Pages 1 - 134 -- Notes of Readings and Addresses at Belfast, April, 1926 (Volume 81).

READING (1)

Luke 22:14 - 20; Luke 24:33 - 35; 1 Chronicles 12:1, 2, 8, 16 - 18, 26 - 28

J.T. It may help us at this time to look into the features of the assembly in its public character, as it appeared at the beginning.

What comes out in Chronicles -- corresponding, I believe, with Luke -- is that there were some who came to David at Ziklag, and some who separated unto him to the stronghold in the wilderness, and a large number from each tribe are also mentioned as coming to him at Hebron; their object, in the latter case, being to transfer the kingdom from Saul to him. The Lord may show us in our consideration of this subject what it is to come to Himself as at Ziklag, when David kept close, as it says, because of Saul; what it is to come to Him in the stronghold in the wilderness, separated to Him; and what it is to come as to Hebron. You will notice that while we have only two distinct names mentioned in the latter case, namely, Jehoiada and Zadok, in the other sections a great many names and exploits are recorded.

Now Luke, I think, presents the subject of gathering from the standpoint of Paul's ministry; so that it covers our own time.

Ques. In what way do you connect Chronicles with Luke?

J.T. Chronicles traces the testimony from the beginning -- from Adam. Luke goes back to Adam. He presents the public assembly in its component parts; if we take his gospel and the Acts, he presents the public body.

Ques. Do you mean by the 'public body' what is seen existing outwardly now?

J.T. What existed at the beginning, when every member of the body was actuated, or influenced, by Christ.

Rem. As we have it in the end of Luke's gospel -- the disciples were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.

J.T. Chapter 24 shows that the Lord was gathering. Two of them were straying, and that chapter shows how they were gathered; returning to Jerusalem they found the eleven and those that were with them -- the fruit of Christ's earlier work. And the fact that they found the eleven gathered together, and were able to take part immediately in what was proceeding, goes to show that those two were truly gathered. They had thought that all was lost. Ziklag, I think, stands for that principle. It had been burned with fire, and all that was of David had been carried away. But then Ziklag also stands for recovery. Where defeat had been, recovery and victory are seen.

Ques. What does Hebron stand for?

J.T. Colossians and Ephesians; Colossians particularly. There are very few who stand out distinguished there.

P.L. Would Ziklag suggest Romans; and the separation to David in the stronghold in the wilderness, Corinthians; and Hebron, Colossians and Ephesians?

J.T. Yes; Romans shows that where the defeat occurred victory is brought in; and in Corinthians separation is called for (the Gadites separated themselves to David in the stronghold in the wilderness); but in Hebron you may count a large number, but practically no distinguished names are mentioned -- there are only two.

Ques. Why are so many names recorded at Ziklag?

J.T. I think it is like Romans, where you have a long list of worthies at the end. It was a great matter that there were so many at Rome who were personally distinguished. The assembly at Rome was not Paul's building. It is a notable fact that he was there as a prisoner. He was not the founder of the assembly at Rome; there were very notable persons there before he arrived, who had held the ground in the midst of the greatest opposition; because, I suppose, Rome would be regarded in that light. So we are encouraged to individual efforts in the absence of the apostle.

I think that all these names mentioned in the earlier part of the chapter have reference to those who are distinguished in the presence of fierce opposition; because David was still kept close on account of Saul. Their exploits all come out in that connection. At Hebron Saul is dead. There the power of God is evident. It is a question of resurrection -- the operation of God that wrought in Christ, and not a question of individual exploits. Two priests are named -- Jehoiada and Zadok. That is to say, there is prayer; that which brings in the power of God, which is now known.

Rem. So while there may have been notable individuals present, when it comes to what was taking place at Hebron, as such they disappear.

J.T. When it is a question of God's world, and the resurrection, what is priestly is in evidence; the priest brings in God's power -- he prays. You need that to be maintained in the new order of things. Hebron is looking into a new world altogether.

Rem. God's work is carried on on the principles of death and resurrection. God is gathering on those principles.

J.T. That is what you come to at Hebron particularly. But we have to begin at Ziklag, where there was public defeat. It is no small matter to join the Lord when things outwardly are against Him -- public

defeat -- but then it is defeat changed into victory, and you come to the light of that; David recovered everything!

Ques. Do you think that Ziklag suggests the kingdom side of things?

J.T. Yes; as has been remarked, it corresponds with the epistle to the Romans; where defeat occurred, victory occurred. But Saul is still reigning. In the first verse of chapter 12 they go to David to Ziklag, while he kept still close because of Saul the son of Kish. Then, in verse 8, you have the strong-hold in the wilderness; that is to say, there is protection there.

Rem. Our brother connected that with Corinthians.

J.T. I think that is right; the assembly is treated of in 1 Corinthians. It runs parallel with Romans.

Ques. Where does Matthew come in?

J.T. Matthew 18 is the kingdom, and the assembly is brought in as a support of the kingdom; it is that to which appeal may be made.

Ques. Why are Saul's brethren brought in?

J.T. To show that those who came to David had overcome natural feelings and preferences. Where natural preferences are allowed to exist you cannot have the assembly. The Colossians were separated in their affections, and so were the Ephesians. In 1 Chronicles 12 there is a list of mighty men, and the first mentioned are the Benjamites, Saul's brethren. They are put at the top, I think, to show that they had overcome natural family affections. Later we are told most of them followed Saul; but there were those who did not, and they are specially distinguished.

Ques. Hebron suggests Colossians; what does Ephesians suggest?

J.T. Colossians is a crucial epistle, and it is a great test.

Rem. I thought that in Hebron you get the full

purpose of God, which would be portrayed in Ephesians.

J.T. David's history extends to Ephesians. He reigned seven years in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.

Rem. Of course Jerusalem had to be taken.

J.T. That is so, but it is really a detail; the battle was already won. All the tribes of Israel, it says, came to Hebron to transfer the kingdom from Saul to David. That is to say, at Hebron Saul is left for ever. He is no longer administering. Whilst Saul is administering, you cannot have the assembly functioning.

Ques. You would attribute importance to the fact that those who came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself close because of Saul, were armed with bows and arrows and could hurl stones with both the right hand and the left, and could handle the shield and buckler; it would suggest a greater form of offensive and defensive equipment than those who were armed with staves and spears?

J.T. I think so; and when you come to Hebron, you see, they know now what is needed in the way of weapons and armour; they were ready "armed for war".

Ques. What would answer to Saul today?

J.T. The will of the flesh in persons who are in office, and are influential.

Rem. The bows and stones would indicate that the conflict is carried on by combatants at a distance from each other.

J.T. It is artillery warfare.

Then in verse 16 we have a combination of Benjamites and men of Judah; these came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the hold unto David. This is a remarkable combination, because one section of it would be affiliated with Saul in their natural feelings, and the other with David. So it is very

interesting to see that these are the only ones that David challenges. Persons who are in outward relation with Christ through their parents, or other natural influence, are ever liable to be unreal; moreover they are liable to be influenced by externals. Children of the Lord's people are already in relation with Christ; they are of His brethren, in this sense, and He challenges them, for they are likely to be unreal, governed by externals, and so untrustworthy if admitted on these grounds. So David challenges them, Why did they come? "Then the Spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee". (verse 18).

Rem. Amasai first came to David, and then the Spirit came upon him.

J.T. Yes; the Spirit shows Himself in the children of the Lord's people on such occasions. Amasai is distinguished here as the leader of this group, and the Spirit comes upon him, and he speaks to David. That is the answer to any doubt we might have about anybody -- the presence of the Spirit.

Rem. I suppose anyone who can truly confess Jesus as Lord would have the Spirit.

J.T. That is right. That is what comes out in 1 Corinthians 12, where the proof, or test, is, whether one can confess Jesus as Lord. It would be by the Spirit he could do it.

Rem. It is encouraging that these people proved to be real.

J.T. It is delightful! How pleasing it must have been to David when Amasai came forward and said, "Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers".

Ques. Would not that be practically confessing David as Lord?

J.T. Yes; and you do that by the Spirit. It is not simply a form of speech, parrot-like.

Rem. Not only were their hearts completely won over to David, but they also went to those who helped him.

J.T. Quite so. They were not going to claim anything on natural lines from David; they recognised those who were there before them. But David was not slow to recognise what they were fit for; he made them captains of the band.

S.J.B.C. And while all may not be like David's mighty men, we can all be helpers of the Lord.

J.T. Quite so, they would be sons of peace, and an immense accession to the ranks of David.

P.L. If we are in a spirit that is foreign to peace, we might betray Him to His enemies.

J.T. Yes; I think that is pretty sure to happen if we come in under any natural influence; we shall be tested, and will give way. If one cannot say by the Spirit, Jesus is Lord (and of course it is for the saints to discern that it is by the Spirit), he is not qualified for the assembly.

Then you have others coming to David. In verse 19 we read, "There fell some of Manasseh to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle: but they helped them not; for the lords of the Philistines upon deliberation sent him away, saying, He will fall to his master Saul at the peril of our heads". These would typify people coming into fellowship when things were not clear. Though David was going to battle with the Philistines, yet he had accessions. It shows what an attraction David was. Outwardly there was not much to attract, but still they came. One has often heard of undesirable local conditions, and yet gathering went on; showing what an attraction the Lord is. Where God is working all difficulties are overcome.

Ques. Do we become equipped by being brought into association with Christ?

J.T. Yes; one learns by following the Lord what equipment is needed if you would have part in His war.

Ques. What might we look for in a person who has the Spirit? How can we know?

J.T. Well, you see they have confessed Jesus as Lord; and you hear how they speak to God. It is a wise thing to have people pray when you go to see them on such an errand. There may be a number of things which would indicate they had the Spirit; for example, you get a list in Galatians 5. You would look for these things.

Ques. Would you say it is by the Spirit that Christ becomes attractive to us?

J.T. The Spirit would lead one to Him. It is for the priest to discern whether one has the Spirit.

Ques. So that part of it is left with the saints?

J.T. Certainly. We may be able to tell who has the Spirit.

S.J.B.C. What you say is true; the great test is prayer. When a man opens his lips in prayer he usually shows his spiritual whereabouts.

Ques. Is it spiritual material that is built into the assembly?

J.T. Yes; I think that Luke 24 shows that though the Lord had said much to the two on the road to Emmaus in the way of expounding Scripture, and their hearts burned in them as He spoke to them, the definite spiritual touch is that they recognised Him in the breaking of bread; that was what moved them, and showed that they were a spiritual element. And when they went back to Jerusalem it was of that they spoke, not the exposition of the Scriptures, although of course this helped them also. At Jerusalem they found the eleven and those with them gathered together and that brings in what I had in mind in regard to chapter 22. The Lord having

received a cup at the passover, when He had given thanks said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves" -- that cup, I apprehend, was, so to say, the essence of what God was to Israel. Now when those two came back to the eleven and those that were with them, they were in possession, as we may say, of the thoughts of God in the Old Testament. It was all there in principle; every divine thought was there, as I may say, livingly.

Ques. And would you say then that every thought of God in connection with Israel has been handed over to the assembly?

J.T. Well, I think that is what is meant. The Lord took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves". All that God was to Israel was brought near to them in Christ, and it was for them to enjoy it. The cup was there, and the Lord received it. It was a convenient means for Him to express all that was of God for Israel; and He gave it to them and said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come". It was passed on to them.

S.J.B.C. In Matthew and Mark He does not say of the passover cup, Take this and divide it among yourselves.

J.T. No, but He does in Luke 22. Then we have the cup that is for us, for it says, "Likewise also the cup, after supper". And again in 1 Corinthians 11 we read the same words -- meaning that it was wholly separate from the passover.

Rem. The passover cup would connect with what the Lord said to the two on the way to Emmaus:

"Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded

unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" Luke 24:26, 27.

J.T. Yes, I think so. And when they came back to the gathered ones -- notice the words "gathered together", which is peculiar to Luke's record -- they would find these elements, because the eleven had all drunk into the passover cup. The Lord would bring the spirit of the Old Testament livingly before them. There never had been such a passover as this. In Acts 7 Stephen went over the ground, and traced the divine thoughts -- what God had been to Israel.

P.L. And I suppose that in his shining countenance there is evidence that his heart was knit to David. He had the spiritual touch.

J.T. Yes; what is heavenly is already reflected in him; and his message was all the more painful because he had to announce what was coming: "ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers, ye also", (Acts 7:51). The Holy Spirit had been speaking to them all the time. And I believe all that enters into the cup.

I think this chapter in Chronicles greatly helps. In the presence of it you find out where you are; whether in Ziklag, or in the stronghold in the wilderness, or at Hebron; and then there is feasting. You want to know, if you have carried over what was in the passover cup, whether you cherish the thoughts of God for His ancient people. Paul had such love for them, he says, I could wish I had been cut off for them. The Lord wept over them, and He actually was cut off because of them. One who is with God cherishes the thoughts of God in regard to His earthly people.

I believe the Lord's supper is entirely for the assembly. It is "for you", He says. He is giving it to them.

Ques. The Supper was a new institution.

J.T. Yes, an entirely new thing that He was bringing in Himself. The passover was not His

institution; He had part in it. I do not think the Lord's supper is carried over; it does not, I think, extend beyond the assembly.

Rem. It is "until he come".

J.T. As far as we are concerned that is the light in which we view it.

Rem. You would not link the new covenant with the Lord's supper in a day to come?

J.T. No. "This cup is the new covenant", He says, "in my blood, which is poured out for you".

Ques. In what way would the passover have an application to us now?

J.T. Only in the sense in which it is dealt with in 1 Corinthians 5, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, etc. That is the typical teaching. So you find in that section in 1 Corinthians that all these things happened to them as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. That is, all the dispensations of God converge on us; so we cherish them. The passover (including the unleavened bread) means that we deal with sin in ourselves.

Ques. How is He made known to us in the breaking of bread?

J.T. Well, that brings in the spiritual element that we have been speaking of. Unless I discern Himself in the memorial, I have lost the spiritual touch.

S.J.B.C. I was thinking that the cup, in Corinthians, might reach wider than the loaf. It is one loaf, one body; but the cup, according to what the Lord said to Paul, is the new testament in His blood. He does not add, "shed for you".

J.T. It is the love of God, and of course that does go beyond us necessarily. The new covenant was made "as regards" Israel, but we come into it; thus its bearing in the Lord's supper is towards us.

Ques. "Poured out for you;" would that suggest the fulness of God's love to us?

J.T. I think it gives point and application to it. It is "poured out for you;" not 'for many', as in the other gospels, but "for you". It is the love of God in its application to those who form the assembly. Luke undoubtedly wrote to confirm Paul's ministry. The new covenant is not made with the assembly, but we come into it.

Ques. Is the thought that what is connected with the assembly must be greater than the love of God known in an individual way?

J.T. Well, I think it is greater in its bearing towards us. One can understand that, because of the greatness of the assembly.

S.J.B.C. We are all baptised into one body, we have all been made to drink into one cup. That is drinking into the love of God.

J.T. Yes; and it is remarkable that it is presented to us in such a small vessel; that what is so infinitely great should be presented to us in what is externally so small. But there is enough there for the saints to drink into. We have the greatest possible thing brought near to us in what is outwardly small.

Here the Lord had the cup in His hand, and He says: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you". I think it has a bearing on the present time -- the greatest thing presented within a small compass. The word to the shepherds is, "ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger" (Luke 2:12). Now think of that! That was the wisdom of God speaking. And then Simeon takes Him in his arms while He is yet small, and he speaks of the greatest things; he says, "mine eyes have seen thy salvation" (verse 30). In the Babe he saw "a light for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel" (verse 32).

READING (2)

1 Samuel 1:21 - 28; 2: 1, 2; 3: 19 - 21

J.T. I had in mind that we might, in considering these scriptures, see how manhood according to God is developed, as in Samuel; and then manhood according to men, as in Saul. One is exercised at the present time as to the numerous local eruptions in various places, arising from personal feeling, and indicating a want of manhood according to God.

Hannah, I believe, is one who sees the need of manhood. She has priestly insight. Things seemed to be in order, outwardly, in her day; her husband went up yearly to worship and to sacrifice to Jehovah of hosts in Shiloh; religious observances were recognised; there was an official priesthood in Eli and his sons. But underneath all this there was distance from God which He felt. Hannah, representing the spiritual element underneath (for there was no ostentation about her), came in for persecution. There was opposition in Elkanah's other wife, and the exercise occasioned by this opposition brought about in Hannah the desire for a male child; so that she develops a priestly state; and that in itself brought her into persecution, for even the high priest regarded her as a drunkard.

S.J.B.C. Who do you think her adversary was?

J.T. Peninnah.

Rem. It was serious that the high priest had lost his discernment.

J.T. He regarded her as a drunkard; but she was the priest on that occasion, not Eli, for she was speaking to God. Then, moreover, she leads her husband into right lines, and the high priest as well, without any effort on her part; showing what priestly power is as it works unostentatiously; he is

led to worship God by what she says. There can be no doubt when such conditions exist, that though things may appear right externally, yet when they are looked into, and examined, we can discern that there is distance from God. The priest was accustomed to sit down, and he was a fat man. These things indicate how matters stood when the true priestly element develops in Hannah; and the product of it, Samuel, represents the priesthood in its supplicatory service, for that was a great feature of his ministry; he was marked by prayer. Now I believe all these local sorrows arise from want of growth.

P.L. Men are trustworthy. The Lord speaks to the Father of "the men whom thou gavest me" (John 17:6).

J.T. Yes; He had the men with Him. They were the main theme of His prayer, because they were to be responsible in His absence. So it will be found that in every movement of God, He begins with full maturity.

Rem. He began with Adam in full maturity.

J.T. Yes; he never was a boy. The animals were brought to him "to see what he would call them". His full maturity was manifested. Whatever Adam called a living creature that was its name. And so with Noah, and right down the line it will be found, until we arrive at the Lord Himself, that God operates on the basis of maturity, or full growth.

Rem. Hannah's faith is signally emphasised here. She had faith, and her request was granted, and she names the boy Samuel, that is, 'asked of God'.

J.T. And then you see how spiritual instincts should show themselves; she would not take him up to the house of Jehovah, to Shiloh, until he was weaned; she would not have him depend upon nature when she places him in the house of Jehovah. That is not where the parent will hold a claim on his child; when he places him in the house of God he

is not to be dependent on natural supplies. So Hannah waives her maternal rights; she hands him over entirely.

Rem. One thinks of David's words in Psalm 131:2 in connection with this incident: "Surely I have restrained and composed my soul, like a weaned child with its mother: my soul within me is as a weaned child".

S.J.B.C. She loans him to the Lord and He gives her good interest, five hundred per cent, so to speak:; three sons and two daughters. What we lend to the Lord always proves a good investment!

J.T. And she brings him up to the house of Jehovah at Shiloh, and with him three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a flask of wine, which indicates feelings of priestly appreciation. Notice, she takes them up; it is not her husband now.

S.J.B.C. The bullocks would suggest the burnt-offering, and the flour the meat-offering, and the wine, of course, would be the drink-offering.

J.T. You can see what an appreciation she had of what was suitable to Jehovah.

Rem. She did not bring forward the priestly food till he was weaned.

J.T. Well, I think that indicates that he was now to be nourished on spiritual lines. One of the most painful things amongst the saints is to see the exercise of natural influence. Hannah relinquished that in refusing to bring him up until he was weaned. Natural influences interfere with the formation of the Spirit, so that in result we have babes, and fleshly-or carnal-mindedness, and personal feelings arise in that state, which is the very opposite of what is according to God.

Ques. Might not that state exist in one who has been a long time on the way, as well as in a babe|?

J.T. The carnal state is the babe state, even though it be an old person. This marked those at

Corinth: "I, brethren, have not been able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as to fleshly; as to babes in Christ", the apostle says, "for ye are yet carnal", 1 Corinthians 3:1 - 3.

S.J.B.C. Trouble has often arisen from leaders disagreeing. In such cases would you say it is really a return to infantile conditions?

Ques. Do you suggest that Eli's failure was due to self-indulgence?

J.T. Well, he sat on the seat at the door-post of the temple of Jehovah. That is not the posture of a priest. The priest standeth in the house of the Lord. Then Eli was a fat man; he lived to be ninety-eight years of age, but that in itself was not a credit to him; his eyes were set, that he could not see, he was old and heavy, and "he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died" (1 Samuel 4:18). All this indicates the opposite of a true priestly state in Eli.

Rem. In bringing the bullocks, Hannah's outlook was a right one; the coming in of Christ was the ultimate point in view.

J.T. Yes. She also brought to Shiloh a supply of priestly food.

Rem. I would like to hear you say something about the three bullocks.

J.T. It was her great appreciation of what was due to God. It is a very interesting point, because it refers to the largeness of her outlook.

Rem. It is very strikingly in contrast with the outward state of things at the time. And then Samuel was coming in.

J.T. Yes, to prepare the way for the king; because in her prayer -- although it says she prayed, she really worshipped God -- she says, "Jehovah ... will give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed" (1 Samuel 2:10). The second chapter shows what the three bullocks mean, in her beautiful tribute,

poetic indeed as it is; it was the outgoing of her heart in appreciation of Jehovah. And then you have the flour, which would balance that -- her apprehension of the perfect humanity of Christ.

Now those are the elements that build up a man according to God. And the wine, the drink-offering, is what makes glad the heart of God and man. Her offering contemplates a delightful state of things in the presence of God; her soul is in direct relation to God, in plenty and in joy.

Ques. Would you say, typically, she went from Ziklag to Hebron?

J.T. Well, just so. In her prayer she discerns that the priest is to walk before Jehovah's anointed. She has a prophetic understanding of what is coming in.

Ques. How do you account for the fact that neither the weakness of Eli nor the bad state of his sons turns her from relinquishing her son?

J.T. I think she knew God. She was dealing with Jehovah really. If she had been governed by the ordinary religious feelings of the day she would probably have made her request to Eli; but she does not do that, she makes her request to Jehovah direct, and the offerings speak of her appreciation of Jehovah. That is the secret of deliverance. However feeble the priestly element may be, you can have direct relations with God, direct access to God.

Ques. Does she not appear to ignore what was there?

J.T. She was not quarrelling with what was there, but she was dealing with God; that was her concern.

Ques. Would it be like Psalm 84:7 "They go from strength to strength; each one will appear before God in Zion"? There everything but God was eliminated from her soul.

J.T. Quite so.

P.L. The man of God is told to "Remember Jesus

Christ raised from among the dead, of the seed of David" (2 Timothy 2:8). Is the ideal of manhood, Jesus Christ, raised from among the dead?

J.T. Yes, that order of Man; He is approved of God as raised from among the dead. Resurrection is the evidence of divine approval: "God ... giving the proof of it to all in having raised him from among the dead" (Acts 17:30, 31). He was heard, it says, "from the horns of the buffaloes" (Psalm 22:21).

We are dwelling upon Hannah, however; she represents that priestly element which is unobtrusive, yet nevertheless produces results; so that her offerings have their counterpart in her prayer in chapter 2.

S.J.B.C. Would you say that for the formation of Christ and the reaching of manhood there would be personal exercises, and then the appreciation of Christ would be set forth in the offerings?

