Pages 1 - 126 -- "New York Readings", 1932 (Volume 113).

"FOOD WHICH ABIDES" (1)

Epitome of First Reading

Genesis 1 and certain verses of John 6 were under consideration. It was pointed out that John 3 presents a religious wreck (Nicodemus); John 4, a moral wreck (the woman of Sychar); John 5, a physical wreck (the man at the pool of Bethesda). Correspondingly the background of chapter 3 is a world of darkness, of chapter 4, a world of thirst, of chapter 5, a world of death, and in chapter 6 a world of hunger is in view. God meets all in Christ.

Chapter 5 contemplates figuratively that the believer is raised up by the word of Christ into the sphere of eternal life; in chapter 6, we have the food that sustains him in that sphere. The gift of the Holy Spirit underlies all this. He creates desire in the believer for food. But there must be the laying aside of all malice, guile, hypocrisies, etc., and then, "as newborn babes desire earnestly the pure mental milk of the word, that by it ye may grow up to salvation", (1 Peter 2:1,2).

Genesis 1 corresponds: a sphere of light and life is opened up -- of course in a material sense. On the third day the earth comes into view, out of which should spring up the herb producing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them. These were to be man's food. The idea of "seed" here is important; it is what is produced, and, of course, seed becomes itself productive. Much is eaten by saints (literature read, etc.) which is not seed-producing according to God. What is of God is continued as we produce after our own kind. Some, alas! feed on radios, novels, newspapers, etc. -- there

is no seed of God in these things. In the house of a brother in fellowship the Saturday Evening Post and a radio were seen lately, and the brother and his family had no conscience as to them -- an evidence that they were not saved from the elements of the world.

"FOOD WHICH ABIDES" (2)

Genesis 41:37 - 49

J.T. The book of Genesis affords much instruction as to food. All creatures have to be sustained by the Creator, and so in chapter 1 we are told that God, having created man, cattle, fowl, etc., provided food for them. To man He gave "every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree producing seed" (verse 29); and to the cattle, fowl and creeping things He gave "every green herb for food" (verse 30). The entire provision was vegetable; the carnivora were not recognised, being notably a development after sin entered into the world.

After the fall we get the death of animals, implied in the skins by which God clothed Adam and Eve, and seen definitely in Abel's offering to God; but only after the deluge is flesh allowed as food for men. This would enhance man's dominance in the creation, and strengthen him in the heavier responsibilities now placed upon him; not only over the lower creatures, but also in regard to his own race, this domination was to be maintained. The section of Genesis 41 - 47 now before us presents the subject of food in the most general bearing.

A.M.H. And it would indicate that the present period is the greatest day of food, corresponding with the "seven years of great plenty", (chapter 41:29). There has never been such bounty in the history of God's dealings with the world, and I suppose there never will be again. The Spirit's day would exceed all in this respect.

J.T. Food puts great moral power into the hands of him who controls it. The present time is, therefore, one of the exercise of moral power in Christ.

A.P. How do you apply "the seven years of famine" today; and in what sense do we go to Joseph for food?

A.M.H. They go along with the years of plenty which result from the Lord being exalted and the Spirit being sent down from heaven. At Pentecost three thousand souls were brought to the Lord. What an abundant pouring out of supply from heaven there was on that day! It was adequate to satisfy every living thing. Parallel with that there was the fact that man, in himself, is without supply, and that will work out in its full character when the Spirit is withdrawn.

F.L. Would the moral power of which you spoke be seen in Paul? Would the ministry of the assembly be in line with the richness and abundance administered in the day of the Spirit?

J.T. It would, I am sure. It is Christ exalted among the Gentiles, as typified in Joseph. It is through Paul's ministry that He is known thus, and in this position the food supply is in His hand, and it is administered to Israel and to all.

W.G.T. There was plenty in Egypt, but God brought it under control.

J.T. There is no control of the food in Genesis 1 and 9. It is a question of what there was. There was, no doubt, plenty of it growing up out of the earth. Then in chapter 9:3 it is said, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be good for you". But in the chapters before us all is in control. This involves power wielded by Joseph through which his brethren are brought to light and set up in relation to himself and to each other.

W.B-w. Is it the dispensing of food under control? Is it dispensational in that sense?

J.T. Yes, it is the day of the Spirit. There was a wonderful supply at Pentecost, but then what we have here typifies all that being under the control of

Christ not only in heaven, but among the Gentiles. At Pentecost the supply was at Jerusalem, but what is before us contemplates Israel having to go down to Egypt to get the food from Joseph.

A.P. Do you connect the idea of control in chapter 3 with the tree of life?

J.T. The tree of life was prohibited there. The idea of the control of food is that it is there to be administered according to wisdom.

A.M.H. It has to come through certain channels to which God would call attention. It is delightful to think of the Lord as the One to whom all attention is drawn through the very want in the world.

J.T. One great thought stressed in this typical instruction is that universal attention is called to Christ. He is rejected by the Jews, but they and all are compelled to go to Him for the means of sustenance.

W.G.T. So that the control of food enhances His position.

J.T. It affords Him great moral power. Chapter 47 shows the result of this; not only is need met, but the Egyptians and their land were bought for Pharaoh.

F.L. Would the idea of control be that it is made available and put into the right channels?

J.T. That is the thought, and the first salient result is to bring the brethren of Joseph to light, to put them together and show their relation to him. Then all the Egyptians are brought directly under Pharaoh through it. The instruction in all this, as applied at the present time and in the future, is very evident.

A.N.W. The food is under control during the seven years of plenty as well as during the seven years of famine.

J.T. You mean that it has been gathered up and cared for; though it came up in handfuls, it was not wasted.

A.R. It was stored "in the cities".

J.T. The cities are suggestive of safe-keeping and of the means of administration locally. But, generally, the food was administered according to the wisdom of Joseph, for his position was based on the fact of his great wisdom, as able to reveal the secret of Pharaoh's dreams. The instruction brings out what Christ is, typically; because the advent of Joseph in Genesis is spiritual. As soon as Joseph was born, Jacob proposed to leave Padan-Aram. That is the idea. Joseph causes movement out of the world; and in the presence of Esau he has precedence over his mother (Genesis 33:7); then he is specially loved by his father. So that his is a history which in its very inception is spiritual, and causes movement out of the world; accordingly he acquired immense moral power in his father's house, and in the prison; and now, as in the house of Pharaoh, he has it universally.

A.M.H. These are the lines upon which he is advanced: "Shall we find one as this, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?" There has to be care to apprehend what the Lord is giving and to gather it up; and then the administration of it has to be governed by wisdom from Himself.

J.T. It says, "In the seven years of plenty the land brought forth by handfuls. And he gathered up all the food of the seven years that was in the land of Egypt, and put the food in the cities; the food of the fields of the city, which were round about it, he laid up in it. And Joseph laid up corn as sand of the sea exceeding much, until they left off numbering, for it was without number". There was volume, but great care is shown in gathering it up and placing it in the cities.

A.M.H. The corn grown in a field should be laid

up in the nearby city. That suggests that what God effects as food in a particular place is intended to be available to that place and centred there. It is to distributed from that point. That helps us in seeing the importance of the boundary question. The Lord would have the food gathered in the place where He has produced it. He would have it gathered so that administration of it might go out in that particular area.

F.L. "He laid up in it".

J.S. So that in the seven years of plenty we have great spiritual movement, but it takes seven years of famine to bring about appreciation of it on our side.

A.M.H. You have the giving from heaven, which is so wonderfully abundant; and on the other hand, there has to be the process of appropriation with each one of us.

J.T. We should notice the care shown here; although there was such abundance, nothing was to be lost. All was garnered. If the Lord is pleased to give volume, it ought not to be treated lightly; it ought to be garnered. If it is not needed now, it will be later on. You get times of plenty and times of famine.

F.L. What would be the idea of garnering now?

J.T. I was thinking of Samuel. "Jehovah ... let none of his words fall to the ground" (1 Samuel 3:19) Scripture says. I think there is a principle there. His words must have been of value; and if they did not fall to the ground, they must have fallen into some hearts. It is a question of whether we retain in our hearts the things ministered, or let them go.

A.F.M. In John 6 they gathered up the fragments and filled twelve baskets.

J.T. That would show that what was left over was not treated lightly.

F.L. Referring to Samuel, when he first comes on the scene, Scripture says, "The word of Jehovah was

rare in those days" (1 Samuel 3:1) and that when he develops, it says, "Jehovah ... let none of his words fall to the ground". This would suggest garnering.

J.T. Yes. The idea of "the faith" (Acts 16:5) is that the hearts of the saints are receptacles for what God affords. "The faith" is that which is treasured and held in our souls by faith.

E.B. Would you say that the seven plenteous years were the result of the exaltation of Joseph?

J.T. They were determined. Everything that has come out in Christ was determined, including His death. All is a question of divine determination; here the matter was revealed to Pharaoh. Joseph came into general evidence by the wisdom that God gave him to reveal the secret. The whole mind of God began to take form as Christ became man.

A.M.H. There is not merely the fact of His exaltation, but the path of moral worth whereby He reached it. What comes down is really what has been displayed in the Lord from the manger to the cross and to the glory. He is the fruitful field whence all comes.

J.T. All came out in Christ. So we read, "There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written", (John 21:25). The idea is that all the fulness of Christ is now in the Spirit, and He brings it to the remembrance of the brethren from time to time. The Lord says to His disciples, "The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you", (John 14:26).

W.B-w. The dreams of Pharaoh suggest that what came out was determined beforehand.

J.T. The fact that the dream was doubled made it sure. The determinate counsels and foreknowledge

of God enters into everything; and then there is an idea of the immense greatness of Christ -- one here great enough to set all that out in principle, and then to make it effective. This is now brought to pass by the Spirit.

A.J.D. So that the bountiful supply that we get today is the unfolding by the Spirit of all that was in Christ down here.

A.M.H. I have been wondering with regard to the abundance of the ministry of the present day, whether we might not be forewarned as to a possible day of leanness, and hence in knowing what is ministered there should be the formation of it in our hearts, as having received it in faith.

F.L. Everything in principle was true in Christ when He was here.

A.F.M. John 6:35 would amplify that: "I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst at any time".

A.J.D. The garnering of which you were speaking, is it brought about on the principle of fully following up?

J.T. Yes. The Lord has been very good to us; the windows of heaven have been opened, and we have perhaps more than we can contain; but it should not be neglected nor treated lightly. There may be need for it later on, if not now.

J.S. Hence the need of being enlarged in heart and mind to contain what God gives. There is no other place in which to store the divine bounty, is there?

J.T. It ought to be in the hearts of the saints that is the idea. The receptacle is to be great enough to contain all that there is.

A.M.H. The idea of cities suggests something ordered and organised. I was thinking of the value of the assembly in that way, that it is not merely a

collection of individuals who have received something in their hearts, but there is a much larger receptacle produced by recognising the commandments of the Lord and taking account, collectively, of what He approves, so that you get a company to whom the Lord would commit more than to any individual.

A.P. Joseph was put over Pharaoh's house. It says, "Thou shalt be over my house, and according to thy commandment shall all my people regulate themselves".

A.M.H. If we gave more heed to His word in detail, as to regulating ourselves in the assembly of God, the Lord would entrust more to us.

J.T. At our care meetings the brothers together rightly talk things over, but there is not power there to dispense, all is tentative; but as you get the saints together in assembly (under the control of the Lord, regulated by His word) you have the idea of a city. The feature of administration is present, and is exercised without partiality and without hypocrisy. Deborah says, "Let them that love him be as the rising of the sun in its might", (Judges 5:31). Normally, this appears in the assembly.

H.S.D. So that an assembly in a locality would be the means of supply which we can draw upon for our food.

J.T. The city here corresponds with the idea of the assembly. A city is an ordered place, as has been remarked. In civil matters, as soon as you get the municipal council, mayor, etc., functioning, you have far more power than you could have with the same number of persons unorganised.

A.P. When you come from the field to within the boundary of a city you know it.

J.T. You are over the line. The "it" here involves its boundary. As soon as you get over the line you have a sphere where there is authority and order distinct from the field. There is far more

power in a few saints in the light of the assembly than there could be in the same number simply as units. Spiritually, the assembly is the most highly organised thing conceivable.

W.G.T. What is the field?

J.T. The fields would be the areas influenced by the cities.

J.S. They are productive areas.

J.T. They are thus the saints viewed individually; that is to say, we bear fruit severally. The aggregate is seen in the assembly, so that it is under control; and I think, therefore, that gift, however great it may be, even an apostle, is under control. Ephesians 4:8) says that Christ "has given gifts to men", but 1 Corinthians 12:28 says, "God has set certain in the assembly", this would imply obligation to the saints on their part, as we see at Antioch.

A.M.H. The assembly in that way makes room for the body. The idea of the city, as typical of the assembly, is to protect and preserve so that we may cultivate family relations and affections.

J.T. We all ought to appreciate the assembly as an ordered sphere. It is a protection, and the less individual we are in that respect the better.

F.L. We used to hear it said by those who were designated evangelists, that they were free, and responsible only to the Lord. I fully agree with what you were saying, that every gift, no matter how great, while subject to the Lord is also responsible to the assembly.

J.T. That is worked out in the most striking way at Antioch. The greatest gift that the church has had was Paul; he went out with Barnabas and ministered most successfully, and then they came back, having fulfilled the work they had undertaken. They returned to Antioch, and "they stayed no little time with the disciples", (Acts 14:28). And Peter

and John, the greatest in the Pentecostal church, laboured most effectively, as seen in Acts 3 and 4, but they came to their own company; then we read, "And with great power did the apostles (not Peter and John only) give witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus", (Acts 4:33).

W.G.T. So that a brother who has gift should not move around if his local brethren are not free about him.

J.T. It is a question of right judgment. If I have a judgment I ought to be able to give a reason for it. A jury, so as to render a true verdict, must obtain from the judge the law governing the case in question. If I have a judgment I ought to be able to furnish the law governing it.

A.R. Does the idea of cities apply peculiarly to Paul's ministry?

J.T. I think so. So that you get two things in that respect -- elders were chosen in each assembly, and elders were established in each city. The Spirit of God is concerned with rule and order, and so you have the two ideas.

W.B-w. What is the difference between the two?

J.T. In cities where you have subdivisions of the assemblies the need for eldership is more apparent. The ministry of an elder in a city, even though there may be a dozen subdivisions, refers to all the saints in that city.

A.F.M. You get here the word 'overseers'. "Let Pharaoh do this: let him appoint overseers over the land" (verse 34). That would be akin to eldership. The garnering was not done promiscuously.

J.T. We see that during the seven years of plenty Joseph valued every bit of food there was and garnered it; and then the years of famine brought out the advantage that would centre in Joseph. But we read, "And all the land of Egypt suffered from the dearth. And the people cried to Pharaoh for bread"

(verse 55). This seems to be a slight on Joseph. There was not the recognition of the constitution of the dispensation -- that Joseph was over it.

Ques.. Does that suggest that there must be the full recognition of headship?

J.T. Rather lordship. It is a question of authority. The people cried to Pharaoh. Now Pharaoh had already ordered that everything should be regulated by Joseph; that was a change of affairs, but apparently it had not taken effect. People are often loose in their prayers; they speak to God about things when they should speak to Christ about them; that is to say, we need to be intelligent as to the economy of Christianity. As the people cried to Pharaoh for bread, he said, "Go to Joseph" (verse 55). That is an important word.

F.L. Would you say that in matters of administration the voice of God would be, Go to Christ?

J.T. That is the point. I think that gives distinctiveness to the economy of the dispensation. Administration is in the hands of the Lord, so that we should understand that the Lord is the One to whom to go in regard to spiritual matters.

W.B-w. The Lord said, "Ye believe on God, believe also on me", (John 14:1). They had believed on God, but the One who was there in humiliation was going to be in the supreme place. It ought to encourage our hearts to believe also on Him.

A.R. In his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle seems to be constantly impressing upon them the authority of Christ.

J.T. Exactly. This phase of the food question is calculated to afford great moral power to Christ. We shall find in our experience, that as soon as we begin to realise the need of food, Christ gets a greater place of moral power over our souls. Therefore Pharaoh said, "Go to Joseph; what he says to you, that do" (verse 55). It is really a repetition of what

was already ordained, but now the people are feeling the pinch of the dearth, and are more amenable to impressions. This is the point where Christ begins to acquire power over our souls, as you feel you are wholly dependent on Him. You get no food if you do not go to Him.

A.F.M. The Egyptians learned that lesson. They refer to Joseph all through afterwards. It is a good example for ourselves. I was wondering whether we sometimes do not go to the Lord for things instead of going to God. Is not that also true? In material things, for instance, we rightly refer to God; whereas in administrative things we refer to Christ.

J.T. I think so. The end is: "Let us find favour in the eyes of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's bondmen", (Genesis 47:25). This shows typically, that as we own Christ in the place of administration He brings us into entire subjection to God.

F.L. The whole universe of God will live in and through Christ -- wonderful thought!

J.T. That is the meaning given to the name "Zaphnathpaaneah" -- 'Saviour of the world' or 'Sustainer of life'.

W.B-w. When Joseph's brethren went down to Egypt he commanded that their sacks be filled, and the second time he added, "As much as they can carry" (Genesis 44:1); and their money was put in their sacks on both occasions.

J.T. In that, there is indicated the liberality of the dispensation. You not only get food, and as much as you can carry, but your money is given back to you. There is a word to be noted in chapter 42:1: "Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt". He saw what existed. Then he says to his sons, "Why do ye look one upon another?" That is a great hindrance in obtaining spiritual food -- looking one on another.

Ques. What is the suggestion in that?

J.T. There is a lot of that kind of thing going on. The brethren are looking at one another, and talking about one another instead of going for the food. "Why do ye look one upon another?" Jacob knew where the grain was, and says, "Behold, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt; go down thither and buy grain for us from thence, in order that we may live, and not die", (Genesis 42:2). We may be looking one on another while the saints are starving.

A.M.H. It is a question of going down. The food is easily got if we go down, instead of looking one upon another. If we go down, we reach ground upon which the Lord can own us.

G.McP. That is what they were doing at Corinth, comparing themselves one with another.

J.T. Exactly; and there was very little food there.

W.G.T. Would Jacob represent the experiences of a man of God?

J.T. I think so. He knew what existed. He had family and felt the need of his family, so he says, "Go down thither and buy grain ... in order that we may live, and not die. And Joseph's ten brethren went down". They obeyed the word of their father. All these circumstances culminate in true brethren being brought to light. "A brother is born for adversity", (Proverbs 17:17). Christ, typically, comes to light in a new way in chapter 45.

F.L. However far they went down, Joseph had gone further -- even into the pit. I was thinking of Christ. "But that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?" (Ephesians 4:9).

J.E.H. In that connection we are exhorted to, "Let this mind be in you", (Philippians 2:5). Will you enlarge on the thought of brethren being brought to light?

J.T. The need of our souls forces us to Christ.

What we are considering indicates the wonderful way in which God makes things work out, creating need in our souls in famine, so that we may seek the Lord. Joseph had his brethren in mind from the very outset; and after the spirit of a son and a brother is seen in Judah's touching appeal, it is then that Joseph cries, "Put every man out from me!" (Genesis 45:1) and makes himself known to his brethren. This shows that they with Judah had judged their sin against Joseph.

F.L. It would be interesting to distinguish between light and food.

J.T. Jacob had light as to the food, but then he and his house could not live on that. Light indicates to you things as they are; you see all things clearly, but you have to move if you are to enjoy what light indicates as available.

W.B-w. Jacob says, "That we may live, and not die". The sustenance of life is to be had by going down.

A.B.P. We get provision for a new crop in chapter 47:23 -- seed is given to the Egyptians with which to sow the land.

J.T. As all the Egyptians are secured for Pharaoh they are henceforth to be profitable to him.

A.B.P. Applying this now, it would be that what has been ministered is to spring up in the hearts of the saints.

J.T. "And it shall come to pass in the increase that ye shall give the fifth to Pharaoh, and the four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones" chapter 47:24. Figuratively the saints are now set up under God and Christ with a means of fruitfulness in which God has part with them. Here a fifth part goes to Pharaoh and the other four parts are for the people. There is an order of things brought about in which God is supreme and

His people continue in life before Him. They have got the means of sustenance. The land was to be held for Pharaoh who was to share with them the produce of it. Spiritually, it is a happy state of things, brought into effect through the administration of Christ. Their bodies, cattle, and land are yielded to Pharaoh, corresponding with the teaching of the epistle to the Romans. There, we are said to be bondmen to God, and to yield obedience unto righteousness; and we have our fruit unto holiness.

W.B-w. In chapter 47:21 the idea of cities is continued: "And as for the people, he removed them into the cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end of it". The idea of the city continues right through.

J.T. "Only the land of the priests he did not buy; for the priests had an assigned portion from Pharaoh, and ate their assigned portion which Pharaoh had given them; so they did not sell their land" (verse 22). There is a place where the priests are specially cared for. In this chapter there is set up an order of things which grew out of the years of plenty and the years of famine; it is in a people who have gone through the unexampled experience depicted. Typically it shows how God takes occasion through our need to come into our souls through Christ, and to acquire a dominant place with us. We are to yield ourselves to Him as alive from among the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness to God.

A.F.M. Romans 12 further enters into this: Our bodies are presented a living sacrifice, and we prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

J.T. We are thus brought into the divine economy where God reaps from us the fruit of the Spirit. We are in happy fixity and security. We are in the kingdom of God, which is "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit", (Romans 14:17).

"FOOD WHICH ABIDES" (3)

Exodus 12:1 - 20; Exodus 16:13 - 26

J.T. At our last reading we had before us the subject of food as it appears under the administration of Joseph in Egypt, and saw that he was a type of Christ, with all the food under his hand. This gave him great moral power, resulting in his brethren being brought to light in relation to him, and all the people of Egypt being brought into complete subjection under him, so much so that they go to him for seed with which to sow their land -- typically, the full result of the present administration of Christ.

In Exodus we have specific foods; not food simply to sustain 'the life of the world' (see footnote, Genesis 41:45) as under Joseph, but food in the power of which we go out of the world according to God; and then food to sustain us as in it but not of it. It should be noted that in Exodus there is no scarcity; there is not even the suggestion of it; so that the head of an Israelitish house had simply to take his lamb. He would take it as having it, showing the individual wealth concentrated in believers as they go out of Egypt. They have what is needed. Each householder is directed to take a lamb, as if it were his own.

J.S. How would you link the food as presented in Genesis with that in Exodus?

J.T. The first feature of food in Genesis is creatorial provision, available to the creature, whether it be man or cattle, etc. It is there, but it is for them to find it. The second provision is in view of government, magisterial authority being committed to Noah. He is evidently provided with the food needed for the new responsibility imposed. The next is under Joseph. It is food in the hands of a man, to

be administered. It is an administration, pointing to the present position of Christ as exalted. It is Christ as wisdom, having the whole supply of food under Him. The name given to Joseph apparently signified that he was a sustainer of the life of the world, and it was universal in its result. In Exodus we are on narrower ground; it is a question of a redeemed people in relation to God, leaving Egypt, figuratively this world, and finding food suitable to build up and sustain a constitution in view of this, and of the consequent position in the wilderness.

A.F.M. Would you tell us what the prime thought of food is? It is introduced in Genesis 1, but evidently is a marked feature with angels, and is called "the corn of the heavens" and "the bread of the mighty", (Psalm 78:24,25).

J.T. All creatures are dependent on food. Manna was said to be angels' food. How they digest it or how it is assimilated, we do not know. The angels are spirits, hence their food cannot properly be material as ours is. We have, therefore, to find the link in a moral sense; it is a question of dependence on the word of God.

J.S. As the Lord says: "Man shall not live by bread alone".

J.T. He lifts it up from the material to the spiritual -- "Every word which goes out through God's mouth", (Matthew 4:4).

W.B-w. Is there limitation in Exodus?

J.T. Yes, that is readily discerned. We are on narrower, but not on lower ground, having privilege in view. It is a question of food for a people in express relation to God. In Genesis 1 the food of man and that of the creatures is not very different; that is to say, we are on the lowest ground there in regard to food. But when we come to Genesis 9, added to vegetable provision, we have "everything that liveth" given to man for food; that is a slight

elevation. But under Joseph it is a question of food being in the hands of one person; that is to say, God ordering things creatorially so as to enhance the place of Christ by putting moral power in His hands. Men are obliged to come to Him. His position has in view the preservation of the world, very much like John 6:51, in that sense; it is "for the life of the world".

J.S. Is there a certain moral elevation reached in Genesis in the exaltation of Christ typically, in the light of which we move out of the world as the children of Israel did in Exodus?

J.T. Yes. In Exodus you come to mediatorial service: Moses is expressly the mediator who is to effect redemption. It is, therefore, a people in redemption and the food suitable for them; that is to say, for us.

A.R. Is there any significance in the thought of the assembly being introduced in Exodus? Has it the limited thought in view?

J.T. Exactly; the word appearing here is very significant. It has quite a prominent place in the chapter, showing that not only are a redeemed people in view, but a people intelligent in the mind of God; this enters into the idea of an assembly.

A.F.M. Would this subject of food, which is before us, have in view the doing of the will of God? We have the expression in Matthew 6:10: "Thy will be done as in heaven so upon the earth".

J.T. Yes, I think so. It is a people going out of Egypt and having suitable food by which to go out, and to find later, in the manna, a food that would sustain them in the wilderness. The passover goes into Canaan. I think the main thought in it is reduction in the flesh and the exaltation of Christ in our hearts; that is to say, the passover lamb is preserved in wholeness. There is no breaking up of the framework: "Neither shall ye break a bone

thereof", (Exodus 12:46). What is meant is that the believer in going out of the world has a whole Christ before him; and He is to increase, whereas the believer is to decrease. The unleavened bread is to reduce the flesh, and as we "celebrate the feast" (1 Corinthians 5:7) Christ should come increasingly before our minds, and the flesh correspondingly becomes less and less.

B.T.F. Would you say eating of the lamb signified the appropriation of the death of Christ in the way redemption?

J.T. Yes, in that whole way. "Not a bone of him shall be broken", (John 19:36). Of course, in Exodus it is only a figure. In Matthew and Mark, in instituting His supper, the Lord said, "This is my body", (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22). His body is to be eaten, not His flesh as in John 6. It is a whole thought.

A.N.W. In that connection, is there a suggestion of the household being adjusted to the lamb?

J.T. It brings forward a very interesting point, and that is the question of capacity for eating, both in regard to the passover and to the manna.

J.S. Would the general thought be a lamb for a house?

J.T. Yes. The exception would be if it were too big for the house, then the neighbour would be brought in to share. The head of the house was responsible to consider the eating capacity. The age of the lamb is given here, as also the size of the omer in chapter 16. We are told that the omer was the tenth part of an ephah, and that it was for each person in Israel. There was no provision made for children, as such; each person had it; that is to say, it was the mind of God for them. It is the measure suitable for a heavenly man in the wilderness. An omer full of manna was laid up before the testimony. Typical of, "A man's measure, that is, the angel's", (Revelation 21:17).

J.S. Would the eating of the passover help the believer to leave the world?

J.T. I think that is in view. You have the great object before you; one definite thought in mind -- Christ Himself. Then the unleavened bread would reduce the flesh to nothing, so that there should be no inflation with us, as is prevalent in Christendom today; the present monstrosity that we see there is due to man in the flesh being nominally connected with Christ.

A.J.D. You spoke of the apprehension of a whole Christ. Would you open that up a little?

J.T. It is a very important point, because most young believers in leaving the world are very indefinite as to an object. Young people are usually very vague in their perception of things. The gospel not only meets the believer's need, but provides an object for his affections. It is "God's glad tidings, ... concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord", (Romans 1:1-4). Now that presents to us the Person of Christ, viewed so to speak, in His entirety.

A.J.D. Is it the apprehension of Him as having gone through death?

J.T. Yes. You are in your house eating before leaving Egypt, and have that one idea before you. Notice that it says, "The assembly of Israel shall kill it". There may have been thousands of lambs but there was only one idea. It is not, they shall kill them, but, it. There was but one passover.

W.B-w. It is roasted with fire.

