, where was a garden, into which he entered". But the point here is in the word "Gethsemane". It is found only in the "pressure" gospels, Matthew and Mark. The instruction is in the word "Gethsemane", suggesting the pressure the Lord went through with His Father beforehand, all that the cross would mean. Satan's power, as we

have said, entered into it -- Satan bringing this to bear on Him; not through human instrumentality, but direct, as in the beginning, after He was baptised, when He was driven into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Here the devil comes back again, as the Lord said, "the ruler of the world comes" (John 14:30), which alludes to this particular time.

A.P.T. "My soul is very sorrowful", He says. Would this refer to His inward feelings?

J.T. Yes; whereas, verse 47 looks at the external instrumentality: "while he was yet speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and sticks from the chief priests and elders of the people". Swords and sticks are weapons to affect Him externally; but Gethsemane was not that. The battle there was spiritual and inward.

J.S. Sufferings in His spirit.

A.F.M. Was the conflict intended to divert the Lord from going into death?

J.T. Yes; to divert Him, if possible, from the path before Him of God's will; that was the enemy's intent; which if he had succeeded would have been a great triumph; it was what he looked for, having failed in his first effort to turn the Lord aside from the path of obedience. Satan, at that time, had offered Him all the kingdoms of the world if He would worship him, but now he endeavours to divert Him by pressing upon Him what He was about to suffer at the hands of God. Hence the Lord's terrible anticipatory agony. It says here, "taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed". The word "depressed" should be specially noted. Being truly Man, He was capable of that here, for He could not but recoil from the judgment of God. What unspeakable pressure was brought to bear upon Him, causing Him to be deeply depressed! The power of darkness

was there! Satan was pressing the thought of death as the judgment of God. The causes of judgment had accumulated; besides the wrath of God on account of sin, there was also before His soul the special wrath on Israel on account of a broken law, which He was about to bear. All that could but profoundly affect Him. The more we think of who He was, the more we understand how these things would affect Him.

J.S. Because of the condition into which He had come?

J.T. Yes; He was a real Man; perfect humanity was there. He felt as man should feel in view of all that He should have to undergo. All the wrath of God against sin was about to be poured out upon Him.

A.F.M. Was all that of which you have spoken, condensed into the form of a cup? The Lord says, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; but not as I will, but as thou wilt".

J.T. Yes; it was not to be extended over months or years, but, as it were, compressed to the period of an "hour". In Gethsemane, He is not undergoing the actual suffering. It is what He went through spiritually there, Satan bringing the judgment to bear upon Him, and the awfulness of what He would have to face. He Himself knowing, as no mere creature could know, what it meant. He went through it anticipatively with the Father, taking the cup in infinite obedience from His hands.

W.G.T. Does the presence of Peter, James, and John show they are brought into it?

J.T. Yes; He did not ask for their presence or support when on the cross; they could have no part in that. Here He is going through conflict with Satan. It is not yet God pouring out judgment upon Him; but Satan against Him, seeking by the terror of death as the judgment of God to divert Him from the path of obedience He had entered on,

knowing, as Satan could not know, what it meant.

C.A.M. It would almost look as though Satan had anticipated another season to tempt Him when he left Him as stated in chapter 4; having in his mind another occasion when the Lord would perhaps be under more oppressive circumstances than mere hunger.

J.T. After the first temptations he had departed from Him "for a time", (Luke 4:13). He had now come back in other circumstances with suitable and dreadful weapons. According to Luke, He was forty days in the wilderness, tempted; apparently the temptation covered the whole forty days. It was an extended period and afterwards He hungered; but here the temptation is very short. It is like the Jordan as compared with the Red Sea, it is condensed, Satan bringing every bit of pressure he was capable of bringing upon His spirit. It was not a question of mere physical death, but the judgment of God, which the Lord understood infinitely and from which He could not but recoil. His perfection involved this.

C.A.M. Satan makes his supreme effort, so that if possible He should be diverted from the will of God.

J.T. Yes. We see here how the Lord disposes of His forces. He told certain ones to "Sit here". He was not calling upon them to do much, but they were to be there. Then He takes with Him the three selected ones and began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed; but He went a stone's throw from them. So that there were three distinct steps, for finally He is alone, although they are regarded as near, and were to be a support to Him as there. He was looking for their sympathy as Man, and even their presence would be a comfort.

J.S. "Taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee" -- did He take them because of their special place in the testimony?

J.T. I think so. They had been on the mount with Him, and in the house of Jairus. They evidently had a special place, like "the first three" of David's mighty men.

A.F.M. Why do you think the Lord prayed the third time, "saying the same thing"?

J.T. On the principle, I think, of "two or three witnesses"; there is full testimony, in these three prayers, to what was in His heart, feeling tested in the presence of God as to the work He had undertaken. On the one hand, He could not but shrink from the forsaking of God, and on the other, He would be absolutely obedient to His Father. It was infinite perfection in man.

R.A.L. Does He allude to His sufferings in saying, "But ye are they who have persevered with me in my temptations", (Luke 22:28).

J.T. Yes; only that was said before He entered Gethsemane.

R.W.S. What does "even unto death" mean?

J.T. It is the expression of His extreme grief, the pressure extending as a complete test; death itself was being tasted anticipatively. All was felt extremely in the most perfect way. The experience affected Him physically, but He speaks of what was inward: "My soul is very sorrowful even unto death". He tasted death literally on the cross. Here, He is touching death in anticipation.

A.P. Does the brazen altar connect with Gethsemane?

J.T. I think so. Gethsemane would disclose the great moral power that He had to go through these things and to endure the judgment of God. The anointing oil was sprinkled upon the altar seven times, which is a very remarkable thing. It is not said of any other item of the tabernacle. Scripture does not say Moses was told to do that; it is, I think, expressive of the spirituality of the mediator, as

seeing instinctively what it meant. The act was prophetic of what is before us.

A.P. Would not the suggestion of suffering be implied in the altar being of brass?

J.T. Yes, brass implies judgment, involving, of course, suffering. In Genesis the details of the altars were left to the altar-builders. When you come to Exodus you get the measurements of the altar as well as the materials for it.

W.B-w. Isaiah 53:4 says, "Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows". That would hardly go as far as Gethsemane, would it?

J.T. It is connected with the Lord's ministry of relief for Israel (Matthew 8:17), which was earlier. In relieving men of their sorrows and diseases He felt and carried them in His own spirit. All this did not cease in Gethsemane, but was absorbed in His own sorrow. The cross was now before Him on which He would bear, not "our infirmities" and "diseases", but our sins, involving the judgment of God. Gethsemane involved a change of position in our Lord's life; hitherto He had been engaged in service according to Luke 4:16 - 22, but now His arrest and the cross were at hand and the disciples, instead of relying on Him, must look after themselves; (Luke 22:35 - 38). Satan was coming in all his power and the cup which the Father would give to the Lord must be drunk. In the garden, He looked for comforters; His sorrow is in evidence rather than the sorrow of His own, although, of course, this would not be overlooked.

A.F.M. He came to Gethsemane with perfect intelligence and understanding of all that lay before Him; and then, when He came to the cross, they offered Him a stupefying mixture to drink, but He refused it.

J.T. When He tasted the vinegar mingled with gall, He would not drink it, showing that He knew

what it meant. In Gethsemane, and on the cross, it was evident that His mind was perfectly clear.

A.P. Scripture speaks of Him as the Leader of our salvation through suffering. He is taking the lead here.

J.T. Yes; He is like the ark. He is, as it were, two thousand cubits before them, so that victory was assured. When the Lord spoke of His death to the disciples, He usually added that on the third day He would be raised up, implying that the victory was sure. It was the same Person who comes out of heaven by and by with the armies which are there following Him. Here He disposes of the disciples.

A.F.M. To the eight disciples He said, "Sit here". To the three He said, "remain here and watch with me". That was beyond what the eight were asked to do. Would that indicate the special confidence our Lord placed in them?

J.T. I think so. It is a question as to whether or not we can enter into this matter, whether we can be disposed of by the Lord in relation to His sufferings; for He would dispose of us according to what we are.

A.P. I was wondering whether there is here an allusion to the disposal of the army in Joshua 8, where Israel took Ai. Joshua, it is said, went that night into the midst of the valley, having disposed of the armies.

J.T. That is right. Jehovah directed him to stretch out the javelin that was in his hand, which he did, and kept it thus until Ai was destroyed. Christ is in principle in the valley here and does not withdraw His hand until the enemy is destroyed. Through death He annulled him who has the might of death.

As regards our part in the sufferings of Christ, I was thinking of Saul; the Lord says, "I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name", (Acts 9:16). The suffering side was an important

matter with the apostle, and so it should be with each one of us.

A.F.M. Is that why he speaks of filling up that which was behind of the tribulations of Christ? It seems as if others were not taking their share.

J.T. I think so. I suppose there was very little acceptance of suffering. Paul enjoins Timothy: "Take thy share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ", (2 Timothy 2:3).

C.A.M. God has a wonderful way of estimating our service and devotedness as indicated in what is said of David's mighty men. Much is made of "the first three", and what is written is written according to the divine estimate.

J.T. "Jehovah will count, when he inscribeth the peoples", (Psalm 87:6).

W.B-w. Do you think these are the first three -- Peter and the two sons of Zebedee?

J.T. Well, I think they have that place; you may be sure that they came up to it in some way; otherwise the Lord would not give it to them anticipatively. We know that Peter suffered martyrdom. He tells us that himself, the Lord having shown him. The Lord told John and James that they should drink of His cup. We know that James suffered martyrdom by Herod. Whether John suffered martyrdom is not said in Scripture, but tradition says he did. Scripture says enough to show that the beloved disciple had his share of sufferings. Our last view of him is as a sufferer in Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus; (Revelation 1:9).

A.B.P. But in these sufferings, they did not pass through what pressed upon the Lord's spirit here.

J.T. No; the spirit is willing, the Lord said to the disciples, but the flesh weak. So we have to wait for their position in the testimony until after the Holy Spirit had come down, for these men were to take their part in suffering. This evidence of weakness

suggests our incompetency without the Spirit, however much we may be subjects of the work of God.

A.Pf. In this case the disciples all fled.

J.T. Yes, which brings out the incompetency of the flesh to enter into what the Lord suffered.

A.B.P. The expression "My Father" here would show the Lord's sense of a relationship which He would not have when forsaken on the cross.

A.F.M. Do you agree with that remark, involving the Lord being forsaken by the Father on the cross?

J.T. Certainly; that is, the sense of His relation with the Father would be broken; for the abandonment would be complete.

A.P.T. The intimacy is sustained in Gethsemane throughout. There is no suggestion of abandonment there.

J.T. No. The relation with His Father is there in full consciousness, and after the abandonment on the cross He says, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit", but as abandoned, He says, "My God", not "My Father".

A.P. Is the Trinity involved in the expression, "my God"? I am seeking help as to the relationship with the Father being broken.

J.T. The Person who was dying was divine, but a divine Person as Man. We must not attempt to enter into the inscrutable. Here we have before us God and Man. Christ having taken a vicarious place on behalf of men on the cross, is forsaken of God. He says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Christ is as man in man's place. It is not a son with a father, but Man asking God, as His God, why He forsook Him. He was dying as Man, but He never ceased to be a divine Person. To represent Him as having active part in the Deity while He was on the cross is confusion of thought and weakens the reality of the forsaking which He was enduring. The consciousness of relationship could not exist during

the forsaking, otherwise the word could not apply and hence there would be no atonement. The abandonment was absolutely and infinitely real.

W.B-w. He died as the Son; not merely as Man.

J.T. Yes; sonship alludes to Him as Man, but implies that He is a divine Person, a divine Person in human condition; for none but a divine Person could effect atonement. We must have our minds controlled, by Scripture -- the way the Spirit of God puts the truth. Scripture speaks of God not sparing His own Son, and of the death of His Son to show what God surrendered in love, also to show how great the Person given is; but this does not weaken the fact that on the cross Christ was meeting God about sin on behalf of men as Man; and that He was thus regarded and dealt with as if the sins He bore were His own. It is impossible to introduce conscious relationship with His Father or active part in the Deity into this position. Nor can we rightly say that Christ died only as regards His humanity, that Person died. He committed His spirit to His Father. His spirit was Himself, but as Man and without His body He went to Paradise, and so opened up the place for man; the saved thief would be with Him there. In all this He was working out the counsels of God and hence retained man's place -- His divine Personality -- being unchanged.

A.P. In Colossians 1:22 it says, "yet now has it reconciled in the body of his flesh through death". Who does the "it" refer to?

J.T. The "it" there is the "fullness": "for in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell", verse 19. The words "of the Godhead" are not in the original, they are put in to make sense in English; but it means that all that God is, was there in Him. The neuter is employed in the New Translation, but it is the Deity that is acting. One of the divine Persons became Man to effect God's

thoughts, but the Deity remains; it is not impaired at all, even though One of the Persons of it has become Man and hence is great enough for the Deity to dwell in Him as Man. You bow to that, owning at the same time that it is beyond you to compass.

A.R.S. The Lord took a body in order that He might die. Doing so enabled Him to die as in flesh and blood condition.

J.T. Quite; and in that body, He has never ceased to be a divine Person; but to talk of Him as being God actively, as forsaken on the cross is confusion. He speaks as Man to God; He says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

J.S. So that in His coming into manhood, we are able to follow Him intelligently in all that He does from the manger to the cross.

J.T. Quite so; we have to apprehend Him as the Spirit of God presents Him to us. We are not great enough to hold Him in our minds as God and Man at the same time. One divine Person becoming Man, does not alter or weaken the Deity. But all this is too vast for us to compass; our wisdom is to think and speak as Scripture presents the truth.

Ques. Does, then, the abandonment mean that the link between Father and Son had ceased?

J.T. The relationship, of course, remained, but the conscious link must have ceased, for He was bearing the judgment; He was made sin; communion had ceased. You cannot bring in communion with God there. He was actually made sin. He was the Victim as in flesh and blood, and that condition was laid down and not revived. The Person who laid it down as under the judgment of God was raised, but in another and wholly new condition. The condition to which our guilt and the state that occasioned it could be attached, was laid down never to be revived. But the Person who died was victoriously raised in a

condition of manhood answering to the eternal purpose of God.

C.A.M. As in the type of the sin offering, the victim's blood was carried into the holiest, and its carcass was burned outside the camp.

J.T. Quite. That means that the judgment was absolute; it is a complete termination of all that we are as affected by sin.

A.F.M. Might we go back to chapter 26 to ask whether the Lord in coming to the disciples the third time, came as victorious over Satan?

J.T. Yes; He was perfectly calm; henceforth you hear nothing more of depression or of sorrow or of sweat as great drops of blood falling to the ground.

Ques. Why did the Lord not awaken the disciples the second time?

J.T. Their inability to watch with Him was clear and He leaves them. Having prayed the third time, He says, "Sleep on now and take your rest". That phase is completed.

J.S. That conflict is over.

J.T. Yes; He is perfectly composed now to face the judgment of God and all that Satan and men, as let loose, could do against Him. He speaks, too, in perfect obedience; He had settled the whole matter with His Father. He wanted them to be with Him in it, but they had failed Him; nevertheless He settled it absolutely.

Ques. "And going forward a little, he fell upon his face" -- There seems to be much meaning in that expression?

J.T. The agony was most intense; falling on His face, would show how He accepted things and felt them before God. The meaning of this action is clear from Old Testament examples, especially those of Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16.

W.B-w. There is the settling of the matter

with His Father in Gethsemane, and then actually being forsaken on the cross.

J.T. He also met Satan in Gethsemane as remarked already; Satan was pressing Him, He prayed, and finally Satan is defeated.

C.A.M. So that the cup was taken from His Father?

J.T. Yes, Satan would put it into His hand, but it was taken from His Father.

A.R. In Matthew, you do not get any mention of the angel strengthening Him, as you do in Luke. Does that emphasise the pressure?

J.T. Luke brings out the sympathy side. There is no forsaking recorded there. The Lord makes the way for us, more, to come into it in martyr character.

J.S. I suppose the spiritual sufferings of the Lord are more difficult for us to apprehend than the physical sufferings of the cross.

J.T. I think so. That is why I thought we might dwell on Gethsemane. Those who go forward in the testimony of the Lord, have to suffer the exposure, for there are the direct frontal attacks of the devil on your spirit when there is no one near you at all. If you are really in the conflict the pressure is there night and day. As in the conflict, the pressure upon you continues, whether through men or direct from the devil.

A.F.M. Would you make the thought of continual pressure upon us a little clearer? Possibly some of us do not know much about the conflict in relation to the testimony.

J.T. Well, connected with the tabernacle there were eleven curtains of goat's hair for a tent over the tabernacle, the extra one was to be doubled in the front of it; suggesting that those who are in the forefront of the conflict have to meet the enemy as he comes, even before others know anything of the attack. Gethsemane implies this. You would like

to have the brethren with you, but they may not be ready.

J.S. So the nearer we are to Christ, the more we should feel things in our spirits.

J.T. The enemy would say, You had better compromise or turn aside altogether; but you have recourse to prayer.

J.S. Hence the great privilege that these three had of being with the Lord in the conflict.

J.T. Well, they would encounter the enemy themselves later. The Lord knew that, and would bring them into the conflict with Himself. No doubt they would revert to this great event.

A.P. Would you distinguish between suffering on account of righteousness, and the sufferings in Gethsemane?

J.T. "Suffering on account of righteousness" would be from man. The sufferings in Gethsemane were mainly from the pressure Satan brought upon the Lord's spirit; He went through it in prayer and came out victorious.

T.H. Should the three disciples, being with Him on the mount, have been helped in view of these sufferings?

J.T. Yes; that is what the Lord intended; as they came down He spoke to them of His sufferings; (Matthew 17:12).

R.D.G. Just what is involved in "watch with me"?

J.T. How great the privilege to be called to watch with Him in that hour! It was outwardly the hour of His enemies and the power of darkness. It is a military position: the enemy is attacking; and we want to be intelligent as to things -- for it is a question of temptation -- "that ye enter not into temptation". The enemy would say, Compromise; Do not go so far ahead; You are too extreme; that he might turn us aside.

J.S. You are giving it a present application now?

J.T. Yes, the temptation was there for them, but we must learn from what is recorded, for we have to meet the enemy too.

A.F.M. The position is like being baptised for the dead; we must fill the ranks, taking our place at the front as in 1 Corinthians 15.

J.T. Yes, it is a military position; and the utmost vigilance is required. Warfare means vigilance. "Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation". The enemy's attacks take the form of temptation.

J.S. How do you view the temptation that the Lord had? Was it a question of whether He should take the cup from Satan or from His Father?

J.T. It was a question as to whether He should take it at all. It was right that He should shrink from it, but He accepted it from God, in unswerving obedience, which is the ground we should always take.

W.G.T. What is your thought about His not getting any answer to His prayer?

J.T. Well, there is no outward answer as, for instance, in John 12:28, but the will of God that He should drink the cup was clear. Our Lord's exercises and prayers here present infinite perfection in Man and should command our profoundest spiritual admiration and reverence. It was perfect manhood.

A.P. Would you say that moving in the will of God keeps us in the boundaries where the sufferings might be encountered? We encounter other sufferings outside the will of God.

J.T. The latter may be sufferings for sin; Peter says Christ suffered once for sins, so that we do not need thus to suffer. But the government of God may require this because of bad conduct. The path of the will of God brings in sufferings from men and Satan.

Before we close, it may be pointed out that there three groups at the cross: First, we have those

that do not understand the Lord's language. He cried out saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" and then we have the interpretation of those memorable words, of which we should take notice. They are the actual words He uttered, quoting from Psalm 22. Then in verse 47 it says: "And some of those who stood there, when they heard it, said, This man calls for Elias. And immediately one of them running and getting a sponge, having filled it with vinegar and fixed it on a reed, gave him to drink. But the rest said, Let be; let us see if Elias comes to save him". One would call attention to that first. This group of persons does not understand the Lord's words on the cross, yet the Spirit of God gives them in the original language in which the Lord spoke, and then the translation of it is given in Greek. Now, of course, we have the latter in English.

J.S. Lest there be any misunderstanding as to what it meant.

J.T. And this all enters into what we were saying; it is the realisation of what the abandonment meant. There were persons there who did not understand this language; they said, "This man calls for Elias". Of course, there is a relation between Eli and Elias; but they made the Lord an idolator. "This man calls for Elias", they say -- a group of persons making Him a mere man calling on another man. Then the passage says, "And Jesus, having again cried with a loud voice, gave up the ghost. And lo, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose, and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many". And then in verse 54 it says, "But the centurion, and they who were with him on guard over Jesus, seeing the earthquake and the things that took place,

feared greatly, saying, Truly this man was Son of God". That is another set of people -- the centurion and those that are with Him; they are not misunderstanding the language; but are affected by the testimony and say, "Truly this man was Son of God".

And then there is the group in verses 55, 56. "There were there many women beholding from afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee ministering to him, among whom was Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee". I thought it well to consider these three sets of persons seen alongside of the cross, as you might say, one set of persons that did not understand the Lord's language, although He spoke plainly; and another set of persons, military, who were actually affected by what happened, and made a confession; and a final set of persons that followed Him from Galilee and were there in sympathy. I believe that is the position today.

J.S. The mother of the sons of Zebedee is mentioned here. Her presence here is remarkable.

A.F.M. This military group own Him as the Son of God; they confess who He was even as on the cross. Over against them there were the passers by who said, "If thou art Son of God, descend from the cross". They, with the chief priests, scribes and elders, ridicule His claim to sonship, whereas these military confess who He is.

J.T. These military Romans are capable of being affected by the testimony rendered. This indicates the position today; there are those that do not understand the language, and they ridicule, and would make the Lord an idolator as calling on another man in heaven to help Him; and there are those that are there officially (they are not mere sightseers), and they are affected by what happened. There are actual persons affected by the testimony; so that we

need not give up at any time; at the darkest hour, you may look for results.

J.S. Would this first group represent the Jewish race in responsibility?

J.T. No doubt; they are the ones who do not understand, although they should, because what the Lord cried out is a quotation from the Psalms. They thought He was calling for Elias, which exhibits the state they were in, for ordinarily they should have understood it.

It is very remarkable that the Romans should come in here. Not only the centurion confesses that Jesus was Son of God, but those also that were with him.

J.S. Would the light reaching that officer's heart, indicate that the light was going out to the Gentiles?.

J.T. Well, no doubt; these are the first Gentiles in Scripture to confess the Son of God. But note what is presented in verses 51 - 53; it is to call attention to the testimony. The passage says, "the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were rent, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints fallen asleep arose, and going out of the tombs after his arising, entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. But the centurion, and they who were with him on guard over Jesus, seeing the earthquake and the things that took place, feared greatly, saying, Truly this man was Son of God". Hence it is the idea of testimony affecting them; so that we should never give up; in the darkest hour, the testimony will yield results. The next group is the women, who represent fellowship; with these I think the scene at the cross properly finishes.

J.S. Does it not show remarkable progress in the testimony in spite of the opposition?

J.T. It is the beginning of a great harvest. Matthew tells us earlier about "the field"; in this passage it is yielding.

C.A.M. It would seem as if God would cause creation, as well as this Roman -- representing the powers that then were -- to pay a tribute to His Son.

A.B.P. Does the fact that the two Marys are mentioned suggest that these women had been brought into fellowship with His sufferings?.

J.T. I think so. The name means bitterness. John gives three Marys at the cross. They are truly in fellowship; they had followed Him from Galilee ministering to Him, and are here because of their love for Him.

J.S. They are in the fellowship of His death.

A.P. Philippians speaks of the "fellowship of his sufferings". These women had part in this.

W.B-w. Do you think these groups would run on to the present day?

J.T. I do. We should belong to the third. They represent the love side. They followed Him from Galilee, ministering to Him. John says they were standing by the cross of Jesus.

A.P.T. Is not the title of Psalm 22 feminine. It has an excellent finish: "They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done it".

J.T. Yes; "A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation". Such a generation will be to His credit. "And shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done it".

J.S. It seems the earthquake specially moved the military.

J.T. Yes; "and the things that took place". The point is -- the testimony there was not fruitless.

F.H.L. Was there intelligence in the second class and love in the third?

J.T. That is right; the former determined by what occurred that "Truly this man was Son of God".

J.E.H. Referring to the Lord's words, "If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me", (Matthew 16:24). Would that be illustrated by the women here? They were publicly identified with Christ as crucified.

J.T. Yes. In chapter 16, where the Lord tells about His sufferings, Peter says, "this shall in no wise be unto thee", (verse 22). He would turn Him aside; he was doing what Satan sought to do in Gethsemane, and so the Lord says, "Get away behind me, Satan". Any one of us might turn another aside from the sufferings involved in the path of the will of God, so the Lord says, "If any one desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me".

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (2)

Luke 22:14,15,39 - 53; Luke 24:26; Acts 1 - 3

J.T. Matthew and Mark treat of the sufferings of Christ in a deeper and fuller way than Luke and John; the former are more foundational, the bearing of them not only involving this dispensation, but the coming one, whereas, it would appear that Luke and John have more in mind the bearing of the sufferings of Christ on the saints in this dispensation, and particularly on the assembly as such. So Luke records the Lord sitting down to partake of the last passover, and saying, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer". In Acts 1, he says that the Lord presented Himself living to the disciples after He suffered. Then Paul, whom Luke would have in mind especially, is said to be shown how much he should suffer for Christ's name; (Acts 9:16). So that Paul from the outset of his service exhibited the idea of suffering; portraying the sufferings of Christ. He speaks about filling up that which is behind of the sufferings of Christ for His body's sake; (Colossians 1:24).

It will be observed that what is before us, lies between the periods designated as before and after His sufferings. He said, "before I suffer", at the supper table; and then, Acts 1 says, "he presented himself living, after he had suffered".

A.N.W. Does that imply that there was no suffering for the Lord up to that point?

J.T. Not in the sense in which He spoke. He suffered earlier, of course, but from other causes.

A.P. In Luke 9:22, the Lord said, "The Son of man must suffer many things". Does that relate to the period earlier than that of which you are speaking?

J.T. It looks on to what would happen at Jerusalem

although, of course, all His sufferings from that time would be included. I think He alluded specially to the cross when He spoke at the supper table. He suffered from the outset, but especially from the time of His anointing. He was attacked by the devil in the wilderness, and by his instrumentalities later on; but He had the cross in His mind when He spoke of His suffering at the supper table; and the Spirit of God, through Luke, had those thoughts in His mind also. When Luke says, "after he suffered", in Acts 1, he also refers to the cross.

A.F.M. You stated that the character of the Lord's sufferings as recorded in Luke and John was not so deep as when treated of in Matthew and Mark. Would you mind saying a little more about that?

J.T. Matthew and Mark alone speak of God forsaking Him, which alludes to the root of the sin question and is foundational for the whole moral universe; but this matter of His suffering as presented in Luke and John bears particularly on the assembly as His body. In Luke, He showed unto them His hands and His feet. That is the witness of His love in His suffering service.

C.A.M. In that way, perhaps, it would be right to think of this gospel as having a specially sympathetic setting -- this expression, "before I suffer", for instance. There are sufferings in Matthew and Mark that are beyond us to enter into. But the expression here in Luke seems to count upon intelligent sympathy.

J.T. So in Luke it is recorded that they slept on account of grief; they were grieved about what was occurring, and Luke alone tells us about the angel ministering to Him. I believe he has in mind that the assembly comes into all this. It is not beyond us. As Paul said, "I fill up that which is behind of the tribulations of Christ in my flesh, for

his body, which is the assembly; of which I became minister", (Colossians l:24,25).

A.F.M. You mean that the assembly becomes qualified, as affectionately pondering Christ's sufferings, to be here in suffering also?

J.T. Yes; the assembly is formed in these sufferings. Paul had it in mind. The Lord said, "I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name", (Acts 9:16); he could therefore enter sympathetically into what was expected, on the Lord's part, from the assembly. What the Lord looks for in us, is the fellowship of His sufferings, of which Paul speaks in Philippians 3:10.

C.A.M. I suppose we should be able to give an intelligent answer to the question the Lord asks in chapter 24:26, "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things?"

J.T. Yes. "It became him", that is, God, "... in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings", (Hebrews 2:10). He is the Leader of our salvation. He has led in that way and we are to be in it. I think Luke's gospel would make that plain. Paul says, "and yet shew I unto you a way of more surpassing excellence", (1 Corinthians 12:31). That is the way of love, but it must be also the way of suffering in this world.