J.T. Yes. And although you may not be able to do much, you have the divine thought before you; you see that it is God's way to use full manhood. That is a principle He begins all His dispensations with -- full maturity. Christianity is not a development; it is perfection at the beginning. Hence everything is to be according to that which was from the beginning. So God would bring about maturity, and then work. And those who love God would have it that way. Normally the brethren do not commit themselves to babes; they wait for a man. Before the brethren at Antioch committed themselves to Saul of Tarsus he was a year there with Barnabas.

S.J.B.C. And then in 1 Corinthians 10:15, Paul says, "I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say". And again in 1 Corinthians 14:20 he says, "in your minds be grown men".

Ques. Do not we come into it?

J.T. We are brought to what God began with, as we see in 1 John. It involves growth in us until we

arrive at the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. It is a perfect idea at the outset. And so you find here that "Samuel grew before Jehovah" (verse 21); then in verse 26 it says, "The boy Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with Jehovah and also with men;" and then finally in chapter 3: 19 we read: "And Samuel grew, and Jehovah was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground". You do not get that said of him until he reaches maturity. Here the references to his growth end.

S.J.B.C. There was a time in his history when it is said of Samuel that he did not yet know Jehovah. The apostle speaks in Colossians 1:10 of "growing by the true knowledge of God", not exactly in the knowledge of God (though I suppose we really do grow in knowledge, that is, so far as doctrine is concerned), but growing by the true knowledge of God.

Rem. All this took time; so the outward situation would become very exercising, occasioned by the weakness that existed.

J.T. That is what comes out in chapters 2 and 3. There had to be patience in waiting for Samuel. But in chapter 2 we read of a man of God, indicating that whilst God waits for maturity He is not without resource; things have not to rest until Samuel grows; God ever has resources.

Rem. We can accept the outward state of things, in the light of what God is doing at the moment.

J.T. Yes; and you will always find that God has resources. Here in verse 27 we read, "there came a man of God to Eli". His name is not mentioned, but he is a man of God, available to Him while Samuel is growing.

The young believer grows in the house, and as he grows the saints are interested in him; he is not yet entrusted with anything, but as he goes on growing his circumstances become enlarged, and he is allowed more latitude.

S.J.B.C. The fact is he is developing spiritually in the house. Samuel learned a great deal of what was outside, no doubt; but the soul is developed in the house.

J.T. The mother takes notice of that. It is a yearly matter. You cannot notice a day's growth, or a week's, but you can notice the growth of a year, though God can notice the most minute growth. The maternal side is seen here; she comes every year with a little coat. There is a certain amount of latitude given to a young preacher, but as he increases in growth he knows better how to preach. It is a great mistake to entrust young believers with anything prematurely; the better way is to wait until manhood is developed. But, you may say, what shall we do in the meantime? God has His resources! Here is a man of God, and he must have grown, somewhere, though we are not told where; we are told, however, that he was a man of God and in introducing him thus the Spirit is indicating to us that God has His resources.

Ques. Would you kindly say a little more about not entrusting anything prematurely to young believers?

J.T. Well, I mean that God commits or entrusts things to those who are fully grown. The Lord Himself is a good example of it. You see Him in the temple at the age of twelve years desiring to look after His Father's business: "did ye not know", He says, "that I ought to be occupied in my Father's business?" (Luke 2:49), but He does not take up the work until He is thirty years of age. And He was conscious of that, because you have it recorded in Luke 3:23, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old". That is more than merely an historical reference; it is, I think, an allusion to conscious manhood. Of course He was ever divinely perfect; but Scripture presents maturity in manhood.

Ques. How would full growth spiritually be indicated outwardly?

J.T. In manly qualities. You can put away "malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envyings and all evil speakings" (1 Peter 2:1), and all that belongs to a babe, and you are able to take account of everything that comes up in a broad way. A babe looks at a thing from one side, but a man would look at it from every point of view, and judge righteous judgment. I think it is most important to see that the service of God has not to wait till the young brother is developed or fully grown. The man of God was there, and he represents God's resources. So you may rely upon it that God will always have His resources; He is never without someone to represent Him and His interests. Here you get things grouped together to show how God meets a condition like this. Samuel is not told to tell Eli of the mind of God; he only tells Eli what Jehovah said when pressed by him. Nor does he rebuke Eli; it was the man of God who did that, as we read, commencing at verse 27, "there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, Thus saith Jehovah;" and in the verses that follow you have an arraignment of Eli and his house. An awful condition of things existed which did not altogether appear outwardly; but it was now being exposed.

Rem. It is encouraging, I think, to see that in a day of ruin like that, God had a man who would go and speak to Eli the word of the Lord. It is remarkable, too, that he is nameless.

Ques. Would what we read at the beginning of chapter 3 exercise us as to continuation?

J.T. Yes. You see before this man of God is introduced it says, "the boy Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with Jehovah and also with men". He is coming on now, and nearing the point where he can be trusted; God speaks to him, and reveals

His word to him; He tells him about Eli and Eli's house; He entrusts him with His mind. One has no power unless one has a communication from the Lord. A communication from the Lord cannot be gainsaid. It becomes apparent that a brother is not speaking from himself. It is one of the most interesting and important things conceivable to receive a communication from God, and that is what comes out in Samuel. The point is, he began to be trustworthy. There are very few that are trustworthy in this respect.

Rem. Mary Magdalene would be one of them in Christianity.

J.T. Yes; and in 1 Corinthians 6:5 you have the same thing. Paul has to say, "Thus there is not a wise person among you". It would appear that there had been no growth there.

Ques. Would you say that maturity is reached in some before others? David was a young man.

J.T. Yes; he matured early evidently, and was considered an old man at the age of seventy years. The question is whether one serves one's own generation by the will of God.

S.J.B.C. We are told that the word of the Lord was scarce in those days, and the eyes of God's priest began to wax dim, and the lamp in God's house was burning low. It seems to be the breakdown of the priestly element.

J.T. Young brethren ought to see what God would use; to see the divine way there must be maturity. If one is thrust into service while he is a babe, the inevitable result is that he breaks down. I have to grow, and I have, so to speak, to get so many little coats; there is growing and coming into favour with God and with men.

Ques. Would you say that the coat does not suggest restriction, but rather the thought of maternal care?

J.T. It is an evidence of maternal care. The coat

would not retard growth, it would make room for it.

Ques. How are we to understand what is written about babes having the unction in 1 John?

J.T. That refers to the fact that they have the Spirit. It means that you are not going to listen to men. It is most important that young believers should know that. You are there reminded that you are not to listen to men, or to antichrist.

Ques. What is to be learned from the fact that God spoke to Samuel three times?

J.T. Well, I think that would show how patient God is. He waits on young men and young women; He will cause His voice to be heard. He is patient with all. Here He says, "Samuel, Samuel". Now He gets his ear, and He speaks to him; He is communicating a most important thing to him, He is unfolding to him the actual situation as it exists. Think of what it must have been to Samuel to learn that Eli and his sons were such as they were! But the point to be specially observed here is, that Samuel had a divine communication. And in the morning he proceeded with his ordinary work; he opened the doors of the house of Jehovah, and it says he feared to declare the vision to Eli. That was becoming. There is no haste nor unseemly energy. His behaviour was most becoming in a young person!

Rem. There was no thought in Samuel of displacing Eli.

J.T. Not at all. There was no pride in his heart, no desire to rival him. Then after this you find that he grew. Now he is beginning to speak. I think this reference to his growth (1 Samuel 3:19) would indicate that he was mature, because not only does it say that he grew, but that Jehovah was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. That is to say, God is with you for service, and the first thing is that your words have some weight with your brethren.

You are not saying something you have borrowed; you have it yourself, and there is weight in what you say.

P.L. You have taken character from the One who speaks with authority, and not as the scribes.

J.T. Exactly; and when such is the case, as it says of Samuel, God will let none of your words fall to the ground. Jehovah is giving him weight amongst the saints; there is power with him.

Rem. Samuel was instructed of Eli.

J.T. Well, there is much in an old brother that is helpful, and there was much in Eli; he reproved his sons and was concerned for the safety of the ark; and God would take account of that. The Holy Spirit recognises what is commendable in him. God would never overlook anything that is commendable. God's communication to Samuel was more or less a secret one: it was to furnish him for service. It is essential that one should have the mind of God about a situation in which he is to serve.

Rem. Samuel kept nothing back from Eli.

J.T. There is transparency with him, and Eli bows to what was said. I do not think the words of Samuel were to expose Eli. The man of God had exposed all to him. You can understand Samuel having the mind of Jehovah about the environment in which he was set. From the light he had got from God as to Eli and his house, he would never expect recovery for that order of things.

S.J.B.C. Prophecy began with Samuel, "all the prophets from Samuel and those in succession after him ... announced also these days" (Acts 3:24). The prophets speak with convincing power, "all Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, knew that Samuel was established a prophet of Jehovah".

J.T. You see in these instances how God helps the young brothers; you have the mother, and the influence of the house of God, but now in view of

service God Himself comes in. And how beautiful the stages of progress; first he is growing in favour with God and man, and then he gets the revelation to fortify him, that he might know that existing conditions are such that it is hopeless to look for recovery in that direction, and that God has to begin over again. So you find Samuel beginning in Mizpah -- not in Shiloh; (1 Samuel 7:6). Jehovah lets none of his words fall to the ground; He gives weight to his words among the people.

Ques. To refer back for a moment, would what was expressed in Hannah's offering need to be maintained all along?

J.T. It was maintained from her side. She would never ask Samuel back. These are principles that every young brother should take a note of, because the need of service is very great. God will give you a message. He will reveal Himself in some way so that you may see how things are; and then He says, as it were, I will give you a word for the brethren, and every one will recognise that it is right, so that it will not fall to the ground. How often our words do fall to the ground!

Rem. So that we have to recognise what a young brother has got from the Lord.

J.T. Yes, that is right.

Ques. Is it necessary to first gain the confidence of our brethren if you are to help them?

J.T. That is what comes out here. Samuel was in favour with God and man.

Rem. When Timothy is first mentioned, it is said he was well reported of amongst the brethren.

Ques. What is meant, exactly, by the statement that Samuel's words did not fall to the ground? Is it that his words were carried out?

J.T. They were resultful. And it goes on to say that he was recognised from Dan even to Beer-sheba as a prophet. Because levitical service is never

restricted to a locality; gift is always general. God has set certain in the assembly. To regard gift as local makes for metropolitanism. A man's gift is to be known from Dan to Beersheba, so to say.

P.L. Is that why the revelation is given from Shiloh?

J.T. Quite so. The Lord appeared again in Shiloh; for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh, by the word of the Lord. This shows that there was an additional revelation, which we may expect in such cases.

P.L. Jehovah's revelations are made at Shiloh; that is to say, they are not made for a locality; the disclosures God makes to one whom He has gifted are for the whole assembly.

Rem. Shiloh was where the ark was.

Rem. You were saying something with regard to local eruptions.

J.T. Well, it is a very humbling thing that there should be such. The enemy would seem to be generally forcing his attacks on this line at present; and it appears to me that the Lord would meet that by calling attention to spiritual manhood. Manhood would meet such a situation. Where personal feelings are manifested it indicates that there is a want of growth; a carnal state exists.

Ques. But may not eruptions be caused apart from personal feelings?

J.T. I doubt it, if they are local. The enemy may of course attack general principles, or doctrine; but I think local eruptions are generally due to personal feelings.

Ques. Did the attack of the enemy at Corinth come through the allowance of personal feelings?

J.T. Just so; Paul charges them with being babes, and he could not speak to them as to men. They were divided into parties, each having its leader.

S.J.B.C. They were making service an object, because of the distinction it brought.

Ques. Would the way in which Paul was attacked at Corinth suggest personal feeling?

J.T. No doubt. There was a spirit of rivalry, "his letters, he says, are weighty and strong, but his presence in the body weak, and his speech naught" (2 Corinthians 10:10).

Rem. It may be they had personal feelings against Paul for some time before they gave expression to them.

Rem. In cases of difficulty, as you were pointing out, God has His resource. So we can wait upon Him for the development of a man of God.

J.T. Yes; but in the meantime He has got a man of God available. The nameless man of God in Scripture would represent the resource that God has, while you may be waiting for some distinct movement in the work and testimony of God.

P.L. Would you say that Paul represents the idea of manhood in the two epistles to Corinthians? Sosthenes had suffered for the testimony, was not he a picture of manhood? And Timothy also?

J.T. Just so. I think that if there had been a developed man at Corinth, Paul would have called attention to him. He sends Timothy that they may learn in him the apostle's ways as they were in Christ.

P.L. Paul says of Timothy in Philippians 2:20 - 22, "I have no one likeminded who will care with genuine feeling how ye get on ... But ye know the proof of him, that, as a child a father, he has served with me in the work of the glad tidings".

So that all care in the assemblies is entrusted to those who are mature.

READING (3)

1 Samuel 7

J.T. In undertaking to consider this book, the thought was that we might see how a man according to God is developed; and then, when difficulties arise, to see how man according to man is developed. The first is seen in Samuel; the second in Saul. Our inquiry this morning led us to the beginning of chapter 4, where Samuel is seen as matured, and recognised from Dan to Beersheba. Chapter 1 shows the conditions obtaining in Israel which led to this development that we see in Samuel. It was pointed out that God always begins with what is mature, or full grown.

Ques. When you refer to full growth, is that in view of taking up the service of God?

J.T. That is what appears here. It says in 1 Samuel 3:19, "Samuel grew, and Jehovah was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground". We have no more reference to his growth, so that evidently he had reached maturity there. Already he was in possession of the mind of God in regard to Eli, and Eli's house; and now the Lord is with him, and lets none of his words fall to the ground. His service is beginning, and God is helping him so that he should acquire recognition amongst those whom he served; hence it says, "All Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel was established a prophet of Jehovah" (verse 20).

Ques. Would this thought of maturity apply to us, for do we not all continue to grow?

J.T. Yes; we never cease to grow in one sense, but there is what is termed perfection in Scripture:

"As many therefore as are perfect" (Philippians 3:15) -- which alludes to the development of the senses, of

which there are five, and these should develop uniformly.

S.J.B.C. And we read in Hebrews 5:14, that "solid food belongs to full-grown men, who, on account of habit, have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil".

J.T. Yes. I should take the growth that we are dealing with here to be represented by the class called "young men" in 1 John 2. Now after we have Samuel established, and recognised a prophet in Israel, we have three chapters in which he does not appear, namely, chapters 4, 5 and 6.

Ques. What is the significance of that?

J.T. To show, I think, that God can take care of His testimony under all circumstances. In chapter 3 we have a man of God whilst Samuel was growing up; and then we have Samuel fully matured, and recognised as a prophet; then the ark is captured, and what comes out in this chapter would, I think, teach us that God can look after His testimony, even using instruments to this end that He has not formed. So we see the ark restored, and restored on spiritual lines; it is restored by oxen which, contrary to nature, left their young behind, and are offered up in sacrifice.

Ques. Would anything answer to the ark being in captivity now?

J.T. It may be viewed in two ways: first, it refers to Christ personally delivered up to His enemies, but triumphing over them; and then, I think, it may be regarded as representing the testimony of Christ in a more extended way, even down to our own time. Paganism was overthrown by it; and reinstated paganism was overthrown by the testimony in Europe. It was first overthrown externally, but the stump remained; it fell on its face, and it was set up again; then its head was broken off, and its hands, so that the stump remained; but instead of

those responsible being humbled by such a result, they became more darkened, they became superstitious. There was light in the overthrow of Dagon for all; it was God's act, but it was never bowed to really. Instead of bowing to the powerful intervention of God, men grew superstitious, and instead of breaking down the whole system, seeing that God was against it, they became more darkened. That, indeed, is what we see around us at the present time, but nevertheless God withdraws not His hand until the ark is restored, and in a measure restored on spiritual lines.

S.J.B.C. I suppose the former operation teaches us more strictly the knowledge and the power of the enemy, overthrown, of course, when they cut off the head of Saul and sent it into the land of the Philistines round about, to announce the glad tidings in the houses of their idols. The idols did not fall down on that occasion.

J.T. This passage is alluded to in Psalm 78:61 - 66 He "gave his strength into captivity, and his glory into the hand of the oppressor; And delivered up his people unto the sword, and was very wroth with his inheritance: The fire consumed their young men, and their maidens were not praised in nuptial song; Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows made no lamentation. Then the Lord awoke as one out of sleep, like a mighty man that shouteth aloud ... and put them to everlasting reproach". We have here, however, a more extended thought, which comes down to the present time. What we have to see, I think, is the pagan system, which has been retained in some measure; the head and the hands were broken off, but nevertheless the stump remained, and with it superstition (verse 5), which is one of the most darkening things in the world.

Ques. Would you open up a little what you have in mind regarding the restoration of the ark? I

think you suggested it was restored on spiritual lines, the oxen returning with it and leaving their young behind.

J.T. Well, you see in chapter 5 the history of the overthrow of Dagon, and the governmental act of God in smiting the Philistines with hemorrhoids. The god of this world was dealt with by the testimony, but the persons who were supporting idolatry are attacked governmentally. These are extended thoughts, but they are necessary for every one who serves, and indeed every Christian, to have before him, that he may know how God deals with the darkness of this world to make a way for the testimony. How far-reaching and how powerful His way is! And yet here there is neither Levite, priest, nor prophet in evidence. It is God dealing with the situation Himself, God and the ark, and then in the governmental act, the hemorrhoids attacked everybody. He is dealing with men severally in relation to His testimony; and this leads to a serious taking into account of things. The ark is sent from city to city, from place to place, only to bring out this governmental act of God. "And it came to pass, when the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to kill us and our people. And they sent and gathered all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark ... For there was deadly alarm throughout the city: the hand of God was very heavy there; and the men that died not were smitten with the hemorrhoids; and the cry of the city went up to heaven" (1 Samuel 5:10 - 12).

Those who are set for the testimony can always rely on it that God will act; He will act governmentally against paganism, but He will also act directly with every man and woman who opposes Him. The governmental action here is of a secret, painful and humiliating character; it is most drastic,

but it brings about the desired result. Then the Philistines "called for the priests and the diviners, saying, What shall we do with the ark of Jehovah?" (1 Samuel 6:2). And in result these men indicate what should be done, showing how God so orders things that His will shall be carried out, whatever the conditions. The advice of these priests and diviners is very far removed in quality from Hannah's song or prayer; but nevertheless what they said indicated what God would have done. There was an acknowledgement of God, forced indeed, and not intended to indicate conversion; God, acting from Himself, was forcing things to carry out His will, without any testimony, by means of such as He found there. We may see another example of this in Balaam. God forced him to convey His mind. There are many instances one might refer to, but I just direct attention to this to indicate what God is, and what we can reckon on Him for, in such circumstances. Things can never be too bad for Him to act. He has always the means of working out His thoughts.

All this is leading up to chapter 7; it is, indeed, collateral with it. God can act even though there be neither priest nor Levite available. Samuel is there, but there is not a word about him; not a word about a prophet. God, Himself, is acting.

Rem. In this extended way He might use people who are outside, unconverted priests, and others.

J.T. God makes everything further His testimony; what these priests and diviners said is very far removed from what Hannah would say, yet it is in the right direction. They said, "If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty; ye must at any rate return him a trespass-offering: then ye shall be healed ... . Five golden hemorrhoids, and five golden mice, the number of the lords of the Philistines; for one plague is upon them all, and upon your lords ... .

Why will ye harden your heart, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their heart? When he had wrought mightily among them, did they not let them go, and they departed?" (1 Samuel 6:3 - 6). You see how these men knew what God had done, and they bring it to bear on the present position, and yet they were Philistine priests and diviners.

Ques. I suppose the trespass-offering here does not involve redemption; it is connected with government?

J.T. Well, they had an idea of a trespass-offering. Their idea was that God had to be appeased. We must not treat lightly any such ideas that men may have, for God may use them.

Rem. The golden hemorrhoids and mice would be a confession that it was the judgment of God that was upon them.

J.T. Yes; there is a full recognition of the judgment that lay upon them.

Rem. God had Samuel in the background.

J.T. Yes, God has His Samuel; but still He is acting in government to further His testimony. Through Samuel God intervenes directly, but here we have His governmental dealings.

Rem. And we need to be spiritual in order to perceive what He is doing.

Rem. He is acting in judgment in relation to the world, and Samuel would come in in relation to those who were of God. So that even in the darkest moment you have evidence that everything is being taken care o£

P.L. "Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being subjected to him" (1 Peter 3:22).

J.T. Yes; He has got control of everything, and all is actuated by Him to the furtherance of the testimony; and yet I do not believe one Christian in a hundred has any thought regarding God's governmental

activities for the preserving of the testimony. The whole world is under the government of God; every country. Samuel, on the other hand, was a vessel for the direct service of God to His people.

Ques. Would you say that the nations in their deliberations have the support and help of God?

J.T. Certainly; but, of course, not in the direct way in which His people are helped.

Rem, Then perhaps, as you were suggesting, Christians do not believe sufficiently in the government of God.

J.T. It is a great comfort to see His eternal vigilance, and His power available to support His will. Everything is forced to support the testimony.

Rem. So that we would not be depending upon the League of Nations to support it.

J.T. No. If men are acquainted with the Bible, that is well; many may be what we call 'fundamentalists', and they may defend the Bible; God is ordering that, though they might not be converted.

Rem. And we are thankful for it, and pray for them to that end.

J.T. Yes, surely.

P.L. When the people were taken captive, do you think there was a recognition of this with the prophets?

J.T. Well, Ezekiel gives dates that indicate this; he recognises the government of God; he dates from the captivity.

Rem. The priests and the diviners here recognise God in the course of events.

Rem. What you were saying yesterday regarding the passover cup would have a bearing upon this; all is preserved in the present testimony.

J.T. Yes. The diviners recognise the judgment, though they do not make any reference to Dagon. They speak of the God of Israel (verse 3), and refer to what He did in Egypt. The cart is not a spiritual

thought. You may be sure they will never fully answer to spiritual thoughts, for they are not on that line.

Ques. What would you say about the men of Beth-shemesh?

J.T. We read that they looked into the ark of Jehovah. That would be an unhallowed way of treating the things of God. The testimony had come into their hands, and theirs were not priestly hands. They were Israelites, and so should have known better.

The milch kine are a remarkable type of the Lord Himself. Forsaking their natural offspring they went along the highway, lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left. They went against nature. The more you are with God, the more you go against what is simply natural. "The cart came into the field of Joshua the Beth-shemeshite, and stood there; and a great stone was there. And they clave the wood of the cart, and offered up the kine as a burnt-offering to Jehovah". The men of Beth-shemesh were punished for looking into the ark of Jehovah. Then messengers are sent to the men of Kirjath-jearim asking them to come and fetch up the ark to that place. It was therefore brought up and placed in the house of Abinadab, and Eleazar his son was sanctified to keep it, and it remained there for twenty years.

It is to this very point that David leads in Psalm 132:6, "Behold, we heard of it at Ephratah, we found it in the fields of the wood". From this place David takes it up; and he had to learn that it must be carried in a levitical way. There is no excuse for David using the cart, or for the men of Beth-shemesh looking into the ark. When the Bible comes into our hands, and we have the Spirit, we as true Christians must not look into the ark, nor may we put it on a cart; for God deals with us according to the light

He has given us, according to our relationship with Him.