J.T. Well, that is additional to death. The lamb is slain; its blood is shed -- this is the testimony. Its life is taken. But fire is an additional thought, to bring in not only the actual death of Christ, but the forsaking of God; it is the entire judgment of God

against sin. Fire is the strongest figure you can have in this respect.

J.S. And the bitter herbs, what would they teach?

J.T. They would prefigure self-judgment: the bitterness that comes into the soul as to why all this should be borne by Christ -- the righteous One. It is the bitterness that faith as judging sin, realised in partaking of the passover, corresponding to the bitter waters of Marah in the wilderness, which later the Israelites drank.

A.R.S. Would you say this food enables you to leave the world? I suppose the idea is that as you find it superior to the leeks and onions of Egypt, you desire them no more. Besides, we are given notice to leave the world.

J.T. Yes, they were driven out. But God had told Israel to move out. The best notice is that which God gives you. At first the Egyptians were reluctant to let them go, but the judgment of God caused them to hasten the Israelites out. God allows the world to bring pressure on us, but the real point is that God orders us out. This chapter is divine ordering in regard of Israel going out, and there is really no option. We are obliged to go out if subject to God. The Roman believers are said to have "obeyed from the heart the form of teaching" (Romans 6:17) into which they were instructed.

C.B. Feeding upon Christ as bearing the judgment God for us would cause us to leave the world.

J.T. Yes. I think what transpired in the houses of Israel was most interesting. There was only one passover, although thousands partook of it. The same thoughts, conversation, doings, table furnishings, and the same blood on the lintel outside marked every house. Typically it was to promote affection for Christ and practical unity among the people of God.

W.B-w. Why is the negative instruction so

particularly given: "Eat none of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire"?

J.T. It is to emphasise that the judgment of God had fallen on the lamb. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, so that we are to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

J.S. Would it emphasise judgment more because it was eaten at night?

J.T. Yes, darkness surrounded them, which was in keeping with conditions outside; but there was light inside Israel's houses. The manna began in the morning.

A.J.D. What was in the mind of God in verse 46: "Neither shall ye break a bone thereof"? Was it to maintain the whole thought?

J.T. Yes. You get a cognate thought in Joseph directing that his bones should be carried up. It underlies the great subject of resurrection. The bones suggest the person; the one who is buried comes out. There is complete identification; the whole person is, so to speak, included in his bones. They are the framework of the body; but what God may clothe the person with is another thing. "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body", (1 Corinthians 15:44).

C.A.M. They carried those bones all the way through the wilderness.

J.T. Yes. It was by faith Joseph gave commandment concerning them.

C.A.M. Would this suggest the Lord's having eaten the passover with the disciples and inaugurating the memorial of Himself? Joseph's bones would be a reminder of himself.

J.T. Just so. In Matthew and Mark the disciples suggest the passover to the Lord; and it is for Him to eat: "For thee to eat", (Matthew 26:17). But in Luke 22:8 He suggests it to them: "That we may eat". In Matthew and Mark it is His body

that is to be eaten. In Luke, in connection with the Supper, there is nothing said about eating; it is the breaking of bread as a memorial, but Matthew and Mark would bring in the idea of food, in the Lord's supper. It is one Christ.

A.F.M. In John 19:36 there is no institution of the Lord's supper but His loving His own to the end, is emphasised, and that "not a bone of him shall be broken".

A.J.D. It is a question of the Person remaining.

J.T. That is it. Whether it be Jesus here on earth or Jesus in resurrection, it is the same Person. There is no change in regard of the Person or His love.

W.B-w. John 1 refers to the Lamb of God. God draws attention to His Son. Would that be on the line of what you have been pointing out?

J.T. Yes, the allusion includes this chapter. There are different words used for 'lamb' in the New Testament original. One means 'diminutive', which is used in Revelation and John 21:15. The lamb in Revelation is a smaller idea than the lamb in John 1. The lamb here is a year old. It is not a diminutive thought as in Revelation, where it is the sufferer in outward weakness.

J.S. Eating here would appear to be a necessity prior to the people moving out.

J.T. It was the beginning of their history proper. We begin our history spiritually as we leave the world. "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months".

A.F.M. I would like to ask how it is that you get the assembly of Israel addressed in chapter 12, when in fact, they were not redeemed as yet?

J.T. I think it is a tribute to the work of God, to what God had been doing in His people in Egypt, to what had gone on in their previous experiences. So that they were now ready for the collective

thought. It is not simply that they were one family, but were one in intelligence. There are two words here: the word 'assembly' which means a moral whole, involving a sense of responsibility, one idea corresponding with the lamb; and then 'congregation', including every member of it. The word 'assembly' is, therefore, more instructive here because it shows the formation that had gone on. It led up to this: The people were not only regarding themselves as children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they were ready for the idea of the assembly, which involves intelligent collective responsibility.

A.J.D. Would the apprehension of a whole Christ lead to that?

J.T. I think it corresponds with it and to 1 Corinthians 10:17, "We being many, are one loaf, one body".

A.N.W. When you speak of a whole Christ being before the young soul, do you mean anything more than that the Person is there?

J.T. I mean that He becomes as a known person, a definite object for the believer. At the outset our apprehension of Christ is very meagre, and usually in relation to the gain accruing to us from Him.

A.N.W. So you would look with exercise on a person speaking of the forgiveness of sins without any thought that it is in Christ we have forgiveness.

J.S. In Christ as having been slain; and would not that have a gathering effect? There was to be no settling down; all in our chapter is preparatory to, and in view of moving on. They went out arrayed.

J.T. They go out five in a rank; that is to say, they are learning the idea of moving together.

T.H. Why is the lamb kept from the tenth to the fourteenth day?

J.T. It is a slain Christ that is before us here. The lamb was four days in the house, and so would have become endeared to the family. The family

would see typically, the perfections of Christ in the lamb, and so would come to love the one who was to be sacrificed. This enters, therefore, into the Lord's supper beautifully, for it was instituted at the passover supper.

J.S. So that affection for Christ would bring you into it.

J.T. That is what is presented. The demonstration of the plagues would have a formative effect in Israel, because they came in for special protection in Goshen. Each plague would impress them with the care of Jehovah for them and increase their affection for Him; so when the lamb was brought into the house, it became an object of interest to all there. Jehovah, of course, is invisible, but the lamb brought into the house is, typically, what you can see and handle. As John says, "That which we contemplated, and our hands handled", (1 John 1:1). The idea is that the Person becomes endeared to you by coming into close touch with you.

W.B-w. Do you mean that the young believer understands Christ risen, as a whole Christ?

J.T. That is a later experience entered into at the other side of the Red Sea. This is the death of Christ for us; the Red Sea is the death and resurrection of Christ, and so the enemies are destroyed. It is not our resurrection, however, but His. The passage of the Jordan is typical of our resurrection with Him.

J.S. What is presented, therefore, in the passover and the Red Sea is to the end that we should know Jesus as our Saviour on the one hand, and on the other, the complete overthrow of the world as we move out of it.

J.T. They synchronise. You are moving out after an Object and the world goes down in your faith as you are moving out, and loses power over your soul.

W.G.T. Does this, primarily, refer to the household more than to the individual?

J.T. It refers to the household; a lamb for a house, not for a person. The omer of manna is for a person.

W.B-w. The bones being mentioned might involve preaching of the resurrection, although the young believer might not apprehend it.

J.T. There could be no effective preaching without resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is the backbone of the preaching. You must bring that in. You cannot have clearance and victory over the enemy without resurrection.

J.S. There is neither singing nor preaching without resurrection.

J.T. There is no spiritual buoyancy at all without resurrection.

W.B-w. A young believer might not apprehend it.

J.T. That is right, but normally he has a conception of Christ in the passover. I think it is most touching that the lamb was in the house four days; it means that I become attached to Christ to some extent; then that Person had to die, which touches my feelings and affections. In appropriating Christ thus as food, I add the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

A.J.D. An appreciation of Christ would help us to apprehend the overthrow of the world.

J.T. Well, you go on to that. The overthrow of the world is in the Red Sea. That is where Pharaoh's hosts went down, and Israel saw them dead on the shore. You see the break-up of the world in that way. It is in apprehending Christ risen that you have victory.

W.G.T. Only the first-born is slain. I suppose that is the best the world has.

J.T. That was the last plague, and it caused

Pharaoh to loosen his hold; but his pursuit of Israel proved his unchanged malignity, and hence his final overthrow. All this affords most valuable instruction for us.

A.N.W. Would you say a little more about the passover and the Supper?

J.T. You get it clearly established in Matthew and Mark because the whole idea goes through into the church. "Take, eat: this is my body", (Matthew 26:26). It means that I am to build up a constitution for the assembly.

A.F.M. You arrive at the "one body" through His body.

J.T. That is it. "We, being many, are one body", (Romans 12:5). This is represented in the loaf at the Lord's supper.

B.T.F. You have the lamb killed, the blood shed, and the roasting by fire before you eat it: how would those figures apply?

J.T. The killing and blood-shedding is penal, the penalty attached to man. Blood-shedding is the life given up, the penalty for sin, but I think the fire applied after that is excess, and no doubt alludes to the forsaking of God. The primary judgment of God was: "In the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die", (Genesis 2:17); but we learn later that death for the unbeliever implies eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. And, corresponding with this, I believe the roasting with fire here would allude to the excess of judgment that Christ underwent.

B.T.F. Would you say a word about the eating of it? Would fire make the lamb ready so that it could be eaten?

J.T. Yes, it makes it food. It was not to be eaten raw or boiled with water. It is to keep the excess judgment by fire before us. Roast with fire is the severest process that you can get, and that is

to be kept before us. It is figurative of the judgment of God, endured by Christ.

W.G.T. It is more severe than boiling?

J.T. Boiling is indirect action of fire, but roasting is the direct and severest action of it.

A.A.T. Should these thoughts be in our mind at the Supper?

J.T. In a preliminary way as in 1 Corinthians 5. The Lord's supper belongs to the wilderness. In 1 Corinthians the passover is separated from it. Keeping the feast of unleavened bread, is the moral process that we go through every day of the week whereas, the Supper is partaken on the first day of the week. It is as keeping the feast of unleavened bread that we are fit for the Lord's supper.

C.A.M. Matthew and Mark emphasise the fire feature. Would that be in accord with their way of emphasising the passover?

J.T. No doubt. Neither John nor Luke gives you the forsaking. John and Luke would be an antitype of the boiling, so at the Lord's supper it is not the forsaking or the judgment side that is before us, as it is during the week, as already said, but what is before us when we come together in assembly on the Lord's day is the Supper as a memorial. I think it is more the boiling character of Christ's death. It is Christ as having gone into death for us because He loved us. All you need in regard to love is adequate testimony to it, but if you are in the enjoyment of love you do not need any testimony at all. If a person loves me, and I am conscious of it, I do not need to look for any testimony. The love itself is enough.

A.L. So it is not a commandment now to eat the passover, but more an exhortation.

J.T. "Let us celebrate the feast ... with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth", (1 Corinthians 5:8). Let us do it. It is not any less than a command. Of

course, the whole of 1 Corinthians is a command, and not optional.

C.A.M. The Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians is according to Luke's presentation of it. Do you think it would help us if we get that viewpoint -- that the judgment side hardly comes into the first day of the week?

J.T. I think it is more the boiling feature, as we said. Death is there, of course; the Lord speaks of laying down His life for His friends; a friend does not want more than that. We do not want, of course, to make little of anything that the Lord has endured, but it is not pleasing to Him for us to be casting about for evidence of His love when we are enjoying it; and eternity, for us, will be the enjoying of His love!

A.F.M. Would Adam's sleep be illustrative of His laying down His life for us?

J.T. There was no penalty attached to that; nor does sleep suggest any suffering. It is called a "deep sleep", (Genesis 2:6). There was no boiling in Egypt. It is the judgment of God we are dealing with here. The Lord's supper develops out of this, and it is not so much the judgment as His love. We are supposed to know His love if we come together to remember Him.

A.R.S. Where does it speak of the boiling?

J.T. In the consecration of the priests; (Leviticus 8:31). As we come into the priestly family, we understand that feature of the offerings.

A.A.T. Eating the lamb roast with fire, is that something we partake of during the week, or on the Lord's day?

J.T. It is continuous. As having to do with the world, we need the feast of unleavened bread (1 Corinthians 5:8); whereas, the Lord's supper is 1 Corinthians 11, where there is nothing said about His entering into judgment. The Lord, in instituting the Supper said,

"This is my body which is given for you"; and, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you", (Luke 22:19,20). Neither Luke nor John have the forsaking. It is Luke that gives us the memorial. Matthew and Mark do not separate the Lord's supper from the passover.

A.R.S. Is that why we do not read Psalm 22 these late years at the morning meeting? It used to be much read.

J.T. One does not want to minimise the sufferings of Christ. Nor would one who loves Him do so in the least degree, or put them in the background, but we are dealing with the Lord's supper which presents the love of Christ, and all that we need is adequate testimony to that love. If we are in the enjoyment of it, we do not need any testimony. The thing itself is testimony. One who knows it says: "He hath brought me to the house of wine, And his banner over me is love". (Song of Songs 2:4) Love is the greatest thing of all and is its own testimony.

A.R.S. Where would you use the suffering side of Psalm 22 now?

J.T. Well, I would use it in the gospel, showing how, in His sufferings, the Lord bore the full weight of God's wrath on account of human guilt. You could not well present the subject without that Psalm, but it is remarkable how little you get about the forsaking in the New Testament. You do not get it alluded to once, except by the Lord Himself on the cross. (Far be it from me that I should belittle the awfulness of the sufferings our Lord endured in the forsaking of God; I am speaking only of how the truth is presented. ) I believe fire emphasises the judgment of God. As going out of the world, I accept the awful judgment of God on sin and on me as a sinner, as seen in Christ's suffering. The eating of this food

builds me up in relation to the sufferings of Christ because of human guilt.

A.J.D. Does this thought bring in the bitter herbs?

J.T. Yes. I feel it is my own judgment that Christ bore.

B.T.F. Where does atonement come in? In chapter 12 you have the blood, and God says, "When I see the blood, I will pass over you".

J.T. Atonement is in the shed blood of Christ. The roasting with fire alludes to the fullness of the judgment. You get it enlarged on in Leviticus 16 where the blood of the sin offering is taken inside the veil, and the bullock and goat are burned outside the camp. That is fully seen in the forsaking of God.

W.B-w. The roast lamb was eaten in one night. The unleavened bread was eaten during seven days.

J.T. "That night" is a condensed idea with which you begin: "For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed", (1 Corinthians 5:7). That is one thought; but it is killed between the two evenings. The first evening would be somewhat brighter than the second; in the second you are going into the darkness of the night. God is dealing with sin, so that it is eaten in the night. None of it was carried over till the morning; what remained was burned with fire, emphasising the great idea of our entering into the judgment of God. It is a compressed thought. The difficulty is that we do not appropriate Christ as seen in the type here; on this account we have generally but a shallow estimate of what sin is to God. The food in the passover builds up a constitution in us enabling us to judge sin as before Him.

A.J.D. This might represent the three hours of darkness?

J.T. It all enters into the type; but then the "seven days" would allude to the whole period of the believer's experience here. Corinthians deals with it in that way: "Let us celebrate the

feast", (1 Corinthians 5:8). We are never to cease while down here.

A.F.M. For us the passover is one event, not to be repeated.

J.T. Yes; "Our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed".

J.E.H. Why the beginning of months? "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months".

J.T. I think the allusion is to spiritual history. Israel were beginning their history properly in eating the passover. For us it is the apprehension of Christ as having "died for our sins, according to the scripture", (1 Corinthians 15:3).

R.W.S. What about the head and legs and inwards? The passage reads: "Ye shall eat none of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs and with its inwards".

J.T. I think it emphasises what we are saying, that it is a whole Christ; the head and legs and inwards representing intelligence, strength and inward feelings and affections -- all for God. All was devoted in death, as undergoing the judgment of God. It is Christ Himself, as manifested here on earth.

R.W.S. Do you use whole in reference to a complete thought?

J.T. Yes. To convey the complete thought of Christ, because very few have such a thought of Him, and so are defective in the assembly. They have not apprehended Christ in a complete way, and hence do not know the assembly as His body. The two ideas are there -- Christ and the assembly.

A.J.D. Does the thought of His Person underlie the expression, "the Lord Jesus", (1 Corinthians 11:23)?

J.T. It does; an affectionate reference, There is no subject more important for young believers than

this: how are we to go out of the world? We go out as sustained with this food.

W.G.T. It says, "And on the first day ye shall have a holy convocation, and on the seventh day a holy convocation", Are these convocations in view of holiness?

J.T. Evidently. It refers to a period -- seven days. The number seven is a remarkable one, being the highest prime single number. As governing time it suggests a complete period, and alludes to the whole life of a Christian, or to the whole dispensation. Thus the keeping of the feast of unleavened bread is continued till the Lord returns.

B.T.F. You were remarking earlier that the lamb was kept four days. Would those days represent an important factor; in the affections of the household being drawn out to the lamb?

J.T. I think so. The head and the legs and the inwards of the lamb would come under review in the four days; that is, Christ becomes endeared to us, as going into death. The woman in the house of Simon the leper was in keeping with what we are talking about. The house of Simon the leper would denote a place where sin had been, but where it is no longer; the idea of the leper is, however, attached to Simon. The Lord was in his house, and the woman anointed His head, as He was going into death; she valued His Head. It had come under her notice. He said, "She ... anointed my body" (Matthew 14:8), showing that He Himself was before her in a full way. He was everything to her, and He was going into death for her. I believe she would understand what was involved in the passover. Eating this food builds up a constitution against sinning. The Lord said to the man in John 5:14, "Sin no more"; and to the man in John 8:11, "Go, and sin no more". As we eat this food we do not allow the activity of sin in us.

A.F.M. What we have been speaking about is so contrary to what obtains in Christendom! A person gets forgiveness and connects himself with some religious system that holds him to this world; whereas, we are forgiven in order to leave the world.

J.T. This necessarily involves suffering, but "he that has suffered in the flesh has done with sin, no longer to live the rest of his time in the flesh to men's lusts, but to God's will", (1 Peter 4:1,2).

W.G.T. Leaven is a corrupting principle, which is always ready to work in us.

J.T. Hence the unleavened bread is of great help to us since it brings the flesh down. You will find here that Israel were forced to eat unleavened cakes, because they could not wait to put leaven in the dough. God helped them thus to keep the feast.

C.A.M. What despicable hearts we have! It was on the occasion of this feast the disciples were striving as to which should be greatest (see Luke 22:24).

H.S.D. What about the manner in which they ate it? It says, "And thus shall ye eat it: your loins shall be girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste; it is Jehovah's passover".

J.T. It indicated that they were about to take a journey. The average Christian today never thinks of that -- having the loins girded, sandals on the feet, and a staff in hand; whereas, as soon as one is converted that should be the attitude, as going out of the world. You are not going to live where He is not. Like Ruth, you say, "Whither thou goest I will go ... where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried", (Ruth 1:16).

A.R. The wilderness is not your objective either. Moses said to his father-in-law, "We are journeying to the place of which Jehovah said, I will give it unto

you: come with us, and we will do thee good", (Numbers 10:29).

J.T. The idea of journeying characterises the wilderness, and we enter Canaan purely by attraction.

R.D.G. You were referring to the idea of the evening being continuous. Do you mean that our feelings become more intense?

J.T. They do. "The two evenings" are interpreted to mean the dusk and then the dark. It is the end of the day; we reach the density of night gradually. The lamb was killed "between the two evenings", and was to be eaten under the density of night outside, which spoke of the judgment of God, because the judgment was going on all around them in Egypt, and would have entered their houses were it not for the blood.

R.D.G. Is it right to expect that at no time during the week would our feelings be so intense as when partaking of the Supper?

J.T. That is right, but you do not eat the Supper in the darkness of night, but in the day. It belongs to the first day of the week.

A.N.W. So that the passover, for us, fits into 1 Corinthians 5, not into chapter 11.

A.R.S. Is that the reason why we do not break bread at night? I have heard it advanced that we ought to break bread in the evening because the Supper was instituted at night.

J.T. Luke is very accurate as to order; instead of evening, he says hour (see chapter 22:14). This covers current custom among the saints.

W.B-w. The believer ought to be glad to leave a sphere where judgment applies, and comes into a sphere which is free of judgment.

J.T. It is very comforting that God helps us to leave the world. He helped Lot; indeed, the angels

urged him out, which emphasises the grace of God. With a company of Christians walking in the will of God and gathered together under the direction of the Lord, you have an atmosphere in which heaven is complacent! It is really another world; the world outside is under judgment; whereas, the assembly is entirely clear of it, having passed "out of death into life", (John 5:24)

THE MANNA AND THE PASSOVER

Exodus 16:13 - 36; Leviticus 24:5 - 9

J.T. It is to be observed that the manna was peculiarly for the wilderness, and that one food does not set aside another. The passover continues; it was eaten in Egypt, in the wilderness, and in the land, but the manna was not eaten in Egypt nor in the land -- it belonged expressly to the wilderness.

A.F.M. Would you tell us what the wilderness is?

J.T. The wilderness is what the world has become to the believer as delivered out of it morally.

A.F.M. We do not take a physical journey, as the Israelites did, but a moral one.

J.T. That is the idea. We are delivered, in a moral sense, out of the world; it has changed its character for us. The world of man's lust and glory is now a barren scene through which we pass.

A.P. Do we need to have the Spirit in order that the world may become a wilderness to us?

J.T. The Spirit is given consequent on redemption which latter is seen in the passover lamb and in the passage of the Red Sea. The Holy Spirit is given typically in chapter 17. He sustains us in the position into which the light of the gospel introduces us.

A.P. The Lord was anointed before He went into the wilderness, and then He "was led by the Spirit in the wilderness forty days, tempted of the devil", (Luke 4:1). Would that have a bearing on the people of God as anointed in the wilderness?

J.T. The Lord entered the wilderness on Deuteronomic ground, not on that of Exodus. He quoted Deuteronomy in repelling Satan.

A.P. Was the wilderness actually a wilderness to them before they received the Spirit, typically?

J.T. It was. It is called the wilderness from the

outset but it is noticeable that here they turned toward it: "And it came to pass, when Aaron spoke to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, that they turned toward the wilderness", (Exodus 16:10). That indicated an acceptance of it. Hitherto they would desire to go back into Egypt, but now they are definitely turned toward the wilderness.

A.F.M. They get encouragement in the appearing of the glory of the Lord.

J.T. Yes. Looking in the wilderness direction you get a view of the glory. It is brought about by Aaron's word to them, and is a definite point reached -- they see the glory. It is well worth being set for the wilderness if the glory appears there.

A.J.D. Consequent upon that is the fact that God led them and sustained them in it.

J.T. That is the connection here. He had said, "I will rain bread from heaven for you" (Exodus 16:4); but Aaron's word seems to have touched them in order that such a provision should be valued, for they turned toward the wilderness and got the actual appearance of the glory. Then we get the initiatory giving of the manna: "In the morning the dew lay round the camp. And when the dew that lay round it was gone up, behold, on the face of the wilderness there was something fine, granular, fine as hoar-frost, on the ground".

T.A. You get the two things here: the daily manna, and the hidden manna. An omer full of manna was deposited before Jehovah.

J.T. I suppose we value the hidden manna in the measure in which we understand the daily manna. As having eaten of it daily you understand why it is laid up before Jehovah, and why the principle is carried into the New Testament, for we are given to eat of the "hidden manna",. (Revelation 2:17).

T.A. Do you think that Christ will be treasured as the hidden Manna, throughout eternity by the saints?

J.T. That is what He was here, the reference in Revelation 2 would indicate.

A.F.M. Does the wilderness suggest two things: that there is no way, and no resource there? Hence the provision would be in the pillar of cloud by day the pillar of fire by night, and the daily manna.

J.T. Exactly. They turned toward the wilderness, and then "on the face of the wilderness there was something fine, granular, fine as hoar-frost". You see the glory, but also this wonderful thing. It is well worth turning wilderness-wise to see the glory; then you see the face of it covered with bread from heaven.

A.R.S. You see the glory of the Lord in the wilderness, and you get food from heaven.

J.T. These are the two great features. So that while it is a foreign land through which we pass, in the manna there is that which belongs to our home. It is food from heaven. It is not indigenous to the wilderness.

W.B-w. What is the point in verses 6 and 7? It says, "In the evening, then shall ye know that Jehovah has brought you out from the land of Egypt; and in the morning, then shall ye see the glory of Jehovah".

J.T. The evening would remind you of the past experience; the morning is the glory, and that is what they saw as they turned toward the wilderness.

J.S. Turning toward the wilderness is like an act of faith on their part.

J.T. I think so. It points to the peculiar touch in Aaron's address.

J.S. They saw the glory of Jehovah and the face of the wilderness covered. Would that be evidence to us of divine presence and divine provision?

J.T. That is what I thought. Therefore, we are not lonely in the wilderness if we have the glory before us and the face of the wilderness is covered

with what belongs to heaven. While the place itself is strange, for us to go through is made possible by the glory and by the face of the wilderness being covered every morning by the manna.

A.J.D. In verse 12 it says, "Between the two evenings ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God". What is the distinction between flesh of the evening and bread of the morning?

J.T. The quails were to remind them of their unbelief. God would provide abundantly for them, even to satisfying their natural taste by the quails, which were similar to the fleshpots they had sat by in Egypt.

C.B. The manna is enough to sustain us in the wilderness if we gather it up.

J.T. Quite. But it must be gathered. I was thinking of the quails that they ate in the evening -- it is remarkable that God allows them the satisfaction of their natural appetite at this point. It illustrates His consideration of young believers; God is very considerate of them. Lusting for flesh brought judgment on Israel later, as seen in Numbers 11:32,33) "And the people rose up all that day, and the whole night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered little gathered ten homers; and they spread them abroad for themselves round about the camp. The flesh was yet between their teeth, before it was chewed, when the wrath of Jehovah was kindled against the people, and Jehovah smote the people with a very great plague". In the instance before us, it did not bring judgment upon them, for God was acting in grace to encourage them. If you have learned that God is good, even in ministering to you according to your natural tastes as young believers, it is only to encourage you to go in for the food He has provided. He is not going to give you quails every evening.

W.B-w. "And ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God", (Exodus 16:12). They would put confidence in Him as Jehovah.

J.T. That was the point to be reached. If we have confidence, we will accept the food that He supplies. Quails would not remind them of heaven but of Egypt. What a thing it was to be reminded of heaven every morning by the manna! It covered the face of the wilderness. And then we are told what it was like: "Fine, granular, fine as hoar-frost, on the ground". It was pleasing to the eye and could be viewed in detail.

T.A. What is the significance of its falling on the dew?

J.T. The dew would be the preparatory effect of God's grace. The goodness of God in supplying the quails would touch their hearts. If God has helped us in natural things our hearts should be touched. Dew is that which refreshes the earth. God would refresh us in some way so as to prepare us for this heavenly food.

B.T.F. Would you say that the quails represent earthly blessing? Are they figurative of spiritual blessing too?

J.T. They were God's creatures, of course; and God could command them as He commanded His creatures in the plagues of Egypt. He has rights in creation, and uses His creatures to express His sympathy and care for us. The quails were an earthly provision; but as accepted from God they convey the sense of grace and care which softens and refreshes one.

A.N.W. It says of them that they came up in contrast to the manna which came down.

Ques.. How is the face of the wilderness covered for us?

J.T. It is contained in that expression, "The life ... of Jesus", (2 Corinthians. 4:10). The manna was on

every shrub and leaf of the wilderness. The manna enters into every legitimate circumstance in which we may be found down here. It is a question of how the Lord Himself acted in every human circumstance.

A.R.S. The manna had to be gathered early in the morning, not at night or whenever one felt inclined to gather it.

J.T. Showing that the believer is taught at the beginning of the wilderness that things are never optional in the kingdom of God.

A.F.M. You refer to the manna as being like the life of Jesus. The Israelites said, "What is it?" They did not know what it was; but we are not raising that question, are we?

J.T. No; we know what it is now. To them it was a very extraordinary thing; and no mere scientist can tell what it was either. For us it is a spiritual thing, outside of the natural man's range.