A.F.M. So that leadership would have two characteristics -- that of suffering and of praise, according to Hebrews 2, would you say?

J.T. Yes. The sufferings enhance the praise. It speaks of it immediately in Hebrews 2:12 -- "in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises". The assembly's praise is attuned to Christ's praises through suffering.

W.G.T. Speaking of the fellowship of His sufferings; would the sufferings in Luke go beyond Gethsemane, and include the cross, or do they simply go as far as Gethsemane?

J.T. Luke does not mention Gethsemane at all, which is important to notice. Gethsemane, I believe, involves excessive pressure, and belongs to Matthew and Mark, which are marked by this. Luke says, "And going forth he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives, and the disciples also followed him". It is the mount of Olives; that is, the sufferings are not presented in such intensity; they are, in a way, within our range. The Lord had said to two of them, "Ye shall drink indeed my cup", (Matthew 20:23). They shall indeed do it. I believe Matthew 20 would show that it can be done, but no one but Christ could endure the forsaking of God. There are sufferings that are available to us, and I believe Luke presents these. So that we have the angel's support in the sufferings here.

J.S. Are the sufferings in Luke identified more with the testimony here?

J.T. The severity of them is not stressed in Luke, having in view their bearing on the assembly and the Lord's position when He instituted the Supper. When He assembled with them after He arose, they are also mentioned, for the disciples saw Him before and after He suffered. Peter speaks about being a witness of them -- "who am their fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of the Christ", (1 Peter 5:1). It is an important matter that he could give an account of the sufferings of Christ. Paul was a partaker of them in a fuller way possibly than any.

A.N.W. "If indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him" (Romans 8:17), has the glory in mind.

J.T. Suffering with Him makes us morally suited to be glorified.

F.H.L. You were just referring to the ministering angel. Is there a suggestion that the angel's support came to Him following the statement, "not my will, but thine be done"?

J.T. Just so; you can understand the moral suitability of that. We can look for divine support under those circumstances. As Paul said, "For an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood by me this night", (Acts 27:23).

A.F.M. We have the power of darkness mentioned here: "but this is your hour and the power of darkness". Would that be Satan's power?

J.T. Yes; it was all there.

A.F.M. Is not the position of the disciples on the mount of Olives educational for the assembly? They are not in two companies here, but in one.

J.T. The Lord does not separate them. In Matthew and Mark, He leaves some in a certain part of the garden and takes others further on. I have no doubt that those gospels are foundational and bear on the future dispensation as well as on the present, and so take in all. Luke would give us just one company -- the assembly -- bringing it in as sharing in the sufferings of Christ: for morally, it must be so. To be His body, there must be suffering; and so Paul, representing that idea, says, "I bear in my body the brands of the Lord Jesus", (Galatians 6:17); that is, the marks of His suffering.

C.A.M. That is very remarkable and would seem to leave a special place for the sufferings of Paul. Would you say, in that way, his sufferings were descriptive of the sufferings of the assembly?

J.T. I think he represented what was in the mind of the Lord as to the assembly. He says that he was minister of it; so that what otherwise would come out, by and by, in the day of display, in writing to the Corinthians he is compelled to disclose, because of their state. What an extraordinary amount of suffering he passed through!

He says, "in labours exceedingly abundant, in stripes to excess, in prisons exceedingly abundant, in deaths oft. From the Jews five times have I received

forty stripes, save one. Thrice have I been scourged, once I have been stoned, three times I have suffered shipwreck, a night and day I passed in the deep: in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my own race, in perils from the nations, in perils in the city, in perils in the desert, in perils on the sea, in perils among false brethren; in labour and toil, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things that are without, the crowd of cares pressing on me daily, the burden of all the assemblies", (2 Corinthians 11:23 - 28).

We know from other accounts that he did not list them all here. Much of his sufferings occurred later, for 2 Corinthians was written long before his arrest and imprisonment at Jerusalem.

A.N.W. The term "joint heirs" in Romans 8:17 is rather striking: "And if children, heirs also: heirs of God, and Christ's joint heirs; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him".

J.T. Yes, you feel the suitability of that. If we are to reign, there is some mark of distinction in us in the way of suffering; so that Paul says, "for I bear in my body the brands of the Lord Jesus", (Galatians 6:17). One could see those brands at any time, showing that he was marked off as representative of the assembly.

J.S. The assembly's position in glory will have been reached through suffering.

J.T. It is suitable that we should go that way. It became God in bringing many sons to glory to make their Leader perfect through suffering.

A.R. Is that why the Lord said, "it is I myself. Handle me and see", (chapter 24:39); then He showed them His hands and His feet, as indicating the suffering through which He went.

J.T. Quite. He says here, "But ye are they

who have persevered with me in my temptations", (chapter 22:28). He then appoints to them places of honour, as sharers with Him in His kingdom. Thus Luke gives us the side of suffering into which we can enter. Instead of the idea of pressure, as in Matthew and Mark, it says in verse 39, "And going forth he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives, and the disciples also followed him". He was leading them, not in a new way, but in a proved one, which was "according to his custom"; whereas, in Matthew 26, He went to a place called Gethsemane, and stipulated that some should remain in a certain position, taking others further on. Here, as at the place, He said to them, "Pray that ye enter not into temptation" -- prayer is always our resource. In Matthew and Mark the Lord mentions His own purpose to pray first, and enjoins them later to watch and pray.

C.A.M. The word attuned that you used is forceful, for the mount of Olives as associated with suffering, would show that heavenly music is produced in this way.

J.T. That is what we should see, that it is not beyond us; for the Lord has taken a way which He had gone before. He goes to the mount of Olives, which was according to His custom; it refers to heavenly associations. If you go that way, this is the position you come to. You are not taken into the pressure at once. As is said in the Old Testament, "that God did not lead them the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near", (Exodus 13:17). It was divine consideration for Israel that would not lead them into war at once.

W.F.K. Luke's presentation is that the assembly is to share the sufferings of Christ; he also mentions the angel ministering to the Lord. The angels are ministering on behalf of the saints at the

present time, so that they are helped and encouraged through the various characters of suffering.

J.T. Yes, you may count on them. Paul in the shipwreck, at a most critical time, is ministered to by one of them; and so in Revelation when the great multitude are seen who come out of the great tribulation, it is said that all the angels were there -- showing their sympathetic interest in those who had suffered.

A.P. It says, the Lord being in conflict, "prayed more intently"; with whom was the conflict?

J.T. It was with the devil; he was endeavouring to turn the Lord aside from the will of God.

A.P. Is this the second effort of the devil?

J.T. Yes; after the first attack he had "departed from him for a season" (Luke 4:13), but he came back. "For the ruler of the world comes, and in me he has nothing", (John 14:30). The devil had sought to tempt Him, and here made this onslaught, but he failed, for "in me", said the Lord, "he has nothing".

A.R. It would appear that the angel came to Him before the conflict.

J.T. Yes; the angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him, after He said, "not my will, but thine be done".

W.G.T. An angel appears to Him here; whereas, when He was taken by the soldiers He speaks of the angels not being necessary, though a legion of them could have been sent.

J.T. That is Matthew's presentation of it. He said He could have called upon His Father for more than twelve legions of angels; (chapter 26:53). John has the divine side in view; and when He said to the band in the garden, "I am he", "they went away backward and fell to the ground", (John 18:6). It was a question of Deity there. You do not bring in angelic support in John where the side of His deity

is presented. Luke presents the human side which lets us in.

F.H.L. Would you say what the power was that caused Paul to rise up, after he had been left for dead, at Lystra?

J.T. We know that the Spirit of God indwelt him, and that he rose up and went into the city. It was in the power of life that he did this. We are not told by what power this extraordinary thing was done. It was by the power of God.

A.P. Would you make a distinction in angelic service? Michael, for instance, would be on military lines; Gabriel, on teaching lines.

J.T. Yes. Gabriel's service would be more priestly, but generally angels, as Hebrews 1:14 says, are "ministering spirits, sent out for service on account of those who shall inherit salvation". They do what is needful. Take the case of Elijah, for instance: the angel speaks to him about the extent of the journey before him, that it was "too great"; his service had been to provide food for him, to bake the cake on hot stones, to awake him and invite him to eat. The angels will do anything the servant of God needs, or that the saints of God need when in suffering; they are always active on their behalf.

A.P. Would you say that an angel may have very great power, for Scripture says, "And I saw an angel descending from the heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain in his hand", (Revelation 20:1)? That would not be a priestly angel?

J.T. No; that would be a military one; 185,000 Assyrians were slain by one at one time; their power is seen as unlimited. But it is more in relation to external or physical conditions; besides, the Spirit of God is in the saints, and it seems that it was through Him that Paul rose up after the stoning at Lystra. Though apparently he was dead, he rose up himself and entered into the city.

W.B-w. What is the meaning of the mount of Olives here? Is it the Spirit coming in in the way of power?

J.T. I think that is the suggestion, that the Lord is leading us apart according to Luke, not in the way of the land of the Philistines, lest we should see war at once; we are thus brought into heavenly associations. The Lord had been accustomed at night to go to the mount of Olives, not for conflict, but evidently as a spiritual retreat. During the day He taught in the temple; by night, going out He remained abroad on the mountain called the mount of Olives. He did not go there to be tempted of the devil; He went there, we may say, to be with His Father. If He leads us thus, He prepares us for suffering, so that we can go that way and not turn back.

W.B-w. Prayer is mentioned five times in this section. Does that not help us through suffering?

J.T. Prayer is the great thing. "Is any ... afflicted? let him pray". (James 5:13), "Men ought always to pray, and not faint". (Luke 18:1) Luke makes more of it than any of the evangelists. It is the great resource we have.

I think it is very beautiful for the saints to see that if the Lord is leading us in suffering, He leads us by way of heaven, as it were. The mount of Olives, having been His own retreat, indicates this. You come down from heaven, in principle, to suffer. His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem was the theme of conversation on the mount of Transfiguration. From that mount He came down to suffer.

W.F.K. It says, "he learned obedience from the things which he suffered", (Hebrews 5:8). Do we learn it that way?

J.T. I am sure we learn through suffering.

H.E. In this connection I was thinking of John. "I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the

tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus, was in the island called Patmos", (Revelation 1:9). He became in the Spirit.

J.T. He was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. That is a fine start. He fell at the Lord's feet as dead, but He laid His right hand upon him, saying, "Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the living one". He enters the position in the book of Revelation in that way.

A.P. The words, "with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer"; then the occasion of the Supper coming in, would it affect us in the same way?

J.T. Yes; you may anticipate suffering, but what are you before it? Here the Lord is with His own before His suffering. He is not overpowered, but is occupied with others, not with Himself at all. He says, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer". We must consider Him thus before He suffers and see that just as He is occupied, so He will go through in this spirit; He is thus an example to us.

G.MacP. Does Luke present Him as a model of suffering? and does the position on the mount of Olives here suggest the assembly as having the Spirit and being called into conflict and suffering?

J.T. Yes. He eats the passover with them. The passover entails sufferings; He was the Lamb about to be sacrificed; but we are to see what He is before suffering. Then in Acts we see Him after He suffers. The assembly begins its education in suffering as having Him thus in the midst.

F.H.L. He was not overcome by the suffering when He prayed, "Father, forgive them", (chapter 23:34).

J.T. There was complete superiority to the suffering. It is in that way we learn how to go through things, seeing what He was before and what

He was after the cross. The mount of Olives for us implies power for all this. On the cross He says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". That is the point to be noted. The saints in the testimony are to maintain this spirit of forgiveness in persecution, like Stephen; instead of vindictiveness, they exhibit the same spirit of forgiveness. No one can go through suffering in this way save by the mount of Olives. The altar of copper was anointed seven times, showing that in going through sufferings, you have power to be superior to them.

A.R. Would you say that Stephen stands out as a model in that way? His face shone as the face of an angel.

J.T. He is a beautiful example in suffering. Peter and Paul are also examples of all that we have been saying. Stephen was entirely above the pressure; he is like his Master in saying, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge", (Acts 7:60).

W.G.T. In Matthew, the coming to the mount of Olives, seems to be immediately after the Supper; in Luke, there seems to be more on the line of exhortation before going to the mount of Olives.

J.T. Exactly; "they went out to the mount of Olives", is said in Matthew and Mark, as if this movement was immediately after the Supper, but the sufferings are not connected with Olivet in these gospels. It is in Matthew and Mark that we get Gethsemane presented in all its pressure. Luke is the gospel we need to come to, in order to follow the Lord. He says elsewhere to Peter, "where I go thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me after", (John 13:36).

Rem. The position of kneeling is omitted in Matthew and Mark, but it is stated in Luke; it fits in with Stephen, who also knelt down.

J.T. Yes; you see in him a beautiful example of

the reflection of Christ, who is to be reflected in the saints as of the assembly. Then Paul says, "in deaths oft", (2 Corinthians 11:23). He says to the Galatians, "I bear in my body the brands of the Lord Jesus", (chapter 6:17). There was permanent evidence of his sufferings.

W.B-w. It is touching to see that Stephen was evidently not knocked down by the stones. He knelt down and cried, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit", (Acts 7:59).

J.T. It displays his superiority. You can understand that the angels were supporting him physically, as they had ministered to his Master.

Instruction as to the Lord's sufferings goes back in the history of the disciples. In Mark, He taught them about His sufferings. So at the last passover, they could see Him as in anticipation of His suffering; I believe the thing to learn is how to suffer. We must understand in view of this, how He was before His sufferings, how He went into them, and then how He went through them. Peter was a witness of all this, and hence the testimony was rightly carried on.

J.T.Jr. Peter speaks of Christ as a Model. We are to follow in His steps; (1 Peter 2:21). Would that include what the Lord was before and after the Supper?

J.T. Exactly; if one were at the passover when the Lord's supper was instituted, and heard the Lord say, "before I suffer", and were at all sensitive, such an one would look to Him and learn what His demeanour was at that time, and how He was affected in speaking of it. In our great Example we learn the way to enter into, and how to face, anticipated suffering.

A.P. Does the fact that Judas was there at table indicate that we should be ready to anticipate suffering; the betrayer was there?

J.T. Exactly; that Satan should be so near

(because Satan had entered into him) must have been dreadful to the Lord in His spirit, yet He was perfectly calm in spite of this. He says, "the hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table" (chapter 22:21); it would be that member of Judas's body that suggests doing; he had power to act against the Lord.

R.A.L. John the baptist had said, "Behold the Lamb of God", etc.; (John 1:29). Would not that suggest suffering?

J.T. Yes; the Lamb denotes the Sufferer -- "he was led as a lamb to the slaughter", (Isaiah 53:7). That meaning of it is carried through the Old Testament, and Isaiah 53 emphasises it.

A.P.T. The Lord says, "this passover". What you say about that?

J.T. It was the last and greatest of all the passovers, for He was the Lamb, as already said; and the passover always involved suffering. The lamb was slain and roasted with fire; typically, it indicated extreme suffering; and that is what entered into this last passover.

W.B-w. Would the right understanding of the passover help us in suffering?

J.T. No doubt the whole scene is educative. What was in the Lord's mind when He said, "before I suffer"? He intended to impress the thought of His suffering upon the minds of the disciples. He did not use the word casually -- it was specially for them.

A.P. Is Exodus 12:8 parallel with this? "Roast with fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs shall they eat it".

J.T. Quite; all that entered into the passover would be there, without anything lacking.

W.G.T. "This Passover" alludes to Himself.

W.B-w. In Egypt, on the passover night, a great many lambs must have suffered.

J.T. So that instead of all the firstborn of Israel suffering, the lambs suffered.

C.A.M. The fact that the Lord raises the question in Luke 24, "Ought not the Christ to have suffered?" seems to be a test to our souls as to how much we have understood this.

J.T. I think so. The Old Testament leads you up to it, as marking out the Messiah. The Christ must be the Sufferer, and they should have known this. "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?" shows that the sufferings are immediately linked with the glory.

A.N.W. Luke, referring as he does to the suffering in his writings, would show that he gained by the ministry of it.

A.F.M. Is there a parallel between the "brands of the Lord Jesus" in Paul and the wounds in the Lord's hands and feet, because in this gospel, the side is not mentioned?

J.T. I think so; amongst the sufferings of Paul, he mentions "journeyings often", (2 Corinthians 11:26). I believe Luke presents the journey the Lord took, by the prominence given to His feet. In chapter 7, His feet were anointed by the woman. That is to call attention to the journeyings; in chapter 10 we have the Lord as "a certain Samaritan journeying". These journeyings are amongst the sufferings.

C.A.M. Peter speaks of "His steps", (1 Peter 2:21).

J.T. Just so; that is a word for all who serve the Lord, because we shrink from very long journeys. It is right in a way to measure things, and in measuring them, to know what they involve; yet to take them in spite of their cost. Long journeys must be taken. As the apostle says, "I, from Jerusalem, and in a circuit round to Illyricum, have fully preached the glad tidings of the Christ", (Romans 15:19).

Ques. Does the Lord give the disciples credit in that connection, when He says, "But ye are they

who have persevered with me in my temptations", (chapter 22:28)?

J.T. That is right; they kept on with Him. There were certain women who followed Him from Galilee; that is a long journey, too.

Ques. What has been said makes much of the mount of Olives. Would it convey the thought of oil or be figurative of the power of the Spirit?

J.T. It is more the power of the Spirit linking us with heaven. He went according to His custom to the mount of Olives; it was the known place of His relations with the Father into which we are to be brought. Gethsemane, the place of pressure, is mentioned only in Matthew and Mark, as already said. What is to be seen in order to get this position clear, is that whatever the pressure may be, the Lord takes the lead for us. He says in verse 46, "Why sleep ye? rise up and pray that ye enter not into temptation". He does not say, "Sleep on", as in Matthew and Mark. Then it says, "As he was yet speaking, behold, a crowd, and he that was called Judas"; and then verse 49 says, "they who were around him, seeing what was going to follow, said to him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?" Now this "seeing what was going to follow", is for us; you see the thing before; but what are you going to do? How are you going to act? We have to learn that in such conditions the Lord takes the lead for us.

J.S. That is, in conflict?

J.T. Yes, in open conflict now.

A.R.S. They are awake now; and can see what is going to follow.

J.T. Yes; you may say, in view of certain occurrences, I see we are in for trouble. Well, what are you going to do? The first question raised is, "shall we smite with the sword?" No, that will not do; for it is not according to the dispensation. That is what was done in the Reformation: some of

them smote with the sword and perished by it. Here we read that "a certain one from among them smote the bondman of the high priest and took off his right ear". He could not have done a more serious thing than to take off a man's right ear when it is a time for speaking and hearing. What is to be done now? "Jesus answering said, Suffer thus far; and having touched his ear, he healed him". The Lord is leading in this great conflict.

J.S. Showing by His own acts the spirit of the dispensation.

J.T. Yes; instead of cutting off a man's ear, He heals it when cut off, so that he may hear.

A.R. He corrects His disciples, and then He would correct those who had come to take Him; the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders.

J.T. That is the next thing. We should first notice those who were around Him: their position is that of the saints now; but being around Him, we may discredit Him. Shall we smite with the sword, they inquire; Peter does not wait for the Lord's answer. He smites, and the Lord has to undo what Peter did. Jesus then addressed the chief priests, captains of the temple, and elders. Could Peter and the others have challenged these religious heads? No. What could they say to them? "And Jesus said to the chief priests and captains of the temple and elders, who were come against him, Have ye come out as against a robber with swords and sticks?" They might have easily retorted, One of your own has just used the sword. We see that Peter's rash act compromised the Lord's position. The Lord did not intend to defend Himself with swords and sticks, compare John 18:36. Peter's act had compromised the position. Thus it is for us to follow the Lord's example in conflict.

A.R.S. Why does the Spirit of God keep Peter's

name in the background here? It says, "a certain one from among them".

J.T. I suppose it is to throw the onus on all that were there -- "one from among them". That sword has no place in the mount of Olives; the "sword of the Spirit" is the only necessary weapon in the conflict, coupled with "the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ".

A.P. It says, "shall we smite?"

J.T. Yes; they were all in it.

A.R. The first speaking is to rebuke the disciples; and the second speaking, to rebuke those that came to take Him.

J.T. The Lord is making the position clear; He puts it to them as to why they came out with swords and sticks as against a robber, and points out that He had been day by day in the temple. He is exposing them in showing that they had to wait for some treacherous occasion in order to take Him.

W.G.T. "Let him sell his garment and buy a sword" (verse 36), would be another idea.

J.T. Verses 36 and 37 show their new position: He was to be taken away from them and they were for the moment to depend on themselves. We have to understand that expression, "buy a sword", spiritually. The Lord quotes from Zechariah in Mark 14:27: "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad"; this indicates His position as the Sufferer. The disciples said, "here are two swords". Jesus said, "It is enough". They did not catch His thought, one sword is enough -- it is "the sword of the Spirit".

J.S. Why did He use the term "robber"? Would it imply that they were robbing God?

J.T. Well, it was as if they came out against a lawless man or criminal; whereas, He alludes to His conduct among them; He never robbed anybody. He further says, "I was day by day with you in the

temple". They never saw anything in Him to indicate lawlessness. The intent of His challenge was to expose them.

Ques. Jesus, being the Lord, would not need any human help, would He?

J.T. Peter compromised the position. I believe it is an allusion to the Reformation here, prophetically. They compromised the position by the use of the sword, and the saints suffered for three hundred years on account of it; that is, until light as to the true position of the assembly militant, and the character of its weapons, was recovered.

A.P. Earlier the position was carnal, as the weapons were carnal.

J.T. Yes; the Reformers appealed to the "powers that be" for help. Some took the sword and died by it, but the great need was to make room for the Spirit. It took nearly three hundred years for the saints to recognise the Spirit. In the great favour of God He made room for the Spirit, and now it is for the saints to maintain subjection to this position.

C.A.M. The use of the sword in the Reformation was a serious obstacle to progress. The Lord no doubt came in with healing, and the saints became spiritual. He is able to reach His end in spite of such unfortunate things.

J.T. I think the Quakers were used later to make way for the gospel; they also tried to make room for the Spirit, but in a very defective way. It is somewhat unseemly to criticise the Reformers, but if they had gone the whole way in standing for the truth, room would have been given for the Spirit; and we should have had the recovery of the truth of the assembly long before it appeared a hundred years ago.

A.F.M. What in particular did the Quakers do?

J.T. I believe, under God, they made the way for the open-air preaching without licence

from the Crown. Others followed more or less devotedly, making way for the gospel to be preached "by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven", (1 Peter 1:12). That is the principle governing gospel preaching, and we should never lose sight of that fact.

W.B-w. A good general in the conflict repairs the breach in his army and moves on. The Lord Jesus in like manner met the situation here.

J.T. Yes, and Peter even going so far as denying the Lord, is presently recovered. Protestantism has been marked by the substitution of the natural for the spiritual, but recovery has taken place. The Lord looked at Peter at the right moment, that is, as the cock crew, and Peter, remembering His word, went out and wept bitterly.

Luke presents what is priestly. The Lord healed the high priests' bondman, and later looked at Peter, and Peter repented. These are priestly acts. When the Lord was crucified, He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", (chapter 23:34). His prayer for His murderers manifested the spirit that was to mark the dispensation of the gospel; the spirit in which you are superior to opposition and suffering. The thief was converted, as having heard that prayer.

C.N. Would "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts", (Zechariah 4:6,) enter into this dispensation?

J.T. Quite so; that is the thing to come to; however much we may have to suffer, we are not to be under the power of it, but superior to it; the Spirit thus enables us to maintain the dignity of the position.

A.P. So that the two witnesses in Revelation 11 are in keeping with the mount of Olives, in the presence of possibly the greatest kind of suffering?

J.T. In the passage just quoted from Zechariah the two sons of oil are mentioned. That is what

Revelation 11 alludes to, confirming what was said -- "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit", that is, by the power of the Spirit of God sent from heaven, the gospel is to be preached.

A.F.M. So that the going forth of the gospel is dependent upon vessels whom the Holy Spirit is pleased to use, as they suffer; then the subjects of the gospel form the assembly, which as under Christ, renders praise to God.

J.T. The result of suffering by the saints is that there is service in the assembly Godward. The sufferings of Christ are mentioned in Hebrews 2:10; it says, "it became him ... (God) ... to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings". Sufferings refer to the effect of what sin has done. The Leader must take the way of suffering in order to lead the many sons to glory, but the sons suffer also. So it says, "he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one", (Hebrews 2:11). The assembly is thus the vessel of praise as of suffering.

W.F.K. Why does Paul speak in 1 Corinthians 11:23 of suffering before he introduces the Supper? He says, "in the night in which he was delivered up".

J.T. It enters into what we have remarked -- "the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread"; it connects with what we have been saying about Judas, who delivered Him up. The Lord was occupied with the assembly, in spite of what He suffered through the treachery of Judas. He "took bread, and having given thanks, broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you",(verse 24).

R.D.G. Has the reference to the temple in verse 53 of our chapter some special significance? At Nazareth they lead Him to the brow of the hill to cast Him down. He does not refer to that here, but to the fact that He was day by day in the temple.

J.T. I think the point here is that the Lord is

adjusting everything, and by the adjustment His enemies are exposed. The whole position is glorified. These enemies are not honest, nor courageous; if they were true to their convictions, they would have arrested Him in the temple. Why did they wait for this wretched betrayal of Judas, if He had been guilty of wickedness? Why not arrest Him before this time? The Lord is exposing the whole position, and that is always important.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (3)

John 3:14; John 8:28; John 12:32; John 19:1 - 6,25; John 21:18,19

J.T. In order that we may have a complete outline of the teaching of Christ's sufferings as seen in John's gospel, it is necessary to have these scriptures and similar ones before us. The allusions to the cross are more numerous in John than in any of the synoptic gospels. The obvious teaching of these three scriptures, which speak of our Lord being lifted up, is to call attention to the ignominious character of His sufferings as presented in John. It was the enemy's aim that this great Person coming in on God's behalf should be humbled. So with regard to His followers, they are seen representatively as standing by the cross of Jesus; this is peculiar to John's presentation of this subject. Then, as if to carry the thought to the end of this gospel, the Lord signified to Peter "by what death he should glorify God;" a death which would glorify God and correspond with Christ's death.

J.S. That is, after God was glorified in the cross of Jesus.

A.F.M. When you speak of the Lord being lifted up, as seen in these three scriptures, is it to show the intent by men to humiliate Him?

J.T. Yes; Paul used the words, "a spectacle to the world", (1 Corinthians 4:9). The enemy designed to humble the Lord, hence, as already said, the cross is more frequently alluded to in John's gospel than elsewhere.

W.G.T. In Philippians, He is viewed as having humbled Himself. That would also be in keeping with John.

J.T. That, of course, was His own act; but in this gospel, the enemy's design is in mind.

A.F.M. Do you think that in the Lord saying to the Father, "I have glorified thee on the earth", (John 17:4), there was another reason for His being lifted up besides being humiliated by men?

J.T. Quite; He was morally fit to be lifted up as meeting God's claims; so that the believer should have everlasting life.

A.N.W. Say a word about the soul trouble of Jesus in John, which, in a way, seems to answer to Gethsemane. "Now is my soul troubled". Will you just put that in its setting with regard to the other gospels?

J.T. Well, it is Gethsemane, as you say, anticipatively. But that section of this gospel brings out, not what is forced upon Him through conflict, but the depths of feeling of which He was capable. Chapters 11 and 12 bring out that depth of feeling -- not so much the human side, although, of course, it was in manhood; but depth of feeling in a divine Person in these circumstances. He is answered from heaven, which you do not get in Gethsemane.

A.F.M. In chapter 12 He says, "Father, glorify thy name", (verse 28) and then came this public answer.

J.T. That is right; it is heaven owning Him, I think, as a divine Person -- "I both have glorified and will glorify it again".

C.A.M. Putting chapters 11 and 12 in a section by themselves is very interesting.

J.T. Yes; they comprise a section. First, there is the capability of His feeling as regards the loved family as seen at the grave of Bethany; it says: "And Jesus lifted up his eyes on high and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me; but I knew that thou always hearest me", (chapter 11:41). That is one divine Person speaking to another; and then there is the answer from heaven in chapter 12 of which we spoke. But there is nothing of that in Gethsemane; the answer to Gethsemane is His

resurrection. There is no outward answer, save the angel's attention, until resurrection.

A.F.M. That is very striking because the Lord went through all that period -- the night and the next day until three in the afternoon -- and there was no outward answer. It is very solemn, indeed.