Rem. And David had to learn this afterwards, when Jehovah made a breach upon Uzzah for his error in taking hold of the ark when the oxen had stumbled.

J.T. Whilst we recognise those men whom God uses governmentally, we must be very careful not to imitate them or their methods. What God does governmentally is one thing, and what He does through His priests is another.

Ques. Could the Bible be put on a cart?

J.T. When I refer to the Bible, I refer to that which reveals the mind of God; and any human means that may be employed to further the testimony would be represented in the cart. The testimony should be presented by converted persons, by matured persons, by true Levites.

Rem. We see in Christendom how frequently the things of God are brought forward in a merely human way.

J.T. That is what marks the whole system around us -- natural ability and human learning and ceremony; whereas the priests and the Levites are supported by the Spirit of God. Paul says, "I will not dare to speak anything of the things which Christ has not wrought by me, for the obedience of the nations, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit of God; so that I, from Jerusalem, and in a circuit round to Illyricum, have fully preached the glad tidings of the Christ" (Romans 15:18, 19). He did not use a cart.

Ques. Do you think that Samuel knew well what was going on, but did not interfere?

J.T. I think it is rather that God is presenting this as another feature. We cannot be sure as to dates, but these things run together; and these

three chapters present the government of God in promoting and taking care of the testimony.

Now in chapter 7 we come back to the ark in the hands of Israel, and one sanctified to keep it; and God has His people brought back, for we read in verse 3 that "Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If ye return to Jehovah with all your heart, put away the strange gods and the Ashtoreths from among you, and apply your hearts unto Jehovah, and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. And the children of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtoreths, and served Jehovah only". You have thus the mind of the Lord directly communicated through Samuel.

Ques. Is repentance indicated in verse 6?

J.T. Yes. We are now in the presence of Samuel, through whom the mind of God is unfolded. Then the answer to that is that they pour water on the ground. Samuel does not do it; the people do it.

Rem. Samuel waits for God to act governmentally before he unfolds His mind to the children of Israel.

J.T. Yes, he acts on the results of the government of God; and so should every true servant.

S.J.B.C. Water spilt on the ground is an example of weakness, as is shown by the woman of Tekoah; (2 Samuel 14:14).

J.T. Yes. She said that as one who had the words put into her mouth, but nevertheless they are perfectly true words; she said, "we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again". But here the water is poured out before Jehovah, so that there is hope of it being gathered up. And in answer to that Samuel offers the whole burnt-offering, a sucking lamb, to Jehovah. The one is typical of what we are, and as poured out before the Lord was the acknowledgement of their state before Him; but the sucking lamb represents

the intrinsic worth of Christ as presented to God. So that we are taken up now according to this.

Ques. Would the pouring out of the water on the ground indicate that idolatry amongst them had been judged?

J.T. No doubt. It is a complete acknowledgement of their state. It indicates that they must disappear for ever as on the ground of the flesh. Man must go back into the earth whence he came. The whole burnt offering is for God; so that resurrection is the legitimate answer to that. We are gathered up again on the ground of the sacrifice of Christ. We are gathered up in resurrection. The water, as I have said, indicates what we are before God-nothing! The whole burnt-offering is what is positively for God; the intrinsic value of Christ presented wholly to God.

Rem. The sucking lamb is a very beautiful type; it suggests Christ in dependence on God.

J.T. Yes; peculiarly precious to God at that moment.

P.L. Would this suggest Philadelphia in Revelation 3:8, "Thou hast a little power, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name?" Are they gathered up now?

J.T. Quite so; and it shows the manhood of Samuel; how mature he was; how he sees God's ideal, Christ. With the mature man everything is comely and right.

Rem. He not only saw the situation, but he saw the remedy.

J.T. The state of the people is taken account of by Samuel; they had poured out the water, and he offers the lamb, and he prays. He enters into all these exercises; he is marked by dependence on God. And so God thunders on the Philistines.

S.J.B.C. Samuel subdued the Philistines by

prayer; that was something that Saul could not do with his sword.

J.T. The hand of Jehovah was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.

Ques. The moment the people humble themselves at Mizpah, the Philistines, who had sent back the ark because they had been smitten, again go to war against them. How do you view that?

J.T. As soon as brethren come together and recognise their true state before God, recognise the assembly, and what is due to the Lord, then the Philistines will turn against them.

Samuel here is on the side of the people, he conveys the mind of God to them; but he is on the side of the people when he prays for them and offers the sacrifice.

S.J.B.C. Whom do the Philistines represent? Is there not in each of us the Philistine element more or less, unless we judge it? Do you refer to persons so much as to a moral element?

J.T. Well, I think we are entitled to refer to persons -- I mean persons who are not Christians; persons who have taken up a position externally without acknowledging death on themselves. Here the people of Israel are acknowledging that death is on them, by the pouring out of the water. Now that is the very opposite to the Philistine idea. The Philistines are people of fame, people who have acquired a reputation; they will go with you to a point, but as soon as the saints come together in true humiliation and self-judgment before God, then you will find they will turn on you; they will not go so far as that.

Ques. What does the gathering to Mizpah signify in contrast to Shiloh?

J.T. I think it indicates a new point of departure. The mature man knows what is becoming, and he does not pretend to go on the old lines. God had

judged the old position. Samuel in spiritual intelligence begins anew.

Ques. The ark was not returned to Shiloh, was it?

J.T. No; it was never returned to Shiloh. Samuel makes no effort to restore the ark, or prepare a place for it. It is with him rather a question of the state of the people, and getting them through self-judgment into relation with God.

Rem. And in that way he combines the offices of prophet and priest; he intercedes.

Rem. And then in all this he is an expression of spiritual manhood.

J.T. Yes, he knows what to do; he is a man who had understanding of the times, and knew what Israel had to do. Then the Holy Spirit proceeds to tell us that Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. It is really as much as to say that God will never give this man up. Because God would occupy us with such a man as this; He would have us keep him in view, a man with whom God was well pleased.

S.J.B.C. What about these four places which Samuel visited from year to year in circuit?

J.T. That would indicate how different he was from Eli; he did not grow fat in laziness. Bethel means "the house of God". He recognised the house of God in his circuit; and at Gilgal he would recognise the judgment of God on man in the flesh -- he maintained that in his ministry. You will always find these features in a man who is with God. He will insist on the house of God, and in doing that he has to see that it is not simply local, it is universal, it includes all the saints; and he will insist on the judgment of the flesh.

Rem. He goes out from Bethel carrying the principles of the house of God.

J.T. Yes; the principles of the house of God are maintained really in the visit to Gilgal. Because

you do get encouragement among the saints in serving them, but then you have to be careful lest you become elated; therefore you go to Gilgal. And so you see it is "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts" (Zechariah 4:6). To the apostle He says, "My power is perfected in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12:9).

Ques. What is the significance of the stone being set between Mizpah and Shen, and called Eben-ezer?

J.T. The word Eben-ezer means, 'hitherto hath the Lord helped us'. How beautiful it is to see that a man of such power as Samuel does not attribute anything to himself; it is all what God is doing. One could understand that Samuel would love to have that stone near to the centre of his operations.

I think Mizpah would institute a new beginning. There is no command what to do. It was on Samuel's own initiative, but evidently God was with him in it.

Rem. It was wonderful that he could say what he did, when the ark had not come back.

J.T. Yes, a brother might come to him and say, Well, Samuel, you seem to have, got something of your own, you do not recognise tradition, you do not recognise the fathers. But, Samuel says, look at that stone; God is with us! If God is with us, what can be said? There was abundant evidence that He was with Israel now -- the Philistines were subdued.

Rem. The Lord is here dealing with the enemies in a public way; you were directing attention to the fact that previously He had been dealing with them in a secret way.

J.T. Yes; now He is thundering on them. What can you do in the presence of thunder? It is overwhelming! So there is the complete defeat of the Philistines. And that is what Samuel recognises. If anybody questions the new movement, he could say, Well, there is the power, and who can deny it?

Ques. What would you say would be a corresponding indication in our day?

J.T. The power of God is the great thing. Of course you have the doctrine, but the convincing thing is the power of God, and you cannot get away from that.

P.L. You find that illustrated in Stephen. They could not withstand the power with which he spoke, and he was bringing in what was new.

J.T. Quite so; and his face was like that of an angel. They could not contend with him; they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke.

Now the last -of the places mentioned in the circuit, that our brother has called attention to, is Ramah. That is where Samuel's house was. He judged Israel where his house was. One's house has to be right for this. I suppose Ramah signifies elevation. I think it is an allusion to what is morally elevated in what is specially the Lord's own immediate circle. It says, "there he built an altar to Jehovah". So you have an order of things there in which God is fully owned. Samuel's altar at Ramah would indicate the place God had with him. If Samuel's house had not been in order, he could not have gone round on circuit.

Rem. It says, "There was peace between Israel and the Amorites". It reminds one of Proverbs 16:7: "When a man's ways please Jehovah, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him".

THE GRACE OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION

Luke 4:33, 34; 5: 1 - 11

I am impressed at this time with the grace of the present dispensation; the grace in which God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, presents the testimony in this our era; and it is my desire that you all may be impressed with it. Luke is specially intended to convey this grace to us. It is he who tells us (quoting the Lord), that the glad tidings should be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem; and in that statement is wrapt up the grace to which I have alluded. Further, he tells us that the apostles who should present the gospel, were to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they would be clothed with power from on high. I need not say they were equal to the clothing that would descend upon them; they were not babes; heaven knew their measure; and as having grown up under the influence and culture of the Lord, they were equal in their constitution and growth to the heavenly clothing.

You will remember how the mantle of Elijah fell from him as he ascended into heaven; and Elisha, the vessel through whom the testimony was to be set forth, took it up, and, rending his own garment, appropriated it. He had been under Elijah's tutorship, and he recognised that the clothes which he had worn while at school would not be suitable when he faced the sphere of his testimony here; so he takes up Elijah's mantle, and appropriates it. The disciples had been, so to speak, at school. I think it is well for young people to consider this matter. Young Levites were permitted to enter upon a sort of apprenticeship at the age of twenty-five years, but they were not to take up their levitical work strictly

until they attained the age of thirty; then it was that the clothing suitable for public service was put on. Even our Lord Jesus Christ led the way in this, for, though perfect in every stage here, the heavens were opened on Him at the age of thirty, and the Holy Spirit came down in the bodily form- of a dove, and abode upon Him; and it was in that garment, so to say, He went forth to testify, and this chapter tells us that He returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit.

So, correspondingly, His disciples whom He had taught were to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until clothed with power from on high. They were not morally inferior to the clothes. You will remember, when Peter stood up, how beautifully they sat upon him. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came down in the form of cloven tongues as of fire, and sat upon each of them. Each one would therefore be conscious of what had come down. And if the Holy Spirit sat on each there would be that deliberation, that restfulness, which is befitting levitical work. Peter stands up with the eleven, and in his heavenly clothing he presents the glad tidings. It is the only clothing becoming to a servant of Christ. We may see around us people wearing religious habiliments, but they are not in keeping with the heavenly garments. Heavenly garments alone befit the message that is to be presented. And so, reverting to our Lord as having received the Holy Spirit, Luke tells us that He descended in a bodily form upon Him pointing to the fact that the Spirit did not come in part, but in entirety. Think of the grace and power wrapt up in the presence of the Holy Spirit in that bodily way!

This is the dispensation of all dispensations, in the mind of God. The Holy Spirit has come in in His entirety; a divine Person has come in, and the testimony is to be presented in its fulness, and in all

the grace and power involved in the presence of the Spirit. Our Lord Jesus Christ being divine, being equal with the Father, was alone equal to such clothing. Coming in at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit sat on each of the hundred and twenty. It was a collective idea, but each one was taken account of. Whereas the Holy Spirit came in a bodily form on our Lord, and only on Him in a bodily form.

It is in taking these things in, dear brethren, that we get some idea of the initial presentation of the testimony in the gospel.

So, in keeping with what I have been saying, the Lord is seen in the synagogues, in this evangelist. He, of course, is also seen operating in the synagogues in the other evangelists, but pre-eminently in Luke you will find Him there. And I wish to show that His operations are carried on in relation to men in this world, first in the religious sphere, then in the domestic sphere, and finally in the business sphere.

Now I dwell on the religious sphere first. What you find in this evangelist is that the Lord returns into Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and He came to Nazareth where He was brought up, and entered into the synagogue. I mention this point about the synagogue because it represents man in his religious relations; and these religious relations were hostile. It is in that connection that you see the grace to which I have alluded.

The Lord invades the religious sphere, notwithstanding its known hostility. You will remember that the sequel to the first synagogue visit was that all that were in it were enraged; not as they came out of it, but in it. Was the Lord not aware of the innate opposition to Him in the religious world? He was; but nevertheless He went into the synagogue according to His custom. He would invade the religious sphere; He would show the magnitude of the grace that overcame the murderous opposition that existed

in the religious sphere. Notwithstanding that opposition, He brings out and establishes the dispensation in its religious features in the synagogue in Nazareth.

And what I would remark is that whatever exercises there may be about the religious world, we must bear in mind that God operates in it; that He has got a right to operate in it; that it is in keeping with the dispensation that He should operate in it, and that His operation in it is the very expression of the grace of the dispensation. So you find that in the synagogue there is a Bible. I thank God for the presence of the Bible. If I were to go into a Turkish mosque I should not find a Bible there; if I were to go into a pagan temple in China there would be no Bible there; but in many of the so-called churches of this country, and of Europe, there are Bibles; and surely we should thank God for those Bibles. For the placing of Bibles in such places could not be attributed to the enemy; the open Bible in Europe is not the work of the enemy, it is the work of God. It involved tremendous conflict to obtain liberty that the Bible should be appointed to be read in churches. Is it nothing that it is read there? It is indeed otherwise. I do not propose to read it in churches, but nevertheless the Bible is there, and the Bible is read, and where the Bible is read God can operate, and He does operate. He is greater than the op position of the religious system.

And so it says they handed Him the Scriptures. He did not bring a Bible in as far as we can see, there was one there. And He stood up for to read, and found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me". Think of that! There was in the synagogue that which witnessed to, Christ. "He found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach glad tidings to the poor; he has sent me to preach to captives deliverance,

and to the blind sight, to send forth the crushed delivered, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:17 - 19). Was that not wonderful! He read it. The passage had never been read before like that; doubtless it had been often read before, but never like that. And then He sat down; as if He was inaugurating the dispensation. He sat down, having read that text; it was selected by Himself as governing the dispensation. You cannot limit that text; it may be read anywhere; and wherever it is read, God is with the reading. It does not appear there were any results, but there was a testimony. Thank God for the testimony! He sat down and began to say to them, "To-day this scripture is fulfilled in your ears". If not in their hearts, it was fulfilled in their ears. There was a testimony. God is wondrously interested in His testimony. Presently they were enraged, because He spoke the truth. Nevertheless there was a testimony.

Well, now, He spoke to them, and as they listened to His words they were enraged, "and rising up they cast him forth out of the city, and led him up to the brow of the mountain on which their city was built, that they might throw him down the precipice". How dreadful to contemplate the innate opposition there is to Christ in the religious world! But God is greater than the opposition, and in His grace rises above man's wickedness, and continues the testimony.

Then the Lord comes to Capernaum, and again enters a synagogue, and now He finds a man with an unclean demon. Think of that in a synagogue! In the official religious meeting place, as you may say, of the town, there is a man with an unclean demon. The Lord rebukes the demon. The grace of God, you see, moves on in its majesty from synagogue to synagogue. And the demon comes out, and he comes out without hurting the poor man! Such is the gracious consideration of God, that the demon is

ejected, and no harm accrues to the man. You see how complete is the power in the hands of God. The man is unharmed, and he is relieved of the unclean demon. Now such is the presentation of grace in the religious world. I dwell upon it because I see and find in my own heart the tendency to narrowness, to limit the operations of God. God is operating; He is operating everywhere. You may say, Why don't we go to these places? The answer is very simple -- the servant has to obey; and I should not go to these places. What the Master may do is another matter. He has got rights; He has got ways and means. The servant's part is to do what he is told to do. "Obedience is better than sacrifice, Attention than the fat of rams" (1 Samuel 15:22). We may not be able to cope with the murderous hostility that exists in these systems, but the Lord can, and He can rescue the souls of men notwithstanding those conditions, and He is doing it.

I next touch on the domestic sphere. And here we do not find the same opposition. I have no difficulty about going into any family, if the door be open. The Lord left the synagogue, we are told, and entered into Simon's house, who was potentially a great servant, but this fact was only known to the Lord at the moment, and his wife's mother was taken with a great fever. There can be no doubt that the enemy had an eye on Peter at this early stage, and divine discipline doubtless required that there should be a person in his house in this state, for he was already in the school of God. The greater the service one has to enter upon, the greater the privilege, the greater the discipline; and the discipline in having a mother-in-law with a great fever in the house, would be considerable. It is a very serious matter beloved friends, when Satan can operate in our houses. She was not possessed with a demon; things are not so serious but nevertheless there was that there which

would preclude all peaceful and restful service Godward or manward. And it says that the Lord stood over her. It does not say He stood over the man in the synagogue, but He stood over the woman in Simon's house.

The secret, I believe, of all household difficulties lies in insubjection. And here is a Man with all divine authority vested in Him, standing over her. She never had such an experience as that before. Peter could not have stood over her with any measure of moral weight evidently, for he was not right himself. No one can have moral weight in his house until he learns to judge himself. No one can rule another until he learns to judge himself. He who rules his own spirit is greater than he who takes a city. But the Lord was here in holy subjection to God, and in Him was vested all the authority of God; and He stood over her, and rebuked the fever, and it left her. We need that, dear brethren. The Lord is operating in the domestic sphere, and what He would bring about is subjection. So the fever left her, and she stood up and served them. How immense was the help to Simon, that the Lord had brought in, in such a striking manner; the element of authority. The fever leaves her, and she stood up to serve. You have to stand up; it is no time for laziness; it is a time of service, and you have got to stand up.

Now, finally, I touch on the business sphere. In the next chapter there is great interest. The people are crowding to hear the word of God. There is very great interest in preaching at the present time, but is there anyone to present the testimony? One has the feeling that the businesses of the brethren are standing in the way, and the testimony suffers. You know business is a most insidious thing; it is usually entered on to make money; it may be in some cases to make a livelihood, but business usually opens up to moneymaking. And here are men in

business: Simon Peter, and James and John; they are partners. I suppose they would enlarge their business by entering into partnership. But the people were crowding on the Lord to hear the word of God; that which is of supreme interest to heaven -- the word of God. The people are hungering and thirsting for it. And the Lord enters into Simon's ship and He requests him that he would thrust out a little from the land; and He sat down and taught the people.

Teaching is a tedious matter; it is a matter that requires deliberation. By the space of three years Paul taught at Ephesus. Teaching requires deliberation; and the Lord Jesus sat down and taught the people. But in doing this He was within the radius of Peter's business affairs. Some would eliminate divine things from their business, making their business one thing, and the Lord's things another. But the Lord invades Peter's business affairs; He sat down and taught the word of God in Peter's boat.

If I am not right in my business affairs, I cannot be right in the house of God, nor can I have any part in the teaching; and this is the lesson Peter has to learn, if he is to be the great leader in the service. The Lord invaded Peter's business affairs when business was bad. There can be no doubt that mercy lies behind poor business. God has His own designs to work out through the depression of business. There were empty boats, but the owners of the boats were washing their nets. That is a good occupation -- washing your affairs. You know if you go into the business world, it is full of filth. The nets have to be washed; our business affairs have to be washed, and we have got to attend to the washing. Peter and his partners were doing that. So far so good! But there was more to be learned than the necessity of washing the business affairs, though that surely is important.

And now the Lord finished speaking. There is something very beautiful in the way Luke presents things. There is a time to finish speaking. Long addresses are not generally profitable. The Lord finished speaking, teaching the people lesson after lesson -- wonderful things! and now He would secure Peter. You know the Lord is seeking vessels to rightly represent the dispensation, and He was set on having Peter. He had him in His mind; Peter was long foreknown. And now the Lord is in his boat; and He says, "Let down your nets for a haul". And there is the humbling acknowledgement, "Having laboured through the whole night we have taken nothing". The Lord is going to secure Peter, but He would not take him away from a bad business.

It is a poor thing when a man relinquishes his business and goes into the Lord's service when trade is bad. It is a very questionable thing to do. But if you leave a prosperous business to do so, that is another matter. The Lord would give Peter the honour of entering on the service from a good business; and so He says, "Draw out into the deep water and let down your nets for a haul ... and having done this, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes. And their net broke. And they beckoned to their partners who were in the other ship to come and help them, and they came, and filled both the ships, so that they were sinking". The partners were brought in; they had had a share in the small sales; now that they have become great they will share in the prosperity. It was a question of sharing everything! And now the servant is secured. When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees. "Jesus' knees" are peculiar to Luke. It is Luke who specially presents Jesus praying.

Now you may depend upon it, the Lord had been speaking to the Father about Peter. I do not know

of anything so encouraging as prayer. Brothers and sisters alike -- for they are all priests -- have access to God. How much may not be accomplished by an appeal even by one sister to God, to meet the situation! The Lord, according to this evangelist, was much occupied in prayer. Prayer governed everything, as one might say, and it governed Peter's confession; he fell down at Jesus' knees. He would need those knees again; the Lord would pray for him again; he says, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord". But he was at Jesus' knees. How we need the intercession of Christ as we discover our sinfulness! But the work was done; he had found out that he was a sinful man in his business affairs.

You know there are plenty of things that could be brought up in one's business affairs that would prove that one is sinful. Under no circumstances will a man be proved a sinner more easily than in his business affairs. And so in Peter's affairs he is convicted of being a sinful man. In whatever way he sinned his sinfulness had shown itself, and it was now all out; whether he had been unfair to his partners or not I do not know. But anyway the thing was now out, and he falls down at Jesus' knees; he is a sinful man. It is a wonderful thing to come to that. We can never be here as descriptive of the dispensation until we come to that -- until we have learned our sinfulness. And Jesus said to him, "Fear not; henceforth thou shalt be catching men". Is there anyone here who would aspire to that? The Lord, I believe, is looking for such. The need abroad is great, yet God will not take us up in order to meet it, save as we are clothed with power from on high. And for that we have got to discover that we are sinful men. And then that precious word, "Fear not;" He says, "thou shalt be catching men". He will enable you to do it, for it will be the Lord's own work.

And so Peter is affected, and the partners are affected. For if God causes His light to come into our business affairs, everybody will be affected, and first of all the partners -- James and John. And they pull their boats ashore, and leave all -- leave all! And they followed Jesus! That is the word, dear brethren; leaving all, they followed Him! The Lord is beckoning to us. He would have followers; those who catch men. That is the way Luke puts things. Not in a time of depression, but in a time of excessive prosperity, they leave all, and follow Him. It is not that they despised the boat, or the fish; for they pulled the boats ashore. Somebody else can see to them; they were creatures of God, to be used ashore; but as for themselves, they followed Him!