T.A. Would the gospels tell us what it is?

J.T. Yes. It is Christ here as presented in the gospels; but in everyday circumstances, not exactly in the exercise of His ministry.

A.R.S. When the Lord was on earth men could not discern Him. They saw in Him only the carpenter's son; we see in that life the Manna from heaven.

J.T. The life of Jesus is still unknown, save to faith. Man in the flesh cannot understand it. When the Lord raised the inquiry, "Who do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matthew 16:13), nobody knew. It is the intelligent believer only who knows what the manna means.

A.F.M. They were to "go out and gather the daily need [the footnote renders it 'word' or 'thing'] on its day", (Exodus 16:4).

J.T. It is rained from heaven; that is plenty of it, but it has to be gathered. Each one has to gather it, as it says, "And the people shall go out and gather the daily need on its day". And then, "That I may

prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not". One has to notice these words and go out and gather! The chapter should stir us up from lethargy. If we are to get this manna we have to be energetic, not only in getting up in the morning but in going out. Nature is negated by this. Then they were forbidden to keep it until the morning; if kept over it bred worms, except on the sixth day, when they were to gather twice as much. This subject of the manna brings in the idea of the sabbath. We need to be spiritual to understand that the sabbath is allied with this subject of manna; it is another apprehension of Christ. I must not allow the manna to deprive me of Him as the sabbath of God; I must rest in Him. So that, while there is energy in going out to gather, there is also rest in Christ, not for the flesh, but in a spiritual sense, as the Lord said, "Come to me, all ye who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest", (Matthew 11:28).

A.F.M. This should stir up an exercise with us as to whether we really feel the need of such food day by day. No doubt 'word' (footnote Exodus 16:4) suggests Scripture to us as the daily word.

Ques. What does the manna being "rained" suggest?

J.T. Bountifulness -- there was plenty of it.

F.H.L. It was a matter of life and death for them.

J.T. They were not self-supporting, but were entirely shut up to God -- that is the lesson for us to learn; but then, what a God! When we get to the end of the wilderness and look back from Pisgah "over the surface of the waste" (Numbers 21:20), we shall know what God has been to us. The omer of manna laid up in the ark is, typically, to remind us eternally of that.

W.B-w. According to verse 4 He proves them.

J.T. "That I may prove them, whether they will

walk in my law, or not". He had not formulated the law as yet but was preparing them for it.

T.A. Do you mean preparing us for the covenant?

J.T. Preparing the young believer subjectively. One feature of this chapter is to show that the young believer cannot regard the things of God as optional. His position is that of having come into the kingdom of God. Moses represents the Lord as in Romans and Corinthians. They "believed in Jehovah, and in Moses his bondman", (Exodus 14:31).

J.S. Not the principles of Egypt but God's law was to prevail in the wilderness.

B.T.F. The exercising of your own will would not be in the spirit of the manna. The manna represents Christ as food, as having come to do the Father's will.

J.T. Quite. It is as in the path of the will of God that this kind of food comes to support us. Manna is said to be angels' food; they do the will of God in heaven. "Thy will be done as in heaven so upon the earth", (Matthew 6:10). Every creature must be sustained, for none are self-sustaining; divine Persons only possess that qualification. Christ as doing the will of God here becomes manna for us.

A.P. Do you mean that no creature will be self-sustaining even eternally?

J.T. No creature could be self-sustaining however great that creature may be.

A.R. The Lord says, "I have food to eat which ye do not know". "My food is that I should do the will of him that has sent me", (John 4:32,34).

J.T. That is akin to what we are considering, as showing how He was sustained.

A.N.W. Did the Lord have the manna in mind when He said to Satan, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God", (Luke 4:4)?

J.T. He was Himself the Manna, but that would lead up to the thought. Manna is what Christ Himself was as here doing the will of God -- so that

the wilderness is covered with it. The word 'hoar' would mean that it was visible in purity.

A.F.M. You have spoken of Christ as our Sabbath. How would you apply the sixth day, on which day they gathered twice as much?

J.T. It would involve increased spiritual energy, I think; which would lead to desire for the sabbath. This is the first mention of the sabbath after Genesis 2, and henceforth it has a great place in Scripture.

J.S. Does the sixth day here refer to excessive energy?

J.T. Six goes beyond human weakness (five). This passage helps us as to the meaning of the numeral -- that there is a double energy on this day. You find it, as a principle, running through Scripture. But the sabbath is not energy, but rest. Many of us make a show in activity, but in such a case Christ is not before us that we can rest in Him. Rest has an equalising effect -- all the members of the body renewing their living energy, which promotes regular growth.

T.A. Do we not have a sense in our souls on the Lord's day as identified with the Lord's supper, of being out of the wilderness?

J.T. The Lord's day with its privileges enjoyed leads us out of the wilderness. The Lord's supper is partaken in the wilderness; through it we are led into the land. As it says, "We who have believed enter into the rest", (Hebrews 4:3).

A.N.W. Apparently there was more done on the sixth day in Genesis 1 than on the other days.

J.T. I think that is right. The work of the sixth day was the greatest, for it includes the creation of man. You will find the idea of the sabbath running through the types: Leviticus 23, which treats of the feasts of Jehovah, begins with a sabbath in the mind of God, which He intended to reach, So we read:

"There remains then a sabbatism to the people of God", (Hebrews 4:9).

A.P. There is the idea of completion in it; the work of creation was finished in six days.

J.T. Exodus 31:17 says, "In six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed".

H.S.D. Would you say a word about the man gathering not only for himself but for his tent? He is an energetic man.

J.T. It says, "This is the thing which Jehovah has commanded: Gather of it every man according to what he can eat, an omer a poll, according to the number of your persons: ye shall take every man for those that are in his tent". That is a feature of household responsibility, corresponding with the passover; only here it is "an omer a poll" -- each one in the family had the same measure. Uniform capacity is contemplated, which lays the basis for general conformity to Christ -- "The measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ", (Ephesians 4:13).

F.H.L. Gathering the manna was, clearly, not optional.

J.T. There is no other food for us as in the wilderness. As soon as we accept this we shall be exercised about getting it.

A.R. The manna had various characteristics: It was "fine, granular", and then later on it says that it was "like coriander-seed, white; and the taste of it was like cake with honey". It was unique, and it fed them for forty years. These features stand out, do they not?

J.T. They do; the fineness and granular character of it point to the infinite perfection of detail in the life of Jesus. And it had the taste of cake with honey. This points to the substantial character and sweetness of Christ's life as food for us. After some period of Israel's use of it the taste is said to be different.

A.F.M. "The taste of it was as the taste of oil cakes", or 'fresh oil' (Numbers 11:8 and footnote).

J.T. This is said after the record of how they ground it in hand-mills and made cakes of it. It should not lose its sweetness with us. They sought to alter it, to make it more palatable to the natural taste whereas, typically, it is a spiritual thing. In this sense, from the description given in our chapter, it is all that could be desired.

A.F.M. It could not be improved upon.

A.J.D. In Numbers 21:5 they say, "Our soul loathes this light bread".

J.T. Which shows how important it is to maintain the right spiritual taste, or we shall turn to other things.

B.T.F. Would you say that the manna would meet every spiritual desire?

J.T. As we apprehend it to be Christ that is quite evident. In going through the gospels you see how you can live on it -- on the wonderful thoughts, affections, and other features of Christ seen in His daily life here. As apprehending Him in the adverse circumstances of His life here we understand what the manna is. "The old corn of the land" (Joshua 5:11) is Christ as He now is in the congenial circumstances of heaven; but the manna is what He was in the adverse ones on earth.

A.F.M. So you would recommend us to read the gospels?

J.T. That is the thing to do if you are to get the manna.

J.S. We may read the gospels but if we have not left the world morally we cannot get the good of the manna. In Christendom they endeavour to connect Christ with the world, but you cannot do that. There was no manna in Egypt.

J.T. No. Neither was there a smaller measure than an omer for a child, because God has

brought Christ into this world, and He is the standard; there is no other standard for man. If I have children, that is the standard for them. Every child in the house is to be regarded as a potential man.

A.P. Yes. And so we should not keep them dwarfed, but keep the idea of a man before them.

A.J.D. Does that dispense with the exercise of having meetings for children?

J.T. No; there are other scriptures that cover that; you keep Christ as the standard for men before them. As it says, "A man has been born into the world", (John 16:21).

A.P. You call attention to the little children in 1 John 2:20 as having an "unction from the holy one".

J.T. That is potential; that verse goes on to say, "Ye know all things". It is not that they knew literally, but in principle. We are enjoined to be as new born babes in regard to our desire but not in regard to our growth. Normally a child has a regular appetite for food.

A.P.T. The life of Jesus should be brought before our young people. Tell them about Jesus here, and so inculcate that life into their moral fibre.

J.T. So that before He is presented in testimony properly, He is thirty. That is the divine thought. The Holy Spirit comes down on Him then, not that He was not seen before in relation to God in sonship, but it is a question of what God would present to men. What there was from the Lord's conception and birth until He was thirty, who can say? Volumes could not contain what that life was for God! It is infinitely beyond us. But it underlies what God presents to men in Christ as man: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight", (Matthew 3:17). That is the way He is introduced; He is the true omer of manna, as God's portion for every man.

W.B-w. Whether a child is able to appropriate the whole omer or not, is not the point; no less a measure will do.

J.T. That is the idea, you present the full thought.

W.B-w. It is a whole omer for every child in the household.

J.T. And if he does not eat it, it simply is not there. There was no lack, but there was nothing left over. That is the principle of it. "He that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little wanted nothing". There was plenty on the ground, but of what was gathered there was nothing beyond the eating capacity of those who gathered. This can be quite understood spiritually.

Ques.. What is the difference between the bread here and the bread in John 6?

J.T. The bread in John 6 is for eternal life; that to say, it is Christ as having come down from heaven and having died -- His flesh as separated from His blood. It is a dead Christ in John 6. The bread here is Christ as He was living on earth. Therefore it is a question of your seeing how He would move and act in any circumstance in which you are.

A.N.W. So if you have not partaken of the passover, you cannot feed on the manna. You cannot value the life of Jesus if you do not appropriate His death.

J.T. The passover necessarily precedes the manna. It is not to support man as in the flesh.

A.P. Do we not get both the passover and the manna in John 6:53? "Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves"; I thought that referred to the passover, but then further on it says, "He also who eats me shall live also on account of me" (verse 57).

J.T. I think not. You do not get the manna, except by way of contrast, in John 6. That chapter

has eternal life in view. You enter Canaan, the land to which eternal life belongs, on the line of John 6.

W.G.T. Why does the Lord use the word "true bread" in John 6:32?

J.T. It is contrast with the manna.

J.S. "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died", John 6:49.

J.T. They ate and died, but the Lord goes on to say, "This is the bread that comes down out of heaven, that one may eat of it and not die" (verse 50). That is what the Lord had in mind.

T.A. Is eating a continuous thing?

J.T. There are two tenses used, past and present: "Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day", (John 6:53,54). There has first to be definite appropriation; then the eating is continued and so is characteristic, one thus characterised has eternal life.

A.R. "And it came to pass on the sixth day, that they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one; and all the princes of the assembly came and told Moses. And he said to them, This is what Jehovah has said: To-morrow is the rest, the holy sabbath, of Jehovah".

J.T. The princes who informed Moses are persons of authority. This confirms what we have been saying -- that there was the excessive energy on the sixth day that led on to the sabbath. The passage goes on to say, "And Moses said, Eat it today; for today is sabbath to Jehovah; today ye shall not find it in the field". Now you come to the sabbath actually: Moses is speaking on the seventh day, "To-day is Sabbath"; that is to say, the chapter brings us on to the actual, positive thing -- what Christ is as our Sabbath.

A.P. In verse 23 it says, "Bake what ye will bake". It is not exactly the omer, and seems to be optional.

J.T. Well, it is optional, but it was all based on what they had. It would allude to what they gathered -- two omers for a person to be utilised as they thought best, which I think is recognition of our spiritual intelligence and liberty. You are prepared for the Sabbath -- you have your mind on it, and there is plenty of latitude. You have arrived at rest in Christ.

W.B-w. What about those who did not respect it?

J.T. They were exposed; the flesh, as allowed, will always disregard the authority and order of God. This is seen also in verse 20.

A.J.D. What would be the features of those who are in the gain of the sabbath?

J.T. They are restful.

J.S. They would enjoy the accumulative results of the six days, spiritually. They would enjoy Christ, as having reached, in this way, the holy sabbath of Jehovah.

J T. Yes, all the cooking and all the baking has been done so that on the sabbath there is nothing to do, you are free to enter into what God has in Christ for you -- free to keep your sabbath.

A.R. What about Leviticus 24?

J.T. There it is another kind of food. The shewbread was a characteristic food of the priests. It is not Christ as He was here in adverse circumstances, but administratively. The twelve loaves denote food for those in administrative service, the priests. It is not now something on the face of the wilderness but inside the tabernacle -- "a bread of remembrance" laid in two rows, with frankincense on them, "upon the pure table before Jehovah". Of

course, the priests had other food, as the earlier part of Leviticus shows.

A.F.M. Do not the twelve loaves illustrate the twelve tribes?

J.T. They represent the principle of administration; first seen properly in Christ, and then carried out in the twelve apostles, and later to be seen in the twelve tribes of Israel, all culminating in the heavenly city. What is important, I think, is the means of manipulation in the number. How it is under God's hand so as to be manipulated according to His wisdom. In Exodus it is the "bread of the presence" (footnote, chapter 25:30), the number of loaves is unmentioned; there it is the thing as a whole on the table before Jehovah. In connection with it were certain golden vessels, the pure table being thus furnished.

J.S. Here there are two rows of six each.

J.T. You can divide twelve by twelve, six, four, three, or two. It is the most divisible of the numbers up to itself, and that means, I think, that God has those represented in it under His hand. The loaves were before Jehovah, and the frankincense was upon each row. They are said to be "a bread of remembrance, an offering by fire to Jehovah".

W.B-w. "Fine wheaten flour" -- that is something different from the manna; it is like the meat offering.

J.T. It is not now a question of what Christ was externally in the wilderness, but the kind of man He was in His inner nature. The number of loaves and the fact that baking had taken place indicate that the saints are in view. The priests feed on what is seen here as an offering by fire to God. They are identified with and feed on Christ as seen in holy administrative order in the saints.

A.J.D. It is the evidence of life under God's eye.

J.T. I think so. It is the kind of humanity evidenced in Christ and seen in the saints in the power of the Spirit now.

A.N.W. Your thought is that this food is for the constitution of the priests manward rather than Godward?

J.T. The number twelve would imply that administrative service is contemplated; but God has His part in the bread, for it is said to be an offering to Him.

J.S. What would the measure two tenths set forth?

J.T. I suppose it is the thought of responsibility carried on in testimony. All is according to divine requirement, as is seen also in the two rows of cakes. They were to be arranged by Aaron on each sabbath. The restfulness of the day would enhance the service. There is suggested a restful entering into the divine administrative thoughts effective in Christ and in the saints. The responsibility of providing the loaves seems to be with Moses, although Aaron arranged them before Jehovah. Christ Himself is therefore before us as Lord and Priest; but what is done is "on the part of the children of Israel". The offering is from their side. But the cakes, as laid before Jehovah during the whole week, become the food of Aaron and his sons. The passage says, "They shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of Jehovah's offering by fire". The commandment as to the twelve loaves is said to be "an everlasting statute", which shows that this service is among the great fixed requirements of God.

A.J.D. Why is it put as "a bread of remembrance"?

J.T. I suppose it would refer to what Christ was here, kept up in the economy of Christianity, and later in Israel. The 'bread of the presence' in Exodus -- the number of cakes not being given -- would

point to Christ Himself; here the saints are in view as carrying on what was seen in Him.

W.B-w. You get also the names of the twelve tribes on the shoulders of the high priest and on the breastplate. What is the difference?

J.T. It is a cognate idea. Christ sustains us before God in that way; and then the external position of the tribes corresponds with their names on the breastplate. Here the twelve cakes represent the saints, but as a memorial of Christ before God.

T.A. This food was to be eaten by the priests in the holy place.

J.T. It is in the assembly; the everyday experience of the believer is not contemplated.

A.P. Is the thought of "the twelve" representative of food in John 6? The chapter begins with the Lord administering food, and closes with the twelve disciples.

J.T. That is good. There you get almost the only formal recognition of the twelve in John's gospel. Earlier in the chapter twelve baskets of fragments are mentioned. The appreciation of Christ by the disciples is indicated by Peter's reply to His inquiry. The continuation of the Lord's administrative service would be seen in them, and thus there is a link in John 11 with the passage before us. The association of the idea of twelve in the gospels, with the feeding of the multitudes has an instructive bearing on the subject before us.

CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS

Leviticus 11:1 - 40

J.T. It will be readily observed that chapter 11 refers to what may or may not be eaten in our ordinary circumstances; whereas, the section in chapter 24 contemplates the holy place, and the food eaten there is prescribed. Chapter 11 is addressed to all Israel; that is to say, the people of God viewed in their ordinary circumstances; chapter 24 contemplates the same people, but in the position of priests whose privilege it is to serve in the tabernacle.

H.S.D. Is that why so much is said in chapter 11 about what may not be eaten?

J.T. Yes; such instructions would have no force with those serving in the tabernacle, for the unclean things would not be there. Chapter 11 contemplates persons typified by the creatures named therein; they would be found promiscuously in our daily vocations, hence we are called upon to discriminate in our intercourse with people so as to avoid association with such as are unclean amongst them.

A.F.M. In this chapter Jehovah addressed Moses and Aaron. Generally He spoke to Moses only; in this instance He connects Aaron with him. Would it have in view our spiritual judgment as a result of getting these directions from the priestly side?

J.T. Yes. Where they are both spoken to, it is typically, a question of the authority of the Lord Jesus over us, and of His priesthood. The need for discrimination with us is in view, the need of having our "senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil", (Hebrews 5:14).

B.T.F. The eating spoken of here was for the sustaining of their bodies.

J.T. That is the thought in eating; we eat for sustenance, not merely for pleasure.

B.T.F. The thought would be that what we eat forms us.

J.T. I think so; hence we must not eat anything unclean. It resolves itself into the manner of our relations with persons whom we meet promiscuously in the world. We have to see whether they chew the cud and divide the hoof; that is to say, whether they not only hear the word of God and believe it, but assimilate it, and then whether their walk is according to it. We have to seek out such people, and not to associate in any receptive way with others.

A.P. Are you applying the four classes of animals in Leviticus 11 to persons?

J.T. I think they are types of persons. You have the land animals, the fish, the fowl, and the creeping things. These are the four heads under which we may consider this subject.

A.N.W. I suppose the animals in the sheet before Peter, represented persons.

J.T. Clearly so, it was Cornelius and those with him. Peter was to regard them as clean.

A.J.D. Would the creatures in our chapter be representative of the classes of people with which we have to do?

J.T. Yes. God has, in the creation, furnished a language whereby He can address us, and in these typical books He uses these symbols to convey to us what is in His mind. What we may learn here is that in our everyday vocations we meet with all sorts of people, and must form a judgment as to them, for we are not to fall in with them indiscriminately and fraternise with them as if there were no difference, as if God had put no difference between His people and those who are not His people -- between the clean and the unclean.

J.E.H. How can we tell whether some of those

whom we meet in our daily callings might not be the Lord's people?

J.T. It is a question of whether they chew the cud and divide the hoof -- whether, as professedly believing the word of God, they assimilate it.

J.E.H. In some cases, the animals here spoken of divide the hoof but they do not chew the cud.

J.T. When you come to the fish, the fowl, and the creeping things, the idea of chewing the cud and dividing the hoof is necessarily dropped. We have to begin with the idea that no one can be clean save as he, according to the figure, chews the cud and divides hoof.

A.R.S. What does dividing the hoof stand for?

J.T. Discrimination in walk. We are called upon to follow in Jesus' steps, which some undertake to do without chewing the cud. Peter helps as to this, he says, "As newborn babes desire earnestly the pure mental milk of the word, that by it ye may grow up to salvation"; then he says, "For Christ also hath suffered for you, leaving you a model that ye should follow in his steps", (1 Peter 2:2,21). It is not simply to follow His way in a general sense, but you have to pick out the steps.

A.F.M. An animal that divides the hoof makes a distinct mark as it walks on the earth; whereas, an animal with paws makes little or no impression as it moves about.

J.T. When you apply that distinction spiritually, it has great significance: A Christian, properly speaking, does not go everywhere!

A.P. Would you say that the children of the elect lady who were found walking in truth (2 John 1:1) could be considered as dividing the hoof?

J.T. Exactly.

A.N.W. Peter in Acts 10 seems to have failed in being too discriminating. He was hesitant to recognise the work of God among the Gentiles, and was

told not to make common what God had cleansed. We are not careful enough sometimes to discriminate as to those that are clean.

J.T. In the palace of the high priest, Peter was not so careful; he sat down and warmed himself with the enemies of the Lord, and denied Him there.

W.B-w. In chapter 10:10, it says, "That ye may put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between unclean and clean". Is that the principle on which this chapter is developed?

J.T. The idea of the priesthood necessarily underlies all this instruction.

W.B-w. Why does it follow the death of Nadab and Abihu?

J.T. It comes in here after the general instruction to the priests. Chapters 1 to 10, in furnishing instruction as to the offerings, culminate in priesthood. The priests are seen as under a charge: being responsible for the law. In drawing near to God with our offerings we merge into priesthood, and so are competent to make a difference between the unclean and the clean. The priesthood broke down (chapter 10), but this did not set aside the need for discrimination; so that in chapter 11 all the people are viewed as responsible for it.

W.B-w. Where would Eleazar and Ithamar come in?

J.T. The instruction here is to Moses and Aaron. Aaron's sons are not mentioned; the priesthood had failed in them. Therefore; if saints viewed in that capacity fail so seriously, it is all the more urgent that the saints as a whole should see to it that the word of God is assimilated by them. It has first to be assimilated, and then there must needs be a walk in correspondence with it.

A.F.M. The question might be raised with regard to Nadab and Abihu, as to their being influenced by natural things such as wine or strong drink when in

the tent of meeting. Their senses were not regulated by what was spiritual, hence the "strange fire" (chapter 10:2).

J.T. Quite so. It should serve as a warning to us.

A.L. "Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated", (2 Corinthians 6:17). Would that correspond with the cloven hoof?

J.T. It would indeed. Psalm 1 helps as to that. The land animals point to persons in distinction or prominence; the fish to swarms of men in their natural element, as in the large cities in which we dwell. The fowl would represent men viewed with ability to be independent, whether in the way of good or evil. An unclean bird would prefigure a person who has much wealth or a liberal education by means of which he soars above the heads of others, in pride and independence of God. The clean cattle are not designated; the unclean only are named, for the reason that we are so apt to be drawn away by persons of distinction, irrespective of their condition. The names of those unclean are therefore given, in order that we may discern them. The same remarks apply to the fowl: Those mentioned are not only unclean, but "an abomination shall they be".

A.P. What would the crawling things mean?

J.T. Well, there is more said about these than the other classes named; they would apply to persons who live on the earth, but have no power to rise above it, and are on this account especially abominable. "Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you"; that is, it represents one grovelling on the earth. Then the passage goes on to say, "Yet these shall ye eat of every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four: those which have legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth". These typify Christians who can rise above the earth, who have the power by the Spirit, like the man who had

been lame (Acts 3), to walk and leap and praise God.

B.T.F. What would be the instruction here in regard to the earth; could it be viewed as evil?

J.T. Our calling is heavenly, and hence to grovel on the earth makes us unclean. The exhortation is: "Have your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth", (Colossians 3:2). James, in speaking of our having bitter emulation and strife in our hearts, says "This is not the wisdom which comes down from above, but earthly, natural, devilish" (James 3:15), which shows the significance of the earth in a moral sense. It is not the earth in the sense of that which produces vegetation, etc., but as the sphere in which men live and seek to enjoy themselves without God.

A.R. You were saying that Psalm 1 furnishes an example of one who keeps himself from the defilement spoken of here. Will you give us a word on the opening verses; it says, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, and standeth not in the way of sinners, and sitteth not in the seat of scorners; but his delight is in Jehovah's law, and in his law doth he meditate day and night".

J.T. The foundation of the book of Psalms is the godly man. In Psalm 1 we have moral greatness; in Psalm 2, official greatness; the latter is founded on the former, and both are seen in Christ. Eating what is clean builds up a constitution through which God can work out His thoughts in us. Separation is not only turning away from what is evil; we must be sustained in it, and this implies eating what is clean. The type here shows that there is plenty of clean food.

J.S. You have a very discriminating man in Psalm 1.

J.T. Yes; note, "walketh not", "standeth not", "sitteth not".

A.F.M. You get in the Psalm the two thoughts

we have been dwelling upon -- separation in verse 1, and mediation in verse 2; that is to say, the cloven hoof, and the chewing of the cud.

T.A. It says of John the baptist, "And, looking at Jesus as he walked", (John 1:36).

A.B.P. Is the reference to the first of the four classes of clean animals suggested to us when the Lord says, "My mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and do it", (Luke 8:21)?

J.T. Yes. They chew the cud and divide the hoof. It is remarkable that we have so much about "winged crawling" things, and yet some of them are clean; that is, they have the power to rise above the earth; suggestive of saints who can leave their ordinary affairs and come to a meeting like this for instance, and enjoy it! The winged crawling things and the crawling things would typify the masses of mankind. God has cleansed some of these crawling things, relatively a few. Some of the distinguished animals and birds in creation are violent and destructive, and so prefigure men who are so characterised. The lower creatures represent more the seething character of sin by which men make themselves abominable (verse 43).

A.McN. Would you say that spiritual energy is conveyed in leaping?

J.T. That is it. Spiritual energy as seen in the man of Acts 3:8 "And leaping up he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping, and praising God".

W.G.T. These energetic features in the healed man would show us that he was a different kind of man now.

J.S. How would you connect what we are now considering with the manna?

J.T. The manna is Christ. There was no question of discrimination with it; the Israelites had simply to gather it, as it lay on the ground in its whiteness like

hoar-frost. It is Christ as He was in His daily life here on earth; not Christ as He now is in heaven. The clean food of our chapter is found among the people of God. You meet those who are His and those who are not, and also worldly Christians. Indeed, you meet all kinds of people in your everyday life, so that you are called upon to discriminate as to those whom you commune with -- whom you appropriate, so to speak, for eating implies that.

J.S. Would you discriminate between your associations and what you eat? Here it is a question of what you eat.

J.T. It is, but I think the idea is that you seek the company and fellowship of "clean" people.

A.F.M. By not discriminating when amongst men, one becomes like the men prefigured by these unclean things; we are to be completely separated from what is unclean, and associated with what is clean.

C.A.M. As was remarked, the man in Acts 3 is a very striking example of this: His feet and ankle bones were adjusted so that he could leap; Peter and John were in the good of their priestly privilege to go into the temple; and he entered with them.

J.T. Spiritually, the man left the earth -- to which in his helplessness he had been bound -- and entered into fellowship, for he held Peter and John, as with them he would find clean food.

W.B-w. He was like the locusts in verse 22.

J.T. There are four different kinds of locusts mentioned here: it says, "These shall ye eat of them; the arbeh after its kind, and the solam after its kind, and the hargol after its kind, and the hargab after its kind" (verse 22 and footnote). There being four kinds, I think, helps -- they are differentiated, but convey a general idea. They represent a class; i.e., believers that are available to us. "The locusts have no king, yet they go forth all of them by bands",

(Proverbs 30:27). Their use as food by John the baptist is significant.

A.F.M. Would you say something about the fish in waters, seas, and rivers? The word "abomination" is introduced in connection with those that have not fins and scales.

J.T. The order here is not the same as in Genesis 1; there you have fish and fowl together on the fifth day. Here you have land animals first, because, I think, verses 3 - 8 refer to men viewed in a more dignified way. The fish are next in order; they picture men, not in dignity, but promiscuously in their natural element, "the waters".

J.S. Probably, men viewed in adverse circumstances.