C.A.M. I want to ask you about the "lifting up". Will you say something as to the significance of that expression?

J.T. Like many other things, it is peculiar to John. Firstly, in chapter 3:14, it is, that He must be lifted up, without saying who does it; then, secondly, "When ye shall have lifted up the Son of man"; that puts the onus on the Jews; and thirdly, "if I be lifted up", this calls attention to the Person who is to be lifted up, without saying who does it. I suppose it is because He had glorified God on the earth. He is lifted up between heaven and earth, a spectacle for both; but then, with what great results! God overcame the most ignominious treatment of His beloved Son; that life eternal might be the portion of the believer, that the Son of man should be known to be a divine Person after being lifted up, and that He should be the gathering Centre for all in spite of such an ignominious death. "But this he said signifying by what death he was about to die" (chapter 12:33), in this instance, His personal attractiveness comes before us.

C.A.M. The immensity of the accruing glory seems to be set against the ignominy.

J.T. Quite so; it is a complete triumph over the malice of man and Satan.

J.S. And while He is presented from the divine side, in this gospel, it is as Son of man, on our side, that He is lifted up. What is the significance of that?

J.T. What is in view is the universal bearing of the act. It would not be limited to the Jews, but

as lifted up He would be the Centre for all: "I will draw all to me", (chapter 12:33).

A.P. Does the "must" in John 3 refer to what God sees is necessary?

J.T. Yes; in order to carry out His thoughts; that is, the people had come very near to Canaan, but they proved themselves unfit to go in, and thus the serpent had to be lifted up: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up". The state of man had been exposed and was such that it prevented him from entering into the purpose of God. The "must" was a moral necessity if eternal life is to be available to men.

A.F.M. Life is clearly in another Man; not in man after the flesh, therefore, the Son of man must be lifted up.

C.N. Would you connect the lifting up on the cross with the ignominy that was represented in the serpent?

J.T. That is the allusion: "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up". The state of man comes to light in that way. They spake against God and against Moses. You can hardly conceive of any more terrible state than that, speaking against God and against Moses; that is, against God and against Christ. How could they come into Canaan? If heaven were filled with such men it would cease to be heaven! Hence they cannot go in, and the Son of man must be lifted up to bring that vile state to an end. "God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh", (Romans 8:3).

J.S. The sin of man must be dealt with if men are to be blessed, and it could only be dealt with in Christ's death.

J.T. Yes; in that ignominious way. "The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is

crucified to me, and I to the world", (Galatians 6:14). It is Paul accepting that the crucifixion is his due -- not only death, but crucifixion, the most horrible and ignominious death possible. It expressed man's hatred of God and Christ, but God conveyed in it His judgment of man. It is due to us on account of the terrible condition that was manifest when "the people spoke against God and against Moses", (Numbers 21:5).

J.S. So that the public shame of the cross is ours.

J.T. That is the idea, and faith accepts it, as you see in Paul. He says, "I am crucified with Christ", (Galatians 2:20). It is due to you and to me. The more we get on in the truth, the more we accept the ignominy of it. It was deserved -- not only death, but that kind of death.

A.F.M. This expression in verse 14 would go beyond the general teaching of John's gospel. The serpent Moses made and lifted up was of brass, typifying Christ bearing the judgment of God.

W.G.T. Verse 13 would suggest that only the Lord could be in heaven by personal right, and verse 14 would show that we cannot enter, save through His death.

J.T. If you connect this scripture with what the Lord alludes to in the Old Testament, you will see how morally impossible it was that man as in the flesh could have life eternal; that is, go into Canaan. "The Son of man who is in heaven" would have to remain there alone unless He came down and submitted to all this; so the ignominy of the cross attaches to us, as speaking against God and against Moses.

J.S. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom", (1 Corinthians 15:50).

A.R. So it is not only sin in itself that is dealt with, but also the man that sinned.

J.T. Yes; our old man is crucified with Christ,

(Romans 6:6). If we are to be in the land of Canaan we must be thus dealt with and accept the crucifixion as our due. That is how terribly bad we are, and very few of us admit it. The five kings taken at Makkedah, as representing this solemn side of the truth, were hanged on five trees; (Joshua 10).

Rem. Man in nature must be entirely removed.

J.T. In sinful nature; man's utter incorrigibleness is proved beyond doubt in that after all the grace shown to Israel, they spoke against God and against Christ -- "He that hates me hates also my Father", the Lord says; (John 15:23).

A.F.M. "Our soul loathes this light bread" (Numbers 21:5), would further prove what has been said.

J.T. Quite so; thus He must be lifted up, vicariously. It refers to our state. He must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

F.H.L. Do you link the thought of the curse with this?

J.T. Yes; He became "a curse for us (for it is written, Cursed is every one hanged upon a tree)", (Galatians 3:13). That is the principle. The Canaanitish kings were hanged on trees, as already remarked; it says, "Cursed be Canaan", (Genesis 9:25). The curse was on Canaan, not on Ham; that is, that land should be thus cleared of that kind of man. It applies to man as such. Hence while man in hatred crucified Christ, God in this act expressed His judgment of man; so that in a sense we are crucified. Paul says, "I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, I, but Christ lives in me", (Galatians 2:20).

Ques. He accepted that his own state had been dealt with?

J.T. Yes; so that Christ is, in personal right, the only One fit for Canaan. We come in through Him, His death having met God's judgment of our sins and our state.

A.P.T. "For I did not judge it well to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified", (1 Corinthians 2:2).

J.T. That exactly states the truth in this respect; 1 Corinthians is based pretty much on that statement.

A.B.P. Does this connect with Luke where the thief says, "we receive the just recompense of what we have done; but this man has done nothing amiss", (Luke 23:41)?

J.T. It does in that way. If we keep in mind what John has before him in relation to the indignities heaped on Christ and the ignominious character of His sufferings, we shall see what is meant. Personally, He was immune. He could have got out of the way of any attack if necessary. We are told in chapter 8 that He hid Himself. The Jews could not have taken Him had He wished to avoid them; so that His greatness is apparent. In the garden, when He said to them, "I am he", they went backward and fell to the ground; (chapter 18:6).

Applied ordinarily, it suggests that if one is distinguished of God, the same kind of opposition will appear. How are we to humble him? We must bring him down. That was the tenor of the spirit that was opposed to Christ all through John -- to humiliate Him at all costs. So you see with Pilate, at first he had no animosity towards Christ, but when the time came, he was forced into the strong current of opposition to Him, for he scourged Him and brought Him out to the Jews in derision, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, and said to them, "Behold the man!"

J.S. Pilate was caught in the current of Satan, whose design was to humble the Lord.

J.T. That is the thought; using men to this end, for Pilate scourged Him, and the soldiers in mockery "having plaited a crown of thorns put it on his head, and put a purple robe on him ... and said, Hail,

king of the Jews! and gave him blows on the face". The murderous answer of the chief priests and the officers to Pilate's presentation of Him was, "Crucify, crucify him". All this shows the strong current of ignominious persecution which flowed under the devil's influence to humiliate Christ.

C.A.M. Whatever position Christ was in, He was always unique and great!

A.N.W. The statement in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son", is an offset to the lifting up of the Son of man in verse 14.

Ques. Does not the teaching in the early part of chapter 3 show that if the moral state of man is affected, he would come into the new sphere that God would establish?

J.T. If Nicodemus understood those statements, "It is needful that ye should be born anew", (verse 7) and "thus must the Son of man be lifted up" (verse 14), it would mean that he would recognise that he deserved nothing better than crucifixion himself.

A.F.M. I would like to ask where these thoughts regarding the sufferings of Christ lead us. I am not quite clear as to the further object of the sufferings recorded in John.

J.T. As applied to the saints generally, it is the personal distinction that attaches to those in the ministry. The enemy will do all he can to humiliate them, which, of course, they should accept, and God will bring glory out of it. That is a point in John. The saints are great relatively as Jesus is. The one hundred and fifty-three great fishes in chapter 21:11 allude to this. The Philistines envied Isaac as he became great. Isaac said to them, "ye hate me", (Genesis 26:27).

Ques. Why do you get the manifestation of grace so much more in John's gospel than in the other gospels?

J.T. It is more love than grace in this gospel, "God so loved" is what comes out. The great Person given is the testimony to the love of God. Luke is the great grace gospel.

Ques.. In John 1:17, we have, "grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ". Why do we get that in the gospel of John rather than in Luke?

J.T. "Grace and truth subsists through Jesus Christ". That is essential as making way for the display of love. It shows the greatness and effectiveness of what was in Christ as compared with what came out through Moses. But the point in John's gospel in this respect is the love of God as attested in the gift of the only-begotten Son.

Rem. In John 4 you get the incident of the woman at Sychar's well.

J.T. Of course, grace is in that, but there is more than grace; "If thou knewest the gift of God", (chapter 4:10), which refers to God's love.

W.B-w. The brazen serpent is one aspect typically of the death of Christ. How does the crossing of the Jordan fit in as a type with this?

J.T. It is the end of human life in flesh and blood, and our death and resurrection with Christ there; death as the judgment of God was against us, but it is cut off and out of sight. In this sense death is viewed as an enemy of the people of God. "The last enemy that is annulled is death", (1 Corinthians 15:26). Judgment is typified in the brazen serpent, which is more than death, as we have noted.

W.B-w. Is it our side in the brazen serpent, and then going through into the land by way of Jordan?

J.T. Going through is as on dry land, no water in sight -- cut off by the power of God, as in Christ's resurrection. All human life as in flesh and blood comes to an end at the Jordan; the twelve stones were taken out of the bed of the river where the feet

of the priests that bore the ark stood. That is, we are risen with Christ as having been buried with Him in baptism; we are risen with Him in His life, the life belonging to Canaan. Then there is circumcision; that is, all of the flesh that might attach to you in the new place is dealt with in toto; but Jordan is the end of all human life, as in flesh and blood.

W.B-w. Why had the Jordan to be rolled back if there was no evil there?

J.T. To let the people in. It typifies the power of death standing in the way of the purpose of God, as hindering us from going into the land.

J.S. The Lord dealing with death itself at the Jordan.

J.T. Yes; with the thing itself, the last enemy that is annulled is death. Death is viewed as an enemy there.

J.T.Jr. The brazen serpent rather contemplates our further movements in the wilderness.

J.T. Yes; but the Jordan is the counterpart of it. We are viewed now as having eternal life by faith, and therefore going into the scene where it belongs; but death -- literal death -- is in our way, and it is for us to see that God has dealt with that in the death and resurrection of Christ; so there is nothing to hinder us now from going in.

G.McP. Would the Spirit of God in John 4 be the answer to the sufferings of Christ in chapter 3?

J.T. Just so; the Spirit moves us to come into eternal life -- "springing up into eternal life", (verse 14).

But the subject we are now considering is the sufferings of Christ -- the ignominious character of those sufferings.

F.H.L. Might I ask whether the betrayal by Judas did not have a peculiar place in the sufferings? In Matthew and Mark, it says, he covered Him with kisses; whereas, Luke barely refers to this; and John does not refer to Judas's kiss at all.

J.T. Judas is exposed in John as early as chapter 6. This sort of man must be exposed in the presence of all the light that is shining. He is tolerated, but he is exposed and called a devil -- "and of you one is a devil", (verse 70). Any allusion to Judas after that is what you might expect, but in the synoptic gospels, his state is not exposed till the end. John would show that Judas caused extended humiliation and sorrow to our Lord. It is not simply that he had a demon, he was a devil -- diabolos.

C.A.M. That is instructive because the kind of man that has to be brought to an end is exposed at the beginning of John's gospel.

J.T. Man is not on trial in John's gospel; he is exposed at the very beginning of it, and God comes in through the brazen serpent, so that we might have everlasting life. Therefore a man like Judas cannot escape in John because the light is shining. "He that practises the truth", the Lord said, "comes to the light", (chapter 3:21). Judas did not do this. John says, "he was a thief and had the bag, and carried what was put into it", (chapter 12:6).

J.S. It is helpful to see that the Jew, the religious man, was in opposition to Christ from the outset.

J.T. You get far more opposition spoken of in John; there is nothing mentioned about stoning in the synoptic gospels; whereas, in this gospel, twice at least they took up stones to stone the Lord. It was personal opposition to the great Person who had come in. The three references to His being lifted up and many other references, show that the enemy would humiliate the Person, and in like manner he humiliates the saints. God virtually says, If you will humiliate my people, I will bring glory out of it. In the first instance, as to Christ being uplifted, God brings in everlasting life; in the next uplifting, the great truth of the Lord's Person is in view; and in the third, He is the great Centre of gathering for

everyone. So that it is victory after victory, and the overwhelming of the enemy and his power in his attempt to humiliate God's Son.

C.A.M. The amazing thing is that such a Person should come into such a position at all. Our eyes are focussed on His greatness from the beginning.

J.T. Why should He be in such positions? He could extricate Himself from them at any time. He "hid himself", it is said, and He could do so at any time.

N.McC. How does the assembly come in as a sufferer? Is it worked out individually?

J.T. Yes. It says, Saul persecuted the assembly; he did it himself by shutting up in prisons many of the saints and giving his vote when they were put to death. No doubt attacks were made on the saints as together also. Later the Lord says to Smyrna, "Behold, the devil is about to cast of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give to thee the crown of life", (Revelation 2:10). That is what Satan did, and we need not expect to escape. There is, perhaps, no persecution today, in a corporeal sense, but it is there, nevertheless. Those who "live piously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted", (2 Timothy 3:12). Some doubtless would rather suffer physically than spiritually; but where the spirit of Christ is manifest, persecution will surely appear.

N.McC. Those who do suffer for Christ's sake and for the testimony should regard it as a privilege.

J.T. Quite so; I think the apostle Paul had in his mind that suffering in this sense is necessary to bring the assembly into accord with Christ. As you read the list of his sufferings, which is given in 2 Corinthians 11, you marvel at it; the list was written comparatively early and does not include

more than a small portion of the sufferings he endured.

A.P. Does not the expression, "the Lamb's wife", infer that she suffers similarly to the Lamb?

J.T. It does.

A.F.M. How do you think Paul was enabled to suffer so much? He was just human like ourselves.

J.T. The Lord had constituted him for it; not that he did not feel everything. He was not superhuman, so that it was real human suffering in every case of testing, but in the suffering God helped him. We should be encouraged in seeing that the help he had is available to us. "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee", (Isaiah 43:2).

A.R. The constant persecution of the Lord came from the Jews. Does it not show that they saw something different from any other man in Him?

J.T. That is right. They said, "How knows this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:15). Where does He come from, they ask, and Who is He? They did not like the superiority that was there. "Never man spoke thus, as this man speaks" (John 7:46), said the officers to the Pharisees and chief priests. But the Pharisees said, "Are ye also deceived?" (verse 47). They could not bear His superiority and the testimony that went with it.

H.E. Do you not find the same superiority in the case of the blind man, in John 9?

J.T. Exactly; how visibly he rose, and rose as superior to the Pharisees! They said, "and thou teachest us?" and they cast him out.

J.S. I suppose the apostle Paul saw the need of the governmental side in connection with his suffering. He had caused many to suffer.

J.T. Yes; the Lord says, "I will show to him how much he must suffer for my name", (Acts 9:16). In John's gospel there were certain ones standing by the cross of Jesus. That is John's beautiful way of

calling attention to the true followers of Christ, and he is the only one who accredits them with so doing.

J.S. Are they witnessing His sufferings sympathetically?

J.T. Yes; Paul says of Onesiphorus, "he has often refreshed me, and has not been ashamed of my chain", (2 Timothy 1:16). Those whom John speaks of were not ashamed or afraid to be there, but faced the danger of it.

W.B-w. They were not ashamed of the cross.

J.T. No; it was "the cross of Jesus". There was no jeering of the thieves on the part of the Jews, as far as we know; the jeering would be hurled at Jesus, who, as on the cross was in this ignominious position, and these women were identified with it.

A.N.W. This feminine feature at the cross is encouraging to sisters who are open to have part in suffering as much as the brothers.

J.T. That is what is seen in the verses read; it says, "by the cross of Jesus stood his mother, and the sister of his mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala". You could hardly get a more beautiful and touching picture than this group of sisters standing by the cross of Jesus.

A.F.M. Why is the mother of Jesus mentioned, and then the sister of His mother?

J.T. I think it shows that they had overcome what is natural. Mere natural affection would not stand in a place of such reproach. John 9:18 - 23 and many other scriptures prove this.

C.A.M. John himself was there.

J.T. The Lord sees them there, which is another thing. It says, "Jesus therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son", (chapter 19:26); showing, as in keeping with this gospel, that He was always superior and could direct things. He could

give directions as superior to the sufferings. That is always important. However severe the persecution, we are to be superior, so that divine things are looked after; they cannot be let go. When Paul was in prison, he might have said, I can do nothing now; I am in prison; others must look after things. But he was constantly engaged in ministering to the saints. That is the principle seen in Paul, and depicts the greatness of the believer as corresponding with Christ in persecution.

A.F.M. The Lord left John a fine legacy, would you say, in giving him His mother as his own mother?

J.T. Yes; and we should notice how as superior to His sufferings, He was able to direct these things. That is what you get throughout this account in John. It is His superiority to the ignominious sufferings that were heaped upon Him. When smitten by an officer in the presence of the high priest, the Lord would regulate the man by the principle governing such a position; (John 18:22,23).

We must not be diverted by pressure, on account of our ordinary duty, from doing what is needed to be done in the testimony. We are apt to neglect the Lord's interests for the sake of business. A brother says, I have to work tonight, or, I must attend night-school, or, I am too tired to go out, and so his responsibility as to the things of God is shelved; but you see in the Lord's movements here that in the greatest stress of circumstances the things of the testimony were looked after. So He says to the officer in the presence of the high priest, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John 18:23); they smite the Judge of Israel on the cheek, but is the Judge of Israel going to be silent? No, when judgment had fallen to the ground, He sets out judgment, and lifts it up again in the presence of him who should have maintained it. All through these chapters, the Lord is

in complete control, and the testimony is maintained.

Ques. The women standing at the cross are sympathetic. What would they represent today?

J.T. The saints standing by in relation to the reproach of Christ. The words, "bearing his reproach" (Hebrews 13:13), refers to His cross, which He bore, for He went out bearing His cross.

A.P. Would you say there might be the suggestion of defencelessness with them in the presence of such a large mob?

J.T. Outwardly there was no one to defend them, but though defenceless, they stood there, nevertheless, and nothing happened to them, as far as the record shows, for the Lord was in charge and not man.

A.P. The people of God in their fewness are defenceless, and hence this service of the Lord on their behalf is very precious.

A.R. On the cross, the Lord carried out every detail right to the end. "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now finished ... says, I thirst", (John 19:28). His mind was perfectly clear right on to the end.

J.T. When all was done He said, "It is finished; and having bowed his head, he delivered up his spirit". In John, He does not expire as in Mark and Luke, but delivers up His spirit; that is not properly dying; expiring is that your breath leaves your body, you having no control over it. The Lord is also said to have expired, meaning just that He died. But in John, He delivered up His spirit; He gave it up of Himself, as an act of power.

A.F.M. After all this is finished, John is there to render his testimony with regard to what the Lord could not do or arrange, having died; he renders the very important testimony that the soldier pierced the side of Christ, and blood and water came from it.

J.T. It confirms what we are saying. Things are attended to in John, and nothing is left undone.

You would be sure that if a divine Person came into manhood, He would do every needful thing; when the Lord delivered up His spirit, John was there, and he saw what happened afterwards. He bore witness, and his witness is true; what he said about the blood and the water is true. And then we have the characteristic statement, "that the scripture might be fulfilled".

W.G.T. The Lord put the obligation upon John to care for His mother. He did not ask John if he wanted to do it.

J.T. The Lord gave His mother to John to be his mother; and, of course, that carried certain obligations with it.

A.P.T. Referring to Paul's sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:28, I was thinking about your remarks as to obligations. It says, "Besides those things that are without, the crowd of cares pressing on me daily, the burden of all the assemblies". He had the care of all the assemblies. Does that fit in with what you have in mind? Paul was a day and a night in the deep, but he did not overlook his obligation to the assembly even then.

J.T. Quite so. The assembly must not be overlooked. John shows the greatness of the persons in the testimony; they are great in every sense, and so will not be neglectful; but it is to be feared that with many the things of God are secondary.

C.A.M. We must not be victims of circumstances; that would not be in keeping with the greatness of the persons.

J.S. Is not the greatness of the Person of Christ seen in this last act in giving up His spirit?

J.T. It is a divine Person coming into evidence. He delivers it up. No creature could do that. This act is typified, I think, in Moses and Aaron, who both went up to die; that is, they did not die of weakness.

C.A.M. The Lord was not between the two

thieves, in John 19:18; it is "two others ... and Jesus in the middle". He was the central Object on which every eye was focussed.

H.E. Do you think the overcomer is emphasised in Revelation?

J.T. Yes. The overcomer is never a victim of circumstances. John is an overcomer, but he is thinking about the saints. In Revelation 1:9 we read: "I John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus, was in the island called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus".

A.P. Paul's last words to the elders of Ephesus show how he corresponded with the Lord in caring for the saints, as seen in John: "Wherefore, watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one of you with tears", (Acts 20:31). Suffering went along with it.

J.T. The most remarkable thing is that the caring for the testimony enters into the Lord's position on the cross, as we have been seeing.

C.A.M. With all that was transpiring at that moment, time is permitted for everything needed.

J.T. I think it is a word to us, because there is a great deal of negligence among us. Not that one would accuse anyone, but call attention to the fact. There is a solemn word in Jeremiah 48:10, which says, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of Jehovah negligently".

R.A.L. Which is the greater -- to suffer with Him or to suffer for Him?

J.T. I think suffering with Him is a more elevated thought. Every Christian suffers for the Lord in some sense; but suffering with Him is the greater thing -- the fellowship of His sufferings. You are brought into a bond in suffering with Christ and with the brethren.

A.P.T. Does Nicodemus suggest anything on the line of coming into the suffering?

J.T. Yes; and Joseph of Arimathaea. John alone mentions Nicodemus. He would teach us to include in our thoughts every item of the work of God. John mentions Nicodemus three times, in chapters 3, 7, and 19.

W.F.K. It says, "And I, if I be lifted up ... will draw all to me". These women and the thief on the cross are amongst those drawn.

J.T. Yes, that is the idea; they are held there.

Ques. You said Peter would glorify God in the kind of death he would die; I was wondering why he, being instructed to follow the Lord, immediately fails.

J.T. To show the untrustworthiness of the flesh, even in those most distinguished in the Lord's service. But then, the Lord said that he would glorify God in his death, which he did, so that he finished well. In 1 Peter 5:1 he says, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am their fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of the Christ". He does not say that he is a partaker of them; not that he was not, but I think there is delicacy in his saying he was just a witness. In exhorting the elders, he refers to the sufferings of Christ; this would confirm what has been said as to the Lord looking after things even as on the cross. But Peter says, "who also am partaker of the glory". Partaking of the glory should deeply encourage us to be elders -- to care for the flock.

A.F.M. How, according to John, do we acquire this dignity of which you have spoken?

J.T. The work of God is seen in those who receive Christ. "As many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God", (John 1:12). You are taught at the very outset to take up a right -- involving family dignity -- to be one of the

children of God. That is the ground you take. Underneath all that is your birth, you are born of God, that indicates your parentage; there is no family on earth that has such a lineage as the children of God -- who are born, not of the will of man, but of God. That is at the beginning of John's gospel; it teaches you how to take a place of dignity. Then at the end of the gospel the Lord recognises us as His brethren. "But go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God", (chapter 20:17). Hence the unique dignity that attaches to us.

A.F.M. That is very helpful, and should encourage us to respond to the dignity conferred upon us.

C.A.M. What impresses one in connection with the present ministry is that the Lord would have us apprehend the family setting as seen in the gospel of John.

J.S. The hymn by J.N.D. expresses it well:

"And now, as sons before Thy face, With joyful steps the path we tread!" (Hymn 87)

A.R. I suppose the dignity you are speaking of would work out in the way things are done in our localities; they are not left undone. The Lord finished. Sometimes it is far otherwise with us.

J.T. Just so; the finishing of things is a great point, so that things are done, and done well. The Lord said, "I have completed the work which thou gayest me that I should do it", (John 17:4).

W.B-w. Does Peter glorifying God in his death refer to Jordan?

J.T. It is the kind of death. "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and bring thee where thou dost not desire". The Lord is not referring to what he would do immediately, but to what he would do when he became old. When the brethren get older

they should be wiser, and more like Christ. Normally, experience makes us more resigned to the will of God. I think Peter represents the ministers: It is, "First ... Peter", (Matthew 10:2); he is the leading man in the ministry, and he portrays the failures which brothers that are ministering are liable to.

C.A.M. The assembly will not appear in incompleteness at the end. What is given to the saints today is not haphazard; it has the perfecting of the saints in view.

J.T. That is one of the points of this meeting -- to call attention to the obligation resting upon everyone; so that what we do should be marked by completeness, and no appearance of loose ends.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (4)

Acts 4:1 - 3; Acts 12:1 - 17; Acts 7:54 - 60; Acts 8:1 - 3

J.T. The sufferings of Christ as worked out in the first days of the assembly's history, in relation to the twelve apostles, would, I thought, be instructive for our consideration at this time. What is seen in this respect in the Acts may be profitably connected with the heavenly city in Revelation 21, where the twelve foundations of the wall were adorned with every precious stone. Paul alludes to such sufferings as the sufferings of Christ; he says, "even as the sufferings of the Christ abound towards us", (2 Corinthians 1:5); they may therefore be regarded as characteristic.

We may look at the sufferings of the apostles from the beginning of Acts, extending on to chapter 12. Later we may have opportunity to consider the sufferings begun in Stephen, who introduces the heavenly thought as seen in the expression of his countenance. It drew forth the most bitter opposition; for when he said that he saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, they stopped their ears! Saul, who was present at Stephen's martyrdom, took the lead in the persecution, ravaging the assembly; so that the assembly itself is formally seen as suffering in the most excruciating way. Saul went into the saints' houses one after another and dragged them before tribunals. The attack is now on the assembly.

Another thing that is instructive is the kind of persons that were employed by the devil in these persecutions. Firstly, we have the Sadducees, who were fitted for such opposition as was designed to set aside, if possible, the truth of resurrection; for as a sect they did not believe in the resurrection. Satan thus secures instrumentalities suitable for his purposes.

Then in chapter 12 we have in Herod a second feature of the persecution; he represents the political side of it -- a man having no conscience. Such persecute, not because they hate the saints, but in order to serve their own ends. Then, thirdly, those who attacked Stephen; they are more general in character. They are of the synagogue, and are inclusive of many from distant lands. It is a purely religious opposition and becomes notorious in its able champion -- that very religious man, Saul. He was an out-and-out religious man, and in his zeal he carried on a bitter persecution against the assembly as such -- to exterminate, if possible, that which was dearest to the heart of Christ. If the persecution, under these three heads, is kept in mind we may be helped in the subject before us.

F.I. Do I understand by your reference to the precious stones in the foundations, that they represent the sufferings of Christ in the apostles?

J.T. Yes. That which Revelation 21:9, etc., contemplates is the Pentecostal assembly; the names of the twelve apostles are on the twelve foundations; the twelve are called the apostles of the Lamb -- the suffering One. Paul is not in view here. It appears that there is some link between the precious stones, viewed symbolically, and suffering. Precious stones are, no doubt, the product of heat, pressure, and other such influences.

J.S. I suppose the Acts would show us just what pressure and suffering the apostles were subjected to so as to form the foundation, and thus become spiritually able to support that which rests upon it?

J.T. Yes. In their great sufferings, they were formed and refined, and made in every way capable of withstanding pressure.

C.A.M. It says that their names are on the

foundations. Would "names" here suggest some renown?

J.T. I suppose each of them represents something distinctive. Whilst, of the twelve, Peter and John shine most in the Acts, all, speaking generally, are in view, and each of them had his particular distinction. Peter, James, and John received special names from Christ, but no doubt a similar honour marked all the apostles, each representing some phase of Christ worked out in apostolic service.

A.N.W. Why is it the foundation of the wall?

J.T. I suppose it corresponds with what goes through the time of Christ's rejection; the wall denoting fellowship and protection; so that what was of God was protected against all evil power.

A.F.M. Do you think in the chapters we have read, the apostles proved the qualifications for suffering which they had acquired as with the Lord?