The Lord is beckoning to us at the present time, calling attention to the need. But He insists on the qualification. He has means whereby He can carry on His work, but He would employ us. And if He is to employ us, there must be the qualification; there must be the complete surrender, and an acknowledgement of what we are; and then the clothing from on high of which I have spoken. But here it is the attractiveness of Christ. And they leave all and follow Him! May God help us to do so.

READING (4)

I Samuel 8:1 - 7; 12

J.T. We started with the circumstances that gave the occasion for the introduction of Samuel, and I think it would be helpful to consider the circumstances that caused the introduction of Saul. There was dissatisfaction with what God had approved in such a marked way, as the previous chapter indicated, and the dissatisfaction that had already existed found a convenient excuse in the misconduct of Samuel's sons. Chapter 12 shows that there was nothing in Samuel to furnish this excuse. They had to testify to his integrity from his youth till he became grey-headed. The dissatisfaction that shows itself against what God approves opens the door to the man after the flesh.

S.J.B.C. And I suppose the Lord goes to the root of the matter when He says, "they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them".

J.T. Yes; that was at the root of the matter.

Ques. Why, do you think, did they make Samuel's sons an excuse?

J.T. Because there was none other. If our wills are at work we are sure to find an excuse for what we do; and of course this was a very convenient excuse; there was misconduct, but it was not with Samuel.

Ques. Would you say that the cause for doing wrong things does not always appear on the surface? The Lord discerned what the real issue was here.

J.T. Yes; and the elders of Israel evidently fixed their minds on this plea, whereas the Holy Spirit would direct us to the root of the thing -- what the real issue was. The real issue was the state of

the people. The difficulty did not lie with Samuel. Of course his sons' conduct was bad, but the real issue was the state of the people. Chapter 12 brings that out. Samuel waits, as that chapter shows, until they have had a little experience of Saul, to raise this issue, and to bring home to them what was underlying their suggestion to have a king.

S.J.B.C. Is there any moral thought in their request, "Now appoint us a king to judge us, like all the nations"?

J.T. Well, it goes with their general state; they would drop down to the level of other nations, overlooking the fact that they were infinitely superior in their king. It was Jehovah they were dispossessing.

P.L. Was the "shout of a king" among them heard in Samuel's ministry?

J.T. There was power with Samuel personally; there was no rising up against him. He judged Israel all the days of his life, notwithstanding what they said. The "shout of a king" (Numbers 23:21), is really more important in a way than the king. You may have the king without the shout. In Saul there was not the shout of the king; the power of God was with Samuel.

Ques. Have we got a similar thought in Miriam and Aaron complaining against Moses, using as an excuse his marriage with an Ethiopian woman?

J.T. That is a very similar case. What lay at the bottom of that was jealousy.

Ques. Would it be right to suggest that Samuel's house was not in order?

J.T. The fact is stated that his sons' conduct was reprehensible. But then chapter 12 shows that his conduct was not reprehensible. He challenged Israel; and he represented God; his sons did not.

Rem. Hosea reviews the situation: "O Israel, thou that art against me, against thy help. Where then

is thy king that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath" (Hosea 13:9 - 11).

J.T. Exactly; that is the comment of the Spirit later on this event.

Rem. Yes; both the comment of the Spirit, and the lesson to be learnt from it.

J.T. What it all points to is that the danger of the dispensation is to quarrel with what God may be using, and with what God may be approving. That is a serious matter; quarrelling with the position in which there is evidently the power of God. The earlier circumstances, that is to say, the circumstances in relation to Eli and his house, was the opposite of this. There was no evidence of the power of God with Eli or his house. The ark was taken. There was the observance of externals; thinking that the ark itself, as a mere symbol, would save them in such a manner as is described in the earlier chapters. So that, if in a general way God is with His people in any locality, it is a most serious thing to interfere with the regime as it stands. There may be weakness, and there may be mistakes, but it is for us to discover whether God is there with His people, notwithstanding. God goes a long way with His people.

Ques. How are we to understand the fact that Samuel made his sons judges over Israel?

J.T. I think there was a recognition with Samuel of the natural. Who is there that is perfect save One? We see in Samuel how he mourned for Saul after God had rejected him; and we also see how he mistook Eliab for Jehovah's anointed. But, notwithstanding these defects, God was with him, and that is what we have to go by. If God is with a man, it is a serious thing to question him.

Rem. There should have been faith with the

people that God would continue His regime. Instead of that, they said Samuel was getting old.

J.T. God could raise up another. Samuel was getting old, but he was still there.

Ques. What does it mean, to judge Israel?

J.T. To deal with everything that arises, according to God. It does not mean punitive judgment. When the Lord was brought before the high priest, one of the officers which stood by struck Him, because they thought He was railing on the high priest. But He said, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John 18:23). He was not defending Himself, He was asserting judgment where judgment should have been, but where it was not. The high priest represented the position of a judge, but he was wanting in judgment; judgment was not there. And so Micah says, "They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek" (Micah 5:1). The Judge of Israel was at the bar externally; He was enunciating judgment. And that is the principle we get in Judges and in Samuel. Samuel refers in chapter 12 to the raising up of Moses and Aaron, and Jerubbaal, and Bedan and Jephthah and himself, to meet the situation. It is one of the greatest principles, really, in the maintenance of the testimony, that there should be the elements of judgment, because things are constantly arising requiring judgment. So the Lord asserts it in the presence of the high priest: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" He was the Judge of Israel.

S.J.B.C. Many have a wrong conception of judgment, as though it meant punishment. Judgment would mean discrimination, or discernment.

P.L. He uses the balance of the sanctuary, and weighs things before the Lord. Is that a feature of manhood?

J.T. Quite so. The first great judge in Israel

was Othniel; a man who was eminently qualified to judge and to make war. Then after him Ehud was raised up, a Benjaminite, and a left-handed man. He judged on the principle of the word of God, which the two-edged dagger would represent.

Ques. Would you say the elders of Israel were wrong in taking the judgment into their hands?

J.T. You see they were quarrelling with what existed. They gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and said to him, "Behold, thou art become old", etc. They had grounds for quarrelling with the sons of Samuel, but they had no grounds for quarrelling with Samuel. And whatever he had done in appointing his sons, he had judged Israel in a circuit. So notwithstanding his sons' misconduct they might have reckoned on Samuel. We do not need to think of tomorrow's requirements; it is what we have got now that should engage us.

S.J.B.C. There are those who have got spiritual discrimination, who act on God's behalf.

J.T. I think an analysis of the judges in Israel will indicate what should mark us in judgment. Take a man like Ehud, for example; he was left-handed, but he had a dagger which had two edges, and he used it with great dexterity. One needs to recognise how to use the word of God with skill. And then Shamgar judged on the principle of an ox-goad, which would indicate experience. A goad is to keep you in cheek, to keep you within the harness, so that you do not take any licence in what you are doing, you are kept within limits. As Paul says, "I buffet my body" (1 Corinthians 9:27). One has to know how to keep oneself in subjection. And so he gained a great victory.

And then Deborah; she was a prophetess, and a woman who sat under her own palm tree. She had evidently gained the victory over herself. She had acquired great moral weight, which overcame the

great disadvantage of her sex. She did not assert her position; they came to her for judgment. So no matter who it is who has acquired victory, and sits under his own palm tree, people seek him out, because of these qualities. Deborah sent for Barak, and said to him, "Hath not Jehovah the God of Israel commanded?" (Judges 4:6). It is a question of what God's commandments are, in her mind.

Then Gideon; he was a man who threshed wheat in a winepress, to secure it from the Midianites. God will use such a man. An angel of Jehovah came and sat under the terebinth that was in Ophrah, as if to take a note of what there was in the locality; this young man was occupied in threshing wheat in the winepress. It was in a winepress, but the wheat was threshed and kept from the Midianites. "And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him, and said to him, Jehovah is with thee, thou mighty man of valour" (Judges 6:12). He was a remarkable expression of Christ in judgment; a man who could appease his brethren when they quarrelled with him; he says, "What have I done now in comparison with you? Are not the gleanings of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abi-ezer?" (Judges 8:2). That is the kind of man!

Well, all these features have got to be linked up together, in order to see what judgment is. And I believe they were all linked up in Samuel. So Israel was found quarrelling with what God had brought in.

Rem. One is struck with the attitude of Samuel; he prayed to the Lord, he had a resource. Naturally it would be very humiliating for one who was a prophet, known from Dan to Beersheba, to be set aside thus.

J.T. It was a very great test for him.

Rem. One thinks of the words of the apostle Paul, "the arms of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful according to God to the overthrow of strongholds; overthrowing reasonings and every

high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5).

J.T. Samuel does not quarrel with the people. Who could deal with the matter but Jehovah? for the movement was against Him. And so he prays; he had gone to the root of the matter. "And Jehovah said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them ... . testify solemnly unto them, and declare unto them the manner of the king that shall reign over them". So in the subsequent part of the chapter Samuel goes over the features of the king. God mercifully forewarns them that he would be a man who would think only of himself, and would take their sons, and their daughters, and their fields and their vineyards. He would think only of himself; that is the kind of character he bears. Very well, they say in effect, we will run the risk of that; and at the end of the chapter the people refused to hear the voice of Samuel, and they said, "No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations; and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and conduct our wars". You see how completely self-centred they were, and their king would be like them. The conditions existing were such as would expose them to the rule of the flesh; and God mercifully outlines what they may expect.

Rem. God gave them a king after their hearts, before He brought in a king after His heart.

J.T. Just so; He gave them a taste of what the man after the flesh is, before He brought in His king. So in the next chapter we have Saul. There he is, a fine-looking man! There is not a comelier person in all Israel. Surely they may have said, We are justified now in desiring a man like this; he has ability, and he is just what we want! In a wide

way it is typical of what obtains in the whole of Christendom today.

P.L. If one attaches importance to the meaning of names, Samuel means 'asked of the Lord', but Saul means 'asked for' simply.

Rem. The man after the flesh is described here that we might take it to heart as a warning, and not set aside what God has provided.

J.T. There may be great weakness, but you have what God has provided, and you do not set that aside; otherwise you just drop down to the level of the religion around you.

Saul's lineage is given, and from his shoulders up, his head and his neck, he exceeded all others; there was not a man to equal him all around.

Rem. Plenty of head knowledge!

J.T. Just so. Well, the record is proceeded with, and the first thing is that the asses are lost, and Saul is looking for them. As a man after the flesh he is a comely person, but as a spiritual man he is discredited from the very beginning. The asses are gone, and he cannot find them. A man of God is never puzzled; he knows what to do. And Saul's servant knew more than he did. Then Saul began to think about his father's anxiety, and he said, "Come and let us return". But his servant said, "Behold now, a man of God is in this city". I do not know that Saul had ever used the expression "man of God", that would not be in his vocabulary. "And", the servant continued, "the man is held in honour; all that he says comes surely to pass. Let us now go thither: perhaps he will show us the way that we should go". Saul did not seem to know anything about Samuel. His servant knew very much more than he did of what was of God.

S.J.B.C. Yet in Saul was there not a great deal commendable to start with? When the people came together to Mizpah, when the king was to be selected,

Saul hid himself among the baggage, and he had to be fetched out.

J.T. Well, but we have to notice there are these touches that God gives for the spiritual mind to discern. So far as the natural man is concerned, what you are referring to would no doubt be greatly esteemed. It is, however, quite evident that Saul's servant was much further on, spiritually, than he.

Rem. Although Saul was the son of a wealthy man, he had nothing to bring to the man of God, not even as much as a quarter of a shekel.

J.T. Yes. He says, "What shall we bring the man?" He says, "What have we?" And the servant answered Saul again and said, "Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver". The servant had something.

P.L. And he would not trust it to Saul; he says, "That will I give to the man of God".

J.T. And Saul said to his servant, "Well said". That does not go very far; to say it is a good remark does not count for very much. However, he adopted the servant's suggestion. But see how the man after the flesh is exposed! The natural mind might not see anything in these incidents, but they are set down here to show that the man after the flesh is discredited from the very outset.

Ques. What about the asses?

J.T. Well, they were lost. You see there was a discrepancy even then. Why should they have been lost if Saul had been diligent? And even after a search he fails to find them. They were found, but not by Saul.

And "As they went up the ascent to the city, they met maidens going forth to draw water; and they said to them, Is the seer here?" One might point out that verse 9 is a parenthesis in which we are told that "In former time in Israel, when a man went to ask counsel of God, he said, Come and let us go to

the seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was in former time called a Seer". The change from seer to prophet would indicate a better spiritual apprehension of the features of a prophet. So they asked the maidens, "Is the seer here? And they answered them and said, He is; behold, he is before thee: make haste now, for he came today to the city". You see, they knew the meaning of the word 'seer'. They were spiritual. It was a great matter that there should be a prophet in that town. He was a man that was noted. These young women were interested and intelligent; they knew the seer, and they knew where he was, and they knew what he was doing. But all this was evidently foreign language to Saul; he was not accustomed to these things.

Rem. The maidens were evidently intimate with the movements of Samuel.

J.T. Just so; they knew the great gain of a visit, because they go on to say, "He is before thee: make haste now, for he came today to the city; for the people have a sacrifice today in the high place", etc. Now just analyse that speech from a spiritual standpoint, and see how much these young women understood; how thoroughly they were in the understanding of what was going on on the part of God in that city at that time.

Rem. Saul did not seem to have had much thought about the seer up to that moment.

J.T. And I think it is very interesting to see in Saul's servant, and in these young maidens, how God works in what might appear to be insignificant people.

Ques. Would you say that the people recognised the power of Samuel when they said him, "Cease not to cry to Jehovah our God for us, that he will save us out of the hand of the Philistines"? (1 Samuel 7:8).

J.T. I think so. But I think it is important that we should take notice of these particular touches

whereby we can discern whether the man who may be coming forward into prominence is spiritual or not. If you have got your eyes open, something will come about which will enable you to tell whether he is really on spiritual or on fleshly lines.

Rem. The apostle says in 2 Corinthians 11:2, 3 "I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft, so your thoughts should be corrupted from simplicity as to the Christ". He feared lest they might be going on in a wrong way.

P.L. It is interesting to notice the difference in the words which God speaks to Samuel concerning Saul and David; in chapter 9:17, when Samuel saw Saul, Jehovah said, "Behold the man of whom I spoke to thee! this man shall rule over my people". But then in chapter 16:12, 13, when David is brought in before Samuel (he was ruddy, and besides of a lovely countenance and beautiful appearance), "Jehovah said, Arise, anoint him; for this is he. And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brethren".

J.T. As a matter of fact, a king according to God is born. And so we have the king in the book of Ruth born before you have anything of this. Also in the New Testament, we read: "Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?" (Matthew 2:2). He is anointed afterwards. And in John 18:37, in answer to Pilate's question, "Thou art then a king?" the Lord says, "Thou sayest it, that I am a king, I have been born for this, and for this I have come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth". He was born a King.

S.J.B.C. Saul was anointed out of a vial, which would be of human manufacture, and suggestive of the human element which would have set him up as a king; but David was anointed with a horn, which

may very likely have been obtained from an animal offered in sacrifice to God.

Rem. These principles come close home to us, do they not?

J.T. That is what one would have in mind, that we might see how to guard against the man after the flesh, and his influence, and be content with what God approves. Of course you do not want to condone the conduct of Samuel's sons, nor even of Samuel himself in appointing them judges over Israel. It was a very convenient excuse the elders offered, and doubtless the people would be carried by it.

Ques. What is the thought in the seer?

J.T. A seer is a man who sees things. A prophet is a man who conveys the mind of God. Of course he sees things, but more than that, he conveys the mind of God and brings God to the conscience of the people. Samuel conveys the idea of a prophet in his ministry.

S.J.B.C. And in Samuel we have the thought of intimacy; he "heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the ears of Jehovah", (chapter 8:21. It seems to indicate personal intimacy with the Lord.

J.T. Yes. And now in chapter 9 you have the wondrous grace of God taking up Saul, and helping him in every possible way, so that he might have every advantage, and that the desire of the people might be fully tested. He obtains light from the prophet; he is anointed, and kissed, and God sets him on his way with every possible advantage; so that there should be no mistake in our judgment of the man after the flesh. There is nothing to be expected from the flesh. With all possible help it is an utter breakdown. So it is better to be with Samuel and his failing sons. Now this occurs every day; conditions arise that give an opening to man after the flesh, and the result is what we see in Saul.

Ques. Is it on this line that antichrist will be received?

J.T. Just so. The door is open for him through conditions in the world.

P.L. Gaius and Demetrius are approved; they rejected the Saul element; 3 John.

Ques. Referring to the present time, would you say that Samuel and his failing sons suggest an abnormal state?

J.T. Yes; but it is not irremediable. God can come in and meet a situation like that. So it is much better to go on, and give God the opportunity to come in and deal with it. The Holy Spirit tells us that Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. Thus God had His way in His servant, in spite of the people's attitude.

P.L. Saul's servant, and the maidens, did not seem overwhelmed by any lack in Samuel!

Rem. Samuel is still in Ramah, while his sons judge Israel.

J.T. Yes. He was not on the level of his sons; he was in his own house, where he had his altar. The elders ignore this.

Rem. In these instructions given to Saul there would not be any mention of the man after the flesh?

J.T. Well, you see it was still a tentative time. God was still testing man; and I think these advantages spoken of in chapter 10 show that God would set him out with every possible advantage. And that only brings out how hopeless the flesh is.

P.L. Does it not also suggest the last overtures of God through Christ to Israel? I was thinking of the grace in which the Lord waited upon Israel.

J.T. Yes, quite so. If there was no fruit, the tree was still there; and the vinedresser says, "Let it alone for this year also, until I shall dig about it and put dung, and if it shall bear fruit -- but if not, after that thou shalt cut it down" (Luke 13:8, 9).

Rem. When they went to look for Saul when the, king was being selected, he had hidden himself.

J.T. Yes. You do not see anything like this in David. It is all of the flesh. Hiding amongst the baggage suggests the backwardness of the flesh, which is of no value at all -- no more than the forwardness of it.

Ques. What would the king suggest? It says here, in verse 16, he was to save the people.

J.T. He was to represent God in His supreme authority. For this he should be like God. David typified Christ in this respect. See 2 Samuel 23:3, 4.

Ques. Would the shoulder and what was on it, which was set before Saul to eat, be suggestive as to whether he would be able to sustain the people for God?

J.T. I think so; it was food that a king needed.

Rem. In chapter 9:13 we read, "For the people eat not until he [Samuel] has come, because he blesses the sacrifice; afterwards they eat that are invited".

J.T. That is what the maidens say; showing that they knew what marked occasions like this. They would not eat till he came, because he blessed the sacrifice. And then those that are bidden eat. The prophet, as representative of God, being there, the occasion was an auspicious one, and these maidens were in the spirit of it.

Ques. Although things are in a weak state, is there not power available, that the man of God should be according to God?

J.T. Certainly. And then also what existed under Samuel was not beyond remedy. So that there was really no cause for asking for a change. It is these changes and revolutions that are so dangerous; because if things are not right, God can put them right. Let us not take it into our hands to do so.

P.L. Would you say that the scripture in Ecclesiastes 10:4 applies: "If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for quietness pacifieth great offences"?

J.T. I think so.

Rem. Gideon said, "Jehovah will rule over you" (Judges 8:23).

J.T. Yes; they wanted to make him king. Chapter 12 brings out all this, for Samuel would not let the people off; there was a great lesson to be learnt, and they had had experience of Saul. So Samuel comes, and he says to the people, "Come and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there" (1 Samuel 11:14). He would bring them all down there, because it is there that you learn things in the light of God; it is there that self-judgment is customary. "And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before Jehovah in Gilgal; and there they sacrificed peace-offerings before Jehovah. And there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced exceedingly" (verse 15).

And now Samuel seizes the opportunity to bring all the light of chapter 12 to bear on them. All had been going well with them evidently; they were so far in keeping with Gilgal; but he would go to the bottom of things, for the lesson has to be learnt. I think this chapter shows that we shall reap the bitter fruits of our sowing as we are governed by our wills. God will not let us off; He loves us too well to allow us to miss the lesson of it.

So Samuel says, "Behold, I have hearkened to your voice in all that ye said to me, and have made a king over you. And now behold, the king walks before you; and I am old and grey-headed; and behold, my sons are with you;" he is not hiding his sons, or what they were. And he says, "I have walked before you from my youth up to this day". They were thus brought face to face with what God

had provided, and also with what they themselves had provided. And he says, "Here I am: testify against me before Jehovah, and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I injured? or of whose hand have I received any ransom and blinded mine eyes therewith?" One is reminded of Paul's address to the elders from Ephesus in Acts 20. Samuel has the people before God, and they own that there is nothing in him, no justification at all for having asked for the change; it was their own will. And they are to learn now the fruits of their own will.

God will not let us off when we open a door for the flesh by being discontented under what He has provided; we shall reap the fruits of it. Samuel had been ill-treated by them, but he is not really concerned about that, he is concerned about Jehovah -- how did all this affect God? And so he continues: "It is Jehovah who appointed Moses and Aaron, and who brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt". He brings in God, and all that God had been to them. So that it was an opportunity to learn not only the bitter fruits of their own will, but also what God had been to them from the outset.

P.L. Does not the Lord in His rejection speak somewhat similarly? The works that He had done for the Father bore witness; John 5:36.

J.T. Yes; and again, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" (John. 5:17).

This chapter is the climax of the instruction to be gained from bringing in Saul. This is the chapter for the people, that they should profit by the exercises, profit by their failure, and see what God had been to them from the very outset.

READING (5)

1 Samuel 16:1 - 13; 18: 1 - 21

J.T. This morning we looked at the circumstances that were the occasion of the introduction of Saul, the man after the flesh. There had been dissatisfaction with God's provision in Samuel, and the people would have a king; they found a convenient excuse for their request in the misconduct of Samuel's sons, whom he had appointed judges in Israel. So they asked for a king, that they might be like all the nations around.

It was pointed out that Samuel had been asked for from the Lord, as his name indicates; whereas Saul was just 'asked for'. And it was pointed out, further, that God gave them a king in His anger, and took him away in His wrath; (Hosea 13:11). David was not asked for, he was God's own provision, without any solicitations from the people; "Jehovah", Samuel says, "has sought him a man after his own heart, and Jehovah has appointed him ruler over his people" (1 Samuel 13:14). So that David is neither the result of spiritual solicitations from any of the people, as was Samuel, nor fleshly solicitations, as was Saul; he is God's own provision, a man after God's own heart.

Ques. Is he in that way a peculiar type of the Lord?

J.T. Yes. I think God had His own affection for the people. Samuel was a wonderful provision for them, but he is not said to have been a man after God's own heart. So in considering this we are in the presence, not of human exercises, whether spiritual or fleshly, but of divine exercise, which lifts the matter to a higher level. Think of divine desires!

Rem. You were saying that one of the first things

recorded in connection with Saul was the lost asses. It is, I think, interesting to notice that David had been minding sheep in the wilderness, but when he left them, he left a keeper in charge of them.

J.T. Yes. Those are spiritual touches which the natural eye would not observe, but the spiritual eye takes account of them. They mark off a man after God's own heart. The Lord said, "Those thou hast given me I have guarded, and not one of them has perished, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12).