J.T. Yes; and so the clean ones are marked as able to go forward in spite of such circumstances. They have fins and scales. "These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatever hath fins and scales in waters, in seas and in rivers, these shall ye eat". These are persons who have power to go against the current. They are not controlled by surrounding influences. We are not, for the moment taken out of the world, but kept from the evil in it (compare 1 Corinthians 5:10).

A.N.W. It is not sufficient merely to repel; but we have the power to propel -- to make progress.

J.T. Yes, repel with the scales, and propel with the fins.

J.T.Jr. Like the man in John 9 who went against the stream.

W.B-w. Eating is equivalent to having fellowship with, is it not?

J.T. Acts 10:13 is the best illustration you can get. Peter was hungry on the housetop, and the sheet came to him: "And there was a voice to him, Rise, slay and eat". The allusion was to men, to the Gentiles.

A.P. The children of Israel were not to join Moab, but were to go straight through to the land.

J.T. Yes, but they fell into sin with the Moabites, because they did not observe these instructions.

T.A. "Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you", (2 Corinthians 6:17).

J.T. The same idea of "touch not" is dwelt upon here. The "touch not what is unclean" idea appears seven times in the chapter.

A.P. There is the thought, not only of coming out from the midst of them, but also the going through adverse conditions, as indicated in the fish with fins and scales.

J.T. Yes; otherwise, "Ye should go out of the world", as the apostle says; (1 Corinthians 5:10). Referring again to the crawling things, it says, "And these shall be unclean unto you among the crawling things which crawl on the earth: the mole, and the field-mouse, and the lizard, after its kind; and the groaning lizard, and the great red lizard, and the climbing lizard, and the chomet, and the chameleon". These two verses are as instructive as any in the chapter as to the subject in hand; none of the animals mentioned could be called vicious, but they crawl on the earth. Take the mole, the field mouse, and the lizard: they appear harmless, but you find they do great damage -- the mole and the field mouse especially.

T.A. Jude 4 says: "For certain men have got in unnoticed".

J.T. Just so. The mouse is tame, as we say, but it possesses great voracity and fecundity, and so may do enormous damage to crops, etc. Moles work underground -- suggesting undermining operations.

W.G.T. Would they suggest features such as all of us are liable to exhibit?

J.T. You may inquire, 'What good are they all?' Well, they are part of a language through which God can speak to us. Through these creatures truth is impressed upon us in the most practical way. People marked by the characteristics of the mole and the mouse interfere disastrously with the growth and fruitfulness of the saints, and so are unfit for our companionship or fellowship.

Rem. Would the chameleon speak of instability, or changeability?

J.T. It would represent a nominal Christian who takes colour from the company in which he is found -- whether worldly, in which event he is a worldling, or Christian, when he becomes a Christian.

Rem. There are several kinds of lizards.

J.T. Yes, the chameleon is of that family. Each species of "the lizard, after its kind", is unclean. There is "the groaning lizard", descriptive of many of those about us -- groaning people.

C.A.M. Such are a very depressing kind of people.

J.T. Yes, they are not "filled with joy and the Holy Spirit", (Acts 13:52). We are exhorted to "be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and chanting with your heart to the Lord", (Ephesians 5:18,19). That is the opposite of groaning.

H.S.D. I was thinking about Paul and Silas in prison. They had good reason to groan, but instead, "in praying, were praising God with singing", (Acts 16:25).

A.N.W. If groaning is to be allowed, it should be within ourselves. "We also ourselves groan in ourselves", (Romans 8:23).

J.T. Groaning is right, of course, in that sense. The Lord groaned more than once, as the gospels

show; but this groaning is characteristic of discontented people.

A.F.M. Then there is "the great red lizard" and "the climbing lizard". One would be suggestive of display, and the other of ambition, as among the people of God.

J.T. They are very convenient figures here. As you say, the great red lizard is like one very conspicuous, and who would be so. Ahimaaz said, "Let me run", (2 Samuel 18:23). He would excel as a runner.

J.S. What a contrast we have between the climbing lizard and the mole! The latter is seldom seen but is very destructive of the roots of vegetation.

A.J.D. Would the climbing lizard be like Diotrephes?

J.T. Just so. "Diotrephes, who loves to have the first place among them", (3 John 9). The devil knows that this element is in every one of us. He thought that of the Lord, when he set Him upon the edge of the temple. He evilly thought the Lord was such a one as himself. But the Spirit of God says: "Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; but emptied himself, taking a bondman's form, taking his place in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:6,7); He was entirely the opposite of all this depicted by the lizard!

B.T.F. You were speaking of creation as being a language by which God speaks to us. Had you any particular scripture in mind as to that? We have: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse showeth the work of his hands", (Psalm 19:1).

J.T. Romans 1:20 helps: "For from the world's creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity, so as to render them inexcusable". If you go through scripture, you will find an immense

variety of things in creation, employed by God to convey divine thoughts.

B.T.F. There are many things which speak of that which is good, and then there are those that speak of that which is evil.

J.T. That is the thought. Take Noah's ark, for example, if one who rightly understood God's creation had surveyed the creatures therein, he would have found portrayed in every one of them some divine thought. If Solomon could have gone into the ark, think of what he would have said! He spoke of all the living creatures, including these creeping things. No doubt there will be great intelligence as to the creation in the millennium, for Solomon is a type of Christ in relation to it. The fulness of life in every respect will then be seen. The prophets show that ferocious creatures will then become harmless, and carnivorous ones will then live on vegetable food.

T.A. Do we not see wisdom in Adam when he "gave names to all cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every beast of the field", (Genesis 2:20)?

J.T. Yes. God did not change any one of those names; Adam evidently named them correctly.

A.P. It is very interesting, in the light of our chapter, to view men in that discriminative way.

J.T.Jr. The Lord called Herod a fox (Luke 13:32), because he possessed the craftiness of one.

J.T. Besides the care enjoined in eating, the touching of what is unclean is also forbidden in the chapter. It says of the swine, "Their carcase shall ye not touch"; and beasts that have paws, that go upon all four, are unclean, and "whoever toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even". It is not only a question here of eating, but of touching. I am affected by any association in which I am, and in which unclean persons are, even though I may not wish to be so.

C.A.M. We always take character from the lowest company we keep.

A.A.T. What is the difference between eating and touching?

J.T. Eating is a deliberate act, but you might touch an object without wishing to. There are those who say, 'Well, I know that the association in which I am has unconverted people in it, and is marked by worldliness, but then I hold myself aloof as much as I can'. However, you are in their fellowship and you cannot escape the consequence of being defiled by it.

A.F.M. One might touch what is unclean and be defiled, but when something unclean touches you, how would you regard that?

J.T. Well, it should impress us with the seriousness of being in proximity to these unclean things, and so prompt us to keep out of their way.

G.McP. "Whoever toucheth them when they are dead". What would be the force of that?

J.T. It would refer to men in whom there is no pulsation Godward. I think it is death in a moral sense.

A.R. "And every earthen vessel into which any of them falleth -- whatever is in it shall be unclean; and ye shall break it".

J.T. There again it is not a question of the will, but of being in a position where you are affected by what is unclean; so the point is, not to be in that position; as it says, "Hold aloof from every form of wickedness", (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

W.B-w. What is the force of being "unclean until the even"?

J.T. I think it is in the sense of penalty. You will observe in this chapter that there is nothing said about the process of cleansing. It is rather that you suffer penalty in your soul. You have to wait, as a

matter of discipline, a certain period before you are restored.

J.S. You have lost communion for that day.

J.T. Yes. You have to wait until evening, no matter what exercise you may go through. There is a penalty attaching to the contamination, and you cannot get rid of it at once.

W.B-w. Is there a possibility of going through each day clean?

J.T. Yes, in the sense that we have it here. The Lord went through every day entirely undefiled.

A.J.D. What do you mean by, 'The sense that we have it here'?

J.T. That of penalty -- the governmental consequences from which you cannot escape. You may say 'I affiliated with this and that one, and I got damaged in my soul, and I judged it'; but then you suffer nevertheless, and cannot avoid being unclean "until the even". However, I am not overlooking what is set forth in the red heifer of Numbers 19 where you get provision for cleansing, which you do get here; although that chapter contemplates longer periods of uncleanness.

A.F.M. Numbers 19:12 speaks of the third and the seventh day.

W.B-w. Why is "a spring or a well, a quantity of water" clean?

J.T. It alludes to the energy of the Spirit, especially in a collective sense. There is that, although in this world, which is impervious to the evil or defilement of it. We may have to deal with defiling things in caring for the Lord's interests, but if in the power of the Spirit, we are not defiled by them. The assembly is not "unclean until the even". Acts 5 is an example of this.

W.B-w. What about the carcase falling upon the sowing-seed?

J.T. The seed for sowing is not unclean by an unclean thing falling upon it, unless water has been put on it. The inference is that if one is baptised and comes in contact with these unclean things, then he is unclean, for he has taken up a new position of responsibility (see Romans 6:4). Verses 32 - 40 afford most important instruction as to the bearing of this subject on servants and service. All the instruction given is imperative because of what God is to us, as He says: "For I am Jehovah your God; and ye shall hallow yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy; and ye shall not make yourselves unclean through any manner of crawling thing which creepeth on the earth" (verse 44).

FOOD AS PRESENTED TO GOD

Numbers 28:1 - 31; 29:1 - 16

J.T. It seemed to me that in considering this great subject of food, we should bring in God's part. These chapters treat of food, not for the saints but for God. "Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, my offering, my bread for my offerings by fire of sweet odour to me, shall ye take heed to present to me at their set time". It is imperative.

A.F.M. It is readily understood that we require food but in what sense does God require it?

J.T. That He should regard the offerings of His people as food for Himself is very touching. The manna was said to be angels' food; God, we know, is a Spirit, and the angels are spirits, so we have to understand that what is alluded to must be spiritual.

H.S.D. It would not be a question of support, but rather of what ministers to the pleasure of God.

J.T. It is noticeable throughout Numbers that the oblation has particular prominence; much is said of fine flour mingled with oil, and of wine. Attention is thus called to the joy God has in Christ as Man serving Him here in the power of the Spirit.

B.T.F. Would you say that the expressions "my offering" and "my bread" suggest the saints ministering to God's delight and pleasure?

J.T. That is evidently what is in view. Throughout the two chapters it is the bearing of the offerings as food for God that is in view.

W.B-w. In Malachi 3:8 it says, "Will a man rob God?" We must consider for Him.

J.T. How much have we thought of God's part? The Spirit is given, typically, according to chapter 21, which implies that the saints have ability to meet divine requirements. So that God is not taxing us

beyond our means in asking for the bread of His offerings. In chapter 26 we have the inheritance, and in chapter 27 the daughters of Zelophehad are introduced as those who valued the inheritance. It is in that light that God looks for something from us -- from us as having the spiritual means to furnish it.

A.F.M. In verse 2 of our chapter Jehovah says, "My offering, my bread for my offerings ... shall ye take heed to present to me at their set time". There is a large number of offerings before us in these chapters, but offerings to be presented at their "set time". Would you say a little as to how these chapters open out?

J.T. Well, we have the whole year covered, from the first of the year to the fifteenth of the seventh month. It is not what we call the solar year, but rather the spiritual year; or we might call it the agricultural year. Now, the farmer does not reckon the year as the merchant does: the farmer reckons it from the time he sows his seed until he reaps his crop and gathers it in. The feast of tabernacles corresponds to this ingathering. The agricultural year is really what counts, because it is a question of what comes from the land; every kind of life, excepting aquatic life, depends upon that: it says, "Moreover the earth is every way profitable: the king himself is dependent upon the field", (Ecclesiastes 5:9).

A.N.W. The seventh month is the greatest of all.

J.T. Amongst other things introduced therein, it is the time of ingathering which takes place at the end of that month.

J.S. The farmer reckons by seasons.

J.T. That was how God ordered things after the flood: "Henceforth, all the days of the earth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease", (Genesis 8:22). It is, substantially, how we would reckon

if we were tilling the soil; and after all, from it most of the wealth comes.

A.P. Is there the suggestion then that the greater part of the solar year is held for God?

J.T. Well, the point is what you get out of the ground, and what God gets through that increase from us.

A.P. Scripture speaks of "redeeming the time", (Ephesians 5:16). The solar year represents the time.

J.T. It would be a question of actual time, of making the most of every moment that we have. I think the distinction as to the year is important, because that is how Scripture deals with it. The agricultural year is a question of sowing and reaping.

J.S. How do you apply that spiritually?

J.T. Simply speaking, it is a matter of God getting something out of us. We get in Luke's gospel that the fig tree rendered the ground useless. The ground, figuratively, is the source of supply for God.

C.A.M. How much of what is done in our bodies is going to be shown as "good" at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10)?

J.T. The sheaf of the first fruits presented to Jehovah is Christ (1 Corinthians 15:23); one sheaf was offered (Leviticus 23:9 - 14), but as having a great harvest in view. The extended thought of this embraces the fifteenth day of the seventh month.

W.B-w. The man in Deuteronomy 26 had the first fruit in his basket. Is he representative of one who labours and brings in a good crop?

J.T. Yes; it says, "That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which thou shalt bring of thy land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee", (Deuteronomy 26:2). He brought the first of all the fruit of the ground and presented it to Jehovah.

B.T.F. Would you say that Paul brings in the thought of the crop? "I have planted; Apollos watered; but God has given the increase", (1 Corinthians 3:6).

So I suppose God looks for increase from the saints.

J.T. That is what is before us. What are the crops going to yield this year? Is the reaping to be in proportion to the sowing?

A.R.S. Is the idea of fruit the same as food, in connection with God? We are to bring forth fruit unto God.

J.T. Fruit is, of course, a more general thought, but it includes what we are speaking of. God looks for a crop. The Lord said, "Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit", (John 12:24). The "much fruit" refers to the seventh month, the end of the agricultural year, and implies all that the Lord is and has in resurrection; but these two chapters show what is directly for God in the way of food. The farmer does not use all his harvest for himself; he disposes of it commercially, and uses it as food for his cattle; but God is not occupied with that here, but rather with what is for Himself. He says, "My offering, my bread for my offerings by fire"; and then He goes on to specify the daily, weekly, and monthly offerings. We should also note the stress laid on the meat offering and the drink offering -- all for a sweet odour, an offering by fire to Jehovah.

J.E.H. Has every believer a field?

J.T. Yes, and so the word is: "Prepare thy work without, and put thy field in order, and afterwards build thy house", (Proverbs 24:27). The offerings required in our chapters contemplate a source of supply divinely given.

A.N.W. In Deuteronomy 23 there is the vineyard and the standing corn which are available to my neighbour, but God only takes what is offered Him.

J.T. That is the idea in verse 1 of our chapter; the word rendered "offering" is derived from the verb to present. It is 'corban' (see footnote to

Leviticus 1:2). Not only is it in the field -- for according to Genesis 1 the food supply comes out of the earth -- but it is there as a provision of the Creator, and in marvellous volume. In Genesis 41 it is gathered under the hand of a man, having administration in view, but when you come to the passover it is a specific creature -- a lamb. So God specifies what He requires, but it is presented to Him. Not only is it there for Him to receive, but as expressing love in His people it is presented as their gift.

A.P. What is the difference between this and the tithes?

J.T. The tithes went mainly to Levi (see Deuteronomy 26:12) and through the Levites to God; it was the same in principle, only the gift as rendered to the Levites was offered by them to God. These chapters contemplate the wealth of the saints, and that God is before them throughout the whole year, and that their giving to Him is direct.

A.F.M. The daily offering of verse 3 is called "a continual burnt-offering", and forms a basis for the other offerings that follow; so that, whatever may be offered on the sabbath or the beginning of the month, etc., this offering is always maintained. This is very suggestive. Will you say a little about it?

J.T. It is evidently to maintain the saints on a high spiritual level. Their "days" are thus filled out by suitable response to God. The believer is to have the same measure of response in the evening as in the morning. The daily offerings would thus preserve us from spiritual diminution. In the feast of tabernacles you get provision made for diminution in the sacrifices, but you do not want that. It refers to the millennium, for which God is obliged to provide. There is a gradual decline from thirteen bullocks on the first of the seven days to seven bullocks on the seventh day. This provision is mentioned here only. If we are to prevent this

lessening of what is offered, we must maintain the daily morning and evening sacrifices.

J.E.H. Why is there provision made for that diminution?

J.T. It refers to the reduction of spiritual power in the millennium, but if applied to ourselves, it would be to God in grace making allowance, so that a saint should not drop out even if diminishing in spiritual power.

A.J.D. Does it go below the seventh bullock?

J.T. No; thus what is due to God is maintained, only in a reduced measure. A state that He can own is maintained, as prefigured in the seven bullocks. It is only in the bullocks that the diminution is seen. The other offerings are the same on each day.

A.N.W. Would it not show that the millennium, wonderful and great as it is, is not the best?

J.T. It is not on the same level as the church in which there is no provision made for spiritual decline.

A.F.M. Does the number of bullocks refer to spiritual wealth, and the lessening of it to loss of energy in devotedness?

J.T. The thirteen bullocks contemplate a very large affair. The millennium will begin with great spiritual power, but it will be susceptible to depreciation, and steadily so; God takes account of this and intimates that it will not go below seven which is perfection in itself; all above that number is excess.

A.P. Is your thought that there is increase in chapter 28:14, as seen in the larger measure of wine?

J.T. The wine is in proportion to the offering, whatever the offering may be. What you get in chapter 28 is perfect proportion. But there is increase in the offerings required in this chapter; the worship of the church is in view, typically.

J.S. As sustained by the Spirit?

J.T. Quite. You could not get wine, in a spiritual

sense, apart from the Spirit; accompanying these offerings, the drink offerings are to gladden the heart of God.

C.A.M. In Philippians 2:17 there is a reference to the drink offering. In Paul's service and their faith God would have joy.

J.T. There the apostle contemplated being "poured out as a libation on the sacrifice and ministration of your faith".

C.A.M. So that while they gained by the sacrifice, I suppose the drink offering was for God.

J.T. The drink offering is always for God. And it is not grape juice, but fermented wine, being that "which cheers God and man", (Judges 9:13).

A.F.M. Why do you say it is not grape juice?

J.T. Because the idea is of stimulation -- causing joy. God graciously uses such a figure to denote what the spiritual sacrifices and worship of the saints are to Him..

A.N.W. I suppose the cup of the Lord's supper is intended to stimulate spiritually.

J.T. I think it is -- not that the ingredient is prominent in the Lord's supper. There is no doubt that it was wine that was used, but the emphasis in the Lord's supper is not on the ingredient but on the one vessel; the cup is what our attention is called to.

A.P. Is it your thought that the cup is greater than millennial joy?

J.T. Yes. The love of God is expressed in it, and unity in the enjoyment of the love. Then in the bread we have the one body. In the millennium it is a nation in Israel, and wine in the passover would convey the idea of earthly joy in this connection. In the celebration of the passover at the time of our Lord there were several cups drunk, according to the records we have. The idea would be that it was an earthly joy in which God had part, and in which

Christ had part also. So He will drink it in a new way in the kingdom of God.

A.R. In chapter 28 the feast of weeks contemplates excess, does it not? There is increase in relation to the assembly. Is that the idea?

J.T. Yes, the feast of weeks ends chapter 28. It is the highest level reached; it is the assembly, as I understand. It is "on the day of the firstfruits, when ye present a new oblation".

A.N.W. Does the proportion of the wine indicate that the greater the spiritual capacity to offer, the greater the joy?

J.T. That is what I thought. God looks for balance in His people, especially in their worship.

A.N.W. Sometimes the youngest and smallest appear to be bubbling over with joy, but this may be out of accord with their stature.

J.T. God is "the God of measure" (2 Corinthians 10:13) and that particularly enters into His worship. With regard to this daily offering, the saints should be preserved on a normal spiritual level; the wear and tear of the day should not rob you of your spiritual power. The evening is to correspond with the morning. That is a sort of basis of the whole instruction here. What may be observed with many is that if there be an extra meeting during the week, the prayer meeting before and the reading meeting after, are apt to suffer. That is out of keeping with the teaching of this chapter. No sacrifice is to be withheld because of another.

A.F.M. It is noticeable in these instructions that the wine is in proportion to the oil, and the measure of fine flour is also prescribed which is mingled with the oil.

J.T. Quite. The mingling of the fine flour with oil is very instructive here: it is not an anointing with oil, but is typical of the beautiful humanity of Christ as before God. It is not dough or a cake as

elsewhere, but "fine flour", prefiguring the pure, holy humanity of Christ, apprehended in the saints in their worship before God.

A.F.M. Is that kind of humanity true of us as in Christ, or only of the Lord Himself?

J.T. Primarily it is Christ Himself, but as offering we are in accord with it.

W.B-w. But I must first bring what I have grown in the field.

J.T. Yes. What you bring you have first to acquire. It is a question of your spiritual stature, the apprehension you have of Christ by the Spirit.

H.S.D. Why is it beaten oil?

J.T. I suppose it would mean the Holy Spirit in the sense in which He was here in Christ; He is, of course, a divine Person, and operates in that character. He came on Christ as Man who carried on His service in His power, offering Himself, as it is said, "by the eternal Spirit ... to God", (Hebrews 9:14). It is the Spirit who was on Christ that believers receive. Romans develops the truth of the Spirit as in Christians.

C.A.M. Daniel would be a striking example for us, that we should all pray morning and evening. God answered Daniel's prayer "about the time of the evening oblation", (Daniel 9:21).

J.T. In chapter 2 of Daniel, when under great pressure, Daniel and his companions had recourse to prayer and Daniel got the needed answer. But think of the exercise they went through -- death staring them in the face and the only escape was to get the secret! You get, in their exercise, the idea of beaten oil. Think, too, of the Lord Jesus in the agonies of Gethsemane and the cross! The word 'Gethsemane' signifies the oil press. The pressure our Lord endured is beyond all telling. It is the Spirit who was upon Christ here, "sent from heaven" (1 Peter 1:12), that we have received.

A.P.T. Paul and Silas in the prison at Philippi, "in praying, were praising God with singing" (Acts 16:25) at midnight. Is that like the evening oblation?

J.T. What power was there! You get the idea of the beaten oil in that remarkable circumstance also.

A.A.T. Are we conscious of making this offering to God or does it appear in one's daily life?

J.T. I think it is formal service to God. God looks upon us as "intelligent persons", (1 Corinthians 10:15). The truth as in Romans 12:1 makes us intelligent; the exhortation is: "Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your intelligent service". There is a link here with our chapter in the word 'present'. Your intelligence is called into action with regard to your service Godward, so that you know what you are doing. Priesthood is marked by this, and Romans lays the basis for it.

A.A.T. The Samaritan woman gratified the heart of Christ in a certain way, for when the disciples came on the scene, He said to them, "I have food to eat which ye do not know", (John 4:32).

J.T. He found food in the service rendered, for it involved doing the will of Him who sent Him. And He also had food in the manifest result of this service in the woman. In that same scripture you have the agricultural year brought in: "Lift up your eyes and behold the fields for they are already white to harvest", (John 4:35). It was now a question of reapers.

A.R. What is the thought of the burnt offering throughout the whole chapter -- that thought seems to lead?

J.T. The burnt offering was wholly for God. It went up to Him as a sweet savour. We can understand, therefore, its prominence in these chapters.

J.E.H. Say a word about it being called "burnt offering".

J.T. It is the first offering mentioned in Leviticus, and shows what Christ was as entirely for God in His death. This is the greatest aspect of His self-sacrificing love. The antitype of this is John's gospel.

A.J.D. "Who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God", (Hebrews 9:14). Is that the burnt offering?

J.T. Yes.

J.E.H. Could the burnt offering be viewed apart from sin-bearing?

J.T. Yes, but they are linked together; the fat of the sin offering was always burnt on the altar of the burnt offering. The burnt offering is one side of the offering of Christ, as entirely for God. "On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again", (John 10:17).

A.R. Is that the idea of this chapter -- taking account of the saints as entirely for God?

J.T. That side is prominent throughout these chapters. Of course, you have the sin offering also, but the great thought throughout these chapters is what is for God. Numbers 15:2 has the land in view: "When ye come into the land". We have means whereby to offer to God in this way for Numbers opens up the truth of the Spirit to us.

G.McP. Simeon speaks by the Spirit; (Luke 2).

J.T. Just so. Simeon had means. I think he represents the believer as in the very centre of divine things; he is introduced to us as "a man in Jerusalem", (Luke 2:25). It is a question of where he lived. It was revealed to him that he should not see death until he had seen the Lord's Christ; he went by the Spirit into the temple, and presented, as it were, the child Jesus.

W.B-w. Is that the meat offering, or burnt offering?

J.T. It was what Christ was for God. He had the Child in his arms and spoke of Him as God's Salvation.

A.J.D. He went a long way in his apprehension.

A.R. It says, "He received him into his arms, and blessed God", (Luke 2:28). That is, apparently, the first thing he did.

J.T. Yes, he was a worshipper with the Child in his arms.

A.F.M. What distinctions have these daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly presentations?

J.T. The daily offerings are fundamental, in view of our practical state, and keep us regularly in spiritual exercise; so that there is no undulating history in our souls. Young believers are apt to be up and down -- bright in the morning, when they leave for business, and jaded spiritually when they come home in the evening, with very little wealth left. The daily offering here is to prevent that, and to maintain the steady spiritual experience, so that there is ability to offer to God.

A.P. The daily exercises cannot be neglected if there is to be the weekly and the monthly.

J.T. They must be maintained, otherwise, when you come to the sabbath, you are in a low state.

A.N.W. Would you say a word about these lambs, as typical of Christ, having a place in our hearts?

J.T. They are yearlings, so that spiritual maturity and freshness are in view.

A.N.W. Possibly this depression with young believers, to which you refer, is self-occupation. These lambs suggest that I have an object worthy of my interest and my affections.

J.T.Jr. That which Abraham provided "in the heat of the day" for the "three men" (Genesis 18), might fit in with what we have here; he was a man of substance, and ministered refreshment.

J.T. Yes; that would be a taxing time of day. We all know how heat, in this sense, affects us, as tending to rob us of energy. Abraham was awake

and energetic, but Sarah did not fully render her part, as far as Scripture goes: she was told to make cakes but it does not say she brought them. The passage shows that Abraham was marked by spiritual power, in the heat of the day he entertained and served God.

A.P.T. Does not Paul's ministry tax us, as illustrated in Eutychus? He fell from the third story to the bottom. In this case it was at midnight.

J.T. Yes; there are many such. I believe quite a number of our brethren who are here tonight do not thoroughly understand what we are speaking about. There may be some present who have never read Numbers 28. I remember being at a reading in Ezekiel, and a brother present said he had never read that book at all! How could he intelligently follow that reading?

A.P. Your thought is that the daily experience underlies the weekly and monthly offerings.

J.T. You cannot have the sabbath offerings; or those that follow, otherwise.

C.A.M. I think the simplest believer would understand what a great thing it is to start and close the day with God; and so, while learning what the character of the world is, go through it with God.

J.T. As to the occasion with Paul at Troas: there were many visiting brothers there who were spiritual men, and, I have no doubt, that is what the reference to "many lights in the upper room" (Acts 20:8) means. We may assume that the apostle was not ministering milk in that address but strong meat It was a question of what Paul had to say. Peter, later in speaking of Paul's writings, says, "Some things are hard to be understood", (2 Peter 3:16). I speak of this to urge the saints to go in for the things that belong to full growth.

E.V.C. Do you mean that many who attend

meetings for ministry are not in the spirit of what is being advanced?

J.T. Yes. I believe the apostle at Troas was presenting the truth according to his administration in its full bearing, but Eutychus was not equal to it.

J.E.H. Would Eutychus be illustrative of a believer who was not able to follow the presentation of the truth?

J.T. That is what I was thinking. One may go to sleep even in the presence of such ministry as Paul's!

A.N.W. Though Eutychus did not get much of the discourse, he would never forget the reviving effect of the apostle's embrace.

J.T. Well, that is a question of grace overcoming, but that does not excuse or forgive his fall. Paul had to descend from his elevated position to resuscitate the young man, instead of continuing in such ministry to the brethren.

A.R. There is great concern as to getting suitable ministry for young people, even in a meeting like this.