J.T. Yes, they had seen how He suffered. Peter said he was a witness of the sufferings of Christ. We learn things by witnessing them. The Lord said they had continued with Him in His temptations He was Leader in sufferings as in all else.

J.S. Would you say the defensive features of the testimony are seen in the wall?

J.T. Yes, the power to stand collectively against the greatest opposition. The early converts continued in the apostles' fellowship. There was protection for what was of God there.

A.N.W. Will you explain further what you mean by regarding the assembly in Revelation as the Pentecostal assembly?

J.T. I use that expression to distinguish it from Paul's assembly -- the assembly that he speaks of, the foundation of which he laid amongst the Gentiles. The foundations of the Pentecostal assembly were laid in Jerusalem; Satan hated it and attacked it, as seen in Acts 8. The linking of the twelve apostles

of the Lamb with the city is significant because the Lamb is the sufferer.

A.F.M. What part would you say Paul would have that is foundational in the city in Revelation 21? In Ephesians 2:20 we read: "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone".

J.T. No doubt he is included there, for the assembly in Ephesians contemplates his work indeed, he gives character to it. But Revelation 21 presents the assembly founded by the twelve apostles and the early part of the Acts shows how they suffered. Paul's work would be seen in what is inward, what is for God and for Christ. Revelation does not present this aspect of the assembly. Here it comes down from God out of heaven. Paul had placed it there, as it were.

F.H.L. Does Stephen fit in anywhere with what you are saying?

J.T. I think not; he is more one of the people, one of the saints developing -- purchasing to himself a good degree, and is persecuted because of what he is personally. Those of the synagogue could not resist the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke as they contended with him. Then his face was as the face of an angel to all who sat in the council. But when he speaks about Christ in heaven, they stop their ears. He represents, therefore, what is available to any of us. No one can hope to be apostolic today, but Stephen is a beautiful example for any saint -- what one may acquire for oneself by faithfulness -- a good degree; and that leads on to the persecution of the assembly, as we see in chapter 8. Nothing is said about the official side; that is dealt with in these other scriptures. It is the generality of the saints as the assembly in Jerusalem that Satan is aiming at here. I think it is helpful to differentiate in that way; firstly, suffering being endured by the

apostles of the Lamb and then by those developed by the Spirit. These may appear at any time in the history of the assembly, as devotedness, intelligence, and faithfulness in any one will bring in suffering. "And all indeed who desire to live piously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted", (2 Timothy 3:12).

F.H.L. In Philippians, does not the apostle refer to suffering as a gift?

J.T. Yes; "to you has been given, as regards Christ, ... the suffering for him", (Philippians 1:29).

A.P. Would not Paul's side be seen in the earlier part of chapter 21, as connected with what is eternal?

J.T. You cannot leave him out; the fact that he is not mentioned does not mean that he is not there. It is only a question of seeing the link with what is primarily introduced by the twelve apostles; that is, it is a perfect thing in itself. It might be said, Why should there be a Paul, or a Barnabas? Did the others fail? The Lord would not have that said, so He shows that the testimony of the twelve is perfect. It is what was presented in testimony at Jerusalem. Like its Head it suffered and like Him it goes to heaven and comes out all-glorious. It is the Lamb's wife.

C.A.M. Perhaps the idea of the foundation helps in that there was a vast deal of initial work and suffering in connection with the city, was there not?

J.T. Yes; there was also the interior work of which we read nothing in Revelation as to who did it. From the epistles we can understand it was Paul's work; then the twelve gates respectively were "of one pearl"; these would be Paul's work also.

F.I. With regard to Stephen, does the extent of his sufferings correspond with the state that was in him as being filled with the Spirit?

J.T. Quite so; it is a question of paying tribute to what a man attains to as full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is available to any one of us.

F.I. That would depend on ourselves. Some of us may think we do not have much suffering, is that because we do not come under the hand of the Spirit?

J.T. Just so; I think it is a tribute to the Spirit's making way for later things. The Lord said to the twelve that they should bear witness of Him as having been with Him from the beginning; also that the Holy Spirit would come forth from the Father and that He would bear testimony of Him too. That witness to Him would be in such persons as Stephen, Philip, and Paul. It is the Spirit's side of the service; but the Lord would show in relation to the early assembly that the twelve were perfect in their work as seen in the foundation of the city.

J.S. What have you in mind when you say the Lord would protect His early workmen, such as are seen in the twelve?

J.T. We might assume that such men as Stephen, Philip, and Paul had to be brought in because the others were remiss. It may appear so in a certain way, but I do not think the Lord would allow us to so speak of them. We have to go by their work, as seen in the twelve foundations, each has a precious stone and each stone has an apostle's name; the twelve are there.

J.S. Would the formation of precious stones be the result of intense heat?

J.T. It would seem so from what is known from their formation. I apprehend they are the product of some internal pressure, involving heat and other powerful influences. Of course, there are pearls. That is another matter; these form the gates. Precious stones, because of their formation and quality, afford God a language which, as part of His vocabulary, is intended for our instruction.

A.R. In the gates, the twelve pearls were alike; but in the twelve foundations, each stone is different.

J.T. I think it supports what we were saying, that

each of the apostles had his own suffering; as giving character to his own experience, with a view to his divinely designed place. They may have suffered together, but each had his own peculiar experience.

C.A.M. There is a remarkable thing about these stones, that while they are formed in the earth, their distinctive glories are only known after they are brought into the light.

J.T. Just so; that helps too; the light brings out the beauties. The fact that they are in the breastplate and in the heavenly city confirms what we are saying.

A.P.T. Would Matthias be included in the foundations?

J.T. Yes; there were twelve apostles, and he was one of them.

R.W.S. Is it to their credit that they remained in Jerusalem and were not scattered, in connection with Stephen's persecution?

J.T. I should think so; they may have been governed by metropolitan motives, which hindered later; but at any rate they stood their ground; the attack was at Jerusalem. Had they left definitely, the special testimony at Jerusalem might have ended, and this would be according to the righteous judgment of God because of the death of Stephen and the terrible persecution that ensued; but the great long-suffering of God is seen in the continuance of the testimony there.

J.S. Does chapter 12 show us that Satan would make bold to attack the twelve through Herod?

J.T. Well, the apostles are now identified with the assembly. "At that time Herod the king laid his hands on some of those of the assembly to do them hurt". They are identified with the assembly and he would do them hurt; it says that he "slew James, the brother of John, with the sword". Herod represents the political element,

which has played such a part in the persecution of the assembly. Here he pleased the Jews; just as a political leader will do to gain favour with the people. This policy is largely seen in persecution recorded in the history of the assembly. I believe this section points not only to what was imminent then, but is prophetic as showing how the principle of suffering has come down, involving the limitation of the ministry.

James represents the ministry; but Peter does especially, and I think what we see in his release from prison is the release of the ministry in and subsequent to the Reformation. Peter, I think, has a great place prophetically in the history of the assembly, representing not what is official, but being the leading apostle -- "first ... Peter" -- what would represent the ministry. Satan would destroy or control it.

A.P. Do you think Peter's imprisonment was governmental on account of the state of the people?

J.T. The assembly was waning. That has to be noticed -- they prayed for Peter's release, but then when it came they were not prepared for it. It was a humbling thing; but it affords a prophetic view of the history of the ministry in the assembly.

A.F.M. Going back to the end of chapter 4, I would like to ask what is the character of suffering which the apostles endured in that chapter?

J.T. The aim of the Sadducees there was not so much against the apostles as such, but because of their teaching the people. The Sadducees hated the idea of the resurrection, and of course, the resurrection is fundamental; without Christ risen we have no foundation. This is what Peter and the apostles taught and preached, and the Sadducees would get rid of that at all costs. This first attack is to get rid of the resurrection and the consequent suffering for

the witnesses of it. We shall come into suffering if we hold to another Man; Christ, in resurrection.

W.G.T. Do the Sadducees represent modernistic teaching?

J.T. Yes, they were materialists -- they did not believe in the resurrection, angel, or spirit. We have to meet that today.

J.S. They leave out the power of God entirely.

A.P. Would you say that the intensity of suffering is measured by the importance of the testimony; and the resurrection was a very important part of the truth to be maintained?

J.T. We should have no foundation or wall without it. What is before us now is the testimony of the twelve and the suffering it entailed. Their testimony was foundational. That is quite obvious, and what they particularly stressed was the resurrection, that is the triumph of God; the evidence of His power.

A.P. A great lie of Satan had preceded this testimony, in the end of Matthew.

J.T. Quite so; which shows how important a matter this is. The apostle Peter stated in Acts 5 that they were witnesses of Christ's resurrection and exaltation.

R.W.S. The Sadducees did not believe in what they could not see. Because they could not see the resurrection with the naked eye, or an angel, or a spirit, they would not believe.

J.T. Whereas Christians are blessed as those that have not seen, yet have believed. That is how we reach the foundation, and it is a most important thing with us today to have our feet on solid ground and be there as suffering for it.

A.R.S. Why is Satan allowed to break the ranks by killing James?

J.T. We must assume that the time was fixed, and his testimony was finished. I think we can learn

from the Lord's remarks to Peter that the apostles had each a fixed period to remain here. Later the Lord says, "Behold, the devil is about to cast of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days", (Revelation 2:10). No doubt James's testimony was over. The Lord would not have allowed him to be killed otherwise; but He needed Peter further. The Lord determines everything; He lets loose the enemy as He sees it necessary.

A.N.W. Herod was just a tool in Satan's hand for the moment.

W.B-w. Then as to John, do we get a prophetic view also -- in him we have the suffering in patience?

J.T. Yes. The Lord had said, "but if I will that he abide until I come", (John 21:23). He is our "brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus", (Revelation 1:9).

A.F.M. Both James and John drank of the Lord's cup.

J.T. That confirms what we are saying. The Lord had promised James and John that they should drink His cup -- "Ye shall drink indeed my cup", (Matthew 20:23). So James drinks it here.

W.G.T. It would seem that Herod had it in mind to give a spectacular death to Peter.

J.T. He intended to buy the Jews' favour with him. That is characteristic of a politician. He does things to gain favour with the people. Note, he purposed to bring Peter out to the people after the passover; that is, he would respect their religious scruples.

R.D.G. Did not Pilate do the same thing in the case of the Lord Jesus, and Felix in the case of Paul? Pilate released Barabbas, and Felix kept Paul bound for Festus.

J.T. All to please the Jews. The Spirit thus exposes the politician.

A.F.M. Do not Pilate and Herod reap a very

sad harvest? In the case of Herod we see that when God is pleased to bring in judgment, He does it in a most humiliating way.

J.S. It is helpful to see the character of any opposition and the suffering accompanying it.

J.T. I thought we might get help from it because you can gauge what you are suffering for. Herod was an Edomite; he was a false brother, a politician. We have not far to go to find that type of opposition.

J.S. He was a religious man, using the State to curb the testimony. The Jew would really be seen as a tool in the hand of political power.

J.T. That is what has marked the history of the assembly; its history included what is recorded here of Peter. Any thoughtful Christian will inquire, Why have we so much detail about Peter? Herod "slew James, the brother of John, with the sword". That is a brief statement of the death of a great apostle. The Spirit of God has not seen fit to give us any details. We have no details of the death of the other apostles; and, of course, Peter is not slain here, but we have great detail as to this imprisonment. Why should that be? Why should we have details right down to the name of the maid that listened at the door as he knocked, and many other apparently minor things? It is a question of the ministry. Peter is viewed as one of the assembly -- because that is the setting. He is not simply an apostle, but one of the assembly. He is included in the assembly, and therefore it alludes to what is history now; how the ministry, although bound for a while, is released, and in the releasing, the minister is not fully conscious. He does not know what is happening.

J.S. Why do you say ministry and not minister?

J.T. Because Peter represents that. He is the leading man in the ministry.

C.A.M. I think that is very interesting. When we

read the history of the assembly, we might be almost overcome with the amount of suffering endured, but we see here that God must have gained much in it all.

A.N.W. I think what you say throws light on the words, "unceasing prayer was made by the assembly to God concerning him".

A.F.M. The brethren in the house of Mary were not up to the answer that the Lord had given.

J.T. Showing that the decline of the assembly is in mind. After apostolic times it was most rapid, but the ministry is never lost sight of by God; it was in His mind, although seen here prophetically, as confined and sleeping -- not that one would say anything to reflect on Peter personally, but I think that one reason for his suffering here is for our instruction in the history of the assembly. You might say that Peter, sleeping in the prison, shows he was superior to the suffering, and it does, but I think it serves also to bring out the state of the ministry. He was unconscious; whereas Paul and Silas were wide awake at midnight in the prison at Philippi, singing praises to God!

A.F.M. The obstacles to Peter's release were miraculously removed; what would you say about that?

J.T. I think that it illustrates the history of the assembly; the intervention is angelic. You will notice what is said: "having delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep, purposing after the passover to bring him out to the people. Peter therefore was kept in the prison ... And lo, an angel of the Lord came there, and a light shone in the prison". Where the ministry was bound up, whether by Romanism, Lutheranism or Anglicanism, light shone in.

J.S. Chains, guards, and soldiers!

J.T. How shall the prisoner be extricated? "Lo, an angel of the Lord came there, and a light shone

in the prison". What I think is very touching is that the angel smote Peter on the side. Who can fail to see that there is some allusion in this action to the suffering love of Christ, whose side was smitten for us? In connection with this the light shines; it is the testimony of suffering love. It has taken centuries to work all this out, but we are getting the benefit of it now! Note the period in which all this occurred -- "the days of unleavened bread"; the time when a faithless and hence divinely abandoned religion was celebrating its feasts.

J.S. Acts 16 would be more normal than this?

J.T. There it is characteristic suffering by active ministers of Christ. Peter was not suffering excessively; of course he was suffering, as bound with two chains, but he was able to go to sleep. Those at Philippi were awake, and able to sing praises to God. They went through the most excruciating sufferings, but they turned the prison into a temple of praise.

A.F.M. The word to Peter was, "Rise up quickly". Would that suggest the urgency of the moment?

J.T. The mind of God was that his release should be immediate. The prison was gloomy, and Peter's presence did not cause any light, for he was asleep.

C.A.M. The deliverance in Acts 16 was another evidence of the power of God -- He intervened by an earthquake.

J.T. Quite; but the aim there was not only to deliver the servants, but to get the jailor through the gospel. It represents the normal and literal side of the sufferings of Christ's servants; very extreme, of course, in this case. But the jailor was converted. The facts of this imprisonment and release are strikingly different. There is no light in the prison; not indeed, that Peter would not have prayed before he went to sleep, but all that is left out. It says he

was sleeping between two soldiers and the light shines in the prison from, or accompanying, the angel. Active ministry, although suffering, has different features, as in Paul's imprisonment throughout.

A.P. I do not understand what is conveyed by light coming in through the angel.

J.T. It is God coming in sovereignly, but in the sense of distance; not that they had no ministry in the middle ages, but the ministry was shackled. It is God coming in Himself, and all that happened as far as Peter was concerned, was a dream. That is not ministry. We are not to minister as dreaming, we are to be awake, and in our sound mind; all this therefore, I think, applies to what is prophetic. It is not to discredit Peter, but he has to suffer in this sense so that the saints might get instruction as to this feature of assembly history.

H.E. You find here that light shone in; whereas, with the jailor, he called for lights.

J.T. His use of the plural shows how strongly the thought of light had entered his mind. Nobody calls for lights in this prison. It comes of itself, as the angel comes in from God.

W.F.K. What about the prayers of the assembly being answered?

J.T. Well, unceasing prayer was made; God heard their prayers and answered them, as He answered Zacharias's, but they did not expect the answer. That is a sorrowful thing; but it introduces Rhoda, who is an overcomer. She has "an ear to hear".

F.I. I was wondering whether prophetic ministry is the result. It had been under the influence of what was political.

J.T. That is right. Immediately after apostolic days, the ruling power began to take charge of things; for instance, Constantine presided in church

councils. Well, what could you expect of the ministers?

F.I. And the release side came in under the providential dealings of God, as we see here.

J.T. All would be lost if God did not come in sovereignly, the angel and the light shining in.

A.R.S. Was it the prayers of the saints that moved heaven to send the angel down?

J.T. No doubt; that is the way it is mentioned, but, of course, God would act of Himself too.

A.R.S. Then in the Reformation, if they had used prayer instead of calling in secular power, there would have been a different result.

J.T. Yes. I think the fact that the assembly prayed shows we are to view it from a prophetic side. Throughout the history of the assembly there were prayers somewhere. I believe there were devoted people right through that prayed to God.

A.F.M. In this instance, if the saints expected an answer to their prayers, they brought it down to the idea of Peter's angel.

J.T. Yes; they did not really believe God would answer their prayers, for his angel is not Peter, but his representative.

A.B.P. I wondered if the way the light of justification by faith came to Luther, would be an indication of the providential dealings of God?

J.T. He got light directly from God. When Luther visited Rome, as he was superstitiously ascending "Pilate's staircase", he heard a voice, crying, "The just shall live by faith". This dispelled his superstition. God speaks to us today. We cannot tell how He may have worked in men of ability throughout the middle ages. Doubtless there were devoted persons who prayed but were weak in their prayers; but God heard them and

answered them far beyond their expectation. The Reformation must have been far beyond the expectation of godly people in those days.

J.S. There is something concrete in Mary's house.

J.T. Yes; they are actually engaged in prayer, in the house of one who, no doubt, was a godly woman, the mother of Mark. It is well to keep the prophetic side in mind, so that we do not discredit these people; they have to suffer in a way so that we might have this prophetic teaching.

F.H.L. The Lord said to Peter in the garden, "dost thou sleep?" just before He was to be delivered up.

J.T. And on the mount of Transfiguration he slept, too. I do not think it is mentioned to discredit him here exactly, but for prophetic reasons; really, in one sense, it was an indication of his superiority to the suffering.

A.P. Would you say there are three periods here: the time he slept, the time he walked before he came to himself, and then the period after he became conscious and reached the house of Mary?

J.T. Yes. In sleep the ministers are not conscious of their bondage. Then when God intervenes and they actually move, they are not in a normal state; Peter did not know that what was happening was real. I believe that under these circumstances the ministers did not arrive for a long time at the sound mind of which the apostle speaks, "For God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and of love, and of wise discretion", (2 Timothy 1:7). That implies spiritual intelligence and proper balance. Well, this abnormal state continued until Peter got outside, and he got to the "one street". The angel left him, and Peter is certain that the Lord has taken him out of the hand of Herod. I think there is something in that "one street": there is some

thought of unity in that; it links up with the heavenly city.

A.F.M. He now becomes really conscious.

J.T. That is what you see. "And going forth he followed him and did not know that what was happening by means of the angel was real, but supposed he saw a vision. And having passed through a first and second guard, they came to the iron gate". How would he get through? "Which opened to them of itself"; that would be some unseen power acting. It opened of itself, "which leads into the city" -- I believe we ought to notice that, too. Why should that be mentioned? A gate leading into a city is a very common thing. It is mentioned for a prophetic purpose, that the ministry is being led into the city. The city has its own meaning in the book of Acts. Then we read, "and going forth they went down one street, and immediately the angel left him, And Peter, being come to himself, said ..". That is a fine position reached. The angel has left; the minister is now in one street of the city. He is standing on his own feet now, and he said, "Now I know certainly that the Lord has sent forth his angel and has taken me out of the hand of Herod and all the expectation of the people of the Jews. And having become clearly conscious in himself, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered together and praying". He had come to the prayer meeting. This seems to me to be a clear prophetic outline of the history of the assembly with regard to those who should minister the truth.

C.A.M. What have you in mind about this city?

J.T. The city is the place of light, order, and rule. In the recognition of it ministry is carried on. The release of ministry synchronises with the recognition of Christ as Head of the assembly; He has given the

gifts which are for the work of the ministry, for the edification of His body; (Ephesians 4:10 - 12).

J.E.H. Would you link this on with the street called Straight?

J.T. Yes.

A.R. You would not have any administration in the city if you did not have Peter -- what he represents as having the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

A.P. There is one street in the heavenly city, too. Is that your thought?

J.T. Yes; I think it means mutuality and unity. It is unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. One street in the heavenly city would mean the mutuality of dignity; that there are no streets for the rich and poor respectively.

A.P. We are all able to walk together.

W.G.T. The clerical idea would destroy the thought of unity.

J.T. It would. All this is significant as showing the setting of ministry; and that the minister as released knows what to do. The next thing is, Who will listen to it, who will know the voice of the true minister? Rhoda knew Peter's voice.

A.F.M. Do you think in this chapter, the ministry of Peter merges with Paul's? You spoke of the one street, connecting it with the city and the Head in heaven. That would illustrate what occurred a hundred years ago.

J.T. I think so; the one street sets aside the distinction so long maintained between the clergy and laity, and brings all on to the same level of mutual dignity. Mutuality can be carried down to the degraded level of socialism, but mutual dignity is implied in the one street of gold in the heavenly city.

F.I. He says that he is taken out of the expectation of the Jews. I was thinking with regard to what you were saying as to the clerical system: the ministry has been delivered from that. Peter can

see the expectations of the Jews as being frustrated, and himself delivered from Herod.

J.T. Peter understands the whole position now, and he knows where to go. As remarked, the next thing is, Who will discern his voice? Will one in such circumstances be recognised as a minister of Christ? The apostle had to labour hard to maintain his ground at Corinth, yet he said he was a minister of Christ.

A.Pf. Would that not be seen in Peter's continued knocking?

J.T. Yes, the true servant continues knocking. The Lord continues knocking, "Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking", (Revelation 3:20). There is a maid here who "recognised the voice of Peter", and maintained it, although they said she was mad. They ridicule her and she has to suffer. A tender-feeling person like this would be very conscious of such ridicule.

J.S. Would this show the Lord beginning another generation?

J.T. I suppose so. We see how she supersedes all that were there; she is the leading person, as being certain that Peter was at the door when the others were unbelieving.

A.F.M. Would that apply to the Spirit's voice to each of the assemblies? -- "He that has an ear, let him hear". The one who has an ear is an overcomer.

J.T. Yes; that is what I thought. She has an ear to hear; and is an overcomer. She represents those who hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies.

R.A.L. She did not open the door.

J.T. You must not open the door until you have listened. John says, "If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house", (2 John 10).

A.P.T. Rhoda considered for all in the house.

She went and told them before she even looked at Peter.

J.T. She did not keep the thing to herself. What is emphasised is that she recognised the voice of Peter and that it caused her joy.

A.R.S. Why is the opening of the door left to the saints that were in the house? You would have thought that the overcomer would open the door.

J.T. You must bring in those who are in responsibility; she did not own the house. It says, "And when he had knocked at the door of the entry, a maid came to listen, by name Rhoda". I do not suppose she would open the door under ordinary circumstances. You want to know to whom you are opening. "And having recognised the voice of Peter, through joy did not open the entry, but running in, reported that Peter was standing before the entry. And they said to her, Thou art mad. But she maintained that it was so. And they said, It is his angel. But Peter continued knocking; and having opened, they saw him and were astonished". They did not open because of her report only, but also because of the continued knocking.

A.R.S. Peter's continued knocking had an effect upon them.

J.S. Are you still viewing this prophetically as the Lord dealing with the hearts of His people through the ministry?

J.T. Yes. "Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking".

C.A.M. It would surely be safe to say that the ministry given in these last days is vastly beyond the thoughts of those who prayed throughout the earlier history of the assembly.

J.T. Quite. Besides oral ministry, there is great gain in circulating what God gives, and speaking of it at every opportunity. The knocking by the Lord is mediate and is largely through such service.

J.T.Jr. We get signs in this book -- something that marks the person. Peter makes a sign to them and tells them to be silent. Is that to bring about a like state of soul?

J.T. A sign always signifies something; here subjection is required. It was a downward motion of the hand. Paul also made a similar sign with his hand; (Acts 13:16).

A.N.W. What is the position of James and the brethren?

J.T. I think James is the responsible one; his place in Jerusalem is very marked, as representing responsibility. He was capable of having power by himself, he stresses what one man can do. He tells us what Elijah did, and therefore it is a question of distinct men of that type who had such individuality about them. He acquires power on moral lines. I believe he wrote the striking epistle of James, and gave the decision at Jerusalem in Acts 15. You can never omit the idea of special responsibility amongst the saints. While the mutual thought is always present, there should be the responsible side accompanied by moral weight.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (5)

Acts 7:54 - 60; Acts 8:1 - 3; Acts 16:19 - 33; Revelation 21:21

J.T. At our last reading we dwelt on the sufferings of Christ as seen in "the twelve apostles of the Lamb", and recorded in the early chapters of Acts. On this occasion we might look at the same sufferings endured by Stephen and the assembly itself; also the sufferings sustained by Paul, which link our thoughts with the gates of pearl of the holy city.

The precious stones were alluded to as probably being the outcome of great pressure in the earth. They are seen in the foundations of the wall of the city as answering to the twelve apostles. 2 Corinthians 1:5 was alluded to as showing that the sufferings of Christ were rightly connected with the apostle and with the assembly; he says, "even as the sufferings of the Christ abound towards us"; so that we are entitled to speak of the sufferings of the saints as the sufferings of Christ. Reference to the twelve precious stones specified by name in Revelation 21, as the twelve foundations of the wall of the city (each stone bearing the name of an apostle) is very suggestive of the pressure of suffering passed through, having in view the formation that God intends shall appear in the heavenly city; that is, what is foundational and stable. Then there is the pearl, which is well known as the product of suffering. I believe that we may rightly regard Philippi as answering to the pearl. It stands peculiarly in relation to suffering experienced by Paul, Silas, and others there, and was the gateway to Europe from the East, viewed in relation to the testimony. The sufferings endured at Philippi peculiarly correspond with the heavenly city, and the apostle stresses sufferings and unity in his letter to the Philippians.

A.N.W. Is it of value to point out that the pearl is identified with the sea, and these precious stones with the earth?

J.T. That is quite suggestive; it shows God's great resources from which He draws, as occasion demands, when addressing us.

A.F.M. The epistle to the Philippians confirms what you were saying about the formation of the pearl, and is very suggestive. The work at Philippi was rich in fruits, so that the apostle could write to them as he did.

J.T. Well, I thought the wording of the letter to them, being so full of affection and tender, personal feeling, through links being formed in suffering, would point to the pearl, and inasmuch as the assembly was marked by unity, what was lacking in that respect was urged fervently by the apostle; and then that assembly was marked by fellowship in the gospel from the very beginning, which is the administrative feature, as to that in which God shines out, and this corresponds with the gates of pearl.

J.S. In the opening of Acts 8 all are scattered "except the apostles". Do you regard the apostles as having withstood the pressure?

J.T. It would seem that they stood their ground. The pressure must have been very great in Jerusalem, and, as we were remarking previously, they may have been influenced by metropolitan sentiments; yet I think the Lord would protect them from criticism, and would show that their work was perfect.

J.S. Their foundation remains stable.

J.T. Quite; so that the further work extending out was also on a solid basis, and the subsequent part Jerusalem took in relation to the work abroad among the nations confirms this. There is no doubt, however, that the metropolitan spirit soon became fixed at Jerusalem, and it was more and more

manifest as the testimony proceeded, as the epistle to the Galatians witnesses, also Paul's final visit there.

C.A.M. Why do such adverse forces focus themselves so much on one man -- Stephen?

J.T. It looks as if the Lord took him up and fitted him as one suited to reflect what He had in His mind at this juncture; instead of taking up one of the apostles, the Lord took up Stephen. It was no reflection on the apostles, because Stephen was the fruit of their labours. He was not an independent element, but one appointed by them for deaconship. He was distinctly an assembly man, carrying the confidence of the assembly and commended by them for deaconship, so that the apostles laid their hands on him; he fully represents the assembly and the apostles; then we see how the work of God in him prepares for the heavenly side of the truth; his face was "as the face of an angel" in the presence of his persecutors.

C.A.M. Deaconship as exercised by Stephen would imply that he is a representative of those that serve the saints?

J.T. Yes; a deacon is not necessarily a gift, but one who serves in a material way, in visiting the saints and in ministering to their temporal needs.

W.G.T. The apostles established the deacons in Acts 6, and gave themselves up to prayer and ministry of the word. That is how Stephen, one of the seven, came into prominence.

J.T. Yes; he qualified; but took no short cuts to prominence in his service. He obtained for himself a good degree and much boldness in the faith. That is the way it is presented; it is what Stephen was personally; so that this spiritual dignity and honour of suffering is, we may say, within the range of any Christian. Deaconship may be exercised by sisters as well as brothers, see Romans 16:1. Philippi was

peculiarly distinguished in that way. The deacons are mentioned in the apostle's address (Philippians 1:1).