In chapter 13 the first great breakdown of Saul was that he could not wait for Jehovah with patience. He said, "I forced myself". He had been directed to go to Gilgal, and wait there. Saul offered up the burnt-offering, and this brought about the remark of Samuel, "Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God which he commanded thee". God rejected him; he had proved himself unfit in that he could not wait. But in order to bring out fully what the flesh is, God directed him to exterminate the Amalekites.

S.J.B.C. Saul had waited the set time?

J.T. But Samuel had said to him, Wait until I come to thee. It is "until I come" that tests us.

P.L. The Psalmist says, "I waited patiently for Jehovah" (Psalm 40 1). One looks to be kept in waiting, and to wait in the Spirit.

J.T. Quite so. "I waited patiently for Jehovah".

Ques. Would the test in the first case be dependence, and in the second obedience?

J.T. I think patience enters into both. He had transgressed the word of the Lord in that he did not wait. I think that the first shows the impetuosity of the flesh, which is often apparent in young brethren. Thus we are disqualified; it is in little things one shows where one is spiritually.

Ques. In what way?

J.T. In not being able to wait for the Lord. You take things into your own hands and attempt to settle them yourself. That was what Saul did. He forced himself; he said the Philistines were upon him, and he had no other course. But he was leaving God out, and thus he disqualified himself. The second test is as to whether he can deal with the flesh in its entirety, or whether he discriminates in favour of what he considered good in it. He destroyed everything that was bad or wretched, but he saved what was good in the Amalekites, including the king.

S.J.B.C. The first is more in the nature of a secret test. Chapter 15 is more public. He failed in secret. I think there is a principle in it, there is always failure in secret before there is exposure in public.

J.T. In the introduction of David we are in the presence of divine exercises; and that becomes a theme of great and precious interest. What is going on in the heart of God? What is He thinking about? And now what comes out is that He has not only David in His heart, but He wants to have a feminine response. We have nothing about the female side in Samuel; nothing about his wife, nothing about Saul's wife; they are not in sight, but a great deal is made of David's marital relations. So Samuel is to proceed to Bethlehem with a heifer. We are in the presence now of a potential subjective result.

S.J.B.C. I think you said at Los Angeles that the heifer signifies what is subjective; it has to do with the female side.

J.T. I think so, leading up to feminine affection.

Rem. Paul's great exercise was Christ and the assembly.

J.T. Yes, that is what he had before him. The epistle to the Ephesians presents to us the desires of the heart of God: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us

with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ; according as he has chosen us in him before the world's foundation, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love;" and then he goes on to say: "having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself" (Ephesians 1:3 - 5. We are now in the presence of what God has been thinking about, altogether outside human exercises. No doubt He puts us, in His government, through certain things that would prepare us for this, and I think the lessons in this book would prepare us for what God has in mind and heart. How great a thing that the saints in any locality may be for God to work out what is in His mind! There are few localities that that could be said about. There was Ephesus in Paul's day.

Ques. Would you say it could be worked out now in any way?

J.T. Well, I do not think there is very much in the way of appreciation of divine thoughts and purposes; we are so necessarily occupied with our own state, and the difficulties that are arising, that there is very little liberty to enter into what God has before Him.

S.J.B.C. Is not that brought out in Ephesians, where the apostle writes of the intents and purposes of God? He could say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ", etc., but when he comes to deal with the moral state of the saints, he gets down and prays.

J.T. I think, however, that at Ephesus there was a state exceeding most other localities. The apostle could speak of the "hidden wisdom which God had predetermined before the ages for our glory: which none of the princes of this age knew (for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory)". And he goes on to speak about "Things which eye has not seen, and ear not heard, and which

have not come into man's heart, which God has prepared for them that love him, but God has revealed to us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" (1 Corinthians 2:7 - 10). It is no question of meeting their needs, but things prepared for them that love Him, and He has revealed them. So it is a question now of whether we are prepared to face the things from that point of view; what God has in His mind -- what He has prepared.

P.L. In the disciples there was a state capable of entering into these things.

J.T. Quite so; and I am sure they would be impressed as they listened. After He had spoken to them all that is recorded in John 14, 15 and 16, the Lord lifts up His eyes to heaven. They would be prepared for it, and He would occupy them in His prayer with the glory that He had with the Father before the world was.

One feels how great is the incapacity to rise to what is in the divine mind for its own pleasure. And that is what David stands for.

Ques. Would you say there is a moral necessity for the earlier chapters?

J.T. Yes. Now there was in the people a moral state which would enable God to bring out the feminine result. So that you would have a man beautiful in appearance, and all Israel loved him -- David.

Rem. It is the Amalekite comes into view here, not the Philistine.

J.T. Yes, in chapter 15 it is the Amalekite; that is, the flesh through which Satan acts.

Rem. And God will make war with the flesh from generation to generation.

Ques. Would the epistle to the Romans give you the administration of Samuel, to bring the people into line with God's will? Colossians would be the true David, in the sense of being the head; he

becomes the loved object of affection. But souls must be brought into subjection first, otherwise they are apt to be diverted in following their own will.

J.T. So that Romans and Corinthians run together; the first bringing in subjection to Christ. You obey "from the heart the form of teaching into which ye were instructed" (Romans 6:17). So you find at the end of Romans a list of worthies to confirm that. Then Corinthians is the authority of Christ recognised collectively. We have to learn to obey collectively. And then Colossians, as you say, is Christ as the Object of affection to the saints. Thus His personal greatness is presented.

Rem. So that you follow the object you love into the land of promise.

J.T. Exactly.

Ques. Have we to take to heart the length of time necessary to lead us over the necessary details? The Lord would delight to bring us into the richer and fuller things which He has in His heart for us.

J.T. Yes. Ministry directs you to what is in Him. Deuteronomy is a résumé of all that preceded, only with particular features of personal affection for the people, and motives to lead them to love Jehovah; it is to bring about obedience in the heart, not forced obedience. It is said of Moses that he was "king in Jeshurun" (Deuteronomy 33:5). That is a remarkable word; it means, I think, that Moses acquired a place in the affections of the people. Although he kept on enforcing the word of God, in time they gave him a place in their affections. You say that Jesus is Lord; but no one can say that truly except by the Spirit. I think it is in that way the Lord is enthroned in the heart. You say, "Lord Jesus" by the Spirit. He is enthroned in the heart; and that prepares us for Colossians, where you see that He is the Son of the Father's love, who created everything and was before everything. He personally controls you.

Ques. Would on say that the introduction of David would typify the introduction of the Spirit in contrast to the flesh?

J.T. It is the introduction of what is for God's own heart. You may have an ideal, and I may too, but think of what God's ideal is; a man after His heart!

Ques. Does the subjective state of the people find its expression in the thought of the woman as suggested by the heifer?

J.T. We are coming to that. God is laying the basis of that in the heifer. As having the spirit we may understand what is to be done here. He says, "Fill thy horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite". But first of all attention is called to Samuel. Great man as he was, he was still clinging to Saul; he was mourning for him. A man so distinguished as Samuel was, so spiritual, yet giving way to the natural-that is noted; and so God says, "How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?" Samuel has to be brought into line with what God was doing. And then God says, "Fill thy horn with oil". It was Samuel's horn. When anointing Saul, Samuel "took the vial of oil and poured it upon his head". Here we see that Samuel had a horn.

S.J.B.C. Is there a difference between a horn and a vial? Saul is anointed out of a vial, David out of a horn, and Solomon out of a horn in the tabernacle of the congregation. I suppose the latter would be a universal thought?

J.T. Yes; here it is, "Take thy horn".

Ques. What is your thought about that?

J.T. I think it would allude to Samuel's spirituality. The horn would no doubt be connected with death; it was "thy horn". As our brother has remarked, the vial was different, it was of human manufacture. The horn was the growth of a beast,

and possibly implied the death of the beast. For there could be no oil without that for any of us. Then the heifer, as we have remarked, would be the basis for a later development, which chapter 18 indicates. And what we may note is that Jonathan takes the lead in this. God specially mentions him. He was able to take the initiative even in Saul's day, when Saul reigned, before David was introduced, Jonathan took the initiative, and a great victory followed. He is specially distinguished, I think, by the Spirit, as giving the lead to those who should afterwards love David.

S.J.B.C. That is very nice; would you open it up a bit? he gave a lead.

J.T. Well, it is a help to have someone to do this. It is God's way in everything to give a lead. I suppose John gave a lead in the way of love for Christ in his day; and Paul in his day.

S.J.B.C. Jonathan's love was personal, was it not? We read that Saul loved David greatly. That is remarkable. I suppose it was the love of selfishness. And then Michal, Saul's daughter, loved him, which would suggest the love of admiration. And all Jerusalem loved him; that is the love of gratitude because he went out and came in before them. But Jonathan's love seemed to be personal -- he loved David for David's sake.

J.T. He loved David when he had ended speaking to Saul. His father had spoken to David in a supercilious way: "Whose son art thou, young man?" There was reproach in that, and David made no effort to cover it; he said, "I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite". And when he had ended speaking to Saul, it says, "The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul". It would appear that the grace and humility of David attracted him.

P.L. Would you say that would be a similar case

to the incident recorded in Luke's gospel, where the Lord addresses the supercilious man, Simon the Pharisee; Luke 7?

J.T. Yes; I think there is a very good connection there. The woman became a model lover. If the Lord finds a lover He sets him out as a model. He said to Simon, "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house; thou gavest me not water on my feet, but she has washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with her hair. Thou gavest me not a kiss, but she from the time I came in has not ceased kissing my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint, but she has anointed my feet with myrrh" (Luke 7:44 - 46). She is free before Him; He could call attention to her; and I believe that is what is so important in localities: the presence of someone who is a model. The Lord could appeal to that. It is the concrete thing before us. At Corinth it does not appear that there was anyone just like that; because the apostle has to speak about it in an abstract way; he does not speak of any person as expressing it there. But he speaks of what it is; lie is forced to do that.

Ques. Is it on the line of surrender?

J.T. That is what comes out in Jonathan; he disrobes himself and gives his robe to David, and his dress, "even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle". The Lord calls attention to the woman; how humbly, and in such self-sacrifice she expressed her love. It was expressed, too, in an adverse atmosphere; there was nothing to draw it out save Christ, nothing to enhance it. It was His Person that drew it out.

S.J.B.C. It was so in Jonathan. It was not the victory that drew out Jonathan's heart to David; it was when he had finished speaking to Saul. There had been something in the very tone of his voice that drew out Jonathan's love to him.

J.T. And then you see the women of Israel come

out to meet them, and they said, "Saul hath smitten his thousands, and David his ten thousands". You see how God's thought is being developed in regard to David; He would have David, but He would have lovers of David, too. Well, that is the thing we ought to see all through, here. There is a mixed following at the outset. It is a transitional period. It was right that Saul should have some place, but the more you advance, the less Saul should be recognised.

Ques. Would the bringing in of David suggest the presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel as one of affection?

J.T. Yes; I think the apostle Paul had that in his mind in all his preaching. He knew what was in the mind of God; he had knowledge of the mystery, and the saints were to understand this. He had the mind and the heart of God before him in his preaching. We have in Abigail the full development of this typically. But there is a good way to travel. We have to see now that love is progressing, first in Jonathan, then in the women, and then in all Israel. We see how Saul's hatred is aroused, and the extraordinary course he pursued to harm David. He proposes two wives for him, as if he would forestall the divine thought: first Merab, and then Michal who had a certain love for him. But in all his thoughts Saul has only hatred for David.

Ques. And does he not outwit himself? for Michal becomes in effect the saying of David.

J.T. She does; but nevertheless, as regards Saul, his object was to destroy David; and I think that it must allude to the public history of the church. The enemy saw that the thought of God was a bride for Christ. That came out in the mystery which was by revelation; and Paul had great combat for the Colossians that they might know the mystery; showing what opposition there was to it. And

Satan, seeing that Paul's ministry was blessed, and the church coming into being, devised, I believe, the Romish system and the Anglican system. The object of all this is to do harm to Christ.

Ques. You spoke of Samuel giving the lead; would you suggest that, following on that line, we should be separated from the house of Saul?

J.T. Yes. I think that Jonathan, though he loved David, yet later on really furnished material for what we are speaking of; he was really identified with that which would damage David, which is a very serious thing. I may be a lover of Christ, and yet be identified with that which is damaging to Christ. There are thousands in systems which are calculated to damage Christ, and they are strengthening them.

Ques. In what way would lovers of Christ move today?

J.T. Oh, we want to get back to the primary thought that we are to be identified with what is in the heart of God, namely, the mystery, the great thought of God; and that came in by revelation. That is the greatest thing in the dispensation. The epistles to Colossians and Ephesians are mainly occupied with it. Satan is ever against that. Every lover of Christ will give up everything that is damaging to Christ, however antiquated those things may be, for they were first of all intended to damage Christ.

Ques. What would you say about the women and their song here?

J.T. They would suggest to one the authors of some of the hymns. There is a great deal of Christ in them, but also a great deal of man after the flesh. There must be a pruning of all that is according to Saul. To have spiritual songs, that which appertains to Saul must be eliminated.

Ques. How do you account for lovers of Christ being in the systems and not knowing it?

J.T. There are a good many reasons. You see how, for instance, Jonathan was held by natural affections.

S.J.B.C. He was very slow to believe that Saul was as bad as he was; he spoke about sounding his father; chapter 20: 12. And I suppose some of us have sounded man in the flesh, to see if there was any good in him towards David.

J.T. Saul had already been well sounded; and Jonathan himself had said, "My father has troubled the land", and yet he clung to him.

Rem. Hannah had outlined all this in her song.

J.T. Yes; so that when you come to chapter 25 you have not a Merab nor a Michal, but a woman of a good understanding and of a beautiful countenance. And although related to Nabal by marriage, and a true wife as far as things went, she had a true judgment about him. That is where Jonathan missed it; he was related to Saul, but he did not judge Saul truly; whereas Abigail had true judgment about her husband Nabal, and his nature.

S.J.B.C. As regards Jonathan, I think perhaps he had thrown in his lot for a moment with David, until Saul cast a javelin at him. If we truly identify ourselves with David, we must expect to get what he got.

P.L. If David has left, let us go unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. Jonathan stood up beside his father and spoke good of David. It is not enough to stand up. One would sit down again, I suppose.

J.T. And then, finally, his attachment to David was marked by artillery, he shot three arrows on the side of the stone Ezel. He intended to love him at a distance, which is the case with many.

S.J.B.C. Jonathan returned to Saul's table, and then he went to the city, and finally David went to the cave of Adullam.

Rem. With regard to chapter 25, the first verse states that Samuel died. What you said about Abigail followed on that.

J.T. I think it would signify that the prophetic ministry is followed by the assembly. The assembly typically takes up that position. Everything is found there; and what is called attention to is her appearance, and her understanding, because she answered to the mind of God. David was a man after God's own heart, and she is a suitable companion, because she is of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance. And then also she has judgment about that to which she had been related; she also had a right judgment of Saul. There are thousands of Christians related to that which hates Christ, and yet they have no judgment about it.

READING (6)

Genesis 5: 1 - 24

J.T. There is in this book a line of instruction relative to recovery. We have at least four instances of it recorded, in each of which the result is for the pleasure of God. The one in the portion of Scripture which we have read culminated in Enoch who, as we are told in the New Testament, was "the seventh from Adam" -- meaning that he was the great end of an exercise. In Hebrews 11: 5 we read that before Enoch's translation "he has the testimony that he had pleased God". So that the end of the exercise resulting from Adam's failure was a product for God's pleasure. Then in chapter 8 we have Noah, who in the recovery after the deluge offered up every clean beast in burnt-offerings; and the Lord smelt a sweet savour. That was for His pleasure.

Again, in Jacob's departure, when he arrives back at Bethel it says he poured out a drink-offering; meaning that he was for God's pleasure as restored. And then in the recovery of Joseph's brethren we have a like thought; he embraced them. It was mutual; there was unity in it; "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1). I thought it would be a help for us to see, as we are living in a day of recovery, that this is what God has before Him in it. Whether it be collective or individual, there is no true recovery unless there be pleasure for God in it.

Chapter 3 recounts the fall of Adam and Eve, as we call it; and chapter 4 is the result of that in the way of disaster, in which Eve takes the initiative.

Rem. The point in the recovery is that it is for God's pleasure.

J.T. Yes; if there is not something for God's pleasure, recovery is not complete.

Rem. And if there be real recovery, those recovered share in God's pleasure.

J.T. Exactly. And this thought is conveyed by Enoch in a special way, because he is mentioned as the seventh from Adam; the end of a spiritual exercise.

Ques. Would walking with God be the evidence of recovery?

J.T. Yes. Enoch's name, I think, denotes 'discipline'. So the discipline of God brings about a state pleasing to Him. His name would indicate what began with Adam in chapter 5.

Ques. Is it like a new generation?

J.T. Yes; God begins over again in chapter 5. In chapter 4 the light begins with Seth. Recovery is always by means of light being introduced; it says that Seth had a son, and he called his name Enosh; meaning that he recognised that man was mortal; that he was not going to live for ever; that he was born to die. That implies that he had light. And "Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah" (Genesis 4:26). If there had been no light, there would have been no recovery.

Ques. Would Luke 15 come in here?

J.T. Well, the prodigal, as we speak of him, would be pleasurable to God.

P.L. In the recovery of David, after he numbered the people, there was light as to the house of God 1 Chronicles 21 and 22.

J.T. Just so. He recognised the judgment of God on him, and then thought of the house -- preparing for it in every way. This was pleasing to God.

Rem. Seth accepted the judgment of God on the flesh.

J.T. The name given to his son indicated that all his posterity were mortal, notwithstanding their

longevity (the life of one of them extending to nine hundred and sixty-nine years, almost a millennium), but what is to be noted is that he died. That is in keeping with the light of that particular moment. In subsequent events there is always the light covering the period; and the light which covered this period was that which Seth had in naming his son Enosh. In fact, the first chapter of Genesis, what we term creation, was recovery. It was not what it had been as the primary work of God. All that follows the first verse is recovery. And the same principle obtains now. Indeed, it is a principle that runs through the whole of Scripture. God said, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3). There can be no movement Godward at all, save where light is introduced.

Ques. Why did they live so long in the dispensation of Seth?

J.T. God had His own wise thoughts in allowing such longevity. But no matter how long a man's life lasted, he had to die. The light Seth had was concerning every family. It was there as testimony.

Ques. Would you say that while God works in the way of recovery, where departure has taken place on our side, the departure has to be acknowledged?

J.T. Yes; that is so. And I think the first chapter of Genesis encourages us to hope for that; it enables you to be patient when things happen. In Genesis 1:2 it is said that "darkness was on the face of the deep". But the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters, waiting, no doubt, for the time when light should be commanded. And God said, "Let there be light". It does not say that the Holy Spirit said, Let there be light. He is always subservient to the will of God. In the address to the assemblies in Revelation the Lord speaks: "These things says the Son of God", etc. (Revelation 2:18). That is the commandment, that is authority. But what the Spirit says is the development of that. And so in Genesis 1 the command

is from God, but the Holy Spirit was waiting to come in on the light. He works in the light. The will of God and the activity of the Holy Spirit go together. That is a great principle running right through from the beginning.

Rem. So there is an appeal to the ear: "He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says", (Revelation 2 and 3).

J.T. Yes; but notice that when the Lord speaks, you do not get that. It is authority. But, "He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says". You are not to judge what He may say, because He brings things up, and applies what the Lord says.

Ques. Would you say that recovery is sovereign?

J.T. Yes. What can we do if God does not operate?

Rem. You get the same thought in connection with John the baptist; he did not begin his mission until Christ was here, so that he had One to point to.

J.T. John was a burning and a shining light, but he was not the true light. The true light was here, and it was in that light he operated.

I do not know any part of scripture that has been more assailed in modern times than the book of Genesis; the enemy has attacked it. Save in the first verse we are not occupied with God's primary operations. The first verse says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". All that follows is to bring in recovery, and that begins with light. What can men know about the book of Genesis, unless God commands light in their souls?

Rem. And our part is to look to Him to let the light shine in.

J.T. Yes. And the Holy Spirit was hovering there over the darkness, ready and waiting for God to speak. For it was due to the Creator that He should speak; and He said, "Let there be light. And there was light".

P.L. Have we the sovereignty of God in connection with the Galatians? "God sent forth his Son", (Galatians 4:4); and then immediately after that we read that "God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Galatians 4:6). They had fallen away, and God brings in greater light than they had before to recover them. Then God sends out the Spirit; that would answer to the recovery.

J.T. Just so; and the Spirit cries, "Abba, Father". This is pleasing to God.

Ques. Would increased light be seen in Enoch?

J.T. Undoubtedly. But this chapter gives you the moral features of the recovery. Chapter 1 gives you the same thing in moral sequence: you have light, then separation of light from darkness on the first day; the firmament on the second day; the earth, vegetable life, fruit trees, etc., on the third day; lights in the heavens on the fourth day; fish, living creatures and fowl on the fifth day; and on the sixth day we have human life. And so it is morally, too, in that way. Whatever the disaster in the second verse arose from, we cannot say much about that; but we do know that the disaster in chapter 4 arose from sin in man, and the recovery that is dealt with in this chapter had to do with that. "From the beginning the devil sins", we are told (1 John 3:8); what the history of that is we know little about, but we do know the history of sin in man.

P.L. And we have got our hands full in facing it.

J.T. Yes; we begin with ourselves there.

In chapter 4 it is the mother that is spoken of, whereas in chapter 5, it is the father all through. It is a question of begetting.

Ques. What would help us in regard to local difficulties?

J.T. Well, no man can have authority unless he

has moral power. And I think that is what comes out in Adam; he had re-acquired the position of head. So chapter 5 begins over again: "This is the book of Adam's generations. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him". God will never give up His original thought; He ignores chapter 4, so to speak.

Ques. He "called their name Adam:" what is the meaning of that?

J.T. It means that Eve was merged in him; that she was not taking the lead. He "called their name Adam, in the day when they were created". Adam is the head; he is to dominate everything.

Rem. I thought it was suggested that Eve had taken the lead in chapter 4.

J.T. She did; she thought she had acquired in Cain a man from Jehovah.

P.L. The expression that puts 'I' first, and 'Jehovah' last, will carry its own sorrowful fruit.

Rem. God exercised His right in regard to Enoch.

J.T. That is what comes out. Noah is the beginning of an exercise. Enoch is the end of one, and therefore I think he sets out this great principle we are dealing with, because it was said of him that "before his translation he has the testimony, that he had pleased God" (Hebrews 11:5). And what led him to walk with God was that he begat a son, Methuselah. After he had begotten Methuselah he walked with God three hundred years. He was not going to duplicate Adam's mistake; he was going to hold the position God had given him. If he is to have moral weight to bring up his children, he must walk with God.

Ques. Enoch saw the "holy myriads;" as it says in Jude 14, "Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads". Enoch prophesied that. Do you think he saw the result of his walking with God?

J.T. He was probably alone walking with God in those days. Apparently he did not have many companions

in walking with God, so it would be a great stay to his heart to see the "holy myriads". Holiness is essential to walking with God.

P.L. Hebrews 3:1 speaks of "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling".