J.T. I think the young people ought to read their bibles so as to know the scriptures. The main difficulty with all of us is want of exercise; we ought to read our bibles more prayerfully.

W.G.T. Is the passover to bring the whole position before us?

J.T. Yes; it begins the year. The Pentecost following completes the first part of the instruction. The fifteenth day of the seventh mouth is the feast of tabernacles. That is the feast of ingathering, after the harvest is gathered in, so that you have the whole of God's ways before you in these two chapters; not what accrues to us from His ways, but what accrues to Him, which is a greater thing. That is what these chapters teach, and they come in after the truth of the Holy Spirit, as set forth in

chapter 21, with Balaam's prophecies following, and then the inheritance given.

J.S. In Revelation 22 which speaks of the tree of life, is the thought of the agricultural year dropped?

J.T. Yes; it is the solar year there, one month being equal to another. There is no idea of seed-sowing there; Genesis 1 provides for that kind of year, for the sun determines it. In these types God is dealing with the agricultural year; that is, He is concerned about what results for Himself from His sowing.

A.P. Does the thought of seven refer more to the church than the number twelve?

J.T. Both are found in the church. Seven is spiritual completeness; twelve is administrative completeness.

A.R. In connection with the feast of weeks, it says, "On the day of the firstfruits, when ye present a new oblation to Jehovah". What is this "new oblation"?

J.T. It refers to the two wave loaves, which Leviticus 23 enlarges upon. The day of the firstfruits includes Christ's resurrection, but the first oblation was the sheaf cut down and waved before Jehovah. The new oblation is the two wave loaves. They are not dwelt upon here, but simply referred to. It is the wealth for God that attended them that is alluded to.

W.B-w. It is noticeable that "the drink offering of strong drink" is to be poured out in the sanctuary. Would that refer to spiritual strength?

J.T. It refers to spiritual energy before God. It conveys the idea of stimulation; God graciously uses the type of strong drink to show what the worship of His people is to Him, and that it is in a holy setting as offered in the sanctuary.

J.S. Is there more entering into the seventh month than any other?

J.T. It is the most important of months, because it yields the most; the first, tenth, and fifteenth days of it are very prominent.

C.A.M. John's gospel seems to deal with the agricultural or spiritual year; and the Revelation corresponds with Genesis, as you were saying -- the full year. When it comes to the gospel of John, it would be a spiritual condition, applying now.

J.T. Yes. We have the feast of tabernacles in John 7, but it is superseded by the Spirit here, given to believers by Jesus glorified.

A.N.W. The Lord has the harvest in mind in John 4:35 -- He says, "Lift up your eyes and behold the fields, for they are already white to harvest".

J.T. That links on with the seventh month. "Others have laboured, and ye have entered into their labours", (John 4:38). The Lord contemplated the result for God of previous sowing.

A.N.W. He had His own death in mind.

J.T. There is no fruit from men without that, as we learn in John 12:24.

J.S. Would the woman in John 4 suggest the thought of the barley harvest? "Do not ye say, that there are yet four months and the harvest comes? Behold, I say to you, Lift up your eyes and behold the fields, for they are already white to harvest", (verse 35).

J.T. I think the barley harvest, being the first harvest, is Christ; the wheat harvest is always the saints. You have it here in Numbers 28:26, "And on the day of the firstfruits". That would include the resurrection of Christ, and then the "new oblation" came fifty days after that, which would be the church. The "four months", probably

allude to the harvest in Israel, but there was an earlier one suggested in the Samaritan woman.

J.S. In John 6 we have the five barley loaves, do we not?

J.T. That is right. It is in John you get the specific cereal mentioned. The book of Ruth explains the barley harvest; we begin with that.

W.B-w. "He that reaps ... gathers fruit unto life eternal", (John 4:36).

J.T. The early result for God seen in John's gospel involving the agricultural or spiritual year is very interesting. The solar year refers to what is in the heavens. The heavenly bodies were set for times and seasons. The Revelation deals with the times and seasons. It is God bringing in the end of things, and that must include the movements of Christ, as there in heaven.

W.B-w. The solar year would be more the ways of God.

J.T. Yes; God's ways in government, I think. The sun in the heavens was to rule and regulate, and that would refer to Christ. His movements determine everything with regard to the government of the world and the universe. The moon is the church as set in relation to Christ in this connection. The stars refer to individuals.

J.S. The seasons, therefore, would be a means to an end.

J.T. Yes; and inclusive of God's judgment of the wicked, so that the Revelation is not only the ingathering, but the wine press (i.e., the judgment of God). The Revelation goes beyond the seventh month; it includes the whole year. We see all judgment is in the hands of the Son of man. The Father has given Him authority to execute judgment because He is the Son of Man.

FOOD FOR CROSSING THE JORDAN

Joshua 1:10,11; 5:10 - 12

F.L. What was the thought in preparing victuals when, as yet, they were eating manna?

J.T. I suppose the intelligence of the people is contemplated. It is left to themselves as to what they should prepare. It is victuals. "Command the people, saying, Prepare yourselves victuals, for in three days ye shall pass over this Jordan".

A.F.M. Do you think there is any particular emphasis laid on the word 'victuals'?

J.T. Well, I suppose it has in view the strain that the crossing of the Jordan suggests, and the consequent need of food for sustenance.

A.F.M. I think the word refers to what is obtained through hunting, like venison. It is rather strong meat, would you not say?

J.T. Very good.

W.G.T. There was need for change of food here; is that the thought?

J.T. Well, obviously, something additional to the manna was needed. In the introduction of the manna, there was the idea of preparation: "Cook what ye will cook", (Exodus 16:23). It was left to them on the sixth day to cook and prepare, as if a certain liberty is allowed under such circumstances, which God, I think, would always accord to us. While He would assert His will amongst us from the outset of our relations with Himself, He would indicate liberty -- for we are not in bondage but are "set free in freedom", (Galatians 5:1).

A.N.W. Would there be anything in the epistle to the Colossians that would help us? Is this not coming very near to the line in Colossians?

J.T. Colossians is the section of the New Testament that corresponds exactly. The significance of the teaching of Colossians is entering, not having entered, but the process of entering; for this certainly is a feature of the process of entering the land, and the food here would point to strong meat.

A.F.M. Would that be Colossians 1, where the greatness of the Person of Christ is brought before us for contemplation?

J.T. Exactly. Colossians is certainly strong meat. It is not milk. The apostle could not bring forward the same strength of meat in his ministry to the Corinthians as he did in his letter to the Colossians; so that, undoubtedly, his letter to the Colossians would help us as to the significance of these victuals here, because it is a question of going over.

T.A. Up to this point the manna was sufficient.

J.T. It was. We have the three prominent foods brought together in chapter 5 -- the passover, the manna, and the old corn. They were brought together there, but this is additional; therefore we are left to ourselves as to facing this great exercise of crossing the Jordan, as to whether we have sustenance. Light will not suffice; mere knowledge will not suffice; we need more than these to cross the Jordan.

F.L. Would you illustrate what you mean by "freedom"? You said it indicates that there is a certain liberty.

J.T. In Exodus 16, where the manna is introduced, we have specific directions as to it; but then, on the sixth day, the day before the sabbath, they were to cook what they would cook and prepare what they would prepare; that is, it was left to themselves.

F.L. How would you apply that now?

J.T. I think it is a liberty that belongs to us as in the knowledge of God. He has no pleasure in

legal or slavish fear; perfect love casts that out. I think it would impart to us the thought that He would have us in liberty with Himself from the outset. The book of Acts is largely a question of what the disciples did; not what they were told to do; that is to say, God allowed them the liberty that belongs to the children of wisdom.

F.L. Would not that liberty be accorded because of the presence of the Holy Spirit?

J.T. Just so, and because of a certain formation which I think is ever present where the Holy Spirit is (i.e., under normal circumstances). God has called us to liberty.

H.S.D. Would you say that this food has conflict in view?

J.T. Well, it has, but the point here is not exactly the conflict but the passage of the Jordan: "In three days ye shall pass over this Jordan".

H.S.D. It was the officers who said that, the military men.

J.T. Well, they were going on to conflict, but it is the passage of the Jordan that is before them.

W.B-w. It is a question of strength in going over. In Colossians 1:11 it is, "Strengthened with all power according to the might of his glory unto all endurance and longsuffering with joy".

J.T. That is what I was thinking. It implies a renouncing of all fleshly feelings, hopes, and desires; and we have to be strong constitutionally to renounce the fondest hopes we might have, so as to enter into our heavenly part. Death is in the way; the Jordan is at its height and makes demands on our courage. That is the thought here.

A.P. Does it imply the seeing of the ark; chapter 3? After that it says, "And go after it", (verse 3), which implies faith, does it not?

J.T. Yes; and then the actual entrance into Jordan itself, because it was not until the feet of

the priests who bore the ark touched them that the waters went back. The waters are all there in view, as it were; so it requires courage, and that calls for a strong constitution. For this undertaking you cannot be a spiritual weakling as the man in Romans 14. Such a man cannot go over Jordan, he has to acquire strength; but he is received among the brethren, although a weak brother.

B.T.F. Would you say that the Lord makes it easier for the believer to cross Jordan now?

J.T. The point in these chapters is not to show that it is easy. It is an extraordinary transaction -- "For ye have not passed this way heretofore", (Joshua 3:4). It is a Colossian saint who is fit for this.

A.J.D. What aspect of death does the Jordan represent?

J.T. Well it is the end of life after the flesh, the end of all that attaches to us in flesh and blood condition. It is death in the hands of the enemy; but we have to apprehend that Christ has been into it and has annulled death.

A.R. It says in Psalm 114 3 that "the sea saw it and fled, the Jordan turned back". I suppose it is that idea.

A.F.M. We have mentioned here, "For in three days ye shall pass over this Jordan". The food would afford the means of developing a spiritual constitution in view of passing over. Is that the thought of the three days?

J.T. I think the three days would indicate that thought -- the idea of preparation. It is "this Jordan"; that is to say, the Jordan God had brought them up to, for Jordan was then overflowing its banks.

A.P. We are liable to attempt to go over in our minds, so that the thought in the victuals is that they develop the spiritual constitution to enable us to go over.

J.T. That is right. You go over as a man should

go; you are not a weakling. It implies that you are able to renounce all fleshly hopes and aspirations -- to "have your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth", (Colossians 3:2). God has another world, another place for you!

C.A.M. In Romans 6:6 it says, "Our old man has been crucified with him"; this crossing of death would be beyond the first man, the man of flesh and blood.

J.T. It is the end of flesh and blood condition and that is a feature that has to be noticed because it requires moral strength in the soul, for the renouncing of all those things that one has lived on naturally, and to face the thing that Satan has wielded over man. He had the power of death; in fact, in Hebrews 2:14 it says he has it still: "That through death he might annul him who has the might of death"; that is in the present tense, so that it makes it a very solemn matter -- that we have to do with the thing that Satan has to say to. And then the question is, whether I apprehend Christ as having overcome, as having annulled "him who has the might of death", and as having annulled death itself.

F.L. I was wondering whether the three days being a well-known set period of time, would indicate that a weak brother would be built up constitutionally -- that such a brother would not be left behind, but that there would be time in which he could be formed and prepared.

J.T. Well, he certainly would have an opportunity, but I think we have to see that the crossing of the Jordan is a spiritual matter. It is a much deeper matter than the passage of the Red Sea. It is wholly a spiritual matter and involves a renouncing of all that one may be in the flesh.

A.P. The victuals here suggest that we feed on some aspect of the death of Christ.

J.T. I think they do. The food would be Christ in some sense.

A.J.D. Is the question of eternal life in view in this chapter in connection with food?

J.T. Yes. That is in the land.

C.A.M. "But solid food belongs to full-grown men, who, on account of habit, have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil", (Hebrews 5:14). Here the people have grown up spiritually.

J.T. That helps as to this word 'victuals'. God indicates that you ought to know by this time what is needed.

A.R.S. Is there anything similar in the account of Elijah's going to Horeb? Victuals were prepared for him, and he was told to eat because the journey would be very long.

J.T. That would point to a low state of soul; he was fleeing the land of Canaan in which he was called to service. Under such circumstances God has to do the preparing, but here they are preparing to enter the land and a normal condition is contemplated. Each went over in his own strength: the twelve men (representative of all) each took a stone and carrying it over set it down at Gilgal; that required strength.

A.R.S. A remark was made as to "victuals" being the result of hunting. They had been eating "angels' food" before. There is a difference.

J.T. They did not have to hunt for the manna. It was on the face of the wilderness. Here the suggestion would be of strong meat. We are to roast what we get in hunting. Hunting is for something of which you have actual need, not for sport as is naturally done.

W.B-w. Do you get this in connection with the Lord's supper?

J.T. The Lord's supper involves food, and whilst it does not go so far as this, it leads towards it.

What is to be noticed in chapter 5 is that they have the passover at Gilgal and the heavenly food the following day; that is actually in the land. In the passover; which would be a sort of remembrance, a link is maintained with Egypt and the wilderness, but the heavenly food does not come in until after that, the next day; but "victuals" here is neither the one nor the other; it is not the manna, the passover, nor the heavenly food. It is not specified; it is therefore something that you have to acquire yourself.

T.A. Do you get the heavenly food in John 20:17: "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father"?

J.T. That implies the "old corn". We want to get the idea of the "victuals" here.

J.E.H. I wondered whether the quality of the food not being specified would in any way suggest the tremendous exercise that this would involve us in, so that we might be prepared for all that lies before us.

J.T. I think it suggests just that. The Jordan had been before them all the time. It had long been spoken of, you may depend, and it was a question of being ready for it. It is literally, death. It is to teach us to number our days. "So teach us to number our, days, that we may acquire a wise heart", (Psalm 90:12). It is a very important thing to be ready for death in a literal sense; we ought not to be taken by surprise. So with regard to the spiritual feature of entering the land when we come to it, we ought to be ready for that. It is a spiritual matter and we require spiritual strength for it.

B.T.F. They had been told that it was a land flowing with milk and honey. Do you think that referred to the food that would be required?

J.T. I do not think so. That is Messiah's food, milk and honey. "Butter and honey shall he eat" (Isaiah. 7:15) -- a remarkable kind of food that does

not require death in the creatures that supply it; but all food of animal sacrifices requires death.

F.L. The disciples had been warned again and again that death was what the Lord was going on to, but they were utterly unprepared for it.

J.T. They had opportunity of following the Ark as the Lord entered on the way to go to Jerusalem. They were amazed as they followed although He had not only told them that He would suffer death, but had taught them as to it, which is a stronger thing.

A.P. He began to show them that He must suffer; see Matthew 16:21.

J.T. Exactly. So that they ought to have been ready, but when they came to Gethsemane and the cross they were not ready. It is a good thing for all of us, but especially for those who are older, to be ready for dissolution. The article of death is a very real thing. I think the very experience and exercise of being prepared for death helps us to enter into Canaan in a spiritual way now; because we thus learn how to give up all that attaches to us in flesh and blood condition.

B.T.F. Would the sweetness of the heavenly portion that lies before us be an encouragement in going over the Jordan?

J.T. "Seek the things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God: have your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth; for ye have died; and your life is hid with the Christ in God", (Colossians 3:1 - 3). That certainly is an inducement. Nevertheless this food is a very important thing, no matter how much light and hope we have we need this food.

A.P. Tell us about the strength necessary to take the stones over the Jordan. How would this connect with the New Testament?

J.T. I think the mind is directed to Colossians. Romans would lay the basis for this -- there it speaks

of persons who "are led by the Spirit of God", not only led by the Ark: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God", (Romans 8:14). Romans 8 contemplates the land, and Moses looking in. He sees the whole scene; "that goodly mountain, and Lebanon". The light of it was in the camp of Israel, and, in principle, was for all.

J.S. Typically, Moses would view the children of Israel going through the Jordan in the Spirit, not in the flesh.

J.T. That is the idea. It began when they, typically, recognised the Spirit (Numbers 21); that is the beginning of this movement. They came to Shittim, the place of acacia wood, which, I think, suggests the strength acquired in wilderness experience. They were attacked there, and failed, but that only proves how little they had gained. God answered Balak, through Balaam, "from Shittim unto Gilgal", (Micah. 6:5). This is said to allude to "the righteousness of Jehovah", and no doubt points to the power of God seen in the passage of the Jordan.

J.S. How do you view Joshua at this juncture?

J.T. Typically he is Christ as the spiritual Leader of the saints, and that goes back to Exodus 17, where the Holy Spirit is first typically seen. Christ is seen in Joshua as leading in conflict.

W.G.T. As we get in Colossians 1, Christ as Head?

J.T. It is military -- seen fully in Ephesians.

J.S. Would you view this collectively -- they went through as a company?

J.T. It is Colossians 2:12,13. The lodging place here (chapter 3:1) is important; it is not in the land, but is used when entering the land. The lodging place is not finality.

These "victuals" are needed so that we might have strength to renounce all that attaches to us in the flesh, for the sake of entering into the promised land, the place of God's love.

A.L. Was it not the fact of the ark having gone into the Jordan that gave them strength?

J.T. They had to follow two thousand cubits behind; and the ark stood in the midst of the Jordan, and a man from each tribe took a stone and carried it over. I am free and able to use my strength. I am not overcome by the thought of death all around me but I see that it is abolished. It is a question of life in unity. The believer is seen here as quickened with Christ.

C.A.M. If a man in the face of actual dissolution is able to say that he has followed the Ark of the Covenant into the land of promise, he is a spiritual man.

J.T. It would be characteristic, because the ark had been moving before on this principle. Every time the camp moved, the ark went before them, and the people had thus the opportunity to learn how to follow the ark and to know its power. There was the testimony of the scattering of the enemies; (Numbers 10:35). If I am accustomed to that, I am characteristically a follower of the Ark, and when I come to this spiritual crisis I am ready for it.

A.F.M. There is our side as having the victuals, but does not the priesthood of Christ enter into it?

J.T. I am sure it does. Hebrews helps us as to that. "For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens", (Hebrews 7:26). He saves us to the uttermost, and that involves the land. We get His support all the way. But then we are occupied with the food that belongs to this particular juncture of our spiritual history. As to the land, we begin with Romans 8. Romans 14 shows us a weakling, but we do not want to be weaklings. Provision is made for them, but if all in the assembly are weaklings how is the testimony to be supported?

Rem. We are told to be strong and of good courage.

J.T. Quite so. The idea of a weakling is banished from the mind in this chapter. What would he do in the presence of the enemy? "How wilt thou then do in the swelling of the Jordan?" (Jeremiah 12:5).

W.G.T. Would you bring Rahab in here on the side of strength?

J.T. She represents an element of the work of God that enters into all this, although already in the land. She is the link next after Egypt in Hebrews 11:29,31. "By faith they passed through the Red Sea as through dry land; of which the Egyptians having made trial were swallowed up". "By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with the unbelieving, having received the spies in peace". She shows in what she says to the spies, that she is true to the work of God; also she has flax, and is moving on new principles. She sends the spies out another way.

A.P.T. Do you think that if the believer crosses Jordan characteristically, say on the first day of the week, he would not fear dissolution?

J.T. The acceptance of Romans 6 and Colossians 2 prepares one for the assembly, for passing over to the divine side; thus actual death will not be feared.

W.B-w. Do you think that everyone who partakes of the Supper crosses Jordan?

J.T. I do not. Everyone in the kingdom does not enter into the land of Canaan immediately. The weakling in Romans 14 is provided for in the kingdom, but he is not fit for the army. Crossing Jordan is a question of spiritual power.

W.B-w. You acquire spiritual power to cross the Jordan by the kind of food already mentioned.

J.T. It is a supreme exercise, and I think that is the force of the word 'victuals'.

W.G.T. You need good visibility.

J.T. That does enter into it, because the ark was a good distance ahead.

B.T.F. I knew a lady, a believer, who was dying, and the day before she died she said, 'Only think that tomorrow I will see the Lord Jesus'. Evidently she had eaten the food referred to here. Paul says, "Having the desire for departure and being with Christ, for it is very much better", (Philippians 1:23).

J.T. The effect of the food is seen when we reach the article of death. This formidable barrier was between the people and Canaan. How were they to get over? That ought to have been an exercise to every Israelite. Take Caleb: he must have been living on food that made him powerful. He said, "I am still this day strong, as in the day that Moses sent me", (Joshua 14:11).

F.L. I think there is nothing more stressed amongst us than the need for the acceptance of death; nevertheless, I think it remains true with a great many that the actuality of the thing has not been faced.

J.T. I am sure of that. The Lord would impress on us that we should be prepared and know what is needed for this supreme test.

B.T.F. Was it not the mount of Transfiguration that helped Peter when he was about to put off his "tabernacle"?

J.T. That was evidently much in his mind.

G.L. Did Mary acquire this courage more than her sister Martha?

J.T. I suppose she did. I think all the brethren at Bethany were prepared. The Lord came to Bethany six days before the passover, and they were ready for the great occasion.

A.N.W. Mary had His death in mind. The Lord says "Suffer her to have kept this for the day of my preparation for burial", (John 12:7).

J.T. I think John 11 furnishes food for us in this

respect. In a sense it agrees with Colossians; whereas, John 20 goes on to Ephesians -- on to ascension. John 11 furnishes food for the believer in view of taking his place with Christ as in John 12, so that you have to think of all that passed in the Lord's ways -- how deliberate He was! And then as he arrives at Bethany, what thoughts develop! -- first with Martha, and then with Mary, and then the actual raising of Lazarus. All that is food, I am sure. The man in John 9 begins the instruction that ends in John 12. He comes into the light of the Son of God whose glory shines in chapter 11.

C.A.M. That is very interesting -- their preparation for the passing of the Ark over Jordan.

J.T. Mary had that before her when she anointed the Lord. He says, "Suffer her to have kept this for the day of my preparation for burial".

Ques. What would you think about Stephen in Acts 7, in connection with going over?

J.T. He followed the Ark through death. How supremely superior he was to the article of death! The Israelites go over in the unity of life, as seen in type in the twelve stones set down at Gilgal.

A.J.D. The Lord showed Peter that he should put off his tabernacle; he would be prepared through this food.

A.R. Is the idea in this that we contemplate the Person of Christ in some way; that we discover Him in a way that we have never seen before?

J.T. Yes; you are impressed with the necessity of the moment. "Prepare yourselves victuals, for in three days ye shall pass over this Jordan".

W.G.T. What do the officers represent?

J.T. They represent the order of God; that marks Colossians.

A.P-t. Why are the three days given?

J.T. They afford opportunity for preparation. Three indicates time for full exercise; seven is completion.

J.S. I suppose the "ark of the covenant of Jehovah" would now have such a place in their hearts and minds as to be an object for them to follow right into the land.

J.T. I think so. It is well to bear in mind what is said in Numbers 10"The ark of the covenant of Jehovah went before them". So it is not a new thing in that sense, but they had never crossed the Jordan before. They had "not passed this way heretofore", (Joshua 3:4).

A.F.M. After Shittim they removed and came to the Jordan, and lodged there before they passed over. Would you refer to that?

J.T. Well, I think this lodging place is important. You are getting nearer and nearer so that when the actual crossing takes place you are fully prepared for it.

T.A. Would 2 Corinthians 5:1 come in in that connection? "For we know that if our earthly tabernacle house be destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"?

J.T. Just so.

A.R. It says in Joshua 3:11, "Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth is going over before you into the Jordan"; but in Numbers 10 the ark is not called that. We discover something in Christ here that we have never seen before?

J.T. I think that is right. You have a clearer view of the Ark. It is "the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth", and Rahab understood that. Jehovah "is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath",(Joshua 2:11). That is the general view here.

W.B-w. There were two lodging places -- one before, and one after. Chapter 4:3 says, "Take up hence out of the midst of the Jordan, from the place where the priests' feet stood firm, twelve stones, and carry them over with you, and lay them down in the lodging-place where ye shall lodge this night". That is different from the lodging place in chapter 3.

J.T. Yes; it is on the other bank of the river. Chapter 3:1 is: "And they removed from Shittim, and came to the Jordan, he and all the children of Israel, and lodged there before they passed over". That is the first lodging place. A lodging place is not finality, but is a comfort in the deep exercise and pressure spiritually as we enter into this position. After the passage of the Jordan they were to have another one, which was Gilgal. The second lodging place is reached before they actually go up to the land, so that Colossians, properly, is entering. These two lodging places cover the position. The stones were to be set up in the second lodging place.

W.B-w. The second lodging place is resurrection -- "raised with Christ", (Colossians 3:1).

J.T. Yes; we are set down in unity of life -- the unity of life as out of death; we are quickened together with Christ.

W.B-w. In the second, you have the whole extent of the land before you.

J.T. We are set down in the unity of life as seen in the twelve stones in the second lodging place, and we are to give an account of these twelve stones; the children will ask later, "What mean ye by these stones", (chapter 4:6).

A.P. What would the carrying up of the stones represent?

J.T. The stones represent all the saints as in this new position.

A.P. Does it go as far as Ephesians 3:20: "According to the power which works in us"?

J.T. Well, it is the same power, only Ephesians 2:6 is: "Has raised us up together, and has made us sit down", which is beyond this second lodging place; in Colossians 2:13 we are "quickened together with him". It does not go beyond that -- that we are set up in unity of life, before entering into the full heavenly position.

F.L. What is the import of the twelve stones being set up in the midst of the Jordan?

J.T. That is the act of Joshua. It is to remind us that Christ has been in death, and that we have been in death with Him and have come out.

F.L. We look into Jordan and see that Christ has been there and that He has brought us out of it.

J.T. Yes; He keeps that before us. "He showed to them his hands and his side", (John 20:20). He had been into death, and they had come out with Him.

A.R. Is that the idea of the encampment on the other side of Jordan? Would it lead to the contemplation of the fact that there is a new man before you -- another kind of man?

J.T. Yes; and you are in another world -- quickened with Christ. We are quickened together in holy affections. It is unity of life.

W.B-w. How do you fit in the three days in chapter 3 with the three days in chapter 1?

J.T. Well, that is another thing. The officers went through the camp, in this instance, and commanded the people: "When ye see the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then remove from your place, and go after it; yet there shall be a distance between you and it?" (chapter 3:3,4). This is the second three days in relation to the ark, and it is a question of clearness of vision; but with the first three days it is

a question of the strength you are acquiring by victuals. Chapter 5:10 - 12 is the termination of this phase of food. "And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and held the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, at even, in the plains of Jericho. And they ate of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened loaves, and roasted corn on that same day. And the manna ceased on the morrow, when they had eaten of the old corn of the land; and there was no more manna for the children of Israel; and they ate of the produce of the land of Canaan that year". Now we are fully in the land.

A.P.T. In chapter 3:16 it says, "And the people went over opposite to Jericho". What would you say about that?

J.T. Jericho, I suppose, would be the stronghold of the enemy. They were not afraid, but went over in full vigour and courage.

T.A. What about the "old corn of the land"?

J.T. Well, now we come to the climax of food -- you cannot get beyond the old corn. It is our final portion. It is Christ as He is in heaven, and that is something that is very little known. "He was transfigured before them" (Matthew 17:2) points to a change in Christ -- what He is up there.

A.L. Why is it "old corn of the land"?

J.T. It is the 'store-corn' (footnote to chapter 5:11); there was plenty, so that they did not need to wait for the new crop.

A.F.M. Should we start with the fact that this is a circumcised people, and that Gilgal was named after their circumcision?

J.T. Yes; it is of moment to understand the whole setting. The passover here is a memorial. Of course, it is the same passover, but we must bear in mind the stipulations in Deuteronomy in considering the passover as seen here; that is to say we have to

regard the difference between roasting and cooking. Cooking is more general, and in Deuteronomy 16, which gives you instructions for the passover in view of the land, the word is 'cook'. The idea of judgment is not so pronounced as it was in Egypt. This is preparatory to the eating of the old corn of the land, heavenly food. There is self-judgment here and the rolling away of the reproach of Egypt. Now you are free to enjoy Christ as He is in heaven. He is not a suffering Christ now. The passover is a suffering Christ; the manna is Christ here in adversity; but the old corn is Christ where He is in His own sphere.

A.P. This is the only place where the old corn of the land is formally referred to.

J.S. The passover and the manna are a means to an end.