W.G.T. Would it not appear that the apostles looked on Stephen's work as inferior?

J.T. It was inferior, but still was essential. In fact the deacons were appointed to meet an effort by the devil to force cleavage among the saints.

A.B.P. Does not chapter 6 show that Stephen not only graced the position, but he developed in it; because when he was chosen, it says he was full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and then later it says: "Stephen, full of grace and power". Evidently he had used the Spirit.

C.A.M. One striking feature about Stephen is that he knew the history of God's people including their sufferings, from the beginning, and spoke of them in a remarkable way.

J.T. He is an example for young brothers in view of ministry; that they should be acquainted with the history of the testimony. There is nothing more important than the testimony, and hence the history of it is of prime importance; nor can any brother serve effectually without having a full outline of it in his mind.

A.R. Stephen started with the God of glory and finished by seeing the glory of God. One might say it is a complete outline.

J.T. One starting with the God of glory is not thinking of his own glory. Moses says to God, "Let me see thy glory" (Exodus 33:18); it could not be shown then; but Stephen "saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God".

W.G.T. What does that involve in the ministry -- seeing the glory of God?

J.T. Well, it is God shining out; for glory is the shining out of what He is in love, all that shone out in Jesus; hence it is said, "the glory of God in the

face of Jesus Christ", (2 Corinthians 4:6). It is brought to us intelligibly in that way.

A.F.M. Do we not need to avail ourselves of any reliable account of the history of the testimony in suffering?

J.T. Of course, we have only a tithe of the martyrs and of the history of their martyrdom, but they will all appear and shine in the heavenly city, and we must wait for it. But any authentic records of the sufferings of Christ in the members of the assembly down through the ages, are pure gold. The ten days of tribulation the Lord speaks of to Smyrna allude to an extended period of suffering by the saints -- the sufferings of Christ in them.

C.A.M. I suppose those sufferings in themselves have a purifying effect in a general way on the spirits of the saints. Is it not encouraging to see that in Stephen there is a man who can sketch the line of faith all the way down?

J.T. Yes. It is an unbroken line.

J.S. The cutting off of Stephen here does not break it. It still goes on; and I suppose you would link that on with the apostle Paul?

J.T. Stephen, in a sense, begins a line of suffering, and his martyrdom has a great place, for we read of the tribulation that took place on the occasion. It was a beginning of a persecution as distinguished from the twelve; and I think it culminates in the heavenly city, but converging on the gates rather than on the foundations.

J.S. What do you have in mind when you say, a new kind of persecution since Stephen?

J.T. Well, it is on account of the more heavenly side of the truth. His face was as that of an angel and those in the council saw it, which I think should be noticed.

J.S. Was it because the traits of the heavenly

man were shining out in Stephen that the enemy became so infuriated against him?

J.T. Yes. That is met by the same grace that shone in Christ on the cross; and, I believe, is involved in the "one pearl" of the gates; i.e., the unity of the assembly developed in sufferings is the answer in grace to the malice of man's heart. Stephen knelt down and said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge". What a testimony that was! It was the heavenly character of the testimony harmonising with what the Lord said on the cross "Father, forgive them" (Luke 23:34). It was the fulness of the heavenly side of the testimony, as Ephesians 1:7 says, "according to the riches of his grace", and "God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love", (chapter 2:4).

J.S. The Lord would have sustained him in a special way, so that he displayed this marvellous spirit.

J.T. That is what we should count on in any suffering for Him -- that in whatever little measure we may share in it, we should maintain the spirit of grace, because persecutions are apt to provoke us. In Acts 16, you see how great the apostle Paul and Silas were in the prison, but there was a drop in Paul's testimony later when he required the magistrates to come and take them out of the prison. So we need to watch ourselves lest we be resentful when things happen which occasion persecution.

A.Pf. Why is the thought of vengeance introduced in Revelation 6:10 in connection with martyrs?

J.T. They belong to another family of saints, not to the assembly, and correspond more to the Psalms; the subjects of suffering in that book frequently cry for vengeance, too, but those that form the assembly are on a higher plane, and that is what is before us just now. The grace that is to mark us in suffering

is in correspondence with the gates of the city, and what God is as in administration there.

A.N.W. Psalm 21 calls for vengeance; whereas Psalm 22 does not.

J.T. Psalm 22 is grace; the answer to God forsaking Christ on the cross.

A.N.W. You have the deepest sufferings, but no vengeance.

A.R. Stephen did not whisper but "cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge". He was powerful in testimony and marked by grace in his suffering.

J.T. Yes; no doubt all present heard. What a testimony it was in answer to the stones of hatred hurled at him! That is what he says, and he knelt down to say it, showing the composure of mind he had. In the terrible ordeal of stoning he knelt down to pray for his murderers.

W.F.K. He was full of the Holy Spirit.

J.T. Yes; showing what power was there!

F.N.P. As was said, Stephen corresponded to the Lord on the cross. The Lord said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do".

J.T. That is the idea of the pearl; the assembly itself being the expression of Christ -- not in judgment, but in grace.

J.E.H. Would you say that the attitude of mind, expressed in the rejection and crucifixion of Christ, was continued here in relation to Stephen?

J.T. That is what is meant. I think Stephen represents what was to be developed. The assembly was to be the vessel for the display of Christ -- His body -- and the Lord alludes to that when He says to Saul, "why dost thou persecute me?" As if to say, What are these people doing against you? Grace was in the assembly, seen in suffering without resentment.

N.McC. One was thinking of the suddenness of the ending of Stephen's testimony. Would it indicate

that sufferings are not to be confined to distinguished men, but also to be distributed, and experienced by all?

J.T. That is just what comes out here. First it says, "Saul was consenting to his being killed"; and then it says, "there arose a great persecution against the assembly", the whole body is now to be brought into it; Saul entered into the houses in his persecuting zeal, dragging off men and women and delivering them to prison.

A.N.W. It is the assembly which was in Jerusalem in verse 1; and evidently the whole assembly is contemplated in verse 3.

J.T. Just so. Saul entered "into the houses one after another". That is to be noted. What did he find in those houses? He found Christ in character -- brothers and sisters and their children permeated with the spirit of Christ.

J.E.H. He was, as it were, looking for Christ, to persecute Him.

J.T. Paul tells us later that he thought he ought to do much against the name of Jesus the Nazaraean, and he found in the houses of the saints what was in character Jesus the Nazaraean. That is what the Lord alluded to when He said, "Why dost thou persecute me?" As if to say, Saul, you went into such a house, what did you find there? He would have to say, I found there a beautiful spirited man who did not try to drive me out of his house. As James said, "ye have condemned, ye have killed the just; he does not resist you", (chapter 5:6).

N.McC. So that what we have of Stephen, Paul, and Silas is written not only for a record, but to show us what we should be like.

J.T. That is right. If the Lord allowed physical persecution today, what would some officer of the law find who might enter your house to drag you before a tribunal?

C.A.M. Saul would see in those houses of the saints rays of the same glory he had seen in Stephen.

F.H.L. The record of Stephen's burial is short and striking.

J.T. We do not get much account of the burial of the saints in the New Testament; this one being the exception. I suppose Stephen's burial has a dispensational significance in that the hopes of Israel were for the moment buried there; God was taking up something else now in relation to the assembly.

C.A.M. I suppose the martyrdom of Stephen was the Jews' answer to God's presentation of Christ to them in resurrection. They would not have that Man to reign over them.

J.T. Exactly; the stoning of Stephen has that significance.

A.F.M. In verse 1 of chapter 8 we read that "Saul was consenting to his being killed". I was wondering whether the spirit of Christ exhibited in Stephen caused Saul to consent to his death, and possibly to start on the terrible course of persecution he pursued.

J.T. Quite so; in that paragraph the Holy Spirit makes the incident stand out. It says, "And Saul was consenting to his being killed". He was consenting to the death of such a man.

Ques. Would you say the death of Stephen with its environments was really the birth-place of the apostle Paul?

J.T. I think that is right. He came into contact with the spirit of Christ there. Undoubtedly some impression was made which linked with later events.

A.B.P. The Lord was putting the "goads" there -- "it is hard for thee to kick against goads", (Acts 26:14).

J.T. Yes; some impression had been made on Saul, for his conscience was pricking him, but not until the Lord brought him down did he give way to

his conscience; the Lord says, "it is hard for thee". I think that is one of the finest expressions of grace you can get. Saul was the Lord's greatest human enemy, and yet He said to him "it is hard for thee" -- as if the Lord sympathised with him.

J.S. So you see God's ways in grace, in judgment, and in government. His conscience was no doubt reached on this occasion.

J.T. In His governmental care for His people the Lord removed Saul as a persecutor, but in His grace He converted him. The allusion to the goads is touching as showing the Lord's sympathy even for such a man.

W.G.T. Would you regard Saul as a figure of the remnant?

J.T. Yes; he said he was an abortion -- saved before the time. Paul was "a delineation of those about to believe on him to life eternal", (1 Timothy 1:16). The Lord appeared unto him as one born out of due time; that is, not born after the time, but before the time. If it were an allusion to Pentecost, he was born after the time, but it was an allusion to the coming day when the remnant will be brought in; as such he was born before the time. I judge this latter is what Paul means.

C.A.M. It puts a greatness of meaning on the word "delineation", especially if it includes those who follow the assembly.

J.T. You can see how God's earthly people will be brought in by and by -- on the ground of pure mercy. No one deserved mercy less than Saul, but God took him up to make him a delineation, so that the blackest sinner on earth need not fear, since such an one as this has been taken up; I believe it will be of great comfort to the remnant by and by when they are convicted of the murder of Christ. In Leviticus 23 the memorial of blowing of trumpets takes place before the day of atonement, which is for conviction

of sin. It will be the awakening of the Jews by some powerful testimony, and their conviction will be deep; but they will have encouragement by examples such as this. Paul is a delineation for them, as mercy was shown him, so it will be shown to them.

C.A.M. With reference to the pearl of Matthew 13, I wanted to ask whether it would be right to say that the Lord saw its glories when here upon earth?

J.T. I think He saw it in the disciples. He had come in as the Messiah; the porter had opened the door to Him and He would confirm the promises made to the fathers; but in doing that this precious thing, greater than Israel ever was or could be, came to His mind; He saw it in the disciples in some way, so that the Lord could speak of "having found one pearl of great value".

W.G.T. With regard to the houses Saul entered in his persecuting zeal, would they correspond with the passover night in Egypt -- the same spirit seen in all the houses of Israel is now found in the houses of the saints in Jerusalem.

J.T. Yes, it was the spirit of Christ in the houses, and indicates the place the houses of the saints have in the testimony, and hence Acts 16 corresponds. The household of the jailor was secured and becomes the depository of grace, as also the house of Lydia. It is a question of what is found in the households of the brethren, should an agent of persecution enter; would he find the house full of novels and newspapers and that sort of thing? That is the world itself; it is not Christ; there is nothing there to persecute!

A.R. Saul of Tarsus would have passed such a house by!

J.T. Yes, he would have looked in and said, This is not the house of a Christian.

A.R. Does not the power of the testimony largely lie in what our houses are?

J.T. It does. It is remarkable the place the

household has acquired in the history of the testimony in recent times.

A.F.M. The first allusion to the pearl is connected with "the kingdom of the heavens", as if to show that the saints in this setting must come under the recognition and rule of heaven.

J.T. Matthew is the assembly gospel. It is the only one in which the assembly is formally mentioned. It contains a great deal about houses and the Lord Jesus as in them. The wise men from the East found Him in the house. So one important question today is, What is in one's house? If a persecutor comes in and looks around and sees worldly things on the table, cards and what not, he would say, This is not the house I want. The world loves its own and would commend that, but it will not commend holy conversation and prayer and the reading of the Scriptures in the morning.

N.McC. One would ask whether you confine the sufferings of Christ as seen in the assembly to the believer standing for Christ and His rights. Or does it mean inward hidden suffering?

J.T. Sufferings endured inwardly, as the result of bad teaching, or want of deliverance, are not included. On the other hand, keen suffering comes from your near relatives, neighbours, fellow workers and the like. The keenest kind is endured from them as you are faithful to the Lord -- "And all indeed who desire to live piously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted", (2 Timothy 3:12). That is, those who are of the new order of man seen in Him. The world abominates it, and hence you find yourself ostracised in spirit by it.

A.N.W. Would you mind explaining the use of the word "testimony"?

J.T. Testimony is what God presents, and means the same as witness; hence you find the ark of the testimony, and the tent of the testimony. The ark of the testimony implies what was in the ark, presented

on God's part to men. What was in the tent of testimony, too, was what God would present to men. Christ is it and it is presented in the saints now in the power of the Spirit. What we are engaged with now is, that if we suffer from men because of this presentation, what spirit do we manifest? We are to exhibit grace, like Stephen did, who, I believe, is the prototype of this for all of us. He was like each one of us, just a sinner taken up by God, and he comes into this grace and prominence through faithfulness. No doubt he had special support, but it is not said of him, as it is of Paul, that he was an elect vessel, or that the Lord stood by him and strengthened him, and that is what, I believe, the Lord would teach us. He is therefore an example for us all, to maintain the spirit that was seen in Christ, and also seen in Stephen, in suffering. The passage before us would stress that this spirit of Christ should be seen in the houses of the saints.

A.B.P. Is there not a great deal about us that is not according to God? And in order to be brought into line with the testimony we have to be brought through sufferings or trials, which are disciplinary, but is it possible that if we accept these sufferings at the hand of the Lord, they may be turned into profitable sufferings that might even be called the sufferings of Christ?

Ques. Is that where we get on to the administrative side -- as suffering we exhibit grace?

J.T. The "administrative side" is good, because that is the climax of what we are talking about. As persecuted I become an administrator of grace. That is the principle -- "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". The Lord is administering grace: Stephen was administering grace when he said, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge". In all these circumstances of suffering, the thing is to maintain the spirit of dependence on God, and

thus acquire moral power to administer His grace to men. This principle is strikingly exemplified in Joseph.

J.T.Jr. Is that the result of the Lord breathing into the disciples; (John 20:22)?

J.T. Yes.

A.F.M. Paul and Silas got the jailor through the manifestation of this spirit.

J.T. The jailor says, "Sirs". He is very respectful. A little while before he would have addressed them very differently. Now he says, "Sirs, what must I do that I may be saved?" They are administrators now, and they are that collectively. That is the idea of the pearl, the administration of grace meets the hatred.

A.N.W. So that in the heavenly city, although there are twelve gates, whatever gate I arrive at, the one thing, grace, is suggested to me.

J.T. That is what I thought. Each gate "was of one pearl", and complete in itself, but uniform with the others.

A.P.T. The jailor laid the table for Paul and Silas.

J.T. Now he is administrating in his house, but they had administered the grace of heaven to him first. "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house".

F.H.L. There are three gates on each side of the city.

J.T. The bearing is universal.

A.R. Do you mean that administering grace now equips the saints so that they will know how to do it perfectly in the millennial day?

J.T. Exactly; the apostle's letter to Philippi indicates unity among the brethren there, tempered with suffering. I believed they answered to the pearl.

A.P.T. The jailor brought Paul and Silas into his house; it had become, through grace, a suited place for them and for the brethren.

J.T. Exactly; I think Lydia had gained the first place in this sense in Philippi. In Luke 10:5 - 7, you get, "And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace to this house. And if a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it ... and in the same house abide". I think the house of a "son of peace" implied headquarters for grace, and Lydia acquired that place. So that when Paul and Silas left the prison, "they came to Lydia". The jailor's house was another institution opened up to the apostles where their needs were administered to.

A.F.M. The suggestion of "a son of peace" is helpful, yet I suppose that Paul with headquarters at Lydia's house would have gladly accepted an invitation from the jailor for a meal, had he remained at Philippi; and he would have been open to have fellowship with other brethren in like manner.

N.McC. Do you think we have it in mind enough, when we are tested for the Lord's sake, that as we go through the testing with the Lord, He will give us a place in the day of administration?

J.T. You do not want to put it off until that day! The thing is to administer to the persecutor when persecuted. The jailor was the persecutor, he put their feet in the stocks; but when the time came, they administered to him in grace.

W.G.T. There was a testimony to all the prisoners, but I suppose the Lord really had in mind the jailor and his house.

J.T. The prisoners heard the singing and praise, which was a touching testimony, but the administration was to the jailor, which brings out the true position. The immediate persecutor is administered to by those whom he persecutes. It is a wonderful triumph of the grace of God in His people.

C.A.M. The result in Philippi was an assembly marked by sympathy with Paul and sustained fellowship in the gospel.

J.T. They had fellowship in the gospel from the "first day until now". That is the pearl in the gate; they were with Paul in the administration of grace.

J.S. In Stephen and in Paul you see more the qualities of the pearl; whereas in the twelve, the distinctive features of the precious stones.

J.T. I think so -- the twelve are foundational. What was set up at Jerusalem stood; and that is, I believe, what is meant in the "twelve foundations" -- the apostles' work was perfect.

A.F.M. Will you tell us in what particular way the twelve apostles ministered in relation to the city, besides being foundational? There was not only the foundation of the wall of the city, but the street?

J.T. The apostles are not connected with that especially. The point is that they laid such a foundation that a superstructure such as the heavenly city could rest upon it! In Acts 8, when the work of God spread into Samaria, the apostles cared for it; they "sent to them Peter and John". Then when the work of conversion took place at Antioch, tidings of these things "reached the ears of the assembly which was in Jerusalem", showing what was there -- energetic sympathy that would stretch out to them and to what God was doing everywhere.

W.B-w. There is no other foundation today.

A.Pf. "The firm foundation of God stands", (2 Timothy 2:19).

Ques. Acts 16:26 refers to the foundations of the prison and to the doors. Would it not suggest that the world's system has its foundations and its doors, but there was being introduced into Philippi new foundations and new gates, as it were, which would entirely overthrow what was there?

J.T. That is right. The foundation of God stands; the foundation of the world does not.

A.P.T. I was thinking about God as seen in this chapter. It says that Lydia worshipped God, and that Paul and Silas sang praises to God, and finally

the Philippian jailor believed in God. That is a glorious result of the testimony as presented, is it not?

J.T. It is in keeping with "For of him, and through him, and for him are all things: to him be glory for ever", (Romans 11:36).

C.A.M. The singing seems to be an intimation of the mind of God as to what was to be found in the assembly in Philippi.

A.P.T. There would hardly be an organ in the jail!

J.T. Well, the saints singing is greater than an organ. The only instrument of music in heaven is a harp -- a stringed instrument. I believe that Paul and Silas were stringed instruments. The Lord would regard them as His stringed instruments -- instruments of the Chief Musician; the singing of these sufferers was thus an exalted testimony to the prisoners.

J.E.H. They were in "high places", (Habakkuk 3:19).

A.B.P. This was praise that developed out of suffering and prayer. Is there not a peculiar quality to such praise -- suffering, prayer, and praise? Is that not a remarkable ascent?

J.T. Yes I think that is very suggestive. It says in Habakkuk 3:1 "A Prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth", and then it ends with: "Yet I will rejoice in Jehovah, I will joy in the God of my salvation. Jehovah, the Lord, is my strength, And he maketh my feet like hinds' feet, And he will make me walk upon my high places". To the "chief Musician. On my stringed instruments" (verses 18,19); that is, he rises from prayer to praise.

A.N.W. Habakkuk begins with a burden and follows with a prayer and ends with praise.

J.H.E. In Psalm 22, we have the Lord saying,

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (verse 1), and then singing: "in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee", verse 22 ...

A.B.P. Psalm 22:3 says, "thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel". The Lord had that before Him on the cross in His suffering, and praise out of suffering seems to be of the most excellent quality.

J.T. I believe the instruments are developed in suffering, but Psalm 22 is the basis of the praises of Israel.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (6)

Genesis 4:3 - 10; Genesis 21:9; Genesis 37:2 - 24; Genesis 39:19 - 23

J.T. Having covered in a general way the great subject of the sufferings of Christ, as seen in the New Testament, it seems to be in order that we should look into the Old Testament to see the amplification in detail of all that we have been engaged with. We should begin with Abel, who is the first sufferer mentioned. The Lord Himself refers to him in this way speaking of "the blood of righteous Abel", (Matthew 22:35).

A.N.W. Would you mind first saying a word for us as to that character of the Lord's death to secure the church, as seen in Adam's deep sleep?

J.T. It is a question if any sufferings are foreshadowed there. It took place before sin came in. The deep sleep of Genesis 2 in itself hardly suggests suffering. What had you in mind?

A.N.W. I wondered whether it might not be seen in the epistle to the Ephesians: "Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it", (Ephesians 5:25).

J.T. Yes. Eve being taken out of Adam in such a remarkable way is evidently to call attention to the fact that God would have life of that kind -- life out of death. God intended that the life that should enter into eternity should not be what Adam had by God breathing into his nostrils, but a life derived from Christ as having entered into death -- that kind of life.

C.A.M. Would the "lower parts of the earth" of Psalm 139 synchronise with the deep sleep?

J.T. Yes; formation was in view, as Eve was formed -- "curiously wrought". The Psalmist seems to confine his thoughts to that side -- what God

effected there; that is, the bone was taken and built while Adam slept. It is not the suggestion of the cross, but of a state; that is, Christ in actual death not the suffering side, but the state out of which the life should come.

A.P. How does John 12 fit in -- the grain of wheat falling into the ground?

J.T. It is a similar thought; not the idea of suffering, but the state that was reached -- falling into the ground and dying -- a state was reached without which there could be no fruit. How the state is reached is not given in Genesis 2. It is simply that God caused the deep sleep; there is no suggestion of suffering in that.

A.P. Referring to Abel and the Old Testament saints in a general way, were the features of Christ reflected in them?

J.T. Yes. Faith was needed for the reflection of what should come out later. Peter says "Concerning which salvation prophets, who have prophesied of the grace towards you, sought out and searched out; searching what, or what manner, of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them pointed out, testifying before of the sufferings which belonged to Christ, and the glories after these", (1 Peter 1:10,11). Faith laid hold of what should come out in Christ. Hence: "By faith Abel", and so throughout Hebrews 11.

J.S. The sufferings were consequent upon sin having come in?

J.T. Faith is not alluded to until sin came in, because sin contemplates the complete breakdown of what was inaugurated on the principle of sight; faith contemplates another order of things.

A.F.M. So that Abel, knowing the fall had come in, approached God suitably.

J.T. Yes, Abel's action would be based on death involving suffering in some way which must have taken place in order to procure the coats of skin for

Adam and Eve. He got his light that way, rather than from the deep sleep of his father and the origin of his mother.

A.N.W. The latter was in counsel before sin existed.

J.T. The light shone as sin came in. Adam no doubt had light, because in naming his wife "Eve" it was implied. But it would not do to make Adam the first in the line of faith; it must be Abel.

J.H.E. Did you say that light was given in the death of the animals in order to supply suitable clothing?

J.T. Yes. You can understand how Abel would ask his parents about the clothes they wore. Young people do think of clothes, but is it a question of the right kind of clothes, such as Adam and Eve wore, or the fashions of the day? The fashions of the day come by another way, and appeal to the young mind, but the fashions of Abel's day came in through death. Whether Abel enquired of his parents or not, they would, no doubt, tell him of the clothes God made for them.

C.A.M. The priest who presented the burnt-offering had its skin.

J.T. The significance of which would be covering. Sufferers in the line of faith were clad in sheep-skins and goat-skins; (Hebrews 11:37). The clothes Adam and Eve wore would be unlike the beautiful skin coats of today. There is usually no idea of death in the minds of those that wear them, for death is put as far away from the natural mind as possible.

A.P. Would the clothing that Adam and Eve had be suggested in Romans 13:14 -- "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ"?

J.T. Yes. It is Christ as having died that you put on; not Christ as He was, but as having died. Abel brought to God, we are told, the firstlings of

his flock; that is, the best, without saying how many -- the firstlings of his flock and their fat.

J.S. Do you couple suffering with sacrifice?

J.T. Yes; this is clearly the beginning of the great sacrificial order of things that comes out in Exodus and Leviticus.

J.S. So that Adam and Eve were clothed as a result of suffering and sacrifice; Abel followed this.

J.T. That is the thought. As the required and voluntary offerings were made at the tabernacle or temple, the court would be a regular shambles; a constant stream of blood flowed. Naturally we do not like that, but the divine thought was sacrifice, that death should be in evidence; testimony to the judgment of God marked the whole scene. Cain did not consider that, nor think there was anything wanting in the offering he brought.

G.McP. Why do you emphasise the sufferings of Christ rather than His death?

J.T. Because "the sufferings of Christ" is our subject. Abel was killed, but by the hand of his brother, who rose up against him. There would be that awful feeling of a murderous attack, which would involve suffering, before the actual death. Cain rose up against him when they were in the field.

A.P. With regard to the verse, "He shall crush thy head" (Genesis 3:15), does it not give the idea of a man coming in? Faith would look for him.

J.T. Quite. I have no doubt that is why Eve called Cain "a man" when he was born. "I have acquired a man with Jehovah", (chapter 4:1). She undoubtedly took up the thought of the previous chapter -- that her seed would bruise the head of the serpent.

However much Abel understood instinctively, the features of Christ were beginning to show themselves in him. I think that Cain failed Eve; she said, "I have acquired a man with Jehovah" (not from

but with, meaning that God helped her); she linked Cain with the promised seed, undoubtedly. She is the first person, as far as Scripture records, to name the name of Jehovah, and she connects Him with Cain. But in the time which elapsed between the births of the two children, she changed her judgment of him. Eve had "acquired" Cain, as though he were of great importance, but the next child was regarded as just a breath -- a vanity. It was undoubtedly the result of a judgment based on what Cain was; the parents at the time of Abel's birth would have come to a truer understanding of their own state.

A.F.M. You would connect Eve's name -- "life" -- with Abel, not with Cain?

J.T. The life line is in Abel; so that Seth comes in instead of Abel in chapter 5, and the life line is in Seth. According to Genesis 4:25, Eve evidently had the mind of God in naming Seth. "God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, because Cain has slain him". It is another seed, not "son" or "man".

Then Seth calls his son Enosh, that is, "man as weak, mortal". "Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah". Light thus broke in for man.

C.A.M. In naming Enosh, Seth seemed to have the same kind of intuition that Eve had, that man was a passing creature.

J.T. That is right. It should be noted with regard to Abel that he was just a passing breath -- transitory.

J.S. In naming Cain, was Eve still acting on the line of sight?

J.T. I think so; there may have been some light in her soul, but her words as to Cain were not spoken in faith.

A.P. Did not the Jews expect things to be set up here in the flesh when the Lord Jesus was here? It is much like Eve's naming of Cain.

J.T. Very much. This only brings Abel into clearer light. He saw that things must be on a new basis, that of sacrifice through death, and so he offers "the firstlings of his flock and of their fat".

J.S. The features of Christ are thus developed through suffering, as we see right through Genesis.

J.T. Yes. The mind immediately goes to the man that is identified with these offerings. He saw that there must be a new line, a new world really, which Cain did not see. He did not accept God's judgment on man, showing he "was born according to flesh" merely, and hence had no divine instincts. "He that was born according to flesh persecuted him that was born according to Spirit", (Galatians 4:29). Abel was, in principle, born according to the Spirit, he had spiritual instincts, and hence understood what was suitable to God. "Cain was of the wicked one", (1 John 3:12).

J.T.Jr. Persecution thus marked the whole way down "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias", which the Lord alludes to; (Matthew 23:35).

J.T. Yes. Abel is the first martyr. The Lord calls attention to the blood of righteous Abel.

W.B-w. It would seem that Abel profited by the accumulated light of his parents.

J.T. Yes. He begins the life line, God, as it were, basing everything on righteousness. Sin having come in, life must be based on righteousness.

A.F.M. Do you think that as Abel brought these offerings to Jehovah, they had a formative effect upon him, so that he would not only see Christ there objectively, but that his walk was to be according to what they expressed?

J.T. Quite so. Indeed, divine formation was already there, for the Lord calls him "righteous", and John says his works were righteous. The offerer is merged in his offering.

A.P. He was ready to go the same way as his offering.

J.T. Quite. He saw that that was the only way, and God honoured him in it. He was accepted. Besides, as slain by his brother he was a type of Christ, who suffered death at the hands of His brethren, who hated Him.

J.S. Sin, having come in, developed in this way.

J.T. That form of sin -- hatred of a brother -- is seen fully in the Jews as they put Christ to death.