Rem. Enoch was evidently converted when he was sixty-five years of age. It says he "walked with God after he had begotten Methuselah three hundred years".

J.T. It brings up the question of the household. The presence of a family involves serious consideration. How can I represent God to them unless I walk with Him? And one has always that privilege one may always have such companionship. What God did not find in Adam in the garden He found in Enoch. He walked in the garden in the cool of the day, it says, and He called for Adam. I suppose God intended that Adam should be a companion. He breathed into him; the transaction was very intimate. He desired that Adam should enter into His thoughts. But what He did not find in Adam He now finds in a disciplined man.

Rem. If the head of every household walked with God, what an immense change there would be!

J.T. Yes; and especially so had that been the case in the era before the flood, before the national order was introduced. That was a time of families, or tribes, hence the great importance of the head of a tribe or family walking with God.

Rem. There is a growing line of apostasy in this section of Genesis, and the only thing for it is that the head of a family should walk with God.

J.T. Noah "prepared an ark for the saving of his house" (Hebrews 11:7). This thought is accentuated in Noah. If Enoch is taken up to heaven, his testimony remains, and the Holy Spirit uses it; it is material that He can use, and so He brings it forward in Noah. I have no doubt the thought began with Seth really,

that is to say, the thought of the head of the house naming his child, and walking with God before his family; and it runs right through, so that you find it in Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, etc. In other words, it is the great patriarchal thought.

Ques. Is recovery to the likeness of God? Is that the thought?

J.T. You get the thought of likeness in the first verse, "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him". Then it says, "Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his likeness". So that these are initial thoughts, but they convey what God intends to emphasise, namely, that there must be likeness. So that Adam was in God's likeness, and Seth in Adam's likeness. There must be likeness if the families are to represent God on the earth. However ungrateful the children may be, the parents' concern is to pass on the likeness; that is their responsibility.

Rem. 1 suppose in Timothy we find an example of the likeness having been passed on from his mother, and his grandmother.

Ques. How can we pass on this likeness? We are dependent on the sovereignty of God.

J.T. Quite so. "I have nourished and brought up children; and they have rebelled against me", God said (Isaiah 1:2), but He kept on to His own principles; He never gave them up. You can count on God to use your testimony for the following generation.

Ques. Would the testimony be what we reflect?

J.T. The testimony is the measure in which you reflect God. The patriarchal idea necessarily emanated from God.

Now when man is created, God enters into relation with him; chapter 2. What infidels cavil at involves the most precious truth; that is to say, man is in special relationship with God, hence the name. Jehovah here.

Rem. It is interesting to notice that the patriarchal thought, which would go with the thought of likeness, is traced back in Luke's gospel to Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

J.T. That shows that God had recovered His primary thought, a generation running right through. It is an immense thought for parents to lay hold of. The thing is to hold on to your responsibility to convey likeness. That is a treasure of the soul, and God will use it. It affords material for the Holy Spirit. It is remarkable that David, although he failed so remarkably in his house, acknowledges it: "Although my house be not so before God", he says, "Yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant" (2 Samuel 23:5). And the Holy Spirit first recognises in David -- on the day of Pentecost -- that he was a patriarch, and Solomon was the product of David's fatherhood. In whatever other respects he failed, he looked after Solomon, and he brought him up patiently and tenderly.

P.L. David was a disciplined man before Solomon was born.

J.T. Yes; he refused to take food or to wash himself while the child was ill, but when the child died he said, "Why should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:23). There was perfect resignation to the will of God. And then Solomon comes in; he is the offspring of a disciplined man, and he has all the advantage of having a disciplined father.

Rem. Though one might not live to see it, yet the child would get the gain of it.

J.T. God follows up the light that shines on a faithful parents' household.

P.L. So that the greatest heritage a man could leave his children would be the fruit of his discipline with God.

J.T. Now we find in all these extensive families,

their years being given, that every one died. We have a like passage in chapter 11, but it does not say they died, because the point there is not to emphasise the light that Seth had. Here it is to emphasise that light; and so it says of each one that he lived so many years, "and he died". Longevity must not blind us. Things may arise that seem to dispute the light that governs the position, such, for example, as the apparently long delay in the return of the Lord, so that the scoffers say, "Where is the promise of his coming? ... all things remain thus from the beginning of the creation" (2 Peter 3:4). But they are wilfully ignorant.

And so, if you take in all these heads of families, some of them living nearly as long as a millennium, you could understand how blinded the young people would become to the fact that their fathers would die. These men would possibly have thousands of descendants, and that fact would seem to deny the truth of the position; that is to say, that men should die. So that Enoch brings in the confirmation of the light; and we may be sure that the Lord is not failing to give confirmation to faith regarding the Lord's return. We know the promise is sure, we are not deceived by the delay. Enoch walked three hundred years with God, and I suppose his sons and daughters would be reminded of that every morning, if, indeed, not every part of the day. He walked with God, and "before his translation he has the testimony, that he had pleased God".

Ques. Is there a difference between walking in the light, and walking with God?

J.T. There is not much difference, because God is in the light. "If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another" (1 John 1:7). Walking with God emphasises that.

Rem. Of Samuel it is said, that "Jehovah was

with him", but Enoch "walked with God". Is there any difference?

J.T. There was no commission given to Enoch. Nothing is said about his service. Samuel had a commission, and he needed divine support in his service, which is of course important.

But what I believe the Holy Spirit has in this passage is that the result of the exercise is recovery. God has man walking with Him for three hundred years! Well, that is worth all the exercise, and all the breakdown. If He did not get it in Eden, He got it in a scene of breakdown in a disciplined man. No one is fully recovered save as he is walking with God.

Rem. Then God in this case had greater pleasure than He would have had in Adam if he had walked in innocence for ever.

J.T. Yes. Enoch is the fruit of God's moral dealings -- a disciplined man. Adam, as he stood, was the fruit of His creatorial power. Morally, Adam could not be translated to heaven; he was not made for it, he was made for earth. But the first man under discipline becomes a heavenly man. Enoch was a disciplined man. The first essential point in recovery is what God has got out of it for His pleasure.

P.L. A disciplined man can give God pleasure, which a man in his sins cannot do. Do we get this principle in the man who is mentioned in John 9? The disciples ask the Lord, "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus answered, Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him" (John 9:2, 3).

J.T. Yes; there was a moral element in that man. He had sight given to him; but that was not all, he had to go through a process; and in that process the works of God were manifest.

Rem. The exercise here is complete.

J.T. I think so. Enoch was the seventh; which would signify complete exercise.

Rem. Often in individuals, as well as in companies, you may see partial recovery. That does not reach the pleasure of God.

J.T. No. There may be an endeavour to meet things legally, by arrangements, and what not, and yet there is nothing for God in it.

Rem. It does not come about as the result of walking with God.

J.T. In the case of Cain there was a certain reasoning with him, and then he said, "My punishment is too great to be borne" (Genesis 4:13). There was not a word about his guilt; he did not go to the root of the matter. But see how merciful God was! Even to such an one as Cain, He says, "Whoever slayeth Cain, it shall be revenged sevenfold. And Jehovah set a mark on Cain, lest any finding him should smite him. And Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah" (Verses 15, 16). There was not the slightest sign of God's pleasure there. He went out, and left God behind him.

Rem. Enoch walked with God three hundred years. The Lord Jesus Christ was here only a comparatively short period.

J.T. Yes. He was so delightful to God that He would have Him in heaven. So Luke makes much of heaven's delight in Him. In Luke 9:51 we read "It came to pass when the days of his receiving up were fulfilled, that he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem". It does not say His 'going up', but His "receiving up;" because heaven wanted Him back. And then as He was blessing them, "he was separated from them and was carried up into heaven" (Luke 24:51). And we may be sure that heaven does not wish the assembly to be delayed here; but God would honour us that we should be in accord with His long-suffering. The church as disciplined, and

knowing His mind, should be content to be in the great position of identification with God in His long-suffering.

P.L. So the generation that God wants is a generation He can leave here, and entrust with His thoughts and interests.

J.T. And so John comes in at the end to show us the greatness of being trustworthy. God honours us, and entrusts us with His thoughts in the end of the period.

Ques. Would walking with God at the present moment involve walking in the light of the dispensation?

J.T. Yes; walking with God at any period means that you are walking in the light that governs that dispensation.

Ques. Is there such a thing as partial recovery?

J.T. Yes.

Rem. They may stop in the middle of it.

J.T. Yes, they may indeed. Whereas what we have in this chapter, in the light of the New Testament, is "the seventh from Adam" -- the complete thing.

Ques. Would Jacob be partially recovered when he took the stone and set it up for a pillar, and poured a drink-offering and oil on the top of it; Genesis 35?

J.T. As soon as Joseph was born, Jacob says "Send me away, that I may go to my place and to my country" (Genesis 30:25). Recovery, I think, begins there. It is the light of Christ in the soul. But he waited still in Syria after that for a time; then finally he leaves it, and ale wrestles with God. He was further on there. He says, Now I want to get the blessing. Heretofore he had been occupied in getting cattle, and wives, and children, and what not, but now he says to God in effect, I want you to bless me. He had plenty of this world's goods, but

he wanted something more. That shows he was progressing spiritually. He says, "I will not let thee go except thou bless me" (Genesis 32:26). And we read, "He blessed him there". He got it. That was a fresh step. Then afterwards he gets into disgrace. But God is faithful, and He says to Jacob, "Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there, and make there an altar unto the God that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother" (Genesis 35:1). And Jacob set up the pillar, and poured on it a drink-offering, and poured oil on it; showing that God had secured the full result.

Rem. How many there are in Christendom who have got the light of forgiveness and justification, but never move on into the light of sonship!

J.T. Just so. And where sin happens, however much acknowledgement there may be, unless the thing is bottomed, and unless the soul is really with God about it, the pleasure of God is not there.

Rem. In recovery a good deal would lie in the sensibilities.

Ques. Does God stop short in carrying out His intentions to recover a soul; does He not bring one finally to what He had in His mind for them?

J.T. Yes; but then there are hundreds like those to whom He refers in Matthew 23:27 when He says, "How often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

Rem. But if you are clinging to God, He will never cease until the final result is accomplished.

J.T. Yes; but that depends on how far I want to go. I might turn aside to Shechem and build a house. You see it was God who suggested to Jacob to leave Shechem. That was the faithfulness of God.

P.L. Recovery depends on going down. Was it not characteristic of the Lord? He recovered all by going to the greatest depth.

Rem. I suppose in the case of the ten leprous men, partial recovery would be suggested in nine of them, but the tenth, the one who came back, was fully recovered.

Rem. In the epistle of Jude 24, already referred to as speaking of the seventh from Adam, we also read that God "is able to keep you without stumbling, and to set you with exultation blameless before his glory".

J.T. Yes; and Jude also says, "But ye, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God" (verse 20).

Ques. In connection with light and recovery do you think God calls attention to a divine principle in it as a rule?

J.T. No doubt something would come out of it. "Out of the eater came forth food" (Judges 14:14). Whatever spoil there is, is to be a permanent asset in the house.

KNOWLEDGE THAT COMES OF REFLECTION

John 3:9 - 13; 1 John 2:20; 1 Samuel 10:1 - 8

In remarking on these scriptures, my object is to seek to create an exercise as to spiritual understanding; what is referred to in the book of Proverbs 8:12 as "the knowledge which cometh of reflection"; not simply what comes from reading, although reading is of prime importance to a christian, as the apostle Paul says to Timothy, "give thyself to reading", (1 Timothy 4:13). He also refers to the books which he left at Troas, which Timothy was to bring (2 Timothy 4:13); so that in his advanced years the apostle evidently gave attention to reading. But wisdom speaks of "the knowledge which cometh of reflection", and in order that the believer might have whereon to reflect, God sets certain features before him as he sets out in his christian career. Now the first great thing for the believer to understand, from this point of view, is that however little he may know, things are known; not only are they to be known, they are known. The apostle, who, as he tells the Colossians, had great combat for them that they might know the mystery, speaks to the Ephesians of his knowledge of it; he says that "ye can understand my intelligence in the mystery" (Ephesians 3:4). They were to know that it was known; not only that it was to be known, but it was known.

The gospel of John brings out, in this connection, what is known. In Ecclesiastes 6:10 we have a statement which is very remarkable -- "what man is, is known". The Scriptures anticipate, much more accurately than we are prone to think, what believers have to deal with at the present time. The very first chapter in the Bible, indeed, anticipates what we

have to face in the way of opposition. So in the pretentious effort there is to investigate in regard to man, christians have this statement, "what man is, is known". Hence we are not investigating on that line; we leave that to those who are willing to spend their time and means in that way.

The Lord in the gospel of John is said to have known what was in man, and that His knowledge of what was in man led Him to refuse to have any confidence in him; John 2:24, 25. Many of us, doubtless, would have thought that a great work of God was proceeding when many believed on the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem because of the signs; and, doubtless, those believers, or those who correspond with them in our times, might be numbered as converts. The fact that one under such influence raises his hand in acknowledgement of what he hears, is not conclusive that he is converted. I do not wish to undervalue what proceeds, but John sets us on our guard; he notifies us at the very outset of the danger of taking people at their word, when it comes to spiritual things. A man whose word might be his bond in natural things will utterly fail you in spiritual things, unless he is really born again. It says, "many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he wrought. But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men" (John 2:23, 24). Solomon had said, "what man is, is known", and in the presence of Jesus on earth this is emphasised, and this knowledge leads the believer to distrust man. It is not that we live in the region of distrust in relation to our fellow-men. Of a truth, indeed, "all men are liars". It is not that they are accustomed to tell lies about ordinary things; it is when the test is applied that a lie comes. And so the Lord did not commit Himself to them, for He knew all men.

The next chapter, therefore, introduces the necessity for the new birth. If there is to be anything reliable

in regard to the things of God, a man must be born anew. Nicodemus says, "How can these things be?" It is a great matter when people begin to make inquiry; and we may expect this, for while the Spirit of God remains here, men shall be inquiring. Not inquiring in curiosity merely, as on Mars Hill, where they came to hear the news of the day -- Nicodemus' inquiry was not of that order, he had genuine exercises. And while the Holy Spirit is here there shall be such. And who is to answer the inquiries? John brings in a Man who knows. That is what I have before me. The Lord says to Nicodemus, "Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things!" Nicodemus did not know, although he should have known. How many teachers there are in "Israel" at the present time who do not know! If we are to be here in representation of Christ we must know.

The Lord proceeds to say to Nicodemus, "We speak that which we know". John speaks therefore at the outset of One who can say, "We speak that which we know, we bear witness of that which we have seen,; and ye receive not our witness". The Lord had to testify in conditions similar to our own, but nevertheless He testified what He knew and what He had seen. I want you to take in just that simple thought of a Man here dwelling among men, who could say "I know", and who could go over the earthly things and unfold them as no one else could. Then also He could unfold the heavenly: "If I have said the earthly things to you, and ye believe not, how, if I say the heavenly things to you, will ye believe? And no one has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven". I want you to dwell upon that as illustrative of John's ministry -- that you are in the presence of One who knows. He knows what man is; He knows all the ways of God in regard to the earth, and He knows the heavenly. He came to earth with the infinite

knowledge of what was in heaven, and He spoke it. "No one", He says, "has gone up into heaven, save he who came down out of heaven".

You see what christianity is from this passage; how all other religions simply disappear as utterly unworthy of comparison. Here is a Man who knows everything. He knows the ways of God on earth; He knows what man is, and He can bring out and unfold what is in heaven; and He does. So we have a perfect model; whatever I may know or not know, things are known, not only to God, but in a Man on earth, and they are brought down to us thus.

And so Nicodemus came to the right Man. If any one is in need, and has any inquiries, make sure that you find the right Man. There is the man that speaks froward things -- beware of him; and the woman who flatters with her mouth -- beware of her. The former includes the modernist, the infidel, the sceptic, who say what they wish to say without any fear and without regard to divine authority. The woman who "flatters with her mouth" is that which is connected with the senses: the feelings, the lusts; the theatres, the picture-shows. The christian has to be on his guard in regard to these two great agencies of the devil to nullify the revelation of God.

So John brings out that there is a Man who knows; and if you are exercised and make inquiry, make sure you find that Man. The apostle Paul brought this forward when writing to the Ephesians; he says, "ye can understand my intelligence in the mystery;" and the whole of the epistle to the Colossians is to guard the saints from man's teaching -- philosophy and vain deceit.

I want to go on to the epistle of John, to show you how the young believer has, in principle, by the possession of the Spirit, a means of being independent of man. He says, "Ye have an unction". He is

speaking to "little children;" and I desire to be as simple and as pointed as the beloved apostle, for he certainly did not aim over anybody's head; he included the little ones in his epistle. He addresses believers in their varied stages of growth, and in this section he addresses the "little children". He says to them, "Ye have the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things" (1 John 2:20). That refers to the believer as having the Spirit, the unction referring to the Spirit; it dignifies the believer.

I see a christian recently converted, and he is reading the Bible, and I see him turning to God as he reads, and discarding the pernicious books that he read before he was converted. I see him, like the Ephesians when they were converted, burning the books, although they were costly, and I say, Although that young christian thinks very little of himself, in the eyes of heaven he is dignified. It is in a very little thing that you show you are taking on the heavenly dignity; for the olive tree (which is a type of the Spirit) in refusing to rule over the trees would not leave his function, for by him God was honoured and man was honoured.

If I accept the Bible and reject man's productions, I am honouring God. What leads me to do that? the Spirit. The very instincts of the Spirit lead me to reject what is of man and to accept what is of God. Nicodemus had those instincts, although not yet having the Spirit; he says, "We know that thou art come a teacher from God" (John 3:2). He did not know very much, but that was of paramount importance and he was dignified to that extent. He traced the miracles to their source, attributing them to God; and the One through whom they came had Himself come from God. So Nicodemus is on the line of learning, when he says, "we know that thou art come a teacher from God".

Well, the apostle says to the little ones, "Ye have

the unction from the holy one, and ye know all things". That is what I might call potential. Although the young believer does not know things in detail, he does in principle, he has got the means of knowing them; whereas the most learned man, if unconverted, has not. The youngest believer has the unction from the Holy One to know all things.

The apostle says further, "the unction which ye have received" (verse 27). That word "received" means that there has been an action by the believer. The gift of the Spirit is from the divine side, but the reception is from my side. I have committed myself; so He says that "the unction which ye have received from him abides in you". You may rely upon it, the Holy Spirit will not leave you; He is here to teach you. You are precious in the eyes of heaven, and the Holy Spirit has taken charge of you, and He will work to preclude all that is of man, "Ye have not need that any one should teach you" -- that is not a man like the apostle John -- all the gifts are men. What is referred to is the man that the Lord knew, and refused to trust, a man that is not born again, and one who has not got the Spirit; you do not need him.

Thus the believer is set up in the understanding of the Spirit in independency; he is dignified by the anointing. But one's dignity is sustained so that one is in dependence. The word 'independent' is a good one for christians, but if you apply it in your relations with God, or with your brethren, it expresses what is bad. But it is a very important word as expressive of what we have in the Holy Spirit, so that I am independent of the men of this world to teach me I do not need them.

Now I want to show you from the book of Samuel how God brings forward the elements of help. In Christ you have a Man that knows; being ascended on high as a Man, He has received gifts in relation to men, and He has given them here, so that these things

may be known; it says, "with a view to the work of the ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ; until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ" (Ephesians 4:12, 13). So there is that here which corresponds with Christ above; things are known, and what is known thus is available to every believer.

We have in Samuel the things whereby we are helped on this line of acquiring spiritual understanding and spiritual fitness for the representation of God. I do not dwell on the poor man who is alluded to here -- Saul; he was a man after the flesh, and what applies to the man after the flesh applies to him. I refer to this chapter as setting forth what is available to the believer; what was available to Saul is available to every believer. These things were not recorded as mere history; they are available to us. So what we see is, Saul was anointed, and kissed -- a very beautiful touch; a touch, indeed, which every young believer should experience. Then he was to have a position in relation to the inheritance of the Lord; he was to be captain of the inheritance. Think of being introduced to this! Think of having part in the inheritance! whatever your part may be in it. The apostle prayed for the Ephesians, that they might know what is "the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints" (Ephesians 1:18). Think of having part in that! Saul is anointed and kissed, and then he departs. He is on his own responsibility now. A believer has to learn to walk; he has to start out on his own account, but fully furnished.

So Saul finds two men at Rachel's sepulchre: "When thou goest from me today, thou shalt meet two men by Rachel's sepulchre ... and they will say to thee, The asses are found which thou wentest to seek, and behold, thy father hath dismissed the matter of the asses, and is anxious about you,

saying, What shall I do for my son?" We come now to that which is to be reflected upon -- the knowledge that comes of reflection. What a subject of reflection was Rachel's sepulchre! You will remember how Jacob reared up a pillar over Rachel's grave. Benjamin was born as she died. The more you stop and dwell on the sepulchre of Rachel, the more wonderful the thing becomes; the mother dies, but a son is born -- the son of his mother's sorrow, but of his father's right hand. What knowledge comes of such reflections! Sorrow on the one hand -- a believer is worth little or nothing who has not had sorrow. You may look out for sorrow in the christian path, for it is "through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14 22); but in the sorrow there is power. There is the Son of the Father's right hand -- crucified in weakness, indeed, but He lives by the power of God, and His strength is made perfect in weakness. That is what I may call the first lesson. It is the knowledge that comes of reflection in things presented to you.

But then you are a son too! Benjamin was the son of his father's right hand. Saul, too, had a father and the father was sorrowing: "What shall I do for my son?" You are impressed at the outset that the Father is interested in you. It is a great comfort and a great source of strength to the young believer to know that God is interested in him as a son. Then the causes of any anxiety you may have will surely be removed for you: "The asses are found".

These are elements divinely appointed, so that the believer might progress and have understanding and intelligence. The two men are witnesses by Rachel's sepulchre; you find adequate testimony to these things, and to the interest that is in you. If there is a young believer here tonight who is not conscious of being a subject of interest, I can assure you that

you are. You are wanted as a son; God would have you in that liberty. How much there was in all this for Saul, but there was no real ability in him to take it in! There is, however, in the believer ability to take in these things.

Having gone forward a little, you come in contact with people who go up to the house of God: "And thou shalt go on forward from thence, and shalt come to the oak of Tabor, and there shall meet thee three men going up to God, to Bethel, one carrying three kids, and another carrying three cakes of bread, and another carrying a flask of wine". I address myself to the young people and I say, Have you met these three men? The house of God is a new thing to you, and you see men going up to it. There was a time when I wondered why people assembled together so regularly and with such interest. I had not the interest they had, but presently I got it. They were going up to God; it is a wonderful thing to see persons going up to God. Think of the sense of holiness that would mark such men! And they are not going up empty. Not only have they Bibles, so to speak, under their arms, but they know what is in them. Thank God for the open Bible, but then what about what is in it? I may have a Bible under my arm and not know what is in it. These men understood things; they had things in their hands -- for us -- spiritual things. As you will observe, one was carrying three kids, another three cakes of bread, and another a flask of wine. They were men that carried things; they had things; in their hands that referred to God, and they were going up to God. Have you met these three men? You may meet them constantly in many places and they ask after your welfare. In the so-called churches around there is but little of this. There is a stage in the progress of the believer where he comes into contact with people who are going up to God as in His house;

and they do not go up empty. In 1 Corinthians 14 we have the suggestion -- one has a psalm, a teaching, etc. You have something; you know what God requires, and you are carrying something. A young believer coming into contact with such, learns what it is to go up to Bethel.