J.T. They are provisional food. The old corn points to our eternal portion.

A.F.M. Would you find old corn of the land in John 6:57, as well as in John 20? "He also who eats me shall live also on account of me".

J.T. Yes; it contemplates His ascending to where He was before.

A.J.D. Why do you say that very few understand what the old corn of the land is?

J.T. Few understand Christ where He is and as He is now The corn of the land is indigenous. "And such as the heavenly one, such also the heavenly ones" (1 Corinthians 15:48), corresponds with this.

W.G.T. "So that we henceforth know no one according to flesh; but if even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer", (2 Corinthians 5:16).

J.T. Exactly; Christ as He is now. This is our eternal portion, but we can enter upon it now in the power of the Spirit.

A.A.T. Do we feed upon this food individually or collectively?

J.T. It is collective. I think that entering into the heavenly place is collective. No one ever goes there by himself. You may say that Elijah went there, but such instances are simply a question of God's sovereign prerogatives -- what He does; but Ephesians 2:6 is that "God has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies"; that is, with one another. And therefore the importance of the second lodging place here, because it is where we enjoy the unity of life. It is the living side of things enjoyed amongst us as risen with Christ on the principle of faith. The more you get on in your soul, the more you feel you cannot do without the brethren. You would not wish to be in heaven without the brethren. This is in view in Colossians and Ephesians; the unity of life is there. You do not want to go without them.

F.L. What we get in Joshua 5 could never be understood individually.

C.A.M. Mary took the message to others.

J.T. Yes: "Go to my brethren and say to them" (John 20:17) -- that is the idea. He will have brethren there.

A.P.T. Is that seen on the mount of Transfiguration?

J.T. Well, He took three up with Him. I think the mount of Transfiguration enters into this matter of the old corn. Transfiguration is metamorphosis It points to what Christ is in heaven. In Him it is the result of what He is inherently. The word is applied to ourselves in 2 Corinthians 3:18: "But we all, looking on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit". It is a complete change of condition.

FOOD RECOVERED BY GIDEON

Judges 6:1 - 24; 7:13,14

J.T. We have, hitherto, been engaged in a more positive way with the different kinds of food that are supplied; but now it is a question of the supply being cut off. There are times of plenty and times of famine. Here, it is not exactly famine, but the destruction of the food supply.

A.F.M. This would be governmental -- the result of the children of Israel having committed evil against Jehovah.

J.T. That is what I thought. We may see the difficulties under which food is supplied in these circumstances. Gideon, I think, represents the energy that would overcome these conditions.

H.S.D. What would the Midianites represent, spiritually?

J.T. Some natural influence; they were related to Israel, and, I think, denote influence of that kind -- influence arising from natural links, and of a very extensive sort, too. It says, "And they encamped against them, and destroyed the produce of the land, until thou come to Gazah, and they left no sustenance in Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass. For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as locusts for multitude; both they and their camels were without number". We should notice the relation in which these people stood to Israel, being descended from Abraham, as Israel was, but by another mother.

H.S.D. And Amalek, too, was linked with them. Was he a relation also?

J.T. Amalekites are mentioned in Genesis 14, and then Amalek comes in afterwards in the line of Esau. It is a question as to whether you can trace them

exactly to Abraham, but they are the first enemies that Israel met after Egypt; and they are among the last that they will have to do with in their history -- a sort of perpetual kind of enemy, always ready to fall in with others when they attack. You will always find that when any others attack, Amalek is ready to join in.

A.A.T. I notice that the shortage of food did not originate with Midian, but was due rather to Israel's bad state, as verse 1 shows.

J.T. What God allows governmentally, is one thing, but the enemy and opposition was there.

A.A.T. But at the back of that, the people themselves were in bad state, were they not?

J.T. Quite. That is what we are told in verse 7. The prophet here is unnamed; because what was needed, under such circumstances, was the prophetic word. It was not a question of the one through whom it came.

A.P. There must be a difference between a famine, and a lack of food caused by the enemy.

J.T. Yes, there is a great difference. The first is the direct hand of God; the other is indirect. The earth yielded its increase, as far as we can see; but the Midianites came up in hordes, and instead of destroying the Israelites, they "destroyed the produce of the land".

A.P. Is there any difference between the cause of famine, and that of the enemy's cutting off the food supply?

J.T. Not much. God might have sent a famine for the same reason, as He sometimes did. Solomon in his prayer (1 Kings 8) contemplates both -- the direct action of God, and the indirect; and so also when God proposed to David as to whether He should cause a famine, or whether David should flee before his enemies, or whether there should be pestilence; David accepted the latter, saying, "Let us fall, I

pray thee, into the hand of Jehovah; for his mercies are great; but let me not fall into the hand of man", (2 Samuel 24:14).

A.P. Would it not be more humbling to be dealt with indirectly by enemies such as Midian or Amalek?

J.T. I think so. David preferred the direct action of God. "Let us fall ... into the hand of Jehovah; ... but let me not fall into the hand of man".

H.S.D. Thus he was not in the hands of the enemy.

A.F.N. What was the character of Israel's sin here?

J.T. They had not hearkened to God's voice. And I think there must have been some recognition of social relations. Brethren suffer much from natural links and natural influences, so that God often allows you to feel that such are depriving you of your spiritual food.

J.T. So that the thing we indulge in becomes our scourge.

B.T.F. Speaking of natural influences, had you any particular one in your mind?

J.T. We are all prone to reflect unduly what is natural -- i.e., our natural relations; and if we do, they become our scourge. The solemn thing is that, in such a case, we are so dulled that we do not discern of what we have been robbed. Natural influence might keep one away from the meeting, for instance, and one allows it again, and presently one has no taste for the meeting. We fail to realise what we have robbed ourselves of; but it was the natural influence that begot this sad condition of soul.

C.A.M. Peter speaks of the things that war against the soul; and there is the element of war against the Spirit, too. This would be a thing that would war against the soul in some insidious way.

J.T. Is it a question of something that would take away your spiritual food, some natural influence that would rob you.

A.P.T. Joseph's brethren say of him, "Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites", (Genesis 37:27). They would get rid of what was of God, on natural lines, but as expressing their hatred.

A.A.T. The prodigal in Luke 15 became impoverished in the far country, and would have fed upon the husks; then he turned to God. These people seem to have turned to God when in a similar condition.

J.T. Thus the divine intervention is seen in verse 7: "And it came to pass when the children of Israel cried to Jehovah because of Midian; that Jehovah sent a prophet to the children of Israel".

W.G.T. They made dens in the mountains to escape these things, we are told.

J.T. They felt their weakness, but that did not deliver them.

A.F.M. The seven years of their oppression would refer to a complete period imposed of God, at which point they cry to Him in self-judgment, would you think?

J.T. I think so; the seven years of suffering and their crying to Jehovah would denote that.

T.A. Are these conditions analogous to those of our own day, in which the man of faith would shine as providing food?

J.T. Yes. It is a question as to how this enemy is to be overcome. Gideon represents the man who overcomes in such a situation. It says of Joash that "his son Gideon threshed wheat in the winepress, to secure it from the Midianites". Attention is called to the very great difficulty under which he laboured to secure the wheat of the Midianites.

A.F.M. He had sown and secured the crop.

J.T. Yes; he had the wheat. The principle of the oppression of the Midianites was, that they would come up in immense hordes, and overwhelm Israel

by their presence, and force them back into hiding places.

A.P. Does Gideon represent the element that had been listening to the prophet?

J.T. He represents a movement to prevent the enemy attaining his end. He is against the Midianites.

A.R.S. He found a way to secure food.

J.T. He had the right principle before him.

A.R.S. He valued the food, and found a way to preserve it.

J.T. His hand was against the enemy. You will notice that it is not simply the threshing of wheat, and so valuing the food, but he secured it from the Midianites.

A.R.S. Have you any thought about the wine press?

J.T. I think it refers to the pressure Gideon himself was under. A wine press would be smaller than a threshing floor.

A.F.M. Is there any significance in the fact that it was wheat he was threshing?

J.T. I think so. Probably it was twice as valuable as barley.

T.A. Is wheat typical of Christ personally?

J.T. Well, not exactly. I think barley is that, inasmuch as it was the first crop of the season, being sown very early. The cake of barley bread that Gideon heard of was not exactly Christ personally, but the apprehension of Christ that Gideon would have. It was baked, being a cake. It "tumbled into" the camp of the Midianites -- an extraordinary sort of movement, but a very effective one, indicating that Midian would be overthrown by the very thing they were seeking to get and carry away.

A.F.M. Would the wheat have reference to the saints as a heavenly company?

J.T. It refers to the saints. It comes in later than barley. Ruth continued from the barley harvest to the wheat harvest; (Ruth 2:23).

A.F.M. Gideon was evidently superior to natural influence, as indicated in the Midianites, for he had wheat and was threshing it; which might refer to believers in their heavenly position.

J.T. I think what you get out of that is this: he was going in for the best kind of cereal, the most valuable; that is, if a man is going to secure food from the enemy, he thinks especially of the best. You want food that relates to the church. You want to secure the heavenly calling, at all costs.

B.T.F. That order enters into it -- barley first, and wheat afterwards; Christ in resurrection and then the saints.

W.B-w. Would the barley bread refer to Paul's ministry? The barley cake tumbled in; it was irregular in movement, but brought about great results.

J.T. It is something obtained by exercise; it is not objective but subjective truth. If you take the Creed, or well-known Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, these do not answer to the cake at all. Generally they represent something that may be taken in by the natural mind, but that which is baked does not typify what can be taken in in that way. It is the truth held in faith, for the fire has been applied to it.

A.R. Would the wheat suggest labouring in the light of Pentecost?

J.T. I think Gideon's service indicates that he was considering for quality.

A.N.W. The word to Gideon is: "Jehovah is with thee"; but he is not content that Jehovah is with him -- he is concerned that Jehovah be with the people. He says, "If Jehovah be with us"; he has a large view.

J.T. Although he is working in small quarters and apparently alone, he is evidently working with the people of God in his mind.

A.P.T. Gideon has a very small view of himself; he says, "I am the least in my father's house". It is good to have a large apprehension of what the saints are to God, and a small apprehension of oneself. He also says, "My thousand is the poorest in Manasseh".

W.B-w. I was wondering about the way light comes to us. It says in verse 8, "Jehovah sent a prophet to the children of Israel". It seems that all the people should have profited by this light, but an angel of Jehovah came to Gideon only. There must be some distinction between the prophet's coming and the Angel's coming.

J.T. Suppose there is a prophetic word at a meeting like this, then it is for everyone present but who among us takes it to heart? Tonight or tomorrow the Lord will be looking on us to see who is taking it to heart. This man had evidently taken things to heart, so that an angel sits under the terebinth and takes account of him.

A.A.T. This is evidently the first mention we have of Gideon.

W.G.T. It appears that the Angel was there in relation to the house of Joash.

J.T. Yes, he has that house in mind and is going to secure it, but his eye is upon Gideon. The hope of Israel is in him.

W.B-w. The facts mentioned show that there was a work of God in Gideon.

F.H.L. Do the persons mentioned speak of what is progressive? First a prophet, then an angel, and then Jehovah Himself?

J.T. It is progress in nearness and intimacy. It says, "Jehovah looked upon him"; a

conversation follows, and Gideon proposes to bring his "present".

B.T.F. Would you take the wine press as representing the influence of the death of Christ, including His love, and the food for the people produced under that influence?

J.T. I think that is right. Gethsemane is the same idea as the wine press, meaning a place of pressure, the Lord having gone through the most extreme pressure there. Gideon was experiencing something of that.

A.P. It required patience to work in such limited conditions.

J.T. We are not of much use unless we begin to work thus. The Lord answered "from the horns of the buffaloes", (Psalm 22:21). Think of the external limitations and pressure there! And yet He was accomplishing the great work of atonement!

A.R.S. But He was brought into "a large place". (Psalm 18:19)

A.L. Gideon was acquainted with the history of Israel.

J.T. That would show that he read his bible, so to speak; a good example for a young brother to follow. He took account, too, of the character of the enemy; and secured the wheat from the Midianites.

A.F.M. The spirit that animated Gideon was to expand -- there were finally three hundred others who were of the same spirit. What a contrast it was to the masses of Israel who were oppressed by the Midianites!

E.C. You have used the word 'struggle' in connection with a new meeting; to what did you refer?

J.T. To the difficulties we have to go through. Generally things are not easy, but especially in a new meeting.

E.G. You would want young men like Gideon in that meeting.

J.T. That is it; to get things on the true foundation -- on the "strong place in the ordered manner".

C.A.M. The enemy is always against something of God that is started.

J.T. God allows that so that your valour comes to light in the effort you make. In spite of opposition and limitation, you are along with David and the mighty men of valour; and so here, Gideon is the mighty man of valour.

J.T.Jr. Does it refer to the work of the Spirit of God in his soul -- the power by which he did things, as a man marked by the Spirit?

J.T. Exactly. He will go on in spite of opposition.

A.R. His father's house in Ophrah was his local setting in which he had qualified; now he could be commissioned; it says, "Jehovah looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of Midian". One right in his local setting becomes profitable universally.

Rem Verse 13 indicates that Gideon felt things keenly: "Ah my Lord, if Jehovah be with us, why then is all this befallen us?"

J.T. God greatly respects our feelings, if they are the outcome of an unselfish view of things.

C.A.M. The fact that he starts small does not govern the Angel's vision of Gideon. The incoming of Christ, although outwardly small, results in what is infinitely great.

J.T. Thus you have to consider all these types with your eye on Christ. This gives buoyancy, for victory is in view. What we are considering is a very beautiful history: you have the appearing of the Angel of Jehovah, and then what he said, namely: "Jehovah is with thee, thou mighty man of valour". That was a greeting. What respect there was in the

Angel's address: "Thou mighty man of valour". Gideon would never forget that!

B.T.F. Threshing was only a simple work that could have been done by any strong man; but a mighty man of valour would be one like David going out and conquering Goliath; but you would say that the simple service of threshing was owned of God?

J.T. It was the motive behind it which God owned. We are told why he was doing it; it was to secure it from the Midianites. That is a very important aspect of the subject of our readings.

A.R.S. Later he defeated the enemy utterly. That is where his great valour is seen.

Ques. What is the similarity between Gideon and Joseph?

J.T. Joseph was conserving the food, as exalted to the greatest place, under the king, in Egypt; that is, he had all the might of Egypt behind him. He is a type of Christ as now in heaven, having all power, and using it in a moral way. One who controls food has great moral power. Gideon, on the other hand, is labouring in the wine press alone, nobody is subservient to him, as far as we can see. He is the least in his father's house, and here he is threshing wheat in this narrow place. Joseph had no enemy with which to contend; but Gideon has, and overthrows him. He understands the character of the enemy, and begins by securing food from that enemy. Thus Gideon is another type of Christ with regard to food.

W.B-w. Gideon asks, "Why then is all this befallen us". -- not 'me', but "us". He felt the condition of the people.

J.T. That is a great feature too -- that we feel how the saints are suffering.

A.G.T. He acknowledged it was God's government, that God had given them into the hand of the Midianites.

J.T. Yes; he says, "Ah, my Lord, if Jehovah

be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where are all his miracles that our fathers told us of, saying, Did not Jehovah bring us up from Egypt? And now Jehovah hath cast us off, and given us into the hand of Midian". That was his speech. He felt these things, and knew also what had happened before; he was conversant with Scripture, though as yet wanting in faith.

W.G.T. He is given a mission now: "Thou shalt save Israel".

W.B-w. He could not only secure provision, but he could present something to Jehovah.

J.T. That is the next thing. He knows how to present food to God.

A.F.M. He has it to present.

J.T. Yes, that is a remarkable thing.

H.S.D. It is the act of a priest.

J.T. That is what comes out. We must not pass over the beautiful touch in verse 14: "Jehovah looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of Midian". That was the encouraging word. Notice the recurrence of the word 'Midian' in verse 16. The present enemy is ever kept in view.

C.H.H. Would this indicate the feeling and exercise of a young brother before he can be of help and a means of supply to the brethren?

J.T. That is what may be learned from it -- secret history with God, before we are used in public service.

H.S.D. Do you connect the thought of "thy might" with originality?

J.T. I should. It was the kind of might that was seen in the wielding of the flail. I think he must have been a very dexterous thresher.

J.T.Jr. He does not commend himself, he leaves it to God to do that.

C.A.M. The very fact of his having wheat to thresh would indicate a long season of exercise. He had sown and he had reaped.

J.T. He must have watched over his crop carefully, too, and harvested it in spite of the vigilance of the Midianites, showing how patient and yet energetic he was.

C.A.M. Is it not a remarkable thing that when God refers to his might, Gideon immediately alludes to his poverty?

J.T. No doubt that was his salvation. In his weakness he "became strong", (Hebrews 11:34).

A.F.M. In this connection Gideon asks for a sign, and obtains a remarkable one, leading him up to the recognition of the Angel of Jehovah.

B.T.F. You were speaking of the comparative value of the food. How do you compare the ministry of Christ risen, with the ministry of Christ ascended?

J.T. The barley sheaf is Christ risen, typically. The sheaf of first fruits in Leviticus 23 refers, I understand, to barley. The sheaf had been cut but the grain was not detached from the husk. But Christ in heaven is the antitype of the old corn of the land. It was corn carried over from the previous year -- denoting the plentifulness of the land.

B.T.F. It would produce an entirely different effect in the soul as one advances to the truth that Christ is ascended, after learning that Christ is risen, would it not?

J.T. It would. Christ in resurrection is the victory. That is what is presented in the gospel as in Romans; but Christ in heaven is Man in a new place and involves the teaching of Ephesians.

A.P. Would you give us some help regarding food for God in verses 18 - 21 of the chapter before us?

J.T. Quality enters largely into it; it is this for which Gideon stands in service; and the three hundred men also, as tested, show they are men of quality.

In thinking of food for God, Gideon says, "If now I have found favour in thine eyes, show me a sign that it is thou who talkest with me. Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee". He is now advancing in the truth. He has lost the sense of his insufficiency, and is taking up a priestly attitude, for he talks about a present, and has confidence to ask Jehovah to wait.

A.F.M. He seems to know what to present: "And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid of the goats, and an ephah of flour in unleavened cakes: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out to him under the terebinth, and presented it". There is priestly intelligence and order in all this.

J.T. It is very beautiful, indicating that if we are to serve and minister a portion of meat to His household, we must first learn how to minister to God.

C.A.M. Malachi 3:10 teaches that a revival and a supply of food from heaven require that the people must bring "the whole tithe into the treasure-house, that there may be food in my house".

J.T. Quite so.

A.P.T. Gideon speaks with a sense of liberty; he would detain God, but in the recognition of His dignity.

J.T. Showing holy boldness. "Let us approach therefore with boldness" (Hebrews 4:16); and, "Let us approach with a true heart". (Hebrews 10:22). That is the principle. It is very beautiful.

A.L. Is all this the effect of Jehovah's appearance to Gideon, or of what Jehovah said to him?

J.T. Both. I think he had been made a worshipper. It is the effect of a presentation on God's part to us, which gives liberty and draws out the heart to Him. Not only did Gideon have wheat, but he had a

kid: "And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid of the goats, and an ephah of flour in unleavened cakes: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out to him under the terebinth, and presented it". He presented it; all this is very instructive and touching.

W.B-w. It is a good thing to ask God to wait for us sometimes.

J.T. It indicates a knowledge of God. The more you know of God, the more confidence and holy liberty you have in His presence.

A.A.T. According to verse 22, it would seem as if he did not know to whom he was talking.

J.T. But he did know, intuitively. With the light of the New Testament we can see that he was acting in the intelligence of the divine nature. All that he does is morally right. The man of John 9 corresponds with this.

W.G.T. What Gideon does shows that he was taking into account the Person to whom he was giving the food. He presents it.

J.T. I think so. The Lord, when here, was not known much as to His Person, but it is remarkable how certain ones who came to Him acted rightly. When God is working in souls they act becomingly, as if the new surroundings, in which they are, impress them.

A.P. Gideon puts the flesh in a basket and the broth in a pot. These are made articles. Do you think that we should have what answers to them at the Lord's supper? We should not come empty.

J.T. These vessels are suitable, and Gideon had them. What strikes you is what he had. In spite of these marauders who were despoiling the people, here is a man who has something; he has food. He has all that is necessary for an offering to God.

A.A.T. He has a good appreciation of God and of His people.

J.T. He was evidently conscious of the divine Presence and instinctively knew what to do, which is greater than an acquired knowledge of God; like the two at Emmaus who said, "Was not our heart burning in us as he spoke to us on the way", (Luke 24:32).

A.F.M. This service of Gideon must have been very delightful to God as He watched to its climax.

W.B-w. He had a kid, in spite of the fact that it says there was "no sustenance".

A.R. What is the thought in the laying of the flesh and the unleavened cakes on the rock.

J.T. It speaks of stability -- "The firm foundation of God stands", (2 Timothy 2:19). We are not on sinking sand here, but on the sure foundation. The figure of a rock is often employed in the Old Testament, the meaning of which is made clear in the New Testament.

W.G.T. He is moving under instruction when he places the present there.

J.T. The Angel directed saying, "Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rook, and pour out the broth. And he did so. And the Angel of Jehovah put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes". Notice it is this rock. So that as we draw near to God, we better understand what to do. Sometimes when you get up to speak to God you have very little in your soul, but thoughts come to you that you never had before. Here, as Gideon came with his present, the Angel instructs him as to what to do.

W.B-w. What happened to the broth?

J.T. I think the broth refers to the essence of the offering. It would be what Christ is essentially in His Person.

W.G.T. That would not be consumed?

J.T. Well, it was poured out: "Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so. And the Angel of Jehovah put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there arose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes". The broth is poured out; the sentence is full of suggestion.

A.F.M. The broth is brought into evidence in His death, and the fire would refer to the suffering side of it.

J.T. It would. What He is essentially is there. The One who hung on the cross is the eternal God. It is inscrutable, but there it is!

W.G.T. What does the Angel represent in putting forth the staff?

J.T. I think the staff alludes to experience. It is that Jehovah had been with him, travelling with him. I think it would be as if God had said, 'I know all about you; I have been with you all the time'. The staff denotes authority that arises from experience. The place it has with Moses in Exodus helps as to this.

A.B.P. Would Gideon say, in principle, "Thy rod and thy staff", (Psalm 23:4)?

J.T. He would. He would never forget this experience.

A.R. Would you say a little more about what the Lord is essentially?

J.T. We must never forget that. Christ has come into the most lowly circumstances, even entering into death, and we are always prone to regard Him in our minds, although perhaps not in our words, as less than He is. His enemies derided Him as on the cross for His apparent weakness, but the centurion, noting the character of His loud cry, said, "Truly this man was Son of God", (Mark 15:39).

W.G.T. So the apostle says, "Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever", (Romans. 9:5).

J.T. You never lose sight of that, so that the Lord raises the question with the disciples: "Who do ye say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15).

A.P. Do these priestly features qualify one to meet the idolatry in the paragraph that follows in connection with the altar of Baal?

J.T. They do. Gideon is going through things with God: "And Gideon perceived that he was an angel of Jehovah; and Gideon said, Alas, Lord Jehovah! for because I have seen an angel of Jehovah face to face. And Jehovah said to him, Peace be unto thee: fear not; thou shalt not die. And Gideon built there an altar to Jehovah, and called it Jehovah-shalom". That is the ground reached by Gideon -- 'Jehovah of peace' (footnote, verse 24).

A.P. Is it a principle that affairs must be set right locally, before there can be general service?

J.T. Quite. Before you take up service in a general way, you must be right locally.

A.P. It was not until after this that Gideon "blew the trumpet" (verse 34).

R.D.G. What is there in the fact that he built an altar himself, after the rock had been designated as an altar?

J.T. I think it is to show the progress he had made. Your own altar is to indicate your stature. He is told by God to build the next altar, but with regard to his own altar he has no instructions.

R.D.G. God would take pleasure in the fact that he built it?

J.T. I think so. God takes delight in the growth of His saints.

J.E.H. He had taken into account that God had said to him, "Peace be unto thee", and he calls the altar Jehovah-shalom, or Jehovah of peace.

A.N.W. Is not the altar an answer to the appearing rather than to what is said?

J.T. I think all that he had experienced in his relations with God so far, enters into the altar.

W.B-w. Referring to the subject of food, would you tell us the difference between Gideon as having the cakes, the kid, and the broth, and Gideon as represented in the barley cake in chapter 7?

J.T. Well, that is what he was himself. The interpretation is: "This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon, the son of Joash, the man of Israel". The enemy would be overthrown by a representation of food coming in thus; that is, the barley cake tumbling in. It is a type of Christ risen, but apprehended in the power of the Spirit by faith, for the cake had gone through the process of baking, as we have seen.

H.S.D. So that the food is a weapon?

J.T. Well, that is what we see here -- "the sword of Gideon". The cake tumbled in, and the tent lay along. It was complete overthrow.

A.P. It is interesting that the three hundred men, as they are about ready for battle, take victuals into their hands; (chapter 7:8).

J.T. Exactly. They meet the enemy on this principle of food.

A.P. It is in their hand; and is the kind of thing that is going to overcome.

A.F.M. They got the victuals from the people. It refers to venison taken in hunting, the same word as used in Joshua 1:11.

Pages 127 - 314 -- "New York Readings", 1933 (Volume 117).

FAMINE IN THE LAND

Genesis 12:9 - 20; 13:1 - 4

A.F.M. Will you tell us what is the object of famines in Scripture?

J.T. Famines are allowed to test us as to our dependence on God; it is significant that this famine appears as soon as Abram entered the land and built his altar.

A.F.M. Do you think a famine has a voice governmentally, whether to the saint or the sinner?

J.T. I think it has. God would bring out what is in us of Himself, by famine circumstances; He would also allow what is not of Himself to show itself in us, so that we might learn what the flesh is.

B.T.F. Are you speaking of a spiritual famine or of a material one?

J.T. We have to regard it, in a material sense, as an occasion of testing, but it has a spiritual sense, too, which will no doubt come before us in due course. Here it is a material famine; God employs such a thing to test us as to whether we carry our circumstances, or whether they carry us. If they carry us, they are like a flood which may take us out to sea; whereas, if we carry them, we are in control and can bring God into them. If my circumstances carry me, the enemy has vantage ground for an attack. Obviously the lesson to be learned is how to be in control of our circumstances.

W.B-w. Do you think Abram lost control when he went down to Egypt?

J.T. He did, absolutely. He was carried out to sea, so to speak, where he was at the mercy of the winds and waves, and so lost his bearings.

A.P. What is the object of the famine coming in

at the point where Abram had built an altar to Jehovah, etc.? And then it says, "And Abram moved onward, going on still toward the south".

J.T. The moving south is the key; why did he move away from the point where he had built an altar? The moving south would mean that he was going toward a more favourable position, but in doing so he was moving away from his altar!

J.S. He was moving according to sight, and not in faith.

J.T. I think that is the thought. He was governed by natural inclinations; for the south is more attractive, being warmer, and seems more favourable. On the voyage to Rome, the south wind blew gently, (Acts 27:13), but was deceptive. The south has other meanings, of course, but here it is a question of natural attractions, as the history of Abram shows.

W.B-w. The word in verse 7 should have been enough: "Unto thy seed will I give this land".

J.T. Yes; that word ought to have sunk into his heart, and it did at the beginning, for "into the land of Canaan they came"; "and there he built an altar to Jehovah". Moving away from this position was therefore not of faith.

A.R.S. He built an altar, and called on the name of the Lord, notwithstanding, he went away to the south!

J.T. That change of position shows that Abram did not stand by his altar; he moved south, to what was apparently a more favourable land, but in doing so his sensibilities were not divinely controlled.

A.F.M. The second location of the altar was good, being near Bethel. It says, "And he removed thence towards the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel toward the west, and Ai toward the east".

H.S.D. Going south would suggest that he ceased to call upon the name of the Lord.

J.T. As tested, our movements tell the tale as to where we are. It is noticeable that he moved onward, "going on still toward the south". This movement certainly does not indicate that he was satisfied with, or that he was maintaining the point he had reached in faith.

J.S. Does it show that a young believer might take up a certain position which he was not morally equal to?