A.F.M. Sin in the garden was directly against God, but sin here outside of the garden is directed against the neighbour, the brother. These are the two great features of sin that come to light, are they not?

J.T. That is the way John works it out in his first epistle. He deals with things radically and shows that these two men are the heads of two families, as already noted. So he says the devil sins from the beginning, and this goes right through. Cain, Balaam, and Core are seen as three great leaders in sin. The Lord says, "Ye are of the devil, as your father", (John 8:44). The Jews as putting Him to death were brothers of Cain. So today, hatred of a brother, as God views it, is murderous.

A.P.T. "These are spots in your love-feasts", (Jude 12); those marked by those three elements -- Cain, Balaam, and Core.

F.H.L. If we offer to God, we must be prepared to go the whole way, which implies suffering and death.

J.T. That is the principle. Thus, Christ having suffered for us we are to arm ourselves with the same mind; (l Peter 4:1).

C.A.M. Does it not impress you with the marvellous way of God that His end should thus be reached?

J.T. Yes: "For it became him [that is, God], for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the

leader of their salvation through sufferings", (Hebrews 2:10). Abel, in principle, is one of the sons. Adam is said to have been "of God", but he is not led "to glory". There is no thought of it; whereas the counsels of God require that sons should be led to glory, and led this way -- through suffering.

W.B-w. Is one point in Cain that he does not take the line of suffering?

J.T. He is quite a respectable worshipper, but he does not bring blood. People generally do not like the thought of blood; they ridicule it.

W.B-w. We find offerings in the world today that answer to Cain's.

J.T. Quite so; it is bringing what I work out myself, ignoring the judgment of God.

J.E.H. Is that why it is called "the way of Cain"?

J.T. Yes, it is a terrible way, and there are a great many on that way.

A.N.W. John calls Cain's works "wicked", even before he slew his brother.

A.B.P. While Cain would slay Abel and shed righteous blood, he did not accept death as a penalty on himself as a child of Adam.

F.N.P. Why does it say that Jehovah looked on Abel and his offering, and upon Cain and upon his offering He did not look?

J.T. There was no divine complacency in Cain and his offering. God was complacent in Abel, as identified by faith with Christ in his offering. God's complacency is in us on the ground of sacrifice: "we have been reconciled to God through the death of his Son", (Romans 5:10).

F.H.L. Is it not possible to make the right offering yet not in the right way? The Lord stood over against the treasury and saw how they cast in.

J.T. How they did it. Quite so. Here, Cain brought the wrong offering -- not that the meat-offering is not right in its place. There is full room

for a meat-offering in Leviticus, but it must come in after the blood-offering; that is, God must be appeased first, and no meat-offering can appease Him vicariously. Christ was perfectly delightful to Him as a Man here, but He could not bring us in on that ground at all. "Without blood-shedding there is no remission", (Hebrews 9:22).

R.W.S. Is there any point in the fact that Abel suffers in the field and Zacharias, of whom the Lord remarks, suffers in connection with the altar? The suffering is getting closer; compare Matthew 23:35.

J.T. That is suggestive. Zacharias suffered in the religious sphere, between the temple and the altar.

Ques. What kind of offering is Abel's?

J.T. A burnt-offering. It was a burnt-offering with the fat.

A.F.M. It would suggest that sin had come in; (Leviticus 1:4).

J.S. I suppose Satan would quickly detect the features of Christ in Abel and hence attack him.

J.T. Quite so. It is Christ that he is attacking. He always attacks Christ, either personally or as seen in His people.

W.G.T. Did not God anticipate that there would be an attack on Abel? The way in which God spoke to Cain of His offering seems to suggest this.

J.T. Yes; He would forestall it and save Cain from his awful crime. God is gracious; the passage shows how long-suffering He is. He says, "why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, will not thy countenance look up with confidence?" God, as it were, encourages us to look up. And then He says, "and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door". It is said by authorities that this word "sin" may also be translated "sin-offering", in this there may be an allusion to Abel's offering. It is very affecting that God would forestall the murder by encouraging him to do well. If he did not do well

there was a sin-offering at the door, which he could avail himself of and hence could retain his place of dominance. Very often when people do evil they do not avail themselves of the divine provision for restoration, and the sin remaining unjudged, the conscience becomes hardened and they turn definitely to do their own will.

A.R.S. Why did God put a mark on Cain that he should not be slain?

J.T. It alludes to the Jews. That mark today is to be seen around us. There are no people like them. Take the Greeks, Romans, or any of those ancient races -- you cannot find them today. You may know historically what has come down, but they are not to be found characteristically; whereas, the Jew is characteristically what he was; God has put a mark on him, and nobody can efface it, nor can anyone harm him with impunity, murderer though he be. Some nations have suffered because they have touched him. He comes back at the end; Lemech says, "For I have slain a man for my wound", (verse 23). He acknowledges his guilt; that is the Jew in the last days.

A.F.M. The slaying of Abel would be implied in the acknowledgment.

A.R.S. So that Cain is a type of the Jew.

C.A.M. Lemech, in speaking of avenging, implies that Cain's posterity had suffered.

J.T. He alludes to God's promise as to Cain in verse 15; the seventy and seven fold avenging would be a reference to what will be inflicted on the Jews' enemies in the latter days; compare Esther and Matthew 25.

A.F.M. The vengeance shows how the Jew will be protected in the coming day.

A.B.P. How do you explain the last part of verse 7 "unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"?

J.T. The allusion is to Abel, I think. Cain was the elder, and under these circumstances Abel would take his place in subjection and be a true brother. "Unto thee shall be his desire" agrees with this -- there would be brotherly love. That we are to love each other as brethren and be subject one to another is in keeping with this. What a great thing to have a real brother? -- one who is submissive to you, whose desires will be toward you. It seems Jehovah said this as an incentive to Cain to do well.

J.S. Abel comes in as morally first through his offering.

J.T. He does; but still he would be a real brother, and honour Cain, as Gideon honoured Ephraim when he said: "What have I done now in comparison with you? Are not the gleanings of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abi-ezer?" (Judges 8:2).

A.B.P. So Peter enjoins the younger to submit themselves to the elder.

A.F.M. Would Enoch's prophecy (Jude 14,15), indicate that others in the life line suffered similarly to Abel?

J.T. I think so. He saw the Lord coming amidst His holy myriads to execute vengeance; that would show that he felt the state of things then existing.

A.F.M. "Ungodly sinners" had spoken hard things against God, which would cause Enoch and other saints suffering.

J.S. In developing the testimony on the line of suffering, is it to show us what God can do in sustaining those who suffer?

J.T. Yes; and His work is of such a character that it stands the test of suffering. That is what God would bring out -- what the enduring quality of the divine nature is in sufferings; maintaining its own positive character at the same time.

C.A.M. So that every man that is livingly in the testimony has been baptised for the dead.

J.T. That is right. In the expression, "bringing many sons to glory", (Hebrews 2:10) we must include all the Old Testament saints, because they will appear in glory. Enoch and Elijah were translated to heaven without dying. The twenty-four elders in Revelation include all these saints, as well as the assembly. All are brought in through suffering, as Hebrews 11 and 12 show.

W.F.K. It says, "the voice of thy brother's blood is crying to me from the ground". Say a word about the voice.

J.T. It shows how valuable to God a death of this kind is. It is God honouring martyrdom, and particularly in those early times as foreshadowing the sufferings of Christ. Abel's sufferings and death present a remarkable type of Christ's sufferings and death.

A.F.M. What was the character of Abel's voice crying to God from the ground?

J.T. I think it was that of vengeance, for the blood of the new covenant speaks better things. It is a testimony because vengeance followed here. The Lord says of it, "the voice of thy brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now be thou cursed from the ground, which hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield thee its strength", (verses 10 - 12). That is the answer, I think, to the cry of Abel's blood.

A.P. Does it fit in with Revelation 6:10: "dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth?"

J.T. It is a similar cry.

W.B-w. In what way does the blood of the new covenant speak better things than Abel?

J.T. Abel's death presents an aspect of Christ's death, as we have said. The blood of the Lord Jesus has brought down judgment on the Jews. They said,

"His blood be on us and on our children" (Matthew 27:25); it came on them and is on them now. But then the blood that speaks better things than that of Abel, is not presented as the blood of a murdered Christ but of Christ given in love by God. The blood of the covenant testifies to the love of God, not to the wrath of God.

Rem. So that the voice of Abel was vengeance, but the voice of Jesus was forgiveness.

J.T. That is, viewed from the standpoint of the covenant; but then the covenant does not extend to the Jews until they come in and repent nationally. They have to take their place as being among men now to receive blessing. This can only be in an individual way; nationally they have to repent of the murder of their Messiah collectively before they come into the promised blessing. They will look on Him whom they pierced and wail because of Him; compare Zechariah 12.

W.B-w. It is the same blood only viewed from a different aspect.

J.T. It is the same death of Christ, but you may look at it as bringing down the wrath of God and as a testimony of the love of God. That the Jews might come into the gain of the latter aspect, they were regarded as slaying Christ ignorantly, but wrath came on them viewed as slaying Him wilfully, Stephen s death being the evidence of this.

C.A.M. I suppose the remnant will put these two things together, when they afflict their souls.

J.T. They will. On the first day of the seventh month is the memorial of blowing of trumpets; and the tenth day of the seventh month the day of atonement. The feast of trumpets implies their awakening and that they afflict their souls -- they repent, and come in for the good of atonement; that is, the blood of the covenant.

A.P. The two go together, the blood on the door

post in Egypt keeps out the destroying angel, and it corresponds to the blood of the covenant in Exodus 24.

A.P.T. It is said that "Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother". Is there any suggestion of suffering in that aspect?

J.T. Without doubt, Cain's hostile attitude would be there. I was thinking of what a feeling there must be before a crime. The Lord entered into and felt all that fully when He instituted His supper and His murderers were all around Him outside.

J.S. He could say, "They hated me without a cause", (John 15:25). There was nothing there to call forth this feeling.

J.T. Indeed, that would be prefigured in Joseph. His brethren hated him without cause. They hated Joseph because he was loved. There is no real cause for hatred in that. Isaac also, one born after the Spirit, was persecuted by one born after the flesh. There was nothing in Isaac to draw out persecution or suffering, for a babe is delightful normally, so that the idea of "without a cause" is there, as bringing out the capability of the flesh, that without a cause it persecutes Christ.

A.F.M. Isaac also suffered later, as a sacrifice upon the altar by Abraham; (Genesis 22).

J.T. What feelings he must have had as bound on the altar!

T.H. The Lord Jesus suffered from His most familiar friend. He must have felt it keenly!

J.T. The Lord's life was one of almost continuous suffering. The consciousness of what was there in Judas must have occasioned Him constant pain. He calls him "a devil", (John 6:70) that is, an accuser.

W.G.T. We read that "neither did his brethren believe on him", (John 7:5). I was thinking that it fits in with the suggestion of Joseph and his brethren.

J.T. Yes. His relatives said at one time "He is out of his mind", (Mark 3:21).

R.D.G. In Micah 7:6 it says: "a man's enemies are the men of his own household"; and in Matthew 10:36, "And they of his household shall be a man's enemies". That would set forth the sufferings of Christ as you are now speaking of them.

J.T. That is an important feature. You can see that right through, particularly in Genesis. It appears in Cain, Ishmael, Esau, and Joseph's brethren. It is persecution from one's nearest relatives.

C.A.M. Would it be emphasised in Edom in a particular way?

J.T. Yes, Edom represents this character of persecution down to Malachi's ministry.

W.B-w. Were you suggesting the idea of the false brother coming out in Edom?

J.T. Yes. It is also developed in the New Testament. Paul says, "it was on account of the false brethren brought in surreptitiously, who came in surreptitiously to spy out our liberty", (Galatians 2:4).

J.T. We cannot speak at length about Joseph on this occasion, but he links on with the Lord's statement, "They hated me without cause". Possibly the first thing to consider is this, he was loved by his father, who made him a vest of many colours, and thus honoured him. He is a type of Christ as loved of the Father and honoured. Joseph's father loved him but his brethren hated him, and could not speak with friendliness to him, and yet he had done nothing against them.

A.R.S. He is a type of Christ in incarnation; not as some would have us believe in absolute Deity.

J.T. Quite so. He is a type of Christ in incarnation, loved by his father, and honoured by the gift-vest of many colours; these facts alone bring out the hatred of his brethren, and the next thing is that he is hated because of his testimony -- concerning his

dreams. They called him "this dreamer", derisively, but the title was true and meant that he was a witness, he testified to the resurrection of Christ "Behold we were binding sheaves in the fields, and lo, my sheaf rose up, and remained standing; and behold, your sheaves came round about and bowed down to my sheaf". That is typically the resurrection of Christ. He remains standing. Then of the next dream he says, "behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars bowed down to me". That is Christ in ascension. He is hated all the more for that, and even Jacob in this instance is somewhat against him, showing the more heavenly our testimony, the greater will be the opposition. Even those that are spiritual may oppose us as witnessing to such a line of truth.

J.S. Is this testimony prophetic?

J.T. Yes; it is Christ in resurrection and in ascension; One who is supreme.

A.F.M. Was not this testimony actually fulfilled later in the life of Joseph?

J.T. Quite so. His brethren bowed down to him, and his father, too, we might say. You can see how indicative it is of Christ. What other sheaf but His could rise up and stand as others bow down!

A.F.M. It says: "behold, your sheaves came round about and bowed down to my sheaf".

J.T. How gladly we do that as we know and love Him! The type contemplates Israel converted, standing round about and bowing down.

J.S. That will come to pass in the day to come.

J.T. It will; Israel is viewed here administratively, and then the sun and moon and the eleven stars bow down to Christ.

A.R.S. Jacob did not appreciate this, but rebuked him; still it says he "kept the saying".

J.T. There is hope for a brother like that. There is hope for a man that observes a saying, although he may oppose it at first.

W.G.T. Mary "kept all these things in her heart". Although she understood not what the Lord said in the temple; (Luke 2:51).

F.H.L. What is the thought of the sheaf, does it suggest a combination, a plural idea?

J.T. Connecting it with Leviticus 23, the children of Israel were to cut down a sheaf and wave it before Jehovah. That would mean that Christ died and was waved before God as risen. That was after the passover, and then at the feast of weeks or pentecost that followed, Israel was brought in, in the two loaves that were baked. In the type of the sheaf there was no need of baking, but He was cut down in death. I think the sheaf means the Lord cut down in death, and raised in power. Inherent power is indicated in Joseph's sheaf rising up and remaining standing. It says, for He has life in Himself; and He says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up", (John 2:19). That testimony will come out by and by for Israel and they will bow down to Him. Of course, now, every converted person does this.

The next dream is not so much a question of the host of heaven, but Israel viewed in a position of administration, the sun, the moon, and the stars.

A.F.M. This is fulfilled in Revelation 12.

J.T. Yes, the woman is clothed with the sun, the moon is under her feet, upon her head a crown of twelve stars.

J.S. So the sun, moon, and stars would suggest rule and administration in the world to come?

J.T. That is the idea. It is Israel's place in the world to come, and all is subservient to Christ; all bow down to Him.

J.T.Jr. His brethren say, "we will see what becomes of his dreams".

J.T. That is similar to the way they jeered at Christ on the cross -- "Let the Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross", (Mark 15:32).

C.A.M. In Revelation there are the sun and moon and twelve stars.

J.T. Israel will be complete then by Joseph taking his place as a tribe, but the Man-child is over all. He is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Things in heaven and on earth will be truly subject to Christ.

A.P. What do the sun, moon, and stars represent?

J.T. It is an allusion to supreme government which is in the hands of Israel, but subservient to Christ.

A.P.T. His father says, "Shall we indeed come, I and thy mother and thy brethren, to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?" His brethren envy him, but his father kept the saying. I suppose he was getting help.

J.T. That is what I was remarking. A brother like Jacob may be opposed to some heavenly line of thought at first, but if he takes the ground of considering the matter he is not allowing his will in it. That was Jacob's salvation; the others allowed their wills and adverse feelings to govern them.

A.F.M. The apostle said, "Think of what I say, for the Lord will give thee understanding in all things", (2 Timothy 2:7).

J.T. If I allow my will to work, there is no hope for me, but if amenable to any little bit of light I may receive, even though I do not understand it, there is salvation for me.

A.P. With regard to Israel, it says: "Who is she that looketh forth as the dawn, Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, Terrible as troops with banners?" (Song of Songs 6:10).

J.T. That is Israel.

W.G.T. What about the coat of many colours?

J.T. It is a symbol of the varied glories of Christ.

J.S. His distinctive glories.

J.T. The glories conferred by the Father -- "the glory which thou hast given me", (John 17:22). There are the inherent and the conferred glories.

A.N.W. Then it says, "His brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren". These varied colours would indicate the father's love for him.

A.B.P. Would it be like:

"All the Father's counsels claiming
Equal honours to the Son"? (Hymn 14).

J.T. That is really the highest thought of it; they are inherent glories. "The glory which I had along with thee before the world was", (John 17:5), is inherent glory; it belongs to Deity; but then the "glory which thou hast given me" is conferred, in which we can share.

J.S. Then there would be acquired glories.

A.P.T. In John 1, Nathaniel calls the Lord "Son of God" and "King of Israel", and then the Lord says, "Thou shalt see greater things than these", (verse 50). I was wondering whether that would fit in here as to what the Father does. The passage further says, "Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man", (verse 51). Does not that allude to these varied glories?

J.T. The angels begin with Him; they ascend first. If they had descended first I should call them conferred glories, but they began with Him, which I think refers to His deity -- "God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit, has appeared to angels", (1 Timothy 3:16). It is the testimony to His deity that they began with Him.

C.A.M. "He inherits a name more excellent than they", (Hebrews 1:4), is a very remarkable expression.

J.T. We shall have to start with this chapter in Genesis at our next reading, the Lord permitting. Joseph is one of the greatest types of Christ as a sufferer.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (7)

Genesis 39:19 - 23; Genesis 49:22 - 24; Exodus 2:11 - 15

J.T. In our consideration when last together of the sufferings of Christ, as seen in Joseph in Genesis 37, we noticed that he was loved of his father and distinguished by a vest of many colours, and because of this he became the object of the resentment of his brethren, he is a type of Christ as loved of the Father, and hated "without a cause". Then because of the light that Joseph had through his dreams, he was further persecuted by his brethren. These features of the subject that we have had before us amplify what is said in the New Testament as to Christ and the apostles, and have a bearing on ourselves as beloved of God, as is said of the Thessalonians, (chapter 1:4). If they speak the truth fearlessly, Christians come into persecution because of their relation with God and because of the light they have.

We may be helped on this occasion in seeing that Jehovah is said to be with Joseph as in prison. Man is against us and does his utmost to carry out his evil intention, and we may have certain of our brethren against us; but Jehovah was with Joseph, which is a very significant fact. I think it is alluded to four times in the chapter. God's presence with us, whatever the outward appearances, settles everything. He made Joseph prosperous. Whatever his hand touched, prospered. Those who are true to the light are also prospered of God in spiritual things. He honours them in that way. Faithfulness brings us into the position of suffering, for it is said of Joseph: "They afflicted his feet with fetters; his soul came into irons", (Psalm 105:18). But God was with him.

A.N.W. The Psalm from which you quoted goes on to say, "Until the time when what he said came

about: the word of Jehovah tried him", (Psalm 105:19). How does that fit in?

J.T. It would mean the government of God in these circumstances. He turned them into blessing. The word of God tried him; "word" here refers to some specific divine saying, testing him for his good. He would be questioning why he was in prison. "Until the time when what he said came about", would refer to the fulfilment of his dreams. Under God's ordering, prophetic truth occurs with perfect accuracy. In the meantime the discipline of love goes on, so that we may be fitted for our place according to God's counsels.

C.A.M. That would be a sort of proof that God was with him, inasmuch as he could hold out.

J.T. Yes; many of us suffer under the government of God other than by His word. To be tried by the word of God involves spirituality on the part of those tried. Joseph was not overcome by the trial; he was buoyant and so able to help others with him in prison.

A.F.M. Which is figurative of death in Joseph's case -- his being in the pit or in the prison house?

J.T. I think the pit. There was no water in it; had there been water, it would suggest that it was death as penalty, like the death of the Lord on the cross. But it was more to show the attitude of his brethren towards him. It is said of the remnant in Zechariah that they were "prisoners of hope". They were in a "pit wherein is no water" (Zechariah 9:11,12); that is, the pit was not penal. It was not like the lake of fire; they come out of it.

A.F.M. His brethren purposed to slay him; that would connect with the pit.

J.T. That was the testimony they brought to his father. They said he had been slain, and that was the understanding Jacob had.

J.S. The report of Joseph's death was carried through to his father.

J.T. That is how the matter stood publicly. Jacob accepted the false report of his sons and mourned for Joseph "many days".

J.S. The persecution here in chapter 39 is because of his faithfulness.

J.T. Yes; and what comes out before this attack is that he is prospered, even as a slave. I think it is to show that the greatest limitations do not hinder faith from operating, or hinder God from supporting faith. We may chafe under the limitation, but limitations in themselves do not hinder spiritual prosperity. They rather add to it where faith is active.

W.G.T. The prosperity did not turn him aside.

J.T. No. He was sober in his circumstances, although he had emerged practically from slavery into governorship over Potiphar's house. This passage shows how God can promote us in spite of external limitations.

C.A.M. Is Satan able to use such prosperity? Do you read that into the snare laid for Joseph here?

J.T. Yes, but there is no evidence that it succeeded. Hardly anything is mentioned save the prosperity. That is what is stressed in the early part of the chapter, and I think the object of this is to show that however limited our circumstances may be outwardly -- if God is with us, we shall be prospered. That is the lesson for us. A brother may say, I have a hard job; I have to work early and late, and it is difficult to get to the meetings; I could get on better if I were not so limited. The truth is that, generally speaking, the limitations that I chafe under are intended to help me. As I accept this, God is with me, and I shall prosper.

J.H.E. Would Paul be an example of this? He says, "I would to God, both in little and in much,

that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds", (Acts 26:29).

J.T. He was greatly limited outwardly, but morally greater than Agrippa. We get the greatest teaching from Paul while he was in prison.

F.H.L. If the pit was a step towards the prison, was not the position in Potiphar's house a step towards supreme rulership?

J.T. It was preparatory to it. The prison was, of course, a trial, but this was in view of the great service for which Joseph was destined.

A.F.M. Both Potiphar's house and the prison house were most testing.

J.T. Yes, and he prospered in both. The lesson for us is that in certain circumstances we are apt to chafe, saying, The demands made upon us are too irksome, while others are in easier circumstances and can devote themselves freely to the things of God, and we cannot. But God can overrule the most adverse circumstances and make us prosperous in spite of limitations -- more prosperous even than those who are in easy positions.

A.P. What is the difference between Joseph suffering at the hands of his brethren and suffering in the prison? What does the first refer to?

J.T. The first refers to the persecution Christ received at the hands of the Jews. That is typically what it meant. But it is what any of us may receive at the hands of our brethren now. The Scriptures always bear on the present time.

W.F.K. In the second instance, is Joseph a type of the Lord Jesus being falsely accused?

J.T. Yes; the first is the treatment he received at the hands of the Jews out of envy. Pilate knew they delivered Him up because of envy, but there was also false accusation. The Lord was immaculate; He was absolutely free, being always apart from sin.

"Which of you convinces me of sin?" He asked (John 8:46). Nevertheless He was accused most grievously.

A.R.S. What do you make of the fact that while the Jews rejected Christ and finally crucified Him they never put Him in prison? He was not imprisoned like John the baptist or like Joseph here.

J.T. That was all divinely ordered; every effort to take Him was frustrated until His "hour" came. Everything with regard to Christ was necessarily ordered in the most minute way -- even His burial; but, nevertheless, it is said, "He was taken from prison and from judgment", (Isaiah 53:8). The word "prison" in the Authorised Version may not be correct, but the thought is there. He was limited in that sense. He was a Prisoner, even if only for a day.

J.S. The moment the band led Him away, He was their Prisoner.

W.B-w. Would Potiphar's wife represent false accusation?

J.T. Yes, and this is nowhere seen more than at the judgment seat of Pilate and in the house of the high priest.

W.B-w. Why is Judah's misconduct mentioned in chapter 38?

J.T. To expose the state of Israel seen in Judah, who represented the leading tribe. It comes between the apprehension and selling of Joseph, and his imprisonment in Egypt. It is typically the low moral state of the Jews at the time when Christ was crucified.

J.S. What element would Potiphar's wife represent?

J.T. Remorseless false accusation. It is the spirit of false accusation in one of no integrity; a terrible thing to deal with because conscience is given up.

A.P. She was quite unscrupulous.

J.T. Quite; the Jews were utterly unscrupulous in the way that they accused the Lord.

J.S. That comes to light after the Spirit of God brings out the traits of Christ typically in Joseph.

J.T. Quite; he kept himself. "Every one begotten of God does not sin, but he that has been begotten of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him", (1 John 5:18).

J.S. After the account of his prosperity in Potiphar's house, the passage says, "And Joseph was of a beautiful form and of a beautiful countenance", (Genesis 39:6). Then we have the attack of Potiphar's wife.

C.A.M. I wondered whether it was in that way that Satan was able to get so near to Joseph. Paul warns not only of the reproach of the devil, but of the snare of the devil; compare 1 Timothy 3:7.

J.T. Just so. If a brother is promoted, he is the more exposed. Joseph, being true, had the power to keep himself.

J.S. As promoted, one becomes a more distinctive target for Satan.

A.N.W. I wondered what took place in the Lord's life that would correspond with Joseph's soul coming into irons?

J.T. I think the pressure of Gethsemane. That was the supreme test to Christ, when Satan came back to Him with all his force. I suppose that was what Joseph typified when the word of Jehovah tried him. "The word of Jehovah" governed Christ in Gethsemane. "Lo, I come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do, O God, thy will", (Hebrews 10:7). He had taken up that position. Now He says, "not my will, but thine be done", (Luke 22:42).

J.S. So He tastes death in His spirit in Gethsemane, but not the article of death, yet.

A.P. Would you even extend it on to His being held by Pilate? "Pilate therefore says to him,

Speakest thou not to me? Dost thou not know that I have authority to release thee?" (John 19:10).

J.T. The imprisonment is from the time He was apprehended until He died. Even in death He was held, but He came out of it in glorious liberty.

J.S. "The bars of the earth closed upon me for ever", (Jonah 2:6).

A.N.W. His soul being in irons is a strong term, and would show that it is typical of Gethsemane.

J.T. "My soul is very sorrowful even unto death", (Matthew 26:38).

W.G.T. "The word of Jehovah" would date back to the dreams that he had.

J.T. Instead of the sun, moon, stars, and sheaves bowing down to him, he is now a prisoner. How trying that was!

C.A.M. It seems a very affecting thing that the One who came to bring the captive to the end of his sorrows, had to feel all those sorrows Himself.

J.T. That is very affecting because it brings out the moral qualification of Christ to preach. "Christ indeed has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, in which also going he preached to the spirits which are in prison, heretofore disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noe" (1 Peter 3:18 - 20); that is, the Sufferer is the Preacher. The Lord's suffering is suggested in the smiting of one of the sons of the prophets who witnessed to Ahab. He was wounded violently before he spoke to Ahab, see 1 Kings 20. The Lord went through all that those in prison have to go through, and knows what it means more than any of us; so Jonah, the great preacher of the Old Testament, typically, went down to the bottom of the mountains, and was vomited up, and went to preach to Nineveh.

A.P.T. The butler and the baker offended the

king; whereas, there was no offence with Joseph.

J.T. In that fact he is also a type of Christ. What comes out emphasises what is possible in the limitations of a prison. Instead of pining there and giving up as John the baptist did, Joseph was superior and ready to help others. John said to the Lord, "Art thou the coming one? or are we to wait for another?" (Matthew 11:3). How could he preach Christ in that prison?

J.S. He had no converts in that situation, so different from Paul and Silas. They were in prison with their feet fast in the stocks, but they preached, and the jailor was converted.

J.T. Look at the Lord Jesus; as we were saying, He was in prison from the time of His arrest. He spoke the truth to Pilate, to Caiaphas, and to the thief on the cross; He converted the latter and that day he was with Him in Paradise. That is the idea. It is what one may do in prison; but John the baptist could do nothing while in unbelief. With Paul and Silas it is faith working through love in suffering and limitation.

F.H.L. With John in Patmos there was much for God.