Then they give him two loaves of bread. Not only do I see what it is to go up to God, but I see I am in the region of gift. The woman in John 4:10 came into the region of gift "If thou knewest the gift of God". Now I know not only that God gives, but I know that the brethren give; if a man loves God, he gives.

Then he comes to the hill of God, where was a garrison of the Philistines. Things have been in your favour hitherto, but now you have enemies to contend with. The Philistines are at the hill of God; in the sphere of christian profession there are Philistines, men who are not christians. They are influencing people, and you have got to meet these men; you are to be "a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 2:3). You have to learn that. Then as you come into the city you find a situation that greatly encourages you. It is said, "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with lute and tambour and pipe and harp before them; and they themselves prophesying". Now you are in the region of prophecy -- you have already come into the region of gift.

Everything was in Saul's favour; as he comes into the city he finds a company of prophets and they have musical instruments, and he is in the region of prophecy. Our meetings are not for brethren to pass from one to another what each one knows; the principle of our meetings is prophetic. The things of which we speak should not be as at a distance; if the Holy Spirit is among us we have the spirit of prophecy. It is not a question of one saying what he

knows, and another saying what he knows; it is a question of prophesying, and it ever will be so where the Spirit is.

"They themselves prophesying. And the Spirit of Jehovah will come upon thee" -- Saul comes under the spirit of prophecy. What an experience that is! There are those who sit mute in the meetings, and are as spectators; the interested ones come under the spirit of prophecy, and say things they never expected to be able to say. Why? Because they have come under the spirit of prophecy. "And the Spirit of Jehovah will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man". Look at that! Your view now is different; you have come under the spirit of prophecy, and you join in it. Take 1 Corinthians 14 again: an unbeliever or an ignorant person comes in -- they are prophesying, and the man falls down and acknowledges that God is among them of a truth. He comes under the influence of prophecy. You see how Saul came under the influence of it: "the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied". It is not now simply the anointing; it is a peculiar thing; it belongs to the company. When the Holy Spirit comes in, in this way, we are different; we are lifted out of what we are naturally. It is a wonderful experience, and it all tends to make the believer spiritually intelligent in regard of what is of God.

Samuel continues: "And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal; and behold, I will come down to thee, to offer burnt-offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace-offerings: seven days shalt thou wait, until I come to thee and inform thee what thou shalt do". Now, you see the believer has gone through all these things so that he might have the knowledge that comes of reflection, and have spiritual experiences, because of the Spirit -- not only in himself, but in the company. It is one thing to

have the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit, and to live in the Spirit; but it is another thing to understand the Spirit in the company, in the region of prophecy, where the mind of God is disclosed.

Now, after all this you go down to Gilgal, where everything is adjusted in your soul; you are sobered, you are not carried away by elation. It is a sort of 'cooling' process by which things find their level, and it is there where you are permanently formed, where you learn to judge the flesh and disentangle things in your mind, for fleshly feelings are sure to come up after such experiences. The real work is done at Gilgal, and you have to wait there. That is a test. You say, I have a gift; I have been prophesying, and I do this and that! You must learn to wait. Many have made shipwreck because they refused to wait. Saul lost the kingdom because he refused to wait and to act on the word of Samuel. Samuel had said, "Wait until I come". You will have a blessed time at Gilgal, for God will be with you, helping you to judge and disallow the flesh. But Saul did not wait. Is there not a warning for us in all this? It is an immense thing to go to Gilgal and learn to wait after you are brought through this wonderful experience -- after having so many spiritual things presented to you. The great things presented in Christ as for us are not to clothe the flesh, hence the necessity for Gilgal. May God bless these thoughts to us all!

READING (7)

Genesis 8: 15 - 22; 35: 9 - 15

J.T. What is before us is to see how in recovery after failure there is that which is for the pleasure of God. Yesterday we saw that Enoch was the end of an exercise arising from the failure of Adam; and that he, as we are told in Jude's epistle, being the seventh from Adam, had the testimony before he was translated that he pleased God; (Hebrews 11:5). It was a very great testimony. And each one of us may have this testimony as we walk with God.

Now in the next occasion of exercise, we find that Noah walked with God; so that what Enoch set out is carried forward. In Genesis 6:9 we read: "This is the history of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect amongst his generations: Noah walked with God". That is a sort of formula in the book. And Noah goes through the deluge, which was the judgment of God on the world on account of the failure and sin of mankind. Nevertheless, all that is of God is carried through it; nothing is lost; and the result, as set out in chapter 8, shows that there is that which is for God's pleasure; it says of the burnt-offerings that Jehovah smelled a sweet savour.

Ques. Peter speaks of Noah as being the eighth -- what is the thought in that?

J.T. It means one of eight.

Rem. The new earth is first introduced in the savour of the burnt-offering.

J.T. The point is that the result of the exercise was for the pleasure of God. And what is acquired from the exercise, namely, Noah's testimony, is passed on to those who follow. I think the exercise in our reading yesterday was to see that when sin or

breakdown occurs, recovery is only complete when there is something to please God as a result.

Ques. Partial recovery would not be exactly for the pleasure of God?

J.T. In some cases there may be much to satisfy the conscience of a brother, or of brethren, but complete recovery is what pleases God. That is, the testimony that a man has; it is there to be seen, and it is carried forward, an added asset to what has been there already.

Rem. It is good to see that what had been in Enoch is continued in Noah.

J.T. That is the point -- nothing lapses; Enoch goes to heaven, but his testimony remains here, and it is carried forward.

Ques. Would Elijah and Elisha suggest a similar thought, namely, that there might be continuation of the man who had been here for God?

J.T. Yes. I think Enoch's testimony is gathered up in Noah, and it would necessarily greatly enhance Noah's testimony, who is said to have been a preacher of righteousness. We are not told in what particular feature Enoch pleased God; he walked with God. But in Noah we have righteousness; it is said of him: "Noah was a just man, perfect amongst his generations", and God had only found him righteous.

Rem. Noah pleased God, and he had whereof to offer on the altar. Would that indicate increase?

J.T. Yes; and he is the first we find preaching. He was a qualified vessel in that he was righteous personally, and had a good report among his generations. One has to take account of these things.

If it be a question of sin and recovery, we have a model before us in this chapter of God's ways with a man who was righteous himself, and just and perfect among his generations.

Ques. Did God foresee the sacrifice Noah would offer when he came out of the ark?

J.T. He did, undoubtedly, in directing that there should be an increased number of clean animals; seven instead of two.

Ques. When you drew attention to the fact that Noah was the first preacher, and you connected it with righteousness, what had you in mind?

J.T. I think we see how the testimony is cumulative; as it progresses it carries forward what came out in Enoch, and adds the thought of righteousness personally in walk, as in Noah, who also preached righteousness. He must have been a very great man morally in a world such as had developed, and as is outlined in chapter 6. He would be a man of great moral strength to stand out against it, maintaining righteousness personally, and preaching it.

Rem. That would give great weight to his words.

J.T. He was known in this way in his generation, as it says here; he was "perfect amongst his generations".

Ques. Would you say that he got the knowledge of the clean and the unclean as a result of walking with God?

J.T. No doubt. You can see it in what he was personally in his testimony, and then how he goes through the result of the sin of others. That is a thing that I think may be noted. The deluge was not on account of him; it was on account of others, but he goes through it; and he goes through it with God.

Ques. Would not the same principle apply in measure to ourselves?

J.T. Whatever occurs locally, or generally, whether personally responsible or not, one has to go through the thing. With Adam and Eve there was personal penalty imposed, and also with Cain; but others had to go through the consequences of their sin. There is no personal penalty attached to Noah, but he has to go through the consequences of the sins of

others. It is as having gone through that, that you sacrifice an offering of a sweet savour.

P.L. Enoch prophesied, but Noah went through the judgment. That would indicate an advance on what is set forth in Enoch.

Rem. The Lord died, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God. Is that the thought?

J.T. Yes; the Lord in that very connection is said to have suffered: "Christ indeed has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3:18). We are not called upon to suffer for sin, but as a result of sin. Noah went through the penalty that others brought in.

P.L. Would it be the sin-offering in verse 20?

J.T. I think so. The others were overwhelmed by the deluge, but Noah got the experience of going through the consequences of their sin. That applies in every instance; the person responsible comes under the governmental dealings of God, but all have to go through it in spirit. Those who take it upon themselves in this way get the gain of the experience; they are on the line of the Lord when He says "then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). He faced judgment personally, not on His own account, of course, He went through it for others. And Noah in a way foreshadows this; he suffered, so to speak, the just for the unjust; he went through the judgment, and hence on coming out of the ark on the new earth he offers up a sacrifice. You will notice that Noah did not come out until he was told to do so. It is God who must release us when we have passed through things that come upon us on account of sin.

Rem. We have to wait in patience on God for that.

J.T. We have to wait in the prison-house until God opens the door.

P.L. "Know that our brother Timotheus is set at liberty" (Hebrews 13:23). Do we not get that

principle in Ezekiel as well? He sits among the captives, and then he gets the gain of the light of the temple.

J.T. Just so. In the government of God we have to learn to suffer with others; although we may not be personally responsible, being bound up in the fellowship we cannot escape suffering in the government of God, and we have to wait on God to release us. The waters assuaged, and in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry. That is one thing; but then it says, "God spoke to Noah, saying, Go out of the ark". The release was a divine command; that means that one has got to wait on God for it.

Rem. Our tendency would be to endeavour to get out as soon as possible.

J.T. Yes, we get restive in the limitations, but Noah evidently did not.

Rem. You spoke yesterday of the test of waiting, in connection with Saul; he was not up to it.

J.T. I am sure that is where many of us come short.

P.L. Would you say that while you are waiting you experience what Noah did in the return of the dove with the olive leaf?

J.T. There is beautiful instruction in connection with Noah. As the waters rose, the ark rose. What a sense of the awfulness of death, and the judgment of God, would lay hold of Noah's soul as the waters increased, engulfing all those people! But what a sense of God's mercy he would have as the waters gradually decreased until the earth was dry! The earth was dry; the judgment had disappeared, but all that experience had been gone through, and it is the man who went through it that is directed to come out.

Rem. And so, similarly, God would, permit us to

feel the discipline increasingly until we get a sense of the judgment.

J.T. Yes. I think we have to see things as they actually are, when sin occurs. David, as we all know, could judge another with great accuracy. When Nathan brought the parable before him he had no hesitation in judging another. We are not behind him in that. But when Nathan says, "Thou art the man", David is equal to it. That is how the light of God shines in a man; David says, "I have sinned against Jehovah". He has no excuse to offer. He had a sense of the seriousness of the thing; it came home to his soul. Then Nathan said, "Jehovah has also put away thy sin: thou shalt not die" (2 Samuel 12:13). Yet he had to go through it all; he lost the child. Until the child died he had refused to eat, he lay upon the earth, and acknowledged his guilt; but when the child died he rose up and presented himself, and explained that whilst the child was alive he recognised the hand of God, inasmuch as that He might have mercy upon him, but when he was dead he says, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:23). We see how David went through the thing; he saw that he would die too. The psalms show how much he suffered in going through it; and in result how pleasing he was to God.

Rem. Would you attribute any significance to the sending out of the dove? Would it set forth spiritual inquiry to ascertain how things stand?

J.T. Yes; the raven would suggest human means of investigation, but the dove is a type of the Holy Spirit. She found no rest for the sole of her foot. The judgment had not as yet been removed; the hand of God was still heavily upon the earth. I believe in all such cases those who have the Holy Spirit have the means of acquiring that knowledge; they know how things are. The dove came back faithfully to Noah. It touches the personal link

between Noah and the dove, which is very beautiful. In verse 7 we read: "he sent out the raven, which went forth going to and fro, until the waters were dried from the earth". There is no real result from that effort, for the raven does not return. But in verse 8 it says, "he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had become low on the ground". There was a link with him in the dove; she is sent out from Noah; there is a personal touch in that. Then it says, "the dove found no resting-place for the sole of her foot, and returned to him into the ark". There is a beautiful link there in the dove as a type of the Spirit. He took her in to him, and knew by her that the waters were still on the earth. So that there is thus the means of determining how things are.

How beautiful, too, it is to see God directing Noah to come out of the ark and everything that had life! "Thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. Bring forth with thee every animal which is with thee, of all flesh, fowl as well as cattle, and all the creeping things which creep on the earth, that they may swarm on the earth, and may be fruitful and multiply on the earth. And Noah went out, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him. All the animals, all the creeping things, and all the fowl -- everything that moves on the earth, after their kinds, went out of the ark". So that we have a scene now moving under divine direction and control, a living state of things. Then Noah builds an altar.

Ques. Would the burnt-offering be a vindication of what God had done on the earth?

J.T. I think so. It was in keeping with Noah's name. The word 'odour' is the same as the word 'Noah', which means that God intended to have rest in that man; but evidently He did not have that fully until Noah went through the judgment. It is in going through the consequences of sin with God

by divine appointment that the savour of rest comes in.

P.L. Do we get that principle in 2 Corinthians 2:15? After Paul had gone through discipline he could say, "We are a sweet odour of Christ to God".

J.T. It comes in very suitably there. He had been down to the gates of death himself, and God had delivered him from "so great a death", chapter 1: 10. No doubt that was in view of the second letter, that he might write with more affection and a deeper sense of discipline.

Rem. One feels the need for continuance. Noah was one hundred and twenty years building the ark. In passing through exercise we are kept secure; but there is the possibility, when we come on to a new line of things, that we might fail, as did Noah; we might not be up to it.

J.T. That is seen in the next chapter. This chapter is all under divine direction. Noah went in under divine direction, and now he has come out of the ark as commanded of God.

P.L. The day after a battle is the most testing. The precious fruits of the conflict might be frittered away in self-indulgence.

J.T. In the altar you have a link with God. It means that you are publicly in relation with God; you have set up public worship as it were. The whole universe might see now in this man who had come out of death under the hand of God, that publicly he has God before him, and that he worships Him. So the altar is a very important feature, because it shows that one is definitely and publicly committed to God.

Rem. And then, too, he would share in the pleasure of God.

J.T. Well, you see what comes out here; it says, "Noah built an altar to Jehovah; and took of every

clean animal, and of all clean fowl, and offered up burnt-offerings on the altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet odour". He is for God's pleasure, and he has committed himself to it in the altar. So the new world has a wonderfully good start. Noah in doing this was recognising God as the only God to worship.

Rem. And one delights in that which gives delight to God!

Ques. When Lemech called his son Noah, saying, "This one shall comfort us concerning our work and concerning the toil of our hands, because of the ground which Jehovah has cursed" (Genesis 5:29), was he speaking prophetically? Later, we read that when Jehovah smelled the sweet odour He said, "I will no more henceforth curse the ground".

J.T. Doubtless Lemech had very little knowledge of what it meant; but he had light in the naming of his son, as we saw in regard to Seth, who also had light. Doubtless he understood but little of what it would involve, or how rest should come about, and what Noah would have to go through in the way of experience.

Ques. As you mentioned, the world had a good start; it would be on the principle of resurrection. Would the principle apply in the same way today?

J.T. Yes. Christianity, one might say, is the antitype to this. God said, "I will no more henceforth curse the ground on account of Man, for the thought of Man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will no more smite every living thing, as I have done. 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" (verses 21, 22). In the savour of the burnt-offering we have an order of things set up in stability. Notwithstanding the state of man's heart, God has found means of rising up above it, so that a stable order of things is set up. And if I have transgressed or

sinned, God is greater than my heart, and greater than my sin. The knowledge of God in that way becomes a great lever in the soul.

Rem. And in recovery there is always an asset.

J.T. Yes; you see what Noah passed on to the new world; what a start it had in Noah! There is always the spoil where recovery is complete.

Now, going on to Jacob, we see what he learnt of the house. His first experience of the house, before his discipline and before his breakdown was, that it was a "dreadful" place; chapter 28. He set up a pillar, but there was no drink-offering. There was no pleasure for God in that. Jacob had to go through twenty years of bitter experience before we read of the drink-offering.

Ques. A pillar would be a witness, would you say?

J.T. Yes; it stands. It is an asset in the house. In chapter 35 we read that "God went up from him in the place where he had talked with him. And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he had talked with him, a pillar of stone, and poured on it a drink-offering, and poured oil on it. And Jacob called the name of the place where God had talked with him, Beth-el".

Ques. When a soul is restored, is he given something more than he ever had before?

J.T. Yes; and not only does he get it, but the house of God is enriched. In Noah the new world gained. A recovered person, or company, would gain by it.

Rem. We have an example of that in Peter.

Ques. What was signified by the pouring of the oil? Jacob was able to do that in chapter 35, but apparently he was unable to do so in chapter 28.

J.T. I think it is a matter of the spiritual intelligence which he had acquired in the meantime. The book of Genesis is a book of roots, the fruits appearing later in Scripture, and we find the principle running

right through, that those who are in the house of God are intelligent, and know what to do. The drink-offering was the outcome of Jacob's knowledge; the knowledge that comes from experience. It was true movement when he returned to his own country.

Rem. The offering that Noah presented to God was of clean animals. He knew what would be acceptable to Him.

Ques. In the pouring out of the drink-offering, Jacob would have the sense that he was pleasurable to God in so doing?

J.T. God talked with him. In chapter 28 God was at the top of the ladder, and Jacob at the bottom; there was distance between. But in chapter 35 it was not so, for God came down and talked with him on the earth. Jacob knew that a change had come about; but the change was in himself; God was the same in both cases, but he was not the same.

Rem. There would be joy in the drink-offering.

J.T. Everything was to convey to Jacob that God was just delighted to have him in the house; and Jacob was conscious of this.

Ques. Then he had come to know God better?

J.T. Certainly. And in John's first epistle the whole point is to bring about conscious knowledge -- "that ye may know", he says; (1 John 5:13). That epistle would enable us to consider, and be conscious of all things. Jacob had very little consciousness of what the house of God was in chapter 28, for he spoke of it as a "dreadful" place. He was wanting in the consciousness of being suitable to it. But in chapter 35 he poured out the drink-offering on the pillar first. That is to say, he was conscious of God's pleasure in him; and then he poured oil on it.

Rem. He set up the pillar in the place where God talked with him.

J.T. Yes and he gave it a name. It stands for all time.

Ques. Do we get in connection with Paul also the thought of the Lord looking down on him from heaven in tender compassion at the start, and then afterwards He comes close to him to bring him in touch with Himself?

Rem. I suppose that here God was preparing Jacob for further and perhaps more trying exercises.

J.T. Yes; the death of Rachel is recorded next. But before that Jacob has the consciousness of being suitable to the house, and for God's pleasure.

Rem. This consciousness would give us greatly enlarged thoughts.

J.T. Where God is pleased with a vessel, the anointing comes upon it.

Rem. The drink-offering is the symbol of eternal joy.

J.T. The Lord said of Saul of Tarsus, he "is an elect vessel to me" (Acts 9:15).

READING (8)

Genesis 45:1 - 15

J.T. The subject before us is to touch a little on the recovery of brethren; and, as has been previously remarked in regard to Enoch, Noah, and Jacob, I believe we shall see that in the recovery of Joseph's brethren there was what was for God's pleasure. What comes out in the last book of the Old Testament, is that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Now Esau was Jacob's brother, and notwithstanding the fact that he had been shown great consideration throughout his history, he never manifested the spirit of a brother towards Jacob. We have also in Cain a brother who, although standing in that relationship with Abel, was a murderer; indeed, Esau was little better, for he maintained an implacable hatred of Jacob, in whose family the spirit of a brother was developed. So that the book of Malachi is very solemn, coming in at the end, and pointing out one who, in the relation of a brother, failed in the spirit and affection that belong to it, and came in for divine disapproval; the word in regard to him is, "I hated Esau" (Malachi 1:3). That is in view of his history, the history having been completed.

Rem. He made himself hateful.

J.T. Quite so; he maintained an implacable hatred for his brother.

P.L. "Because of violence against thy brother Jacob, shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever" (Obadiah 10).

J.T. Yes; and you find how true that was. There we get one who prophesied about God's judgment on Edom, or Esau; and Ezekiel also refers to it twice; before he brings in the truth of the new birth (involving God's family) and the resurrection,

he devotes a whole chapter to God's judgment of Edom; chapter 35.

P.L. Esau broke the brotherly covenant.

J.T. Yes; as we read in Amos 1:11, "For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke its sentence; because he pursued his brother with the sword, and cast off all pity; and his anger did tear continually, and he kept his wrath for ever". I think Esau is typical of a brother who is wanting: in the spirit and affection that belong to that relationship. And that only throws greater light and importance on this chapter, which deals with the recovery of Joseph's brethren, because even in them the murderous spirit existed; but they were recovered. It shows, I think, that the ministry which is being carried on at the present time by the Spirit of God has in view the recovery of the people of God from the different associations in which they may be, and to bring them together. In order that this may be rightly understood, there has to be a definite judgment of that which Edom or Esau represents.

P.L. They said one to another, "We are indeed guilty concerning our brother" (Genesis 42:21).

J.T. Joseph's brethren were not Edomites; they were capable of recovery. But Edom was incapable of recovery. How terrible it is when overtures have been made time and again to find no result. Edom had overtures made to him, and the greatest consideration accorded him. When coming out of Egypt, Israel would not interfere with Edom his brother. He turned aside and passed his land; he would not fight with him, but turned away from him; Numbers 20.

Rem. Edom usually joins with the enemy against Israel.

P.L. We have the last great overture to Edom in Paul the prisoner appealing to king Agrippa.

J.T. The Herods were Edomites, and true representatives

of the race. As you say, Agrippa had a wonderful overture made to him.

P.L. Paul was not trying to take his brother's birthright, he was offering it to him. He said, "I would to God, both in little and in much, that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds" (Acts 26:29).

Ques. Would recovery here be the climax?

J.T. I think there are four features of recovery in Genesis.

Ques. Would this answer to Philadelphia?

J.T. Exactly; brotherly love. I think we can see a certain line running through, beginning with Seth; so that we arrive at brethren dwelling together in unity in Genesis.

Ques. Why does the cup come in here? Would it suggest what is for God?

J.T. It comes in in a very interesting way. When the brethren come to Egypt, they are put into custody for three days. That is a preliminary process, seeing there had been sin. And this was a most heinous sin; it was not the sin of one, but of many, for ten of them were in it. Benjamin, however, was not involved; and I think he represents the overcomer, leading up to Philadelphia, as has been suggested. Now the first thing Joseph does is to put them into custody. It is important that where will is active there should be restriction.

Rem. He did that before he made himself known to his brethren.

J.T. Yes; the first experience is to be put under restraint three days.

Ques. How does that work out practically?

J.T. The Lord has His way of limiting us. Joseph here, all through, is presented by the Spirit of God as a type of the Lord -- one with unlimited and supreme authority and power.

Ques. Would you say that the governmental discipline of God led up to the personal discipline?