J.T. The position here was right, and Abram was right in taking it. The mistake was in surrendering it.

J.S. He was not equal to it in his soul.

J.T. It was a well-chosen position; his mistake was in leaving it. It says, "And Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, to the oak of Moreh" (verse 6), which, I think, would point to stability. The Canaanite was then in the land, and so had to be reckoned with. Next it says, "And Jehovah appeared to Abram", this is the thing that ought to have governed him. It is in this position that the Lord appeared to him and said, "Unto thy seed will I give this land". There is no suggestion in Jehovah's word that he is to move out of it.

J.S. That is the line that should have governed him.

J.T. Why should I move from the position in which Jehovah speaks to me? I certainly could not find a better. It says, "And there he built an altar to Jehovah who had appeared to him". This enhanced and confirmed the position in which Abram was.

A.R.S. Would you say that he failed to keep the word of the Lord? To the church in Philadelphia it is said, "... and has kept my word", (Revelation 3:8).

J.T. He seems to be moving out of the divine current, moving on toward the south. We have two altars alluded to. The second one is in an excellent position, typically, in relation to the house of God

(Bethel), and yet he is moving on. I think that is where his weakness lay.

B.T.F. Would you not take account of his action in the point he has reached when he called on the name of Jehovah?

J.T. That was excellent so far. It is the moving on from the place of his altars that indicates the downward course.

T.A. If we miss our way in the path of faith, God in faithfulness will move to bring us back.

J.T. That is what you come to in the next chapter. He went on his journey from the south. Now he is on the right road; it says, "... as far as Bethel; as far as the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai; to the place of the altar that he had made there at the first. And there Abram called on the name of Jehovah". It is between the two callings on the name of Jehovah that you have the deflection.

A.B.P. Would you say that the place "where thou art" would indicate the point of departure, and also the point of full recovery? "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward", (chapter 13:14).

J.T. Yes. Now he is in the centre of the inheritance (compare Ephesians 3:14 - 19).

J.S. Why do you think the points of the compass come in here?

J.T. They indicate the earthly inheritance; the heavenly involves depth and height as well as breadth and length. I think Abram was the centre of everything for God here, so that it is "from the place where thou art" he is told to look northward and southward and eastward and westward.

A.J.D. The points of the compass here would indicate that God would hold nothing back from Abram.

J.T. Love would do its best for him in these circumstances. The points of the compass denote the area of the divine operations and its selections. We are to apprehend "the breadth and length and depth and height; and to know the love of the Christ, which surpasses knowledge", (Ephesians 3:18,19).

H.S.D. It is clear that the whole land would be given to Abram.

W.B-w. The Lord said, "And they shall come from east and west, and from north and south, and shall lie down at table in the kingdom of God", (Luke 13:29).

J.T. Abram, in his day, was the centre of things; but when the Lord Jesus Christ was here He was the centre of everything, and is so now in heaven; so that we take our bearings from Him.

A.F.M. You spoke of stability in connection with Abram at the oak of Moreh in chapter 12:6, then Abram's position is given in chapter 13 as at the oaks of Mamre. Between these two points he evidently had gained considerably in his soul.

J.T. Yes; he is now at Hebron, which has great spiritual significance; it refers to what was before the world; thus Abram has moved spiritually.

A.R. Verse 17 reads: "Arise, walk through the land according to the length of it and according to the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee".

J.T. Length and breadth give you the area, that is all you need for square measure. We should notice, that although Hebron was in the southern district of Canaan, Abram in going there is not said to have moved toward the south; it is now a question of the breadth and length of the land, and the purpose of God.

J.S. The depth and height properly belong to Ephesians, and could not be brought in until Christ's death and resurrection.

J.T. Depth and height bring to light another thing; namely, love.

J.E.H. Why do you say that?

J.T. Because a fourth dimension is introduced. The length and breadth and height, or thickness, are all that you can get in ordinary mathematics, and depth is a moral thing. It is Christ going down in love.

A.N.W. I suppose a man must touch the depth and height before he could become available for service.

J.T. Christ had to go down; He only could do so. Geologists talk about going down, but how far do they go? Their calculations are guess-work at best; they cannot penetrate into the depth of the earth's crust. The only One who has really gone down is Christ; He went down "into the lower parts of the earth". (Ephesians 4:9) It is a question of a moral descent in love.

A.P.T. This great city in which we live is marked by height, there is depth, too, but no moral depth to it.

J.T. Its spirit is Babylonish; we read of those that built Babel, that they said, "Come on, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, the top of which may reach to the heavens", (Genesis 11:4). They had no idea of depth, either.

A.P.T. I suppose love in Christ that went down is the great thing to understand.

A.A.T. Do we understand that Abram's deflection was produced by famine conditions?

J.T. Well, it had begun before. It says, "And Abram moved onward, going on still toward the south. And there was a famine in the land". The famine comes in subsequently, and serves to expose fully the state Abram was in. It is the opposite of: "I being in the way, Jehovah has led me", (Genesis 24:27).

A.A.T. His movement southward was before the famine.

A.N.W. God brought in the famine to expose a certain state of soul in Abram. It says in Luke 15:14, "There arose a violent famine throughout that country", which coincided with the state of the prodigal's soul.

J.S. What is the spiritual significance of the famine here?

J.T. I think it is well to take notice of the fact that he was already on the way south; there was no indication of any spiritual attraction there, but simply that which appealed to the natural senses. That is what is clearly seen in the passage -- he was already bent in that direction. It would mean, in our case, that some favourable opportunity to make money, or to better one's circumstances, presented itself.

C.A.M. Things of this kind would lead down to Egypt.

J.T. Yes. The term "south" here apparently signifies the region bordering on the desert in the south. Proximity to the desert is, no doubt, the spiritual meaning here; besides, the direction was toward Egypt. For us it would be some prospect that opens up satisfactorily to nature, and so is taken advantage of. God says, as it were, 'I will test you, so that the full consequences of this may come to light for your own good'. Abram has set out already, and now God allows the famine, so that he is exposed by it.

A.J.D. Are you referring to our daily occupations and material circumstances?

J.T. Anything like that, which holds out prospects of material advantage for the gratification of our natural desires.

A.F.M. The passage would show that the famine was raised on Abram's account. Of course, others

felt it, although no one else is mentioned as suffering. Abram is evidently the object of the famine.

J.T. That is how it stands. We have to take the famine here as bearing on persons who have faith, but who have been deflected and controlled by their natural inclinations.

T.A. Is it always the case that where there is real faith, it is bound to be tested? Abram had several very severe tests, but by them God furthered His own work in him.

J.T. Yes; and God will bring to light what hinders faith, because if it is not judged now, it will reappear. Abram is to learn the lesson that he is never to go down to Egypt again.

A.J.D. Would you say a little as to what is meant by his building an altar, and calling on the name of Jehovah?

J.T. It is to bring out that he was a worshipper of the true God. You will observe that in Genesis there is no instruction given about altars, it is left to the worshipper; what is stated is that Abram was a worshipper of the true God, and it was subsequently that deflection set in.

W.B-w. Having an altar is no guarantee that I am going on with God. I may have the altar, and yet go astray.

J.T. That is the point. We have to be always on our guard; even as having advanced in the truth, we are liable to be diverted from the path by natural propensities. It may be moving, for instance, into a more favourable place of living, so as to increase natural comforts, or for more display in living. Matthew says of the Lord, "Having heard that John was delivered up, he departed into Galilee: and having left Nazareth, he went and dwelt at Capernaum" (Matthew 4:12,13). That is a lot of history in a few words. Nazareth, as compared with Capernaum, was elevated and a much more desirable place in

which to live -- Capernaum was 600 feet below sea level. The Lord did not consider for any natural comfort; He went down. It was on that principle He dwelt in Capernaum. Matthew alone tells us that He lived there. I think that Abram's going to Egypt is the reverse of this; the Lord did not consider for any comfort, but, rather, thought of souls, having the testimony ever in view.

A.P.T. It was a question of sacrifice with the Lord.

Rem. It says, "And thou, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to hades", (Matthew 11:23). Would that show how favoured those in Capernaum were?

J.T. It was an immense advantage to Capernaum that He dwelt there; hence the responsibility of the city was increased thereby.

A.N.W. It is the only city called "His own city", (Matthew 9:1).

J.T. In Nazareth "he was brought up" (Luke 4:16), but He dwelt in Capernaum by His own selection.

A.R. The famine is allowed to come in, and it causes Abram to go down.

J.T. That is what happened; he was not going down in the sense of humiliation, but in a moral sense, as losing spiritual caste, which is a very sorrowful thing.

C.A.M. It is a sorrowful thing, not only because Abram lost, but it also has a bad effect on others when a man of faith is diverted.

J.T. Lot was evidently damaged in Egypt; then we have the terrible breakdown with regard to Sarai, and Hagar was taken into Abram's household, causing great exercise and sorrow afterwards.

J.S. It was a complete breakdown in Egypt, on Abram's part.

J.T. His going down was deliberate; it says,

"Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was grievous in the land". His circumstances were more than he was, and he was weighed down by them; that is what comes out. If my business or other circumstances are more than I am, they carry me along, and I am as without rudder or compass, helplessly drifting. That is Abram's position here.

G.N.G. Is that why it is called a grievous famine?

J.T. The test is severe because this hidden state has to be exposed; so that it goes on to say, "And it came to pass when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a woman fair to look upon. And it will come to pass when the Egyptians see thee, that they will say, She is his wife; and they will slay me, and save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me on thy account, and my soul may live because of thee". Here is a man thinking of himself only and accordingly making arrangements which lead to disaster. Think of what his proposal meant to Sarai! But that does not seem to concern him. It shows that when we are on the downgrade, we lose conscience and right feelings, and expose ourselves to the corrupting influences of the world.

A.P.T. Would it be suggestive of throwing over assembly truth?

J.T. That is what is meant; as applied to us it would be the denial of the relation of the church to Christ.

A.N.W. "As the Christ also loved the assembly, and has delivered himself up for it", (Ephesians 5:25).

A.J.D. Here it is exactly opposite to Ephesians 5, and would show Abram's low state of soul, inasmuch as his conscience did not seem to trouble him.

A.N.W. The Lord was not thinking of Himself, as Abram was doing, but of the church.

B.T.F. Would you say that he was no longer true to his altar?

J.T. He is without rudder and compass, as was remarked. He is drifting along before the wind of his circumstances. It is a terrible breakdown.

A.J.D. Morally, Abram is like the Egyptians.

J.T. Quite, he was resorting in a worldly way to a subterfuge to protect himself.

A.P.T. "If therefore ye seek me, let these go away", (John 18:8). The Lord would go into the danger Himself. He thought of the church, as our brother remarked.

W.B-w. Had Abram sought the Lord he would have been saved from drifting.

J.T. Surely; but there was enough in what had already been said to steady and keep him, for he was in the place of God's choice.

A.F.M. What do you think was the secret of all this departure?

J.T. There must have been a steady allowance of the flesh; a feature of natural desire which he would regard as legitimate. According to the facts already given, he cannot be regarded as a young believer. He was over seventy-five years old, and Jehovah had appeared to him twice, also Abram had obeyed His word, and had built two altars, and called upon His name. Thus what is before us points to a danger to which we all are exposed.

A.F.M. The famine was intended to arrest Abram, but he pursues this down-grade course right into Egypt.

A.P. Are we not liable, as amongst the people of God, to think that there is not sufficient for us there, and so we look elsewhere? We may not admit it publicly, but our very movements indicate it. God directed Abram into Canaan, and surely it would be sufficient for him.

J.T. He was in quest of something in the distance.

A.R. He turns his back upon God, and then upon his wife. First there is a breach with God, and then, typically, with the assembly.

J.T. That is what has happened in the history of the church -- a denial of the marital relations, by substituting the sister for the wife. The full thought of Christianity involves union; this is the first thing given up and people go back to the idea of the family, but the sister is not in the same position as the wife.

A.N.W. What does the sister relationship suggest to you?

J.T. It is the family idea -- simply that we are all brethren.

A.N.W. That relationship does not call for so much self-sacrifice as the other.

J.T. You are not as obligated to your sister as you are to your wife.

H.S.D. There was some truth in what Abram said to Pharaoh about Sarai, because she was his half-sister.

J.T. There was. We recognise our brethren, although they may be in denominations around us, but church affection is not there, because the marital relation is absent; it is a lower position.

J.S. The marital relation was the first thing given up.

J.T. Yes; union. To the assembly at Ephesus, it is said, "But I have against thee that thou hast left thy first love", (Revelation 2:4). This difference between the sister and wife is very instructive, because the family idea runs along with love. Every true Christian belongs to the family, and must be regarded as a brother or sister, but if he is in worldly associations, religious or otherwise, he cannot be owned as in the marital relations and affections of Christ and the church.

A.N.W. It is one thing to remove from a sisterly

relation to that of a wife, but another thing to move from wife to sister.

J.T. It is abandonment of marriage relations. Think of what that means with regard to Christ and the church! Of course, the family link is right and great in its place, but how serious the state that would use it to deny the marital!

J.S. Sarai is fully exposed, and left to the mercy of the Egyptians. So the church has been left to the mercy of the world.

W.G.T. Abram is really taking issue with God in this matter.

J.T. What God has joined together, he is separating.

A.J.D. Does Abram in this connection represent the responsible element?

J.T. Yes. Man, as in relation with woman represents the side of responsibility.

A.F.M. Do you think there is a suggestion of what is Laodicean in the riches that Abram acquired?

J.T. I think so. Much is made of his riches as following his denial of his wife; Pharaoh "treated Abram well on her account; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and bondmen, and bondwomen, and she-asses, and camels". But he had lost his wife! This world's Laodicean riches are not equal to the gain of the truth of the assembly.

A.R. The princes of Pharaoh took account of Sarai first, that she was fair, and they spoke to Pharaoh about her.

J.T. It is, typically, the beauty that Christ has put on the church that the world can take account of and mar.

A.J.D. Our position, as of the assembly, should not be given up for the sake of prosperity in the world.

J.T. In the early history of the church, those responsible, called the "early fathers", gave up the truth of the church for worldly advantage.

A.P. You are looking at Abram as responsible; it is he that tells the lie.

J.T. See where he placed his wife! That is what should come home to us. Am I moving in relation to the church? Or am I exposing it to the world?

A.P.T. Our brother's remark as to Abram telling some of the truth is worthy of consideration: people say that the radio is useful because certain good things come through it; that is only half the truth, the whole truth shows that it is an abomination.

C.A.M. On entering Egypt, there seems to be a series of questions in Abram's mind as to the position he had assumed, which results in complicity with Sarai.

J.T. The nearer you get to the world the more you feel that you have to make terms, because you have no divine protection.

A.P. The Spirit of God says to Pergamos, "I know where thou dwellest, where the throne of Satan is", (Revelation 2:13).

A.F.M. The plagues here, are of great value.

J.T. They bring out that God is faithful; He is looking on and knows that both Abram and Sarai have faith, and He is not going to lose those precious gems, or allow such jewels to remain in swine's snouts; but is going to have them in their proper setting. He, therefore, plagues Pharaoh.

C.A.M. It is wonderful that despite Abram's breakdown, and the influence of the world, God recovers Sarai, we may say, without damage.

J.T. Were it not for this sovereign action of God, how dreadful the consequence of Abram's descent into Egypt would have been! But He is faithful; He can deal with the world's system, on behalf of His people; and is doing so today. We can reckon on that.

Ques. Do you think the present depression is

making the world's system lose its hold on the saints?

J.T. Yes, I do. God is making the world's system release its hold. Many are coming to see the hollowness and instability of the current order of things.

A.J.D. Is it not the faithfulness of God we have to reckon on today?

J.T. If we have any privileges, as we have in being here tonight, it is a faithful God that we have to thank for them.

A.B.P. There is a word for us here, that we should not be puffed up because we have received light from God. Abram had received light from Jehovah, but he seems to have been self-centred.

J.T. As in 1 Corinthians 14:36: "Did the word of God go out from you, or did it come to you only?" We are apt to think of ourselves in this way.

B.T.F. Would you say that God ever kept His eye on Abram, and came in at the right moment to effect his deliverance, although Abram had deflected from the path of faith?

J.T. Yes; that is most assuring, as we have been saying; so that Pharaoh says to Abram, "What is this thou hast done to me? Why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? Why didst thou say, she is my sister, so that I took her as my wife. And now, behold, there is thy wife: take her, and go away". That is how God effected their release. He plagued Pharaoh and his house.

A.P. Was it not humbling that Pharaoh had to tell Abram to move?

J.T. It was very humbling, and was intended to be that.

J.S. But Pharaoh is compelled to act, God plagues him to that, end.

A.P. I would like to know how this works out in the church's history.

J.T. God operates in the world to cause it to

relax its hold, as in the release of Peter from the prison which represents the power of the world in holding God's people. One detail after another is given -- the angel comes inside and tells Peter what to do in every detail, even to following him; and when he gets to the outer gate it opens "of itself". That is the way God worked, and Peter was released. And so in the history of the church -- the great revivals experienced by it have been preceded or accompanied by certain governmental dealings of God; the ministry has been released, so that we see it now in its full setting. Pharaoh says, "And now, behold, there is thy wife: take her, and go away".

A.P. In early days, on account of persecution, many true Christians were forced to leave their respective countries, or were allowed to do so; and they went to reside in other countries; thus the truth has spread.

W.B-w. Paul would not leave the prison, but would have the authorities come and bring him out, (Acts 16:37). Here Pharaoh tells Abram to go.

J.T. It is God acting on the holding powers. It says, "Woe to the world because of offences?" (Matthew 18:7). The world will either persecute or corrupt the church. In recent times God has come in and released its hold, and the church in its relation to Christ has been brought into evidence.

A.F.M. Is there not a Philadelphian principle in this chapter? We read that "Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, towards the south. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold".

T.A. He is taking advantage now of the "opened door".

J.T. That is the thing. God causes the world to release its hold, so that His people may take advantage of it, and be free.

A.J.D. When did the world begin to relax its hold on the church?

J.T. It has been a gradual process. After the reformation certain things happened, one after another, until free preaching was allowed, and then gatherings where saints were free to meet together without anyone lawfully forbidding or interfering with them. Three hundred years ago we could not have met together as we are doing tonight. But God opened the door and keeps it open: "Behold, I have set before thee an opened door, which no one can shut", (Revelation 3:8).

H.S.D. Abram went towards the south in leaving Egypt.

J.T. He had to go that way to get out.

H.S.D. You have to travel the same road back.

J.T. That is it. But he is now meaning to go back. Note, he went up out of Egypt.

A.S. And Lot went with him.

J.T. I think you see in Lot and Hagar the aftermath of the failure; Lot had Egyptian sensibilities and desires. Later he looked on the well-watered plains; but the connection with them of "the garden of Jehovah" and "the land of Egypt" shows that his sight is illusory -- that he had Egypt in his mind. Lot was never recovered; he was taken captive a little later, and his history, to the end is a sad one. Hagar's case is another sad one; the after effects of these things remained in Abram's house, in the government of God.

A.F.M. Should not all that we have passed through this last year or two have a recovering effect on us, so as to disengage us from what is Egyptian?

J.T. That is God's thought in it. There has been a spreading out, and a moving towards what seemed to be a more favourable position which, in truth, was the world, or nearly so, and we have to learn now to judge the motives that misled us.

G.McP. This is the second time it says Lot was with him.

J.T. It was a natural link, like that which existed between Barnabas and John Mark. The recognition of the natural in divine things, as seen here ends in disaster.

W.B-w. Why did the Lord not take away all this wealth which Abram and Lot had acquired?

J.T. It remained; the Holy Spirit gives us the facts about it. "And the land could not support them, that they might dwell together, for their property was great; and they could not dwell together". That is the result of excessive possessions; they prevent brethren from dwelling together, which is a governmental sorrow.

Rem. No earthly possessions were ever intended to separate brethren.

J.T. It is better to give them away than that they should separate us.

B.T.F. An earthly-minded man and a heavenly-minded man cannot long remain together.

J.T. That is true, but the sorrowful thing is that they had so much property that they could not dwell together.

A.N.W. Say a word about the silver and gold. It says in verse 2, "And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold". Is there spoil in all this?

J.T. I think they are just stated as they are. It is a question as to whether they are properly regarded as spoil. Riches may be valuable in a true sense, for I may use them to express love; but if they hinder me from dwelling with the brethren they are not an expression of love, they are a curse -- the riches here were such, for they forbade brethren dwelling together. What a great moral victory it would have been if Abram had stayed in the land in spite of the famine! He would have proved God, and have come to know Him in a new way.

A.P. He would not have had this accumulation of wealth that divided them.

J.T. They would have had much better times in the famine as brethren than they had with the accumulation of wealth which they got in Egypt; besides, they would have been drawn closer together as in a common affliction.

A.A.T. Are you saying that a poor man is better off than a rich man?

J.T. It is a question of the way the truth stands. There can be no doubt that accumulation of wealth tends to hinder fellowship.

A.F.M. Both Abram and Lot could have proved that "a brother is born for adversity", (Proverbs 17:17).

J.T. What a moral triumph it would have been if Abram and Lot had stayed in the land and said, "God will provide for us", as David said, "I have been young, and now am old, and I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread", (Psalm 37:25). With smaller herds and flocks they would have had more time for the consideration of the things of God.

FAMINE IN EGYPT

Genesis 26:1 - 6; Genesis 41:17 - 24,53,57; Genesis 45:1

J.T. This famine which occurred in the days of Isaac links on with that of Abram's time. The account of the famine in Egypt is intended to impress us with its severity, its extent, and its universal bearing. Famines that took place in the land were intended to test those in the land, but the objective of the famine in Egypt was to bring to light the Lord's people, and to bring them practically into relation with the Lord Himself -- the true Joseph. That is why I thought we might read the verse in chapter 45; it shows the result of the famine -- the brethren are brought to light and into relation with Christ, typically.

W.B-w. What came to light, and what was the result of the famine, spiritually, in the days of Abram?

J.T. It would be a lesson for him, but his experience would also be on our account; as being the father of all them that believe (Romans 4); the result of his experience would extend to all the family of faith, to the end that, however tested we may be, we should not allow our circumstances to govern us, but abide in the place of privilege, i.e., in the land. In Isaac's case the error of Abram was prevented by God's direct intervention, showing that if God sets out a principle, He helps His people in later days to be governed by it. He not only shows us what we should be governed by, but helps us to conform to it.

A.P. What intervention do you see here in chapter 26?

J.T. It says, "And Jehovah appeared to him and said, Go not down to Egypt: dwell in the land that I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land; and I will be with thee and bless thee". That is an

intervention of God to prevent Isaac from taking a false step.

W.B-w. From going down to Egypt.

A.J.D. What does Egypt represent in Christianity?

J.T. It is the place of visible and human resources, as over against what the invisible God supplies us with. It is the difference between sight and faith.

A.N.W. That was the thing that Abram had done in error, when he left the land -- substituting sight for faith.

J.T. That is what I thought. The principle had been set out in the earlier experience -- that the believer should not leave a divinely given place because of adverse circumstances. Isaac, of course, should have known that; but God forestalls his natural inclination to go down to Egypt, and enables him to keep by right principles, which saved him from doing what his father had done.

C.A.M. So that we not only have experience, but also a word from God as a preservative, in that way.

J.T. I think we may infer from this scripture and from Isaac's experience, that although divine lessons are clearly set out, we need divine help in order to profit by them.

W.B-w. Is not Philistine territory as bad as Egyptian territory?

J.T. But the former is the land. The Philistine should not be there. Faith disallows and ignores their claim to possess the land; God does not tell Isaac to move away, but says, "Dwell in the land that I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land"; he obeyed and dwelt at Gerar.

B.T.F. Do you suppose that Egypt was a lower step than Gerar?

J.T. I do. Gerar is in "the land", although the Philistines were there. Their presence does not make it cease to be the land of Isaac's possession.

A.N.W. What is indicated in Isaac's going to Abimelech, a Philistine?

J.T. I should think it was a move of weakness, very much like Abram going to Egypt. Probably Isaac was gravitating in the same direction, but God prevented him.

A.R.S. God said to Isaac, "I will be with thee and bless thee". That would be a great encouragement to him to keep in the land.

J.T. Yes; Abram did not get that word; God, no doubt, intended to set out the great lesson in Abram, of which we have spoken. Abram had to suffer like Peter and others, including ourselves, that they and we might learn. God saw to it that Isaac did not suffer through the disadvantage his unbelief had placed him in.

A.P. Any principle that has been fought for and gained in previous days is brought to our attention in later days through ministry.

J.T. Yes. That would correspond somewhat with Jehovah's appearing here to Isaac. In our case it would be God coming in to prevent us from violating a principle, and to enable us to maintain it. It is the lapsing of a thing that we are to be on our guard against. Any great principle brought out by God is apt to lapse amongst us unless we walk in faith. Faith goes back to it and maintains it, as we are helped by the Spirit of God.

W.G.T. Here, God practically repeats the blessing to Isaac which He had promised to Abram, concerning his position in the land.

J.T. Quite. It is the positive side and should have been a great incentive to him: "Sojourn in this land; and I will be with thee and bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries", and then He adds: "because that Abraham hearkened to my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my

laws;" so that Abraham as linked on with this position is commended of God. What is said to Isaac would remind him that the great interest shown in him was not on his account only, and would sober him.

C.B. If God tells us to do a thing, and we do it, He will surely bless us.

J.T. We shall see that the idea of the testimony is cumulative -- God links on the light here with Abraham.

W.B-w. First principles were with Abraham.

J.T. God began with him, and he answered to His mind. It does not say here that he went down into Egypt, because it was intended by God to connect the positive side with Abraham as "the father of all them that believe".

W.B-w. That is why he says, "... because that Abraham hearkened to my voice". It is a question of features set out in him at the beginning.

J.T. The cumulative idea in the testimony is clearly seen here.

C.A.M. Its being cumulative and increasing in that way is most important to see. Stephen, when he touched on various things, had that in mind.

J.T. How beautifully and powerfully he links the different parts of the testimony together, beginning with Abraham!

A.P. Is it your thought that Isaac represents a spiritual state that can be appealed to among the people of God?

J.T. Yes, as one capable of being impressed; so it says, "And Isaac dwelt at Gerar". It implied obedience to the divine thought.

A.J.D. Does he, in faith, lay hold of what God says?

J.T. Yes, and is governed by it.

A.F.M. The position of the heavenly man is thus maintained in Isaac. He remains in the land.

A.N.W. God refers to his seed being "as the stars of heaven" in this passage, and does not add: "as the sand is on the sea shore", (Genesis 22:17) as with Abraham, as if to emphasise the heavenly side of things.

B.T.F. Do we find Isaac falling into the same snare in Gerar that Abram fell into in Egypt?

J.T. He "went to Abimelech" because of looking at what is seen, but Jehovah appeared to him and prevented him from going further; but then, he denied his wife, which is a solemn thing, showing that he was not on much higher ground in his soul than Abram was in Egypt.

F.H.L. The enemy would seek to maintain this character of evil.

J.T. It was a very sorrowful thing, but I think the secret was that Isaac went to Abimelech as looking to him for help, the sequel of which was that he denied his wife. Divine intervention, only, prevented him going into Egypt. Who of us could stand, when under pressure, in spite of the light, principles, and object lessons we have, if God did not come in and help us? I am sure that everyone here would acknowledge that aside from divine interventions, we would not be maintained in the path of faith.

A.F.M. The lesson before us will be simplified as we see how Isaac was recovered by the coming in of God.

C.A.M. While we are warned and preserved by God from one danger, it does not mean that there will not be another one to which we may be exposed; we might feel a sense of security, but then some other test will come.

J.T. The lesson here is in seeing the faithfulness of God coming in to save us. It is the intervention of God for Isaac, we should notice; everyone here would acknowledge that aside from this he could not have stood in many a crisis.

A.D.J. You mean that light alone will not keep us?

J.T. Light, right principles, and even a right position -- all these things are not sufficient; unless God comes in we shall step aside. I think that is the lesson to be learned here. It is the faithfulness of God coming in to enable us to profit by the lesson He sets out in others.