J.T. See what he did there! That is another excellent example. You get it constantly through the Scriptures. Take the three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. See what happened in the fiery furnace!

A.N.W. How interesting that the first male convert in Europe should have been a prison keeper!

A.F.M. It is remarkable that through Joseph, in those prison conditions, the question of good and evil was to a large extent solved; that is, in the butler and the baker. Then it comes out later with regard to Pharaoh's two dreams -- the seven years of good, and the seven years of evil.

J.T. Also out of this prison the thought of the

cup is developed. Pharaoh's cup is the introduction in Genesis of an idea; that thought runs right through Scripture and enters into the Lord's supper. Joseph was where the king's prisoners were kept. I apprehend they were not ordinary prisoners, but represent Christians who are under the discipline of God. It is a remarkable kind of position, and Joseph immediately gained favour with "the chief of the tower-house", and is at once promoted. It was not a very rigorous prison. I doubt not that Christians of any spiritual account have experienced that prison, or what corresponds with it now.

J.S. Is that how the apostle Paul would regard himself -- "I, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you", (Ephesians 4:1).

J.T. That is right. He was one of the king's prisoners. First, he was "prisoner of the Christ Jesus", (Ephesians 3:1). He was not merely a prisoner of Caesar, although he had appealed to Caesar. Then he was "prisoner in the Lord", (chapter 4:1). It worked out thus. The Lord was keeping him in prison for Himself and for the saints.

J.S. Because of the testimony.

J.T. Quite so; we have the greatest things coming forth from that prison; the epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Timothy are examples of this.

W.F.K. Joseph said to the butler, "Only bear a remembrance with thee of me when it goes well with thee, and deal kindly, I pray thee, with me", (verse 14). How do you apply that to Christ?

J.T. That applies to you when you are in prison. The Lord requests that when you are released you might think of Him. He would impress you with the fact that He has been there too. This prison in Egypt is a remarkable place; the king's prisoners are confined there, and Joseph was promoted there and everyone is under his hand. Then the cup-

bearer and the baker of the king are put in custody there; and what comes to light is a dream of a vine and the king's cup; and further, a dream of bread and all manner of victuals for Pharaoh that the baker makes. It is what you might speak of as the bread and the cup. The butler is released and the baker is hanged. All that is very searching, because it comes to light in the prison; in the place of testing I find that I have not been ministering to Pharaoh, that the things I made were of my head, and exposed, so that Satan came and took them away.

C.A.M. That is very striking. Will you say more about that? Paul and Silas at Philippi did not have the truth merely in their heads, but in their hearts, and the atmosphere of liberty came into the prison.

J.T. In prayer, they sang praises to God. The king's prison, I think, discloses where we are in our service; we must look at Pharaoh here as supreme, and as typical of God Himself. But what have I ministered to Him? Is it a head matter or a heart matter? That is the question for our consciences.

J.S. It will not do if what is presented is a mere mental thing. We must have our minds controlled by our hearts.

J.T. That is the thought. According to his dream, the butler pressed the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, and hence he is restored.

A.F.M. What the butler gave to Pharaoh, having pressed the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, would be fresh.

J.T. That is very important. The Lord's supper is not stale; what is celebrated in Christendom is stale -- the same forms and words are used today that were in use three hundred years ago; whereas freshness should mark every celebration of the Lord's supper. The grapes are, as it were, pressed into the cup as the saints are rightly in assembly.

W.G.T. Why is the bread not presented?

J.T. The bread in the Lord's supper represents

Christ's body in which the will of God was effected. The baker did not answer to this. What marked Christ as Man was the doing of the will of God. He says, "thou hast prepared me a body ... Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will". (Hebrews 10:5,7) Romans is the great epistle for young Christians to become grounded in; it results in: "I myself with the mind serve God's law", (Romans 7:25). That is a fundamental element in the soul with a view to functioning in the assembly.

A.R. I notice with regard to the vine here, there is development until you get the ripened grapes. Might it suggest what is seen in the Lord Jesus?

J.T. Yes. He is "the true vine". It is a question of how the truth works out now, spiritually. The cup is the love side. There is the energy of life here "its blossoms shot forth, its clusters ripened into grapes", (verse 10). Joseph carries forward the thought of the cup afterwards, when he puts his cup into Benjamin's sack. We have to link this on spiritually, so that Joseph's cup tested the brethren as to where they were. The one in whose sack it was found had to go back to be tested in Joseph's presence and be retained by him. This leads to the disclosure of Joseph's relation to the sons of Israel.

C.A.M. That helps us to understand Joseph's remark in chapter 44:15. He puts it in the form of a question.

J.T. Just so. Such a man as he divined.

W.B-w. Do you look at Joseph from one point of view as a bondman; and then from another as a free man? The latter seen in the liberty in which he was spiritually.

J.T. He is free as superior to his circumstances. There is the gradual emerging on moral lines until he is ruling Egypt. We have to follow the Spirit's trend. There is a wonderful opening up of the truth typically in this prison.

A.F.M. Would the three days that are frequently mentioned with regard to these two bondmen refer in any way to the resurrection of Christ? "And it came to pass the third day -- Pharaoh's birthday -- that he made a feast to all his bondmen", (chapter 40:20). It was the third day that the butler's liberation came into effect.

J.T. The resurrection of Christ brought release and clarity typically to the butler. The three days would be completed exercise as to what is presented. The hanging of the baker on that day would, I suppose, allude to the judgment of God in the cross on what the baker represents.

A.P. Does it infer that there was not a work of God in the baker's soul?

J.T. I think so. The hanging is a type of God's condemnation of what is seen in him. His products were not preserved for the king, but taken by the enemy. Abraham had set an example of what God approves in such circumstances. He watched his sacrifice, so that when the birds came he scared them off. That is carefulness as to what you offer to God.

N.F.P. For this a measure of divine formation in our souls is needed.

J.T. Yes; the things of God are too precious to be exposed to the enemy. "Keep, by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us, the good deposit entrusted", (2 Timothy 1:14). Keep it by the Holy Spirit. The baker was not doing that typically.

W.G.T. Three baskets would not suggest one loaf.

J.T. No; it is just the general principle that the kind of humanity suggested is not according to God. General principle also applies.

A.P. It says in Deuteronomy 28:26, "And thy carcase shall be meat unto all the fowl of the air", referring to those who disobeyed the voice of Jehovah.

J.T. Which shows what is meant here. The verse

says further, "there shall be no man to scare them away".

A.R. The cup would suggest what is circumscribed. The basket is something open. There is a difference, is there not?

J.T. Open vessels are always exposed. So that in the types, if one dies in the house, the open vessel is rendered unclean; even the wagons that the Levites had for carrying the heavy things of the tabernacle, were covered.

G.MacP. Would not the butler's forgetfulness correspond with many believers at the present time?

J.T. Yes; he was asked by Joseph to remember him, but he did not. Many do not remember the Lord according to His wish, although they owe all to Him; Joseph said, "bear a remembrance with thee of me when it goes well with thee", (verse 14).

A.R. The recovery of the butler was in the cup. The recovery for the brethren is in Joseph's cup. It is a silver cup. Is there something in that?

J.T. There is; it is a further thought, involving the claims of love. The true brother, the overcomer, is brought to light in Benjamin. It was in Benjamin's sack that the cup was found, and that brought to light the brethren. They are restored on these lines, and recovery of what is for God today is in relation to the Lord's supper. It is a test as to whether one loves the Lord. If I love Him, I want to remember Him. The butler forgot Joseph.

C.A.M. This is testimony to what God gets out of prison conditions. At first sight it looked as if the enemy had the advantage, but subsequently we see that God gains immensely out of it.

J.T. The cup has a great place; even though the butler forgot Joseph, the thought is carried forward in chapter 44, where the cup effects much. It brings Benjamin to light, the true brother. Benjamin had never done anything against Joseph; he is the overcomer,

and the cup is found in his sack, which was an advantage to him, for it led to the brethren coming to light in Judah, and to Joseph making himself known to them. The Lord's supper is contemplated in this section.

A.P. Would you say that the greater part of Christendom is represented in the cup-bearer, who had received a measure of light from Joseph but did not go on to the remembrance?

J.T. Christendom has forgotten Christ; as was said of Moses, "the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt -- we do not know what is become of him!" (Exodus 32:1).

W.G.T. Many professing Christians have disregarded the covenant. There was, in a sense, a covenant between Joseph and the cup-bearer.

J.T. If he had been a man with a heart, he would never have forgotten such a benefactor.

A.R.S. Do you mean that Christians today that are not remembering the Lord through His supper have forgotten Him?

J.T. Yes. It is His appointed way of remembering Him.

A.F.M. As regards the order of the Lord's supper, whatever instructions are given in the synoptic gospels, they are all put together in what the Lord indicated to Paul from heaven; nothing is left out; as if the full thing should be before us.

J.T. Yes, that is important to remember. Paul speaks about eating and drinking as well as the memorial. The Lord, in instituting His supper, did not eat and drink of it; He formally separates the Supper in Luke from the passover, of which He had partaken. The eating and drinking is Matthew's side.

A.R. In referring to the recovery; do we come to a point where the feelings of the Lord Jesus come into evidence typically? Scripture says, "And Joseph could not control himself before all them that

stood by him, and he cried, Put every man out from me!" (chapter 45:1). Would it imply the intimacy of Christ's relation with His brethren when He said, "Come near to me", (verse 4)?

J.T. The Lord's supper is intended to bring us to that point. That is a collective idea between the Lord and His own. It may be that there are persons in the room that are unconverted, but they cannot enter into the spiritual side.

J.H.E. Is there a spirit of judgment in this king's prison? The chief of the bakers is taken from it and hanged. The book of Revelation also shows this spirit of judgment.

J.T. Yes; here it is not only a place of penalty, but of light involving judgment.

F.H.L. Out of this prison came the "Saviour of the world", which is implied in the name Pharaoh gave to Joseph.

J.T. Quite so. Now another view of Joseph is his tribal relation. It comes in late in the blessing in chapter 49, but he gets the greatest place. The archers shot at and hated him; he is a fruitful bough by a well; his branches shoot over the wall. He is not a narrow-minded brother; his outlook is wide; he is not stinted, but is by a well, where there is a constant supply of refreshment. Why then should he be shot at? This is another view of Christ and of the saints, too, but as prospered. If the Spirit is recognised, there is fruitfulness, and if fruitful, why should saints in such circumstances be shot at? That is another consideration.

J.S. Are the Gentiles in view here in connection with the branches going over the wall?

J.T. That is the principle. It is the largeness of view. We are not narrow in our outlook.

C.A.M. Why should the Lord or the saints be shot at? That seems to be the point.

A.F.M. The more prosperous the saints are, the more they are persecuted.

J.T. Exactly. It says, "Joseph is a fruitful bough; A fruitful bough by a well; His branches shoot over the wall. The archers have provoked him, And shot at, and hated him; But his bow abideth firm, And the arms of his hands are supple By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob. From thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel".

J.S. Was not the Lord shot at in the fulfilment of this in Luke 4, as He spoke in the synagogue of Nazareth and began to testify of the blessing of God outside of Judaism?

J.T. Yes. Then they led Him up to the brow of the hill to cast Him down.

C.A.M. I suppose an archer is a distant enemy. People who attack in this way are not near the blessing.

J.T. Yes, I suppose that is what archery means spiritually. It is a means of attack from a distance.

A.N.W. It is rather remarkable that the combat in Ephesians 6, in which there is wrestling, should also have darts, which suggest a long-distance attack.

J.T. In warfare generally you have hand-to-hand conflict as well as artillery. Wrestling is a very hand-to-hand matter. Close combat tests us most, but there is the long-distance conflict, too, which is harrowing.

G.MacP. Would you mind saying a word distinguishing between Joseph being in prison and being a fruitful bough by a well?

J.T. The position at the well implies the Spirit,

prominent in Genesis. The Lord in Luke 4:18 says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me". There He is a fruitful bough by a well. He is serving in the power of the Spirit.

W.G.T. Saul was brought down by the archers at the end of 1 Samuel; whereas David taught the men of Judah the use of the bow.

J.T. David is a man that learned by experience. Archery was known early; Ishmael was an archer. Jacob also, for he speaks of using his bow against the Amorite (Genesis 48:22), and here in chapter 49:24 it is said that Joseph's "bow abideth firm". Ishmael would attack the fruitful bough by a well; as born after the flesh, he persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.

A.N.W. Joseph has his own bow, and it abode in strength, and he was victorious.

J.T. God is never at a disadvantage. The enemy can never outdo Him in weapons or in any strategy of war, and He always chooses His own battlefield and weapons.

R.D.G. Is it not remarkable that Joseph is outstandingly superior, whether in his father's house, in Potiphar's house, in prison, or in Pharaoh's house?

J.T. Very true. Writing also has the character of a long-distance weapon. It was evidently present in the world before God used it; but He can take all man's weapons and turn them against him. The first record of writing we get in Scripture, as far as one knows, is in Exodus 17, which is written for young Christians specially; on the occasion of the battle of Rephidim. The account of the battle was to be written in the book, and rehearsed in the ears of Joshua. Then later God wrote on the tables of stone, which had a widespread effect. The law convicted men everywhere. Writing, today is a long-distance weapon, and the Scriptures are a weapon in a very special way.

J.S. The word of God is said to be quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.

A.R. In hand-to-hand combat you have no difficulty in knowing where the enemy is. In long-distance warfare there is often difficulty in locating him.

J.T. That is right. But the arrow "at a venture" reached Ahab. That is divine archery; the word of God does not return void to Him; it always reaches its object.

A.F.M. Two thoughts would be found here: "But his bow abideth firm, And the arms of his hand are supple By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob". The bow is held in the hand and needs strength to keep it firm, but accuracy of aim is also needed.

J.T. Quite so; the suppleness would imply dexterity in handling the weapon, supported by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob.

C.A.M. It is remarkable about Ahab, because as far as the archer was concerned, the bow was shot at a venture, but God directed the arrow accurately.

J.T. That is the ground you take in preaching the gospel. You do not know what is going on in the hearts of your hearers, but God knows.

Rem. Here it says Joseph was shot at. It does not say that he was hit. Of the assembly, it says that "hades' gates shall not prevail against it", (Matthew 16:18).

J.T. They took the Lord out to the brow of the hill to cast Him down, but they did not do it. "He, passing through the midst of them, went his way", (Luke 4:30).

F.H.L. This military feature of Joseph is striking.

J.T. It is a very fine passage, referring to Christ as suffering in this way; but He overcomes in the conflict. "From thence is the shepherd, the stone of

Israel". He will take care of the sheep, and being "the stone of Israel", things are stable.

A.P. Does Joseph represent the highest feature of truth in the idea of fruitfulness, and is he thus the particular object of the enemy's attack?

J.T. Comparing this passage with Deuteronomy 33 -- Moses' blessing of the tribes -- we see that Joseph represents Ephesians, the heavenly side of the truth, but in the tribal setting. Moses sees the land as occupied anticipatively by the tribes; Ephesians contemplates heaven with the saints in it. It is a great thing to be able to bear the attack of the enemy and hold your ground, as Joseph did in relation to the tribes, that is, in relation to the saints.

A.N.W. What did you mean when you spoke about Joseph representing Ephesians tribal-wise?

J.T. Well, it is the Lord seen in relation to the tribes. It is the love setting. John 17 is that He has the saints with Him.

J.S. So the blessing of Joseph comes in here in relation to the other tribes.

J.T. Yes; and he holds his ground as attacked. "Let these go away", the Lord said; (John 18:8). He protected the brethren, confronting the enemy alone.

J.S. So He is the Stone of Israel. All are included.

J.T. Yes; a permanent order of things would now be established, which opens up the truth of the assembly.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (8)

Exodus 2:1 - 16; Exodus 32:15 - 19; Numbers 12:1 - 10; Numbers 16:1 - 4

J.T. Our consideration of the sufferings of Christ at this time refers specially to those who are engaged in the ministry. Moses represents those who minister amongst the saints. He is said to have been faithful in all God's house, and it is in that connection that he is envied and spoken against by his sister Miriam and his brother Aaron. We should bear this in mind, for the sufferings Moses endured illustrate the sufferings endured by those engaged in serving the saints, as amongst them.

A.P. Do his sufferings here link with those of his parents, occasioned by the edict of Pharaoh seen in chapter 1?

J.T. Yes; all parents in Israel suffered with regard to the male children at that time. Stephen says their infants were cast out, showing the vehemence of the attack of Satan on them. Moses, too, was cast out; (Acts 7:21). The Lord Himself suffered from infancy.

A.F.M. Do you refer to the statement, "the boy wept"? Not so much from a point of intelligence as from sensitiveness, feeling his lonely position.

J.T. I think the weeping is mentioned to show he had part in the suffering. The Lord had part in the sufferings, too, He was laid in a manger.

A.N.W. Would you touch on the suffering that he chose? "Choosing rather to suffer affliction along with the people of God than to have the temporary pleasure of sin", (Hebrews 11:25). That would be in contradistinction.

J.T. "When Moses was grown ... he went out to his brethren, and looked on their burdens", (Exodus 2:11). It was deliberately choosing affliction with

the people of God; becoming identified with them. The passage says, further, "he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren". I think the "reproach" (Hebrews 11), lies in the word "Hebrew". The people of God were despised, but he was a prince, so that he is choosing now not only to be with his brethren, but to suffer with them in their position.

A.F.M. According to Hebrews 11:24, he "refused to be called son of Pharaoh's daughter". Would this movement with regard to his brethren follow upon that?

J.T. I suppose his refusal to remain in the court of Pharaoh was involved in his going "out to his brethren"; he looked on their burdens and identified himself with them, which meant that he would have to break with the royal house.

C.A.M. It is remarkable that sufferings in very infancy should include the Lord, as you were saying. The mother-heart of Israel wept in connection with Him. There is a connection with the weeping here.

J.T. "Rachel weeping for her children" (Matthew 2:18), was the outcome of Herod's attack on Christ as a little Child. The weeping of Moses here when he was "cast out" was before he had any intelligence as to the position, but God put him in the way of suffering; he was sharing in it already, as many children of Christian parents do now. They have the advantage of being "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14), and necessarily suffer with their parents. They naturally do not like it, but in later years when the Lord is known by them, and they identify themselves with Him as Moses did, they will value the fact that they had the privilege of sharing in the sufferings of the testimony from their infancy.

R.W.S. Moses was "fair to God" -- what a suggestive background to his suffering!

J.T. There was something there which the enemy would persecute.

A.R. In Hebrews 11 it says the parents hid him three months. Is that like the Lord being hid, (Matthew 2)? He was taken to Egypt by Joseph to be out of Herod's reach.

J.T. Yes. Moses' parents valued him, "because they saw the child beautiful" -- the mother's exercise is prominent here.

A.F.M. Is the position of Moses in the river equal to the position of believers' children today, in that they have been put into the place of death? Moses' mother anticipated his being thrown into the river by placing him there in the ark.

J.T. Yes; the ordering of God is, I think, illustrated here in behalf of young people whose parents are in the testimony. God orders it that they should have part in suffering early, which would be to their credit.

F.H.L. Pharaoh's daughter recognised a Hebrew child, and I suppose the world should take account of our children as belonging to the people of God.

A.N.W. Are you allying this suffering with the servant, or has it a different phase?

J.T. It is the suffering of a potential servant. God takes account of what a man is to be, knowing the end from the beginning. Paul speaks of God setting him apart from his mother's womb.

A.P. Are you suggesting that "one of the Hebrews' children" is under reproach?

J.T. Yes; such are in reproach in the world. You get the word 'Hebrew' involving reproach in Egypt, more frequently in this section than in any other.

J.S. I suppose the change really comes about in the opening of Exodus. Another king arose that knew not Joseph; hence the testimony is under reproach, and it was under those conditions Moses was born.

J.T. Yes; that is how Stephen links this period with the general history. Under these conditions of

reproach Moses was born, and became an outcast. That is the principle; his parents being identified with the testimony occasions this suffering position. The man in John 9 was an outcast, in keeping with the position of Christ at that time.

J.S. In the end of Genesis the testimony was in favour, but here you have a complete change of government. The testimony of God is in reproach today, which brings about suffering, if we are identified with it.

J.T. The children of parents in the testimony suffer; it is an advantage they have as having such parents.

C.A.M. God encouraged Jeremiah at the outset -- He thought of him before he was born.

J.T. Just so. "Before thou camest forth out of the womb I hallowed thee, I appointed thee a prophet unto the nations", (Jeremiah 1:5).

A.F.M. What would you suggest to help our young in such circumstances? Of course, they have to feel these things. What is the compensation for them?

J.T. Well, there are the joys of the house of God -- the music and dancing; these should be apparent. They should be regarded as potentially of it. Of course, they may not value these, but as participating with their parents in the things of God formation goes on, and upon their identification with the testimony, when they come to years, they have an education equal to it. Income has been accruing to them all the time, and they are richer than an ordinary adult convert would be.

C.A.M. This makes household baptism of great importance.

F.H.L. So the potentiality in our young is very great, and suffering rightly goes with it.

J.T. Moses gained immensely by it. The application now is where children grow up and finally do

as Moses did. When he was grown, he went out to his brethren. Young people today look at the brethren; sometimes it is to criticise them severely. They say, They are narrow and there is nothing for young people amongst them, and similar things; they are apt to forfeit their accrued wealth by these remarks, and the feelings behind them. The wealth only becomes confirmed to them as they, like Moses, when come to years, make a decision to identify themselves with the people of God. They have an income already as we said, but it will be all forfeited if they go into the world, for it is of no use there.

A.N.W. Being "cast out" is a wonderful qualification for Christian fellowship. Fellowship is very little understood or enjoyed unless there is something of this in our experience. The man of John 9 qualified in that chapter for the fellowship indicated in John 10.

J.T. Children, as breathing the godly atmosphere of the Christian household, may in one way or another witness in school, and in measure acquire the experience of being cast out; the attitude of worldly young people toward them would be, You do not belong to us.

Ques. Would you connect the thought of "grown" here with intelligence?

J.T. Yes; "grown" means maturity, and intelligence goes with it.

Rem. So that you would look for intelligence in any person that is grown.

J.T. Yes; he is mature. Moses knew what he was doing as grown. Earlier he did not know, but he wept, showing that he felt things.

W.G.T. In the house of Pharaoh he would have every comfort; whereas, among the brethren it was a question of burdens.

J.T. Yes; there was nothing for the flesh in such conditions. Moses well knew what the Israelites had to go through at that time, but "he went out to his

brethren and looked on their burdens". Young people generally shrink from the burdens of the saints. Moses looked on them, undoubtedly with a view to sharing them.

A.P. Would not the nursing time until he had grown and was brought to Pharaoh's daughter have a great bearing on his later choice?

J.T. I think so. It was in the ordering of God that he was given to his mother to nurse.

A.MacN. Does the word to Timothy sustain what you are speaking of with regard to young believers?

J.T. Yes. He is a choice New Testament example of one who had to do with the testimony from his infancy. Paul could say to him, "that from a child thou hast known the sacred letters", (2 Timothy 3:15). We should emphasise this point, because there are so many young people amongst us now, and this thought of Moses and of Timothy applies to them from the outset. They have to be taken account of potentially. In after years Moses would look back to his position in the river and say, I am thankful that I suffered from the outset. God honoured him in that way, for it was a great matter. It would enter into his constitution in view of his service; God would also turn to account what he had received from his mother in his early days.

J.S. So that his decision, having come to years, to cast in his lot with the suffering people of God, would really justify his childhood training.

W.G.T. Would this going out to his brethren mark a crisis in his history?

J.T. It was a crisis, and he was moving rightly in it. Pharaoh's daughter "called his name Moses, and said, Because I drew him out of the water". She is presented as saving Moses and becoming his foster-mother, but her counter influence notwithstanding, did not stifle the instincts divinely developed

in him in his youth. Thus the Spirit goes on to say: "when Moses was grown, ... he went out to his brethren and looked on their burdens". That is a very fine record. He would know well enough from the conversations in the palace the reproach in which the Hebrews were held, but at length he went out to them as his brethren and looked on their burdens.

A.P. It is not a little remarkable that the feature of assuming burdens should be taken on by Moses as belonging to the levitical family before it is officially given a place.

R.W.S. It is a beautiful touch that Stephen gives to the movement of Moses here, making it a heart matter. He says, it came into his heart to look upon his brethren.

A.N.W. Moses "saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren" -- not one of the brethren.

J.T. That is a beautiful touch. Oftentimes young people say, We belong to the brethren. It may be they do not care much about having to say it, but feel they have to say something. Sometimes they even call them the Plymouth brethren, which makes them a sect and discredits the testimony; but with Moses it was "an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew"; those despised people, to Moses, were his brethren.

G.MacP. What element would Pharaoh's daughter represent?

J.T. She was not to be despised. To a point she was Moses' saviour, and was of a different mind to Pharaoh, her father. She drew Moses out of the water, and gave him a name which conveyed this act; light was in it. She also acceded to the suggestion of Moses' sister, so that he was returned to his mother.

J.S. I suppose we see God's overruling and providing hand in Pharaoh's daughter.

J.T. I think so. There was something of moral value in her. She was not governed by her father's influence, for Moses became her son. Of a race despised, the objects of murderous persecution, she sympathised with him, and took him as her son. She represents elements that God uses providentially; which are favourable to a point.

F.H.L. Moses' mother coming in at the outset of Moses' life, had a very formative effect on him; so today it is a question of affections being formed in the young, so that they may recognise the brethren as their brethren.

J.T. There is thus a very great deal of practical instruction in this passage. As regards our subject, Moses suffers first as a babe, and now he suffers as a grown-up man from his brethren. It is a sorrowful consideration that those whom he would serve, persecuted him. This marked his whole life, as we shall see later.

Stephen says, "He that was wronging his neighbour thrust him away, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge over us?" (Acts 7:27). God links this with Moses' commission, saying, "This Moses, whom they refused, saying, Who made thee ruler and judge? him did God send to be a ruler and deliverer with the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush", (Acts 7:35). All this shows that Moses in suffering represents those who serve the saints.

J.S. As misunderstood here.

J.T. Exactly; but then it was the man who did wrong that caused the suffering. You may be sure if there is persecution of a servant, there is some previous unrighteousness in those who persecute.

C.A.M. Not in the servant.

J.T. No, but in those that persecute him; here the man that did the wrong is the persecutor.

C.A.M. Satan has thus something to work on.

Rem. The Lord when here was persecuted much from His brethren in connection with service.

J.T. Yes that is the point we are at here. Moses is on that side; it is a question of those who are formally in the service of God.

W.G.T. David delivered Keilah, but the people there turned round and sought to deliver him up to Saul.

J.T. Quite so; the men of Judah, in like manner, delivered Samson to the Philistines.

W.B-w. Moses smote the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. What would that represent?

J.T. He had a wrong point of view as to the deliverance. God intended to deliver them in another way. The excellency of the power was to be His and not man's.

W.B-w. Moses had to learn what the flesh was. He had not learned that at this point.

J.T. The dead Egyptians were not to be hidden in the sand, but to be exposed on the seashore as testimony of the judgment of God.

J.H.E. Peter would be on that line when he cut off the servant's ear. He would smite with the sword, but the Lord says, "Return thy sword to its place", (Matthew 26:52).

J.T. Quite. But at the same time Moses understood that God would use him; his brethren did not. Many a servant is misunderstood, yet knows himself that he has a mission from the Lord, even though the brethren do not know it, and he suffers accordingly.

Rem. Was that the case with the Lord -- His mother and Joseph had sought Him sorrowing, and found Him in the temple? He says to them, "Why is it that ye have sought me? did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father's business?" (Luke 2:49). He was totally misunderstood even there.

J.T. But He was already conscious of being here on His Father's business.

A.R. If Moses' brethren had been with God, they would have recognised that he was their deliverer.

J.T. I think so. They would have said, There is something in this. Why should a prince of the house of Pharaoh come out to us? This is worth inquiring into.

A.P. Acts 7 would substantiate that; the onus of the refusal was on their part.

J.T. Yes. Stephen, in his arraignment of Israel, links it up with their resistance of the Holy Spirit.

A.N.W. The whole burden of Stephen's address placed the responsibility of their resistance to God on the persecutors.

C.H.H. In all this Moses corresponds strikingly with Joseph. He had "genuine feeling" for the people of God, although suffering from them. The word of the Lord tried Joseph in the meantime.

J.T. This shows what younger brothers who seek to serve might have to endure through being misunderstood, but if they have a commission, it is to be discerned and will not be revoked; thus they may well submit, and patiently wait on God. It is for them, of course, to commend themselves, and to show themselves approved of God.

F.N.P. Moses was allowed to remain forty years in Midian. Was that to complete his education, and to verify that he was Israel's delivered?

J.T. Yes. The number forty has a great place in this section of Scripture; the forty years that Israel sojourned in the desert are all reckoned and are valuable; although Israel used much of that time in lawlessness, but God used every minute of it for Israel's good. This applies also to the forty years Moses spent in Midian.

J.S. Has Moses to begin his forty years over again in Midian?

J.T. That is the way the truth stands. He went to Midian and sat by the well. He thus made a good start there, meaning that he depended upon something outside of himself. "The excellency of the power" (2 Corinthians 4:7) now is to be of God.

C.A.M. Do you mean he was to be there those forty years in view of being commissioned to lead the people of God forty years through the desert?

J.T. Yes; I think God saw that he needed that, but according to Stephen he had knowledge of it already himself, so that the word of the Lord would try him as it tried Joseph. The word of the Lord would be the understanding we have from the Lord as to our path in service.

A.R.S. Moses' weapons are to be spiritual, not carnal.

J.T. I think that is what is meant in sitting by the well. The Holy Spirit is to be the power in him.

A.F.M. In Hebrews 11:27 it says of Moses, "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king", which was a good finish to that phase of his service.

J.T. Exodus 2:15 says, he "fled from before Pharaoh", but the Spirit of God says, he did not fear the wrath of the king, "for he persevered, as seeing him who is invisible", (Hebrews 11:27). His whole history proves this.

A.F.M. It was clearly at this time, in affection for Christ, that he turned his back on Egypt. It says, "esteeming the reproach of the Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he had respect to the recompense", (verse 26).

J.T. Yes. All these cases should be read in the light of the New Testament. That is where we get the spiritual touches as to the mind of God -- what underlay the happenings as God saw them.

A.F.M. Where do you think the thought of sovereignty in the selection of the servant came home to Moses? He must have had a sense at some particular time of his call.

J.T. I think he had it in mind as he went out to his brethren. Stephen, in Acts 7, would indicate that God had communicated to him in some sense that he was to be the deliverer.

F.H.L. We see that he had lost a lot of self-confidence at the end of the second forty years. He says, "Who am I, that I should go?" (Exodus 3:11).

J.T. I think he lost ground in a way, too. Very often we become unduly timid. It is well to keep a good balance. Whilst God breaks down our wills, He does not intend to weaken our faith and confidence in Himself, and consequent assurance.

R.W.S. What value do you place on the first forty years?

J.T. It was a mixed experience. The early influence of the parents, I think, gave him a great advantage. Our young people should see today in their parents' houses what an advantage there is in the way of influence and formation before they have much knowledge of the truth, their constitution being built up and affected by the influence of a godly house.

A.R. Coming into fellowship, they can be effective from the outset in serving the saints.

J.T. In Moses there was in this way, what overcame the influence of the court. "Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds" (Acts 7:22); but the early training through grace overcame all that.

A.MacN. The second forty years were, no doubt, needed to fully prepare Moses for his service as deliverer and to prepare the people for deliverance.

J.T. Yes. God saw what was necessary; it was no accident, Moses being in Midian or Israel being still in Egypt. God overrules all circumstances, and

He turned these fresh exercises into account. It was necessary for Moses to go through these forty years in Midian, and it is remarkable what a spirit he manifested; he looked after the sheep of another, without the slightest suggestion of any thought of wages. Jacob wanted wages, but Moses had no such thought. I believe during all that period, he was developing unselfishness which God would use.

W.G.T. Paul was some time in Arabia. He would be developing similar sensibilities.

A.F.M. Sitting by the well in Midian was a good start for the second forty years upon which Moses was entering.

J.T. The whole forty years are in keeping with it. He had slain an Egyptian, but there is nothing of that in Midian. There is no evidence that he used violence towards the shepherds. He helped Jethro's daughters to water the flock, and the Holy Spirit says, he consented to dwell with Jethro, which implied that there was something in him naturally that resisted that thought, but he was subject and accepted the circumstances.

J.S. The first forty years would not be lost after coming under the Lord's hand in Midian. God could now effectually use his prior education.

A.F.M. Do you think that the crowning feature of these second forty years is seen in Moses leading the flock and coming to the mountain of God where he saw the burning thorn-bush -- and yet it was not consumed?

J.T. I think it was God coming in at that juncture and honouring the formation that was there.

A.R. Before he came to that point, he was tending the flock of Jethro. Would that go with what you have been saying, that all that was selfish had been judged by him?

J.T. Quite; the flock he tended was never his own flock. Jacob acquired a flock under similar circumstances

A true minister among God's people today never thinks of acquiring a flock; the clerical idea of "my flock, my people", is a false thought. The true servant cares for the flock of God.

A.B.P. Would that link on with what Moses said to Jehovah later -- "thy people"?

J.T. Exactly.

A.P.T. Does Moses synchronise with Paul up to the point where the Lord appeared to him? Moses slew the Egyptian, Saul slew the saints, both thinking they did God service.

J.T. I think there was something in Saul that condemned him, indefinable, possibly, to himself. He says, he persecuted the saints ignorantly in unbelief. The Lord says, "it is hard for thee to kick against goads", (Acts 26:14). There was something going on inwardly in him which the Lord noticed; and then instead of occupying him with the saints one by one, He occupies him with them all, saying, "why dost thou persecute me?" (Acts 9:4). That is, one idea, which is the germ of the mystery put into his soul at the very outset. His training from that point was very much like that of Moses, including the period in Arabia, until he was formally commissioned.

A.N.W. Tell us again why you place such importance on this word "by the well".

J.T. Because the Spirit of God mentions it in that way. The article is before "well". "Moses ... dwelt in the land of Midian. And he sat by the well". There must have been several wells in Midian, but spiritually there is only one. It refers to the Spirit. "Sitting" would denote a permanent attitude of mind.

Rem. Corresponding with "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10).

J.T. Just so; added to that is the word of

Ananias that the Lord had sent him to Saul that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit.

A.N.W. You made a remark that Moses' activities in Midian were not formally in opposing the shepherds, but in the support of what was of God. What a difference there would be in church history if that had been maintained throughout!

J.T. Moses' position suggests the positive side; occupation with the flock was enjoined on the elders of Ephesus -- "Shepherd the assembly of God".

F.H.L. What is said of Gershon by Moses, as naming him is in the light of his return to his brethren.

J.T. Yes, he was a stranger in Midian.

We have now to go to chapter 32 -- a most distressing chapter in the history of God's people, and therefore coming into the sufferings of the true servant; even what arises amongst the saints through their lawlessness, becomes the occasion of the servant's suffering. Moses had nothing to do with this idolatry; in fact, they rejected him, saying, "for this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt, -- we do not know what is become of him!" (verse 1). There was, of course, suffering for him in that. He had not been long away, and they saw where he had gone. It is the state of the people in this chapter, and its results in causing suffering to those who serve. It is of great importance to see that this is the order of the day for those who are in the service of God. Paul, in speaking of the mercy shown to Epaphroditus, regarded it as mercy shown to himself, saying, "that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow", (Philippians 2:27).

A.P. Would you connect the thought of Moses' anger here with suffering?

J.T. Think of the feelings he must have had, in being compelled to break the tables! Think of what they must have been to him! We are told here expressly that they were written on both their

sides, that the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God graven upon the tables. There was nothing in the whole earth like those two tables of the covenant.

J.S. They are called "the tables of the testimony".

J.T. Think what it must have been to Moses to break them That is one item of the sufferings. This section, chapters 32 and 33, is full of what a servant who is for God has to endure -- not because of what he does or has done, but because of the state of the people and what they do.

A.F.M. He had no command to break the tables; yet he does it instinctively.

J.T. Well, what could he do with them? It brought out clearly that he was not the Messiah. Had he been the Messiah, he would have had the testimony in his heart and would die to establish it. He was just a man of like passions with ourselves, but real and inexpressible sufferings were endured by Moses in spirit, who took God's side of the position. The state of the people was so bad that he could not bring the tables into the camp.

C.H.H. In the presence of the effect of sin the Lord was "deeply moved in spirit", (John 11:33). When they brought the deaf man who could not speak right, Jesus groaned; (Mark 7:34). All this shows what servants of the Lord have to suffer.

C.A.M. You feel that also in relation with Paul.

J.T. He thought of certain ones "with tears", (Acts 20:31). They were thinking of themselves. The servant has to go through these things, and God takes account of it. Jeremiah's eyes were consumed with tears. His lamentations are the outcome of the exercises he had to endure as a servant among God's people; because of their state and conduct.

A.F.M. In this scripture, we find that before Moses came down from the mountain, he made

intercession to God, and says, "Why, Jehovah, doth thy wrath burn against thy people?" But when he gets down to the foot of the mountain, his wrath burned, too, and he broke the tables. Would that show the depth of his feeling?

J.T. I think so. You can picture what terrible agony he must have endured in this crisis. Think of what it must have been to Moses, three thousand people slain in the camp, and hundreds of things like it were endured by Moses in the desert; they are endured also more or less by every true servant today. It is well to take account of those whom God puts forward in His service having to carry these things, for they are obligated to suffer and should be regarded in this light.

A.R. So that what Moses says to God on the mountain shows what exercises he went through in his own soul.

J.T. Quite so, and he is willing to be blotted out of God's book for them, as the end of the chapter shows, which enables us to see what a man he was. In this he rises to be a great type of the true Mediator.

T.H. Jeremiah says, "Remember thou mine affliction and my wandering, the wormwood and the gall. My soul hath them constantly in remembrance, and is humbled in me", (Lamentations 3:19,20).

J.T. The Lamentations of Jeremiah are most wholesome for a servant to read. They teach us to feel with God. "Remembering thy tears", was said by the apostle to Timothy. (2 Timothy 1:4).

R.D.G. Would you take it that Moses' sufferings would be accentuated by the fact that Aaron was leader in the sin; the one with whom he had been so intimately linked as representing God to Pharaoh?

J.T. Quite so, the fact must have been most painful to Moses. This section is fairly well known to us.

We can only touch on it as showing what a servant has to go through, as with God; to take account of what is coming up every day as a result of a low spiritual state of the saints. As we feel these things we suffer, and that is what God values.

A.F.M. Moses kept the passover, and that must have occasioned suffering on his part; and then the position he took of being ready to be blotted out of God's book here must have caused suffering of the deepest kind.

J.T. How nearly it touches the vicarious position of Christ as ready to be blotted out of God's book! That would mean separation from God for ever for Moses, because he was but a creature. Paul says, "for I have wished, I myself, to be a curse from the Christ for my brethren", (Romans 9:3). That would mean eternal separation from Christ. It shows what a man Paul was, and that is what Moses comes to here. He would give up his eternal welfare for the sake of the people of God. What a challenge to us as to whether we can lay down our lives for the brethren; that is what a servant is called upon to do! He is in the forefront, and discerns what Satan is doing and that the saints are giving way to him, and this causes him to feel things before God.

J.S. Would you say this affection is really necessary in the servant, that he would be prepared to sacrifice himself, if it means the blessing of the people?

J.T. We cannot serve fully according to God save as we correspond with Christ; the nearer we get to the forsaking, the more we correspond with Him. That is what God had in mind here.

C.A.M. It gives a very elevated thought of the servant to see this, especially as we might think the greatness of the servant lies in the part he takes in active ministry. In making too much of the public

side we might under-estimate his greatness in the presence of God.

J.T. Exactly; I believe this is the greatest position that Moses occupied -- his saying to God that he was willing to be blotted out of His book for the sake of the people. Morally the greatest position the Lord took was when on the cross, He took it to glorify God -- to do the will of God.

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST (9)

Numbers 12:1 - 10; Numbers 14:1 - 10; Numbers 16:1 - 24, 41 - 46

J.T. Those who will come under our attention in this reading, which makes this part of our subject especially important, are those who minister. The persons persecuted represent the ministry, which is a matter of the greatest consequence in the history of the testimony, and is inclusive of all those who in any way serve the Lord in serving the saints. The first feature of persecution to be noted here arises from near natural relatives, then we see it as from fellow servants -- Korah also being a Levite -- and finally from the people of God generally.

W.B-w. The word "against" seems to be characteristic in each of the three passages you read.

J.T. As in chapter 16:3: "against Moses and against Aaron". The two names are not covered by the one preposition; each person is pointed out as an object of the attack. Aaron is personally distinctive as representing the priestly side. But in chapter 12 he drops from his high office and general characteristic spirit to the level of a persecutor, showing how the most honoured of the Lord's servants may become a persecutor of another servant of the Lord.

A.P. What is the root of this difficulty?

J.T. I think it lies in their remarks in verse 2: "Has Jehovah indeed spoken only to Moses? has he not spoken also to us?" They claim equality with Moses; which God would never allow; He will not allow any distinction that He affords to a servant to be impugned. He maintains that servant in relation to the distinction He has given him, whatever others may think.

A.N.W. What is the significance of a female taking the lead in the movement?

J.T. I think it is to bring out the characteristic weakness of the female side, which had its inception in Eve. But Miriam was also a minister; she was a prophetess, and evidently fostered the feeling of rivalry against Moses more than Aaron; and it became accentuated in the taking of an Ethiopian wife. Possibly in Miriam's case there was deeper feeling on account of the marriage, a certain amount of pride; in any case, these are the elements that Satan acts upon in near relatives or in fellow servants -- persons who are more closely associated with us.

C.A.M. Satan seems to work where self has place. They use the word "us" here, and that seems to be a weakness.

J.T. "Has he not spoken also to us?" or "through us", as much as to say, We are on an equality. That is, they are infringing on God's sovereign appointment.

A.P. Do you think there is ofttimes a side issue brought in to cloak the real issue as in Moses' marriage here?

J.T. It seems so. It may have had more weight with Miriam than with Aaron, but I think the real issue lies in what they say.

J.E.H. It does not say to whom they uttered these words; but it says immediately, "And Jehovah heard it".

J.T. "Jehovah heard it"; that is to be noted, as affording comfort to all in such cases. No doubt they did not conceal their feelings. People in this complaining state do not fail to make their criticisms known pretty generally.

W.F.K. Do you think that jealousy is the root of this trouble?

J.T. What they say discloses what had been at work. Doubtless, it extended back considerably.

A.N.W. When you speak of the family, do you mean the natural or the spiritual family?

J.T. The natural relatives who have part in the ministry are likely to be affected in such circumstances. If a servant is entirely free in himself from natural influences in his service, he is sure to suffer in this way. The Lord Himself is an example. He suffered from His relatives; even His mother at times had part in this.

A.F.M. What would be the cure for such a condition of things as we find here?

J.T. Well, the cure for all these things, of course, is drastic self-judgment. "Has he not spoken also to us?" they inquire, showing what was current in their minds. They were thinking possibly that they were not sufficiently considered by Moses; because persons in this relation are apt to be expectant of some special recognition, and disappointment arises unless it is there. In the Lord's own case His perfect spirituality implied that while He recognised nature, His life properly was outside of it. That would be for the flesh an occasion of resentment from the outset in His near relatives. The flesh, as in Ishmael, persecutes what is born after the Spirit.

J.S. You have breakdown in the priesthood here, have you not?

J.T. Well, it is very sorrowful that persecution should arise in persons in such exalted offices, the one a high priest, and the other a prophetess -- Miriam being the only prophetess mentioned up to this time.

A.F.M. Do you think that Aaron recovered from this, as evidenced in the part he took with Moses later?

J.T. Obviously; and the judgment of the Lord was directed against Miriam. The root of the evil was apparently in her.

G.McP. Do you think that Miriam's opposition suggests that the subjective state of the people was bad?

J.T. I think that is right. They had to stop

journeying until she was restored. She is singled out as a subject of the judgment of God.

W.B-w. In the New Testament, Barnabas and Paul, two ministers, found difficulty in serving the Lord together. Would that be similar to what we are now considering?

J.T. I think so. They were persons of an exalted position in the service. It was a very sorrowful thing, but it was allowed of God. So with Peter too; he, you might say, persecuted Paul as led away by those who came from James. For a time there would be a feature of persecution at Antioch.

A.F.M. Would this leprosy, as snow, be significant? We find in Gehazi, he was a leper similarly.

J.T. I think it is the absence of spiritual life, white hairs in the instruction as to leprosy imply the absence of life.

C.A.M. It was a thing calculated to arouse the attention of a priest. Aaron seems to be affected by it at once.

A.N.W. What is there about Aaron that succumbs to this type of failure? He succumbed to the influence of the people at the foot of the mountain, and here he succumbed evidently to the influence of Miriam.

J.T. It is a feature of man, in spite of the fact that he is a priest. His priestly office should have prevented it. This incident shows that the most spiritual may give way. Vigilance is needed in the most honoured of the Lord's servants, or he may come under sinister influence.

J.H.E. Do you think Paul was fortified against it? He says, "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell", (Romans 7:18).

J.T. Exactly, as maintaining that, he was preserved. The flesh was capable of such failure in Aaron, and is capable of the same thing in the most honoured and spiritual of the Lord's servants.

A.P. Do you think we are all aware of the important place that a minister chosen by Christ has in His service?

J.T. Perhaps not. This chapter is to remind us that in the sovereignty of God He makes distinctions amongst His servants; and, here, attention is called first of all to the kind of man Moses was. Aaron was valuable, and was commended earlier by God Himself; he was a man who had brotherly affections, a characteristic Levite. But he was not equal to Moses, meek above all the men that were upon the face of the earth. God had given Moses a distinction that no one else had, and He would not let that be ignored. Moses made no effort to defend himself here. In this he is an example for us when personally attacked. No doubt he was exceedingly distressed that the attack should come from his sister and brother. They were two of the three leaders that are spoken of later as those by whom God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.

J.S. Why do you think meekness is stressed here?

J.T. I think to bring out into greater prominence what was at work. The Lord said, "They hated me without a cause", (John 15:25). There was no cause for this attack. I believe that is why the Spirit mentions it. Besides his meekness, Moses had a distinction in the service that no other had, as Jehovah says, "If there be a prophet among you, I Jehovah will make myself known to him in a vision, I will speak to him in a dream. Not so my servant Moses he is faithful in all my house. Mouth to mouth do I speak to him openly, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah doth he behold". Jehovah was not going to let that slip. He would maintain the position, as He had ordered it.

C.A.M. God seems to assume that they would understand that Moses had that place with Him.

J.T. No doubt they did. Look at the number of

times the Spirit of God said, "Jehovah spoke to Moses"; and Moses had twice been on the mount for forty days. Aaron was on the mount, but never in the sense in which Moses was there.

F.H.L. The servant is stressed here -- the Lord says, "against my servant, against Moses".

J.T. Yes. His personal characteristic is stated first; he was not a man that lived in his service. He was personally a great man, that is, he was like Christ. The apostle says, "I ... entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of the Christ", (2 Corinthians 10:1). It says, "But the man Moses was very meek".

W.G.T. This incident brings out that a servant does not need to defend himself against personal attacks.

J.T. That is the lesson to be learnt. It is for one attacked in this way to be "as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs", (Psalm 38:14). The Lord defends such a case.

E.B. What was involved in Moses taking this woman to wife?

J.T. The Ethiopian woman is, I think, a type of the assembly in the wilderness, not in the counsels of God. The assembly in this setting is not attractive. Normally the saints will admit this fact. But the Lord takes us on, whatever others may think of us, and that, I think, is the point. It is the assembly in the wilderness, "This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness", (Acts 7:38). As in the wilderness, she is very unlovely from the outward point of view, but there is something there that the Lord sees, that possibly others do not see. Miriam may not have seen anything pleasing in this woman, but evidently Moses did. We have only the fact here that he had taken her. There is nothing said as to her appearance; the nationality only is mentioned.

A.F.M. Moses had taken her, and that was sufficient.

J.T. The type is very clear, that if the Lord had taken us, He sees something that others do not see. Outwardly there is, alas! much that exposes the saints to criticism, but then the Lord sees the divine formation.

J.S. As those that are called out from among the nations. The Lord views the assembly in this connection.

J.T. Yes. Neither Zipporah nor this woman is presented as attractive. The assembly in the wilderness is contemplated. Moses had "taken" her, then why should Miriam or Aaron challenge what the wisest man in Israel had done? If you apply it to Christ, how evil this speaking of Miriam's and Aaron's was!

A.R.S. In reality, they were sinning against Jehovah in finding fault with Moses. Miriam's position is sorrowful here -- one who shone so well earlier, when she led the praises of the Lord's people after they crossed the Red Sea! It is a solemn lesson.

R.W.S. Did not the words of Miriam and Aaron expose them when they said, of Jehovah, "has he not spoken also to us?" referring to past history? Whereas of Moses, Jehovah says, "Mouth to mouth do I speak to him".

J.T. Quite so. What he says about him is very beautiful and really overwhelming, as to the point at issue. He says, "Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I Jehovah will make myself known to him in a vision, I will speak to him in a dream. Not so my servant Moses: he is faithful in all my house. Mouth to mouth do I speak to him openly, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah doth he behold". It is what is always characteristic of Jehovah's communications to His great servant.

A.F.M. Moses' meekness was his greatness; hence

we all should be characterised by this quality, so that when attacks come, we may leave it to God to defend us.

A.B.P. Would you say that the worldly adornment of the professing church today is an indication of how little understood this action of Moses was? The Lord is prepared to be associated with that which is outwardly of no repute in the world. The worldly adornment only takes away from the moral greatness of it.

J.T. Yes. I think this incident is to bring out that He sees what is there spiritually, which the natural eye does not see.

W.G.T. The great intimacy that existed between Jehovah and Moses is brought out here, that would otherwise not have been disclosed.

J.T. He is a very full type of Christ here, and not like an ordinary prophet. Jehovah would speak to Moses mouth to mouth and the form of Jehovah he beheld. This is a remarkable word. We may thus understand what a man of God he was.

J.S. What do you understand by the form of Jehovah?

J.T. It is not the corresponding word to that in Philippians 2:6, where Christ is said to have subsisted in the form of God. The form of God, in such a case, is invisible, for He is the invisible God. The form of God in the New Testament signifies what is substantial, involving His manner of existence. "Similitude" or "form" here is more external. It is what Israel did not see, as expressly stated in Deuteronomy 4. Over against this, Jehovah says here of Moses, "The form of Jehovah doth he behold". "Doth" is characteristic and not merely historical, and so it may allude to what Moses saw in his immediate relations with God; probably in the holiest, into which he always had access. I suppose he is a type of Christ in this, for no one could

see God in His essential being but Jesus, who was Himself God. "No one has seen God at any time", (1 John 4:12). The Lord says to the Jews that they had not seen the Father's "shape"; but the Lord even as Man had seen it. So Moses here in this respect is a type of Christ.

A.P. And does not the verse substantiate that -- "Why then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?"

J.T. Yes; they ought to have known how faithful and how honoured of God he was.

A.P. Is that not important today that we should know?

J.T. I think it is a principle in the testimony, that there are always those whom God puts forward, like Peter -- "first ... Peter". But as we see here, it is not only a matter of ability, but the kind of man -- "the man Moses". As appointed of God, Moses could go into the holiest at any time. The going in there would tend to make him meek.

A.N.W. That is what I thought in connection with Moses' superiority in these various incidents. His nearness to God and liberty of access within gave him rightness of judgment.

A.B.P. It is also suggested that his greatness is indicated by his intimacy with Jehovah rather than his works of power?

A.N.W. "Mouth to mouth" would suggest mutuality.

J.T. Yes; that is very beautiful.

W.B-w. Evidently one's personality is greater than one's service.

J.T. "The man Christ Jesus" -- what He is, underlies everything; and so it is with any of us. It is a question of what we are and not of what gift we may have; our place in the testimony always works out according to what we are. The apostle says,

"But by God's grace I am what I am", (1 Corinthians 15:10). That refers to his personality.

C.N. How does Moses' remark, "Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him shall ye hearken", (Deuteronomy 18:15), fit in with what you are saying?

J.T. It shows what a full type of Christ he was -- "like unto me".

A.F.M. These great typical thoughts in this chapter were, no doubt, the result of growth with Moses. He starts in a small way, but grows up to this remarkable type of Christ.

J.S. So this is a great evidence of moral development here in a servant.

J.T. It is an evidence of the wisdom of God that there was such a man; one faithful in all God's house. He stands higher than all other men in the Old Testament.

R.D.G. Would you say that Moses justifies God's appointment in all that God says about him, that under personal attack he immediately turns to be an intercessor?

J.T. Quite so; he is saving the position here, and that further brings out his greatness. We are to pray for those who persecute us.

J.S. Moses' intercession here is the more remarkable because of the fact that Jehovah's anger is kindled against the offenders and He turns away from them.

J.T. God leaves the whole matter in suspense. He withdraws from them, so that everything now would depend on Moses. He loved the people, he loved Miriam, and Aaron, and so intercedes for Miriam.

A.P.T. At the end of verse 9 it says, "Jehovah ... went away; and the cloud departed". God, as it were, has to leave; whereas, in verse 14, through

intercession, Moses brings Him back. Is that a feature of the man of God?

J.T. Exactly; everything hinges on Moses. So right through here -- we shall see in chapter 16 that the same qualities of the man come out.

A.N.W. The Man Christ Jesus as Mediator is typically before us here.

A.P. What is the difference between the demeanour of Moses in chapter 12 and in chapter 16?

J.T. We may see now in chapter 16 another phase of suffering in the servant, in an open effort to set him aside. There is no thought in Miriam and Aaron to set Moses aside, but rather that they should have equality. But now there is an open attack on Moses and Aaron, as if they were governed by wretched human ambition, as if Moses were an aspirant to kingship, as a man that would lord it over God's heritage; and not only that, Dathan and Abiram say: "wilt thou put out the eyes of these men?" What an imputation to the meekest man, that he should resort to such cruelty! It is a bold effort of the devil to discredit by false accusation the man through whom God was caring for His people. That is the feature of evil that servants have to contend with. The truth is that in attacking Moses and Aaron, they would virtually overthrow the whole system that God had set up for the display of Himself.

C.A.M. In such circumstances, the question is, Who is great enough to intercede? If those that criticise what God is supporting today were to think seriously of this matter of intercession, they might dispense with their criticism.

J.T. Jehovah proposed twice in this chapter to destroy the people. First in verses 20 and 22, "Jehovah spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from the midst of this assembly, and I will consume them in a moment. And they fell on their faces, and said, O God, the God of the

spirits of all flesh! Shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with the whole assembly?" And then in verses 44, 45, "Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Get you up from the midst of this assembly, and I will consume them in a moment. And they fell on their faces". The intercessory spirit is in both Moses and Aaron, here in the presence of the most terrible uprising. Typically, it is an uprising of the hierarchical system of Christendom, against Christ as Apostle and High Priest. It was a most exercising thing for Moses to go through this attack; for not only was it against him personally, but he well knew that it meant the overthrow of the whole system he had inaugurated, which would be more serious to him than anything.

A.P. Is not the essence of apostasy in all this?

J.T. Quite; it is an uprising against the whole divine system, but then Moses and Aaron have to go through it. The enemy was attacking the whole position with a view to destroying it. That is a most dreadful experience to any true servant.

A.F.M. This uprising, answering to the clerical system, has already been experienced and resisted by the assembly; so that there has been recovery to what is of God, as represented in Moses and Aaron.

J.T. That is what is so triumphant here. It says in verse 42, "it came to pass, when the assembly was gathered together against Moses and against Aaron, that they looked towards the tent of meeting, and behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of Jehovah appeared. And Moses and Aaron went before the tent of meeting". That is, the whole position is secured; the tent is covered by the cloud, and the glory of Jehovah appears; then place is made for Moses and Aaron. That is the position today. However obscure outwardly, the testimony is protected, and Moses and Aaron are ministering; that is, Christ viewed as seen in them. It was a

great triumph, but then how painful the process of reaching it!

N.P. Why was the wrath of Jehovah against the whole assembly, whereas a limited number only attacked?

J.T. We read in verse 19 that "Korah gathered the whole assembly against them"; then again in verse 42: "And it came to pass, when the assembly was gathered together against Moses and against Aaron". The whole assembly was in revolt, and so today, the whole of Christendom is in revolt against Christ through the clerical system, the Levites; that is, persons who because they are preachers and teachers assumed to be priests.

J.S. This attack is from that source.

J.T. Yes; it was Korah allying himself with the sons of Reuben and others. It was a party attack. It says of Korah that he made bold, as originating it.