A.N.W. Would that be worked out in the gospels and the epistles? The gospels set out in perfection what the principle is, and the epistles maintain the principle in us, largely on the negative side, saying, "Go not down to Egypt!"

J.T. That is right. It is ministry, as has just been remarked, through one and another, by which the Lord comes in to call our attention to what He has provided for us. Hence the importance of a constant ministry.

A.P. Generations change; see Judges 2:10.

J.T. Quite. "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh", (Ecclesiastes 1:4). Every new generation brings out new necessities and exercises, hence past ministry, in itself, will not suffice. There must necessarily be fresh ministry for every generation.

T.A. The message to the seven churches in Asia would confirm what you are saying: "He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies".

J.T. There is a suited ministry for each church; if we take the churches as successive history there is a specific ministry for each.

W.B-w. Isaac feared the enemy, and said to himself, "Lest the men of the place slay me on account of Rebecca". He was not prepared to lay down his life for her.

J.T. I think his going to Abimelech, and later denying his wife, are intended to remind us that

although God comes in and prevents us from transgressing some great principle, yet our actual state will be exposed and has to be judged.

J.T.Jr. The wells which Abraham had dug, the Philistines filled with earth.

J.T. All that comes out, but what the chapter shows is that Isaac was blest and triumphed in the end, that is the great thing to see. It is all a question of divine intervention -- of what God is to us.

J.S. The land was outwardly in the hands of the Philistines, yet Isaac was to hold it in the faith of his soul.

J.T. It says first, "the land that I shall tell thee of" and then, "this land".

A.P. The moment he took it up he began to prosper.

W.B-w. Would the thought of the recovery of the wells correspond with the recovery of the truth of the presence of the Spirit in our day?

J.T. I think the chapter as a whole shows how obedience to God and to His word, when we might have turned aside, brings in blessing, although the state we are actually in is exposed. God will not let us off in this respect, for He loves us too well to do that. Although God appears to us and helps us, we have to go through the consequence of our unbelief, in the faithfulness of God.

B.T.F. How would you apply the denying of his wife to the church?

J.T. It was a dropping down to the level of the family when Isaac said Rebecca was his sister, instead of saying she was his wife. We lose sight of the church if we act in that manner.

With regard to the famine in chapter 41, I think what we should observe, as already said, is the great stress that is laid upon the severity and extent of it, so that it fits in with the present tine peculiarly.

A.F.M. Of course this famine is in Egypt,

in contrast to being in the land. There would be a point in that, I suppose.

J.T. There is a great deal in that. It is really in Egypt with Joseph there, not the Egypt that Abram went to.

J.S. It is, rather, Christ exalted amongst the Gentiles, is it not?

J.T. Quite so. We widen out here to the present position of Christendom.

A.R. It says, "And there was dearth in all lands;" then it says, "And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph, to buy grain, because the famine was grievous on the whole earth". Is that what you have in mind?

J.T. That helps us to see what is in view: God is now looking out on all countries, that is the idea of the type, in view of bringing the brethren of Christ to light. All the great distress abroad in the world at the present time is intended of God to bring true Christians into evidence, and into practical relation with Christ, as His brethren. The object in view is very great!

W.G.T. Psalm 105:16,23 indicates that in this famine God had Jacob and his family in view: "And he called for a famine upon the land; he broke the whole staff of bread". "And Israel came into Egypt ... .".

C.A.M. Who would Pharaoh represent?

J.T. In the main, he represents the Supreme. Of course, it is not always so, but primarily he represents the responsible element. He is the ruler of Egypt, and in giving account of what he saw in his dreams he goes more into detail than the record given by the Spirit in the beginning of the chapter, which shows that he was impressionable. If you compare the description of the dreams the Spirit gives in the beginning of the chapter, with what Pharaoh himself relates of them to Joseph, you will

see that he was greatly impressed with the severity of what he saw in the lean kine and in the thin and parched ears.

C.A.M. It is very interesting to see that God allows the dreams to be told by Pharaoh, evidently to indicate his feelings regarding what he saw.

J.T. I think there was design in that, to remind us that if we are to get relief, we must feel things. Pharaoh felt the thing, and did not minimise what he saw when speaking to Joseph.

A.F.M.. It says, "It came to pass in the morning, that his spirit was troubled", (chapter 41:8).

A.N.W. The lean fleshed kine were "such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for badness".

J.T. Attention is called to his impressionableness. I believe the secret of blessing lies in being impressed by the nature of the affliction or discipline we are passing through. Its very severity portends that God has a special blessing for us in it. It is a feeling people that God respects.

B.T.F. Was the end in view that Israel and his sons should go to Joseph?

J.T. Yes. The pressure brought out the people of God.

A.F.M. In what way did it bring them out?

J.T. Well, the next chapter says, "Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt, and Jacob said to his sons, Why do ye look one upon another? And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is grain in Egypt; go down thither and buy grain for us from thence, in order that we may live, and not die" (Genesis 42:1,2); and in the following chapter we read that "the famine was grievous in the land. And it came to pass, when they had finished eating the grain which they had brought from Egypt, that their father said to them, Go again, buy us a little food" (verses 1,2). Now, there I think you have the people of

God, in the responsible element, feeling the famine and the necessity for provision for the house.

J.S. Jacob spoke according to the light he had; he knew where the grain was.

J.T. The sequel shows that what God had in mind in the famine was to bring all His people into evidence. There are thousands and thousands of God's people mixed up with the world, and when things are prosperous they do not think much about God, but go on with the things of this world, then, when pressure comes God uses it to exercise them and they begin to think of Him. There had been reduction in Jacob's mind, because you will notice in the second proposal that he says, "Buy us a little food"; he would be content with less than hitherto. That is what God is aiming at amongst us -- that we should be content with less than what has been customary with us.

A.F.M. You would mean less of temporal food and things in general?

J.T. We are speaking now of what is external, and how we become ready to accept less than we have hitherto had. Jacob does not use the expression "little" as to the first visit, but in relation to the second one. It is the idea of reduction -- God is reducing His people so that they might be cut from their moorings in this world; the more we expand in this world, the more like the world we become. Except we understand and reach to the result of the affliction, we are exposed; we need to see that the more we are reduced outwardly, the more it is open to us to expand inwardly. The apostle says, "Let your heart also expand itself", (2 Corinthians 6:13).

A.P. They were satisfied with a little on their side, but from Joseph's side they got a great deal.

J.T. Yes. But do you not think it is important to begin to feel small? If there is a heavy hand upon us, as there is today through this world-wide

business depression, it is well to begin to feel small, for God does not intend His people to be big in this world. Smallness in a material sense makes room for God. In Andrew's mind (John 6:9), littleness was the difficulty.

A.P. Many of the people of God, even those more or less on spiritual lines, are content with spiritual smallness, while aiming at material bigness.

J.T. The little boy in John 6 indicates the line on which the food supply is acquired.

A.N.W. The "little power" referred to in Philadelphia (Revelation 3:8) is not condemnatory, is it?

J.T. It is commendable that there was even that.

A.J.D. All this is to make us more like the Lord Himself. There is no indication that He acquired anything material in this world.

A.R. Do both material and spiritual prosperity go together?

J.T. Not always, although John says to Gaius, "Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers", (3 John 2). There is balance there. But there is the possibility of the most spiritual being "abased" and "hungry", (Philippians 4:12).

W.G.T. Joseph made great demands on his brethren, dealing with them "roughly", and when they went back to Jacob and made these things known to him, he took them to heart.

J.T. That is the next thing to learn. If brethren are set in movement toward Christ, they are not going to be received on their own terms. If the Lord is delivering His people through the present pressure, He makes the terms, and hence the rigour of His dealings with us; He loves us too well to let sin remain unjudged in us. In the first interview, Joseph's brethren began to talk about the way they had treated him. In chapter 42:21 - 24 they say, "We are indeed guilty concerning our brother, whose

anguish of soul we saw when he besought us, and we did not hearken; therefore this distress is come upon us. And Reuben answered them, saying, Did I not speak to you, saying, Do not sin against the lad? But ye did not hearken; and now behold, his blood also is required. And they did not know that Joseph understood, for the interpreter was between them. And he turned away from them, and wept". They are not allowed to get off. If we are under the discipline of God, we must assuredly go through deep exercise; indeed, our whole history comes up in relation to the why and the wherefore of the particular pressure which has come upon us.

W.B-w. You mean the murder of Christ has yet to be answered for by this world?

J.T. Yes, or anything corresponding to it. How are Christians who are linked with the world treating the testimony of Christ and His people, who, as loving Him, keep His commandments? All this necessarily comes up, so that there must be a going through corresponding exercises and self-judgment before God.

J.S. Joseph's brethren had to go over all their path of deflection in thorough self-judgment.

J.T. Yes. The Lord loves us too well to let us off. We must let the word of God search us, if He is to make Himself known to us. The Psalmist says, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; prove me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any grievous way in me; and lead me in the way everlasting", (Psalm 139:23,24).

F.H.L. His brethren recognise Joseph as the saviour of the world, and in the light of that they would feel the necessity of being right before him.

J.T. They see that he is able to provide, but they do not yet know who he is. The interpreter is between them and him (chapter 42:23), which is to be noted. Applying this to the Lord Jesus, why should I not

understand Him? -- why the need of an interpreter between Him and me? Joseph understands, but they do not; they are in a state of ignorance. That is much like the Lord's people are today, as emerging from the world, the sphere of self-will.

C.A.M. Job needed an interpreter at one time, but eventually he saw the Lord and reached the end.

J.T. The analogy in Job 33:23 is very striking: "If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand". But here the interpreter was between Joseph and his brethren. Joseph, of course, understood what they said, despite their ignorance of this fact.

A.R.S. What does an interpreter stand for in this case?

J.T. He represents distance, and all because of ignorance.

T.A. The other disciples should not have needed John to say, "It is the Lord", (John 21:7).

A.F.M. Do you think that distress should mark those emerging from the religious world towards Christ? One could not rightly take up the thing lightly: if we apprehended the ruin of the church and our part in it, this would cause us distress.

J.T. I am sure that is what God respects. It is a feeling people that God regards -- "the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done", (Ezekiel 9:4). The sons of Jacob were not marked by feeling, as Pharaoh and Joseph were. The latter had, earlier, gone through "anguish of soul"; but these ten brothers were destitute of feeling, hence Joseph was severe in his treatment of them. They had sinned and had not judged themselves. Reuben points this out to them: "Did I not speak to you, saying, Do not sin against the lad? But ye did not hearken". How many times the faithful word is brought near to us, and we do not hearken but remain in our hardness?

C.A.M. Saul of Tarsus was like that; he continued his opposition in spite of the wonderful testimony of Stephen.

C.B. The sorrow we cause the Lord when not walking in the truth should come home to us.

J.T. We all should learn to feel things more. God Himself leads the way in feeling, as we may see in Genesis 6:6.

A.P.T. Joseph says: "Does my father yet live?" (Genesis 45:3). That is the first question after making himself known to his brethren. A little later in that chapter Joseph says, "Haste and go up to my father", etc. (verse 9). There is the suggestion of the Father and Son in these statements, which God is bringing before us now.

J.T. Judah's speech (chapter 44), corresponds with what we are saying, and indeed leads immediately to Joseph's making himself known to his brethren. He spoke to Joseph most touchingly of his father and Benjamin. It is brokenness of spirit and right feeling that God values.

J.E.H. The sufferings of Joseph, as often remarked, refer, in type, to the sufferings of the Lord Jesus.

A.R.S. Joseph's brethren, in their hardness, took the place of being "honest" men; the probing brought out that they were the opposite of that.

J.T. He did not weep in their presence, at first, but when the time for the final disclosure came he could not control himself; which shows the affections were there, but pent up, for Joseph was indeed a feeling man.

A.P. Do you think that we arrive, through discipline, at some sense of the sufferings that the Lord went through, so that we may not be asleep as to them, as the disciples were in Gethsemane?

J.T. Quite so. He was heard because of His piety. In the "strong crying and tears" (Hebrews 5:7) of Gethsemane,

the Lord leads the way for us with regard to feeling.

B.T.F. Would you say that Joseph was acting in a priestly way in dealing with his brethren?

J.T. I think he was; he knew what to do, and was very skilful in bringing them to a state suitable for the disclosure he made.

W.B-w. Regarding believers coming out to the Lord today, it is a good thing to see them moved by feeling as to their state and past associations. They thus show reality.

C.N. Do you think that all this which Joseph forces his brethren to go through was to effect the brotherly spirit in them?

J.T. That was it -- to bring out right elements that were there, also to break down their hardheartedness. Reuben is mentioned in chapter 42; he had tried to modify the action of his brethren against Joseph, but they would not hearken. As was said, testimony after testimony comes to believers who are linked up with the world, but they do not heed. Psalm 95:8 says, "Harden not your heart".

F.H.L. Would you say a word about Benjamin, who wept with Joseph later on?

J.T. Attention is called to him; he is the overcomer who retained true affection for Joseph. He is one of the feeling elements. Pharaoh, Joseph, Jacob, and Benjamin were all feeling men. Both Reuben and Judah had a little feeling, but all the rest were hard. That is what had to be dealt with -- hardness of heart.

A.F.M. Do you think that Reuben had largely recovered himself as evidenced in this statement of feeling regarding Joseph?

J.T. God is so fair that He brings out every good feature that may be in us.

A.F.M. Judah recovered himself fully, later.

J.T. Quite so. They both come into evidence in that way.

W.G.T. The journey of the children of Israel through the desert is lengthened to forty years on account of their hardness of heart.

J.T. But God says later, "And I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 11:19), meaning an impressionable heart.

J.E.H. Do you think that the bulk of Christians are characteristically hard-hearted?

J.T. I believe that anyone remaining in the world, who professes to be a Christian, is hard-hearted. The world has rejected and put Christ to death, and anyone who is a friend of the world is an enemy of God; such a one is in a serious position.

J.S. The present pressure in the world should have a softening effect, and at the same time bring to light the people of God, and bring them to Christ. Is not that the great object of the moment?

J.T. That is what God is doing at the present time. The universal character of this famine is in keeping with current conditions in the world. The Lord's present position in heaven and His work among the Gentiles, as characteristic of the dispensation, would lead us to look for special efforts to bring all His people to light before the end.

FAMINE WHEN JUDGES RULED

Ruth 1

J.T. We have already considered the famines in the times of Abraham and Isaac, and the famine which was universal, with which Joseph had to do in Egypt. I think the Lord helped us to see that the effect of the famine in Egypt was to bring the brethren to light; and, as applying it to the present time, to bring into evidence the Lord's people in their relation to Him. The present pressure is to bring to light those related to Christ as Joseph's brethren were related to him, so that they might be marked off from this world. We also noted that Jacob, in sending his sons to Egypt for food the second time, said, "Buy us a little food" (Genesis. 43:2), as though he accepted the reduction which the famine involved. This has a special significance now, for in the stress of the moment the Lord would have His people accept reduction, which means inward expansion. In Judges 6 there is a famine, or rather a scarcity of food mentioned, but that was rather in the character of an oppression; whereas this book of Ruth begins with a famine and the effect of it on a certain family.

J.E.H. Would you say expansion depends upon the acceptance of the famine?

J.T. That is the way we get the gain of discipline -- by accepting it feelingly. That character of exercise comes out in this book; Naomi, whose name signifies "my pleasantness", changes her name to Mara, which means "bitter", showing that she felt the circumstances of deflection in the fields of Moab.

A.F.M. In contrast to the universal famine centred in Egypt, this famine was circumscribed, and centred, apparently, in Bethlehem-Judah; and, whereas the famine in Egypt brought to light the

brethren, this famine affects specially one family and brings Ruth to light.

J.T. Yes; Bethlehem-Judah would not be more than fifty miles from Moab, so that, as to extent, it is not to be compared with the famine under Joseph. It was evidently local to "the land", but served to bring out great results, not only for the family immediately involved, but it pointed typically to extended results in the nation of Israel represented in Naomi. Israel was the centre of God's thoughts on the earth, and Ruth comes to light as representing the remnant, having no claim at all, but entering into the greatest privileges.

A.F.M. So it is "a son born to Naomi", (chapter 4:17), not to Ruth.

J.T. Yes; I think it is to show what will come about in the history of God's earthly people Israel by and by, as the centre of His purpose and thoughts as to the earth. The son would be to Israel; they will say, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given", Isaiah 9:6). I suppose Moab here alludes to what would be fruitful under such circumstances. The word "country", may be translated "fields"; it was evidently a prolific farming country, such as would divert one straitened in circumstances.

A.N.W. "The days when the judges ruled", seems to apply more to the earlier part of their rule than the latter. I wonder whether there was a relation between that and the famine?

J.T. I think verse 1 calls attention to the weakness or defectiveness of their service.

A.F.M. Would the last verse of Judges 21 be a sort of preface to the book? It says, "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes". Elimelech also did what was right in his own eyes -- he led the way to the fields of Moab.

J.T. Yes, his name is significant, meaning "whose God is king", but he was not true to it. It was the formula that governed the days when God was king, but Elimelech was not in keeping with his name, nor did he justify it. Had he really believed that God was king, he would have stayed in the land, and God would have provided for him. His course would point to misjudgment of the judges, rather than to being governed by their judgment. The profession implied that God was King, in which case every man should do what was right in His eyes. We may see by what Naomi said, that there was no need for Elimelech to have gone to Moab; she said, "I went out full". Why did they go if they were full? There must have been some will at work; and that is what should exercise us all in the present distress -- what are the motives actuating us in any movements we make?

C.B. Are you suggesting that we are not to move on our own initiative?

J.T. Well, if God is King, it is for us to let Him exercise His kingship, and He will not fail us.

T.A. Is it not God's prerogative to turn a wrong move into blessing?

J.T. Yes. It is very encouraging to see that working out; for example, in John 21:3, Peter says to the disciples, "I go to fish". And then, "They say to him, We also come with thee. They went forth and went on board". This movement was one of failure, but the beginning of the chapter shows that it was a question of a manifestation of Jesus to His disciples. If any of us were to write a paper on John 21, the title of it rightly would be, A Manifestation of Jesus, not The Failure of Peter. The manifestation was the result of what happened. "He manifested himself thus"; then the Spirit relates what occurred, showing that God allows things to happen for His own ends. We are told that this was

"the third time that Jesus had been manifested to the disciples, being risen from among the dead".

J.S. I was wondering whether the independency of action seen in every man doing "what was right in his own eyes", would bring about famine conditions?

J.T. Exactly. There was no credit to Peter or to the others that went with him for the way the Lord came in, but the Lord acquired glory through it, turning all into a manifestation of Himself.

A.P. You are not justifying their expedition?

J.T. No; it was a return to what they had been called from.

A.N.W. This book of Ruth is introduced by a famine; it also confirms that, whatever wrong was done, God remained King; He is over all, and through Elimelech's failure brought in the link between Judges and the prophet Samuel.

J.T. Indeed, the Messiah Himself is seen as a result, the Man under whose rule everyone would not do "what was right in his own eyes". The closing verses of the book afford a striking testimony to the over-ruling grace of God. It induces the spirit of worship, which the name given to the "son born to Naomi" implies.

H.S.D. Was it not very serious that Elimelech and the two sons had died?

J.T. They represent the responsible side; the narrative shows how God can work in spite of the failure of those responsible to own and maintain His rights -- using the most unexpected vessels. Elimelech represented the profession that God was King, and yet he was going against that principle; his two sons, according to the meaning of their names, were weaklings; they were sickly young men, and died. So that the book brings into evidence the feminine or subjective side, showing what God can do in this connection to maintain His testimony in spite of breakdown. What we should see, whilst

recognising the typical significance of the book as referring to Israel and the remnant, is how it applies now; in the breakdown of the responsible element in the church, there is, after all, what is of God in a subjective way, and it is for individuals like Ruth, who have no claim in themselves upon God, to attach themselves to that, as Ruth attached herself to Naomi.

J.S. There was a remarkable manifestation of the work of God in Ruth.

J.T. Yes, and in Naomi also. The responsible element had gone; there was no man left. It was a question of three women, one of whom went back, so that their number was reduced to two. What would become of them? The mind at once alights on Ruth, on the devotedness of one in whom God was working; and mark this -- it was not simply that she had love, there must also have been great lovableness in Naomi.

A.F.M. Would you say that Naomi stands for light, and also for state, in that she changed her name from Naomi to Mara, and that Ruth found a suited companion in such a one?

J.T. Exactly; I think she stands for light, but light in a certain connection; that is, if we take her as a type of Israel in the future. The present application would be to those who are walking in the light of the church, and who, feeling its sorrowful responsible history, acknowledge their part in it. The use of the word 'Mara' is very much like John's feeling when he had eaten the little book; he says, "my belly was made bitter" (Revelation 10:10). Believers who recognise Christ and the assembly in any way, and who feel the great breakdown of the public body, are the ones to cleave to.

A.R.S. I notice that others did not call her Mara; it was what she named herself.

J.T. Well, it was her own feeling, into which, of

course, all who knew her then late history could enter, but, as always in such circumstances, God soon opened up a bright future to her. Normally, when we own the result of our unbelieving conduct, the brethren do not continue referring to it; nor does God. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness", we are told in 1 John 1:9.

A.R. It says of Naomi, that she laid the child in her bosom. I suppose that would indicate the love which characterised her.

J.T. Yes. What we should see and understand is that she represents those who have the light of the church now. Whilst making full allowance for the prophetic bearing of the book, typically it emphasises those who recognise Christ and the assembly, however feeble or broken the latter may be -- those who feel things; and as fresh spiritual thoughts and light come, they embrace them, as Naomi embraced the child.

J.E.H. Naomi was, typically, of Paul's company ready for whatever God was pleased to develop.

J.T. Yes; they evidently became a test to John Mark; for he separated from them; (Acts 13:13).

A.N.W. Is not the name Mara very closely akin to the name Mary, which is so prominent in the gospels, bringing in the link between what is broken down officially and what God takes up and maintains to the end?

J.T. That is good. Miriam, too, is associated with the thought of bitterness.

A.F.M. The waters of Mara were clearly that; they were bitter, and the children of Israel could not drink of them. Would there not be a connection between Israel at Mara and our scripture?

J.T. Exactly; they had to taste the bitterness of death. Christ tasted death in all that it meant as the judgment of God, and He would bring us into

accord with it in our spirits; for those who feel what God does, He surely respects.

W.B-w. Do you think Ruth recognised what answers to the church before they left Moab?

J.T. Well, I think she might have seen something of the work of God. The church would be seen in Naomi in type; she represented, figuratively, that vessel as the depository of divine thoughts. You will notice that it is said of Elimelech and his family that they were "Ephrathites of Bethlehem-Judah". Ordinarily those words would be tautological, because the people of Bethlehem-Judah were Ephrathites, so that evidently it means that they were really local. The ancient name of Bethlehem was Ephrath, reminding us of Rachel's sufferings and death. Scripture shows that much spiritual feeling was linked with it; the use of the name "Ephrathites" is, I think, to call attention to the fact that this family really belonged to the place. Its more recent name of Bethlehem-Judah could not have existed until the tribes of Israel had come into the land.

W.B-w. They did not belong to Moab.

J.T. Clearly; they belonged to the place with which Rachel's sepulchre was connected, where she wept for her children, and where the Messiah would be born (compare Ruth 4:11, Jeremiah 31:15, Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:18). What holy sentiments and hopes are suggested by such a place!

B.T.F. Would you say that Ruth comes into evidence in order to bring in the parentage of David?

J.T. Yes, but she also is as an example of the immensity of the privilege into which anyone may now come, who becomes attached to those who have the light of the testimony. Thus a stranger came into such a great place in Israel. But how did she come into it? The same privilege was open to Orpah, but she went back to her people and her

gods. The answer is that Ruth in affection clave to Naomi and would not leave her.

A.P. Is there a suggestion of sovereignty in Ruth, indicating how each of us has a place among the brethren?

J.T. I think so. She comes into the line of the Messiah, as seen in Matthew's gospel, with others of her kind, such as Rahab, to bring out what one who accepts strangership may come into in attaching himself to those who have the light of the church -- the light of the purpose of God, however brokenly. Such are taken up in rich mercy and in great love and made "fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God", (Ephesians 2:19).

A.F.M. The meaning of "Ruth" is friendship or companionship.

J.T. We, as brethren, are strangers here. The more light we have as to Christ and the church, the more we accept strangership, and the more we shall look for companionship and be glad to have it. Ruth represents those who have come into touch with those who have light, and who, on remaining with such, gradually come into the full shining of Christ; they see who He is and learn their relationship with Him.

A.J.D. Naomi would represent one who had received the love of the truth?

J.T. Yes, she represents that side as seen in chapter 1; she felt things; she said, "the hand of Jehovah is gone out against me". You can see how applicable it is to Israel in the future, and to the church now. God's hand has gone out against the public body because of its failure; the more we feel it, the more God will come in for us.

A.J.D. It says, "And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse to it", (chapter 4:16).

J.T. That shows she had affection, and whatever

comes in as a subsequent thing, she is ready for it; like Simeon in Jerusalem, who was ready to receive the Child Jesus, when He was brought into the temple. The women, Naomi's neighbours, assigned the child to Naomi and called his name Obed, or "worshipper"; thus bringing to a climax all the exercises of the book, for "he is the father of Jesse, the father of David".

T.A. I suppose the discipline through which she passed prepared her for the reception of the babe.

J.T. Yes; there had been the acknowledgment of her own impotency to effect anything, so that the purpose of God was effected another way, rather than through her.

A.N.W. In the light of public failure, could Christ come in apart from the sense of widowhood?

J.T. It is a state that makes room for Him, morally. Babylon, the false church, "says in her heart, I sit a queen, I am not a widow; and I shall in no wise see grief", (Revelation 18:7). She is the opposite of that which is seen in Naomi.

W.B-w. Was there a state according to God at all before Naomi left Bethlehem-Judah, or did her exercise in Moab produce that state?

J.T. The early verses of chapter 1, taken typically, would show that Israel as a nation had left the land in unbelief; then when Naomi begins to return, God's work is seen. The word 'return' appears constantly in the prophets. The thing is exemplified in the case of the prodigal; returning to divine territory is the evidence of the work of God.

A.F.M. The ten years in the fields of Moab would be significant in that way. They had been tested on the ground of responsibility to return, and had failed; but now God has come in sovereignly, manifesting His work.

J.T. And Ruth's devotedness is to bring out more fully the work of God -- how beautiful it is! She is

allowed to say certain things. It is very fine to listen to young Christians, not merely saying what is put into their minds, but expressing their own thoughts. This speech is Ruth's own; there is no evidence that Naomi ever used speech like it. She says, "Do not entreat me to leave thee" etc., and then she binds herself, calling on Jehovah, that nought but death would part her from Naomi. It is a definite committal, which is a point of great importance for young Christians to arrive at in soul history. It is, you might say, on the principle of a covenant: "Jehovah do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part me and thee!" That is more than an ordinary word: it is a committal on her side which is irrevocable, God being brought into it.

T.H. It says, "And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking to her".

J.T. Naomi left off speaking, for it was a settled matter, "and they two went until they came to Bethlehem".

J.T.Jr. Would you say that Ruth, in principle, presented her body a living sacrifice; (Romans 12)?

J.T. Yes; there is complete devotedness and unqualified committal to the object of her love. It will be noted that in attachment to Naomi she is free from the gods of Moab; and already in the knowledge of Jehovah, Naomi's God.

A.P. What would you say about "thy people"? She had not seen the people of God as yet; all she had seen was Naomi.

J.T. She saw one of them! If you see one of them you will see them all in principle. The ground I should take in coming in contact with souls is, that I represent not only Christ, but the people of God here; that as seeing me, they ought to see the saints, in principle. The Midianitish kings said that

Gideon's brethren were like him -- "each one resembled the sons of a king", (Judges 8:18).

B.T.F. Would you say the traits found in Ruth and Boaz are such as came out in the Lord Himself?

J.T. Yes; Boaz, of course, is typically Christ, "a mighty man of wealth"; and the beautiful traits that come out in Ruth represent the work of God in His people, especially young ones, and how we come under the influence of Christ in a responsive way.

A.R. Is there not a responsibility laid upon us to cleave to the brethren, as Ruth clave to Naomi?