J.T. The government of God is always in view of the testimony. No doubt Simeon, who was detained when the others were released, would go through the more severe experience. He would be a representative of all, and as such he would go through things in a more solemn way. All the while he would have in mind that he was suffering, not only on his own account, but on account of all of them. That was suggested last night in connection with Noah. He had to suffer on account of others, not on his own account.

P.L. Joseph wept at the time Simeon was bound; showing what is in the heart of Christ when He sees the saints in difficulties and bondage.

J.T. The Lord has no pleasure in causing these limitations, but wisdom requires it. So that we may be sure that if we have to undergo these limitations, we have got the sympathy of the Lord in them. And if we have to place a brother under limitation we feel for him in it. The idea of punishment is not to penalise, but to correct; the principle is correction. Joseph had correction and recovery in his mind.

Rem. "In all their affliction he was afflicted" (Isaiah 63:9).

J.T. And even Jacob himself had to go through all this, because it is a family matter.

P.L. In Genesis 42:22, Reuben seeks to excuse himself he attempts to conceal his part in what had occurred. And is there not ofttimes in us a tendency to seek to escape from what is affecting the family circle?

J.T. That was not in keeping with what Joseph had in his mind. So Reuben had to go through the exercise. He said, "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". There

Reuben was exonerating himself and putting the onus on others.

Rem. That is a usual tendency. I suppose Reuben was saying what was true, but he has to go through the exercise with the others.

J.T. He was under delusion all this time.

P.L. A negative attitude is a guilty one in the presence of what is contrary to the Lord.

Rem. In chapter 44 the movement of Judah is on the line of recovery to the brotherly principle.

J.T. Judah is the link of recovery; Reuben did nothing. There was no light in his remark; it was self-vindication. He was seeking to exonerate himself; his attitude was a negative one. One may often see that in local difficulties. But it is not possible to get clear in that way, because one has to go through the trouble with the others. So here it is Judah who becomes the link of recovery.

Rem. He exhibits the spirit of a brother; he is ready to lay down his life for his brother.

P.L. Reuben offered his two sons for Benjamin, but Judah offered himself.

Ques. How would what you speak of in connection with Judah work out now?

J.T. Well, exercise sets in. You see how wonderfully skilful the Lord is in the way He brings about recovery in this case. Exercise begins with someone, and all get the gain of it. As in Seth, light came in in the naming of his child. It was Judah's speech in this instance which led to Joseph disclosing himself to his brethren.

P.L. With regard to Reuben, would that scripture in Leviticus 5:1 apply: "if any one sin, and hear the voice of adjuration, and he is a witness whether he hath seen or known it, if he do not give information, then he shall bear his iniquity"?

J.T. Yes.

Rem. And it should be taken up in a brotherly or family spirit?

J.T. I think so; that is one feature. In the light of the assembly, but also in the light of the family. We are dealing here with a family matter. Benjamin had to go through it, and even Joseph himself. Although he is acting the part of the lord of Egypt, he is one of the brethren. So the Lord takes up things, and feels them with us. We know from John 11 how He felt for the family at Bethany. It was a question there of one of the family taken sick and dying; and we see how the Lord wept there. So here, what happened was a family matter, and it was a common shame. That Joseph felt it secretly came out afterwards, and the others, and Jacob, too, had to go through it.

Rem. "I am Joseph your brother", he said. He was as much their brother in suffering as in anything.

J.T. Yes; and he felt it more keenly because the more spiritual one is in these matters, the more one feels them. You may have to take severe measures, as Joseph did, but you feel the thing. You are not doing it punitively but correctively.

Rem. Joseph handles the matter wisely. He asks them about their father, which was a common interest.

J.T. You see how deep a sense Judah had of what his father was enduring, and what Benjamin was to him. "His life", he says, "is bound up with his life, it will come to pass when he sees that the lad is not there, that he will die". How tenderly he spoke about his father and his brother Benjamin! There would seem to have been an element of trustworthiness there.

Rem. He had touched Joseph.

J.T. That was the motive of it. It says he came near to him. Judah's approach to Joseph had feeling in it. There was conscious knowledge, for he saw

the seriousness of the position, and he felt it, and was prepared to meet it at all costs to himself. He said, "Ah! my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art even as Pharaoh. My lord asked his servants, saying, Have ye a father, or a brother? And we said to my lord, We have an aged father, and a child born to him in his old age, yet young; and his brother is dead, and he alone is left of his mother; and his father loves him. And thou saidst unto thy servants, Bring him down to me, that I may set mine eye on him. And we said to my lord, The youth cannot leave his father: if he should leave his father, his father would die ... . And now, let thy servant stay, I pray thee, instead of the lad a bondman to my lord" (Genesis 44:18 - 22, 33). These are not idle words, they come from the heart. Judah is a brother who is feeling things before God.

Rem. It reminds one of Moses interceding for the people, at a later date. God delights to be entreated.

J.T. Joseph must have been impressed when he saw how full of respect and reverence Judah was. One feels that Judah had got to the bottom of things; he was considering for others. It shows how God comes in and uses a brother who feels with Him.

Rem. A testing moment like that would show exactly where he was.

Rem. It has been said, with reference to the passage you have read, that no other language contains such pathetic words.

J.T. All that preceded it accounts for it.

Now as soon as Benjamin arrives on the scene, the house comes into view. As you will notice, it says "And Joseph saw Benjamin with them, and said to the man who was over his house, Bring the men into the house, and slaughter cattle, and make ready;

for the men shall eat with me at noon" (Genesis 43:16). Benjamin is typical of the overcomer, I think, but he is with the offenders; externally he is one of them. In Joseph's mind, however, he is very different from them. So "the man brought the men into Joseph's house". That is a tribute to Benjamin. Although ostensibly he is with them as one of their brethren, in Joseph's mind he is very different from the others, and Joseph honours his presence. Instead of putting him into prison, they are all brought into the house; so they benefit from Benjamin.

Whilst we take our place in the shame, the Lord in His infinite wisdom recognises everyone's part in it. He knows just where we are in it personally, and He knows how to recognise that, and to make others recognise it. "Bring the men into the house", he says (not only Benjamin -- all of them), "for the men shall eat with me at noon". Instead of the prison now, it is the house. There would be an atmosphere there that would greatly help towards the restoration of all.

P.L. It is touching to see how Joseph stood in the house waiting for them; it says that "Judah and his brethren came to Joseph's house; and he was still there; and they fell down before him to the ground" (Genesis 44:14). It is a great feature of revival when the Lord is going on with the house.

J.T. He is still there! If others have left the light of the house, the Lord has not. And what is to be noted further is that the first thing he had was a prison house; and then the house in which they are at home as a family -- the sphere in which the Lord discriminates, and makes each one feel his position. In Genesis 43:33, 34 they were brought in, and it says, "they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth; and the men marvelled one at another. And he had portions carried to them from before him. And

Benjamin's portion was five times greater than the portions of them all. And they drank, and made merry with him". They all were present, but they were set down from the eldest to the youngest. That indicates, I think, that Joseph had great understanding in his house; he had a right to set them down as he pleased, so he placed them in that order. It would mean that there would be a sense of greater responsibility in them according to the positions they occupied; for whilst we all take a part in the shame, we are not really all equally responsible. God is infinitely fair in His dealings, whether now governmentally in regard to His house, or in eternity. The judgment pronounced will not be the same for all men, for God is fair, and each is judged according to his work. So in his dealings with His house, there is graded responsibility. Joseph set his brethren down from the eldest to the youngest, that is, Reuben comes first; but when the portions are handed out, Benjamin is the first. He loved Benjamin greatly; he had no part in the crime they committed, and Joseph in fairness did not fail to recognise that.

Departure having taken place in the assembly, this service of Christ is going on all the time. He deals with us in infinite fairness, He sets us down according to age. I am responsible according to the light and experience and privilege I have had. Your age is according to your light and experience.

P.L. In Hebrews 3 the house is introduced, and then in chapter 4 we have the word of God, living and operative.

Rem. It is a serious thing to be an old brother.

J.T. Very; you are placed at the top. There are more eyes on you than on the others, and the Lord would impress you with that fact. Then, as is presented here, there is a young brother, and the Lord honours him. Why is this? It is His sovereignty.

Joseph loved Benjamin as the overcomer. As a matter of fact, in all these exercises Benjamin has been entirely free from the crime the others were guilty of, but he goes through the sorrow of the family, and the Lord knows how to honour him; he gets a portion five times greater than any of the others.

Rem. One is judged according to experience; it is not merely a question of years.

J.T. We are speaking on general principles. This service of the Lord is going on all the time. He shows the brethren their sinful condition. Brethren may be mixed up with different systems, which would correspond with the mothers of Jacob's family; they had four mothers. The mother would have reference to the system in which I am brought up. How many brethren at the present time are mixed up in human systems! The service is a difficult one, because of the influence of these mothers. The principle here remains, because in a specific case in any locality the Lord is infinitely fair in His dealings; He grades the responsibility, and honours those that are to be honoured.

Rem. A state of famine existed all over the land.

J.T. Yes; and Benjamin suffers too. Do you not think there is famine in all these systems around? The food that the Lord gives the assembly at the present time is for all the saints, even though they be in evil associations. But then you see we are come into "Joseph's house" where there is plenty, and where He has means of differentiating -- placing responsibility upon some, and honouring others.

P.L. It is like the inspection of the guests in Matthew 22.

J.T. All this works up to Judah's acknowledgement. As has been remarked, Judah's is a beautiful speech, and ought to be studied by every brother, because you may be called upon to make it one day --

to speak to the Lord about local matters, and spread them before Him.

Rem. I suppose the tendency would be with some of us to seek to escape like Reuben; but we want to take it to heart, so that recovery may be brought about.

J.T. Yes; and then you see what would help you to make a speech like this would be the feeling of tenderness and sympathy on the part of the Lord. It is pleasing to the Lord, and every one who hears it is affected by it.

Rem. You referred last night to David accepting the rebuke, and taking the whole guilt on himself; I think we might be free to release our brethren if we took the whole guilt on ourselves.

J.T. You have no pleasure in a brother being bound. When Simeon was bound, Joseph must have felt it as much as anyone; Joseph knew what it was to be in prison himself, and he knew that he could not do a better thing for Simeon. We see the features of representation here. Reuben represents selfish obligation, which leads us nowhere. Simeon represents one who suffers representatively. Judah represents one who suffers through the discipline and accepts it, and he is the one who speaks to the Lord. He represents the whole family.

P.L. The Lord invests rule in such an one; "The sceptre will not depart from Judah, Nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come" (Genesis 49:10).

Ques. Do you think that Judah had a sense of the grace that was in Joseph?

J.T. No doubt he had come to this; and he possibly had some inkling as to who it was he was speaking to.

Now, with regard to this principle of representation, when I see the thing, I should not be like those who after the example of Reuben exonerate themselves.

Simeon represents the whole of the brethren, and they released, but he is detained. Judah represents are the spiritual element. When the Lord has been working with us in discipline, there is a spiritual result, and Judah represents that.

Rem. So discipline is corrective; it is not punishment.

J.T. We might perhaps be inclined to look on it as punishment, but I am sure that is not the thought of the Lord. You want to get those who are under discipline restored to the family.

Rem. If we are to deal with sin we have to take it home to ourselves as our own shame, as Judah did.

Ques. Do you not think that when the Lord disciplines us we are all inclined to look on it as punishment?

J.T. We sometimes regard it in that way, but it is not. "Judgment will be without mercy to him that has shewn no mercy. Mercy glories over judgment" (James 2:13).

In closing, Judah says, "And now, let thy servant stay, I pray thee, instead of the lad a bondman to my lord, and let the lad go up with his brethren; for how should I go up to my father if the lad were not with me? -- lest I see the evil that would come on my father". There is the spirit of Christ; he is prepared to lay down his life for the lad and the father. I think we have arrived in this at the spirit of Christ reproduced in a brother. It is just what He did; He laid down His life. John says, "Hereby we have known love, because he has laid down his life for us; and we ought for the brethren to lay down our lives" (1 John 3:16). So that the perfect result is reached. "And Joseph could not control himself before all them that stood by him, and he cried, Put every man out from me" (chapter 45: 1). Now he is prepared to disclose himself. "And no man stood with him when Joseph made himself known to

his brethren. And he raised his voice in weeping". Then later on it says, "he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them; and after that his brethren talked with him". It must be noted that the weeping was not the weeping of sorrow; it was the weeping of joy. So that there in unspeakable pleasure in Joseph's heart, in that he has now got his brethren, as represented in Judah, repentant and recovered. There is mutual embracing in connection with Benjamin. Benjamin in returning the embrace showed his spirituality typically. Joseph kissed all his brethren, but it does not say they kissed him. The Holy Spirit never fails to differentiate; if there is anyone more spiritual and who loves the Lord more than others, he is brought into evidence.

P.L. In verse 12 Benjamin's eyes are distinguished.

J.T. Joseph "kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them; and after that his brethren talked with him". There we have the subjective result; the brethren are free now to talk -- not about troubles -- they are free to speak to the Lord. A normal state of things exists when we are free to speak to the Lord and He to us.

Pages 135 to 234 -- "Christianity Characterised by What is New". Croydon, June, 1926 (Volume 82).

THE NEW CRUSE

2 Kings 2: 19 - 22; Acts 1: 13 - 22; Mark 9: 49, 50

J.T. It was thought that we might look at those features of christianity that are designated as new, going to the types for one -- the new cruse, then the new bottles of the gospels, the new man of the epistles, and the new Jerusalem of Revelation. The proposal is that the four readings might be taken up under those four heads.

It was also thought that as the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia involves what is new, our subject would yield in the way of qualifying us to take up that promise. The Lord said that He would write upon the overcomer in Philadelphia the name of His God, the name of the city of His God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and then, My new name. If we are to be overcomers, we should be prepared for what is new, we should be characterised by what is new, for I apprehend that what the Lord promises to an overcomer would indicate the feature of the testimony that God takes up in his day.

R.B. What thought had you as to the type in that connection?

J.T. I was thinking particularly of the element of preservation among the saints. The divine terms that were living and vital at the beginning have lost their power and significance in those who are lacking in the element of preservation. Take any term in the Acts or the epistles, full of life and sap at the beginning -- one finds that each has degenerated in the public use. They have lost their original pungency and sap; this can be seen in the use of the word

'church', or even the word 'christian'. I think the Lord would remind us of this, lest in our mouths these things should become degenerate and be spoken of lightly. His thought is that they should retain their freshness. That is what is specially before me. There is much that might be said as to the type, but I think that is a practical feature that enters into it.

R.B. Do you connect that thought with the salt?

J.T. Quite. Of course we may consider the cruse by itself, but I would connect it with the salt, for the salt is inseparable; I mean, the salt is not to be separated from the vessel. The salt is to be put into it; the cruse was for the purpose of containing it.

P.L. The returning captives in Ezra's day brought back salt, without prescribing how much.

J.T. There was plenty of it. That shows, I think, the place salt should have in recovery, because there is so much corruption. But the idea of the vessel is very important and most interesting, because God has brought His people back, not only as vessels severally, but to the idea of one vessel in which things are preserved.

E.J.McB. Was your idea that at the very outset these christian terms had a living meaning to all the brethren, and, if our restoration is in power, they will have a living meaning to us, such as the assembly and the body?

J.T. Quite. I believe that the vessel in which the preservative element appears is involved in the fellowship, and I thought we might see the nature of the vessel in Acts 1 -- what it was; then the Holy Spirit coming into it, you have the preserving element.

G.J.E. You said the cruse was prepared for the reception of the salt?

J.T. Yes. It was probably an open vessel, out of which the salt could be easily obtained. It is a

different word, I think, from that used for some other cruses, but I thought the vessel should be such that the salt is available. But the salt itself has to be preserved. If it become savourless it is worse than useless. But the idea of the vessel, I think, is of first-rate importance, and Acts 1 gives its component parts as the Lord formed it. This latter thought should be carefully noted.

H.F.N. Has the first reference in Scripture to the thought of new -- the type of the new meat-offering in Leviticus -- any bearing on this?

J.T. I think it has. It would refer to the new company. Perhaps that is what you had in mind.

H.F.N. Yes.

J.T. The two wave loaves, I suppose, would refer to the same thing as the cruse refers to -- the saints as seen in the early chapters of Acts.

R.S.S. There seems to have been salt contained in this vessel and also oil in a vessel in chapter 4. What would you say was the distinction?

J.T. Oil in a vessel comes in in 2 Kings. There in chapter 4 you have it as the means of livelihood. It would be the Holy Spirit as a means by which one discharges one's obligations and lives. I thought it would be the same thing, only looked at in a different way.

R.S.S. In connection with the salt, it is the thought of preservation.

J.T. That is the thought. First the healing of the waters -- a pure source of influence brought in -- but the thought carried through into the New Testament involves preservation, as we see in many passages.

Ques. You spoke of the component parts. What was in your mind?

J.T. The names given. First those who saw the Lord ascend came to Jerusalem and went to the

upper room. That was new -- religiously, that was new. I used the expression 'component parts' in regard of the company seen in Acts 1. They had seen the Lord go up, and then they came back to the upper room where were abiding the apostles and the Lord's mother and His brethren. These are new; religiously the position is wholly new, and I think it is well to observe that in regard of the vessel, the cruse -- the company together there who had been formed by Christ. The upper room bears on it.

D.L.H. Are you speaking in contrast to the temple and the existing order of things religiously?

J.T. Yes; what existed at Jerusalem. The end of the gospel of Luke would show that the disciples went into the temple and continued on in what was old externally, but this treatise begins with what is new, hence you have emphasis laid on the word 'assemble'. The Lord assembled with them, it says, and furthermore, the apostle that was to take the place of Judas was to be one who had "assembled with us all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which he was taken up". It was there the great new features came out.

D.L.H. I should like to get clearly defined what was in your mind in speaking about the new element. Is it something that was wholly new in contrast with the existing order of things which practically was being set aside in the Lord being in the midst of His own assembly?

J.T. That is exactly what I thought, and I believe it will commend itself to you.

Ques. Would the thought of the Lord being with them after His resurrection be an addition to what was before them prior to His death? As you were saying, He had assembled with them and had given them a distinct commandment that they should tarry there. They were not only waiting but expectant.

J.T. It was from the time of the baptism of John until He was taken up; all is included. The component parts of the cruse -- of the vessel -- were formed in that environment. He came in and went out among them from the baptism of John until He was received up. In resurrection, as it says here, He presented Himself living after He had suffered, with many proofs, and "being assembled with them". There would be the confirmation in Him thus as in the midst, of all that had come out before His death.

E.J.McB. Does the thought of the field of blood show the necessity for this cruse -- the character of things when Judas went out and he died in the midst of the field? Does that show the public position in contrast to this upper room?

J.T. The case of Judas would express the very opposite of preservation -- the very opposite of salt. His bowels gushed out. A very dreadful thing, pointing doubtless to what is around us in a spiritual sense.

F.H.B. Do you understand the salt represents the preservative element, or does it represent more?

J.T. I expect you know better than I, but I apprehend that physically life is the greatest preservative. As soon as life disappears from a tree or an animal decay sets in.

F.H.B. Yes; so that the maintenance of the terms without life would be of no value at all.

J.T. That is what I thought. Judas was formerly called a devil by the Lord. The corrupting element was there from the outset.

H.H. What the Lord Jesus had brought in could not be continued in Judas. It would be continued in the new cruse.

J.T. In John 6:67, 68 the Lord says, "Will ye also go away?" Simon Peter says to Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal;" that is to say, it was not a question of what was written,

but what the Lord had. In Him the words were living.

H.F.N. Being written is not the preservative idea. The preservative idea is in the things being held in the person. "Thou hast words of life eternal". As you were saying regarding Philadelphia, "I will write upon him;" the saints are to be the record.

J.T. That is it -- persons. So that Peter in his answer to the Lord expresses the vitality that was there. He apprehended the thing. This is in John's gospel, where you would expect it. It was not a question of what was written; it was a question of what was in the Person. "Thou hast words", and so he says, "We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God".

E.J.McB. Then do I understand that you connect the thought of the words with salt?

J.T. Exactly. They were held livingly in the Lord.

E.J.McB. And your exercise is not so much the salt as the cruse that would contain it?

J.T. Well, I thought of both. Peter says, "We have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". It was experience he gave expression to. And then the Lord says, "Have not I chosen you the twelve? and of you one is a devil" -- the very opposite of Peter, as expressed in his words.

W.J.H. So before the cruse is put together, so to speak, what Judas represents had to be eliminated, not only personally, but in the consciences of the others. So that each one of them said, "Is it I?" That would exclude from their hearts that which Judas stood for.

J.T. Very good, and I think that what comes out in Acts 1 is that the Holy Spirit, in bringing in the vessel in its component parts, does not let Judas pass, but brings in the facts relative to his death to show the end of that man -- the field of blood.

W.J.H. And so, too, Peter says, "he was numbered amongst us", in that way taking home to themselves that they had links once with that element. Do you not think we have to maintain that? Denials of what was true in the things of God must be excluded practically, if the new features are to be maintained.

J.T. Quite. So that Matthew and Mark tell us they were eating when the Lord said "one of you shall betray me". Judas was there with them, and hence the emphasis is laid on "one of you".

P.L. The moment Judas goes out it was night, and the Lord speaks of a new commandment in John's gospel.

E.S.H. In 2 Timothy 2:22 we depart from iniquity, and "pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart". Is that the new cruse? And then, life is emphasised there. Is that the salt?

J.T. I think that is good. That epistle begins with life. Things are emphasised as being "in Christ" there, meaning they are secured, and so Timothy is charged to "Keep, by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us, the good deposit" (2 Timothy 1:14). You must keep it; if you do not salt it, it will become corrupt. Things are preserved in a living way as kept by the Holy Spirit.

R.B. Referring to the allusion you made to Philadelphia -- "I will write upon him ... my new name", etc. -- these are not fresh elements; they are those that were at the beginning.

J.T. Quite. We have not anything that did not exist at the beginning. All we have was at the beginning, only I think the Lord would emphasise the thing at the end, so that the overcomer at the end should possess it. He reserves it for Philadelphia. There is nothing in any other promise just like what He says to the overcomer at Philadelphia; it is what is related to Himself. It supposes that He had

acquired His place in the affections of His people, that they had come to understand that things were new, that christianity was really new, and that all that is involved in Him coming out of death in resurrection is new.

J.J. I suppose the Judas or corrupting element is seen in what follows in Laodicea. The salt had to be used there.

J.T. Yes; Jezebel, the great corruptress, is in christendom; it is where Christ has been betrayed; not only denied, but betrayed.

F.S.M. Would the action of Elisha in going forth to the source of the waters and putting the salt in there suggest what you are saying, that we have to face the question of going right back to their spring? Would you enlarge on that a little? It seems very much the key.

J.T. It is, and what is to be observed is that the Holy Spirit says the healed state continued. The waters remained in that state -- they were "healed to this day". The situation was pleasant. I suppose the allusion would be to the Jewish position at Jerusalem. The situation was good, but the waters were naught and the land was barren. There was nothing for God nor men, and I think the new vessel comes in at Jerusalem. The Lord emphasises in Luke that the disciple s were to be there, to remain in the city; that is, the new thing, the new vessel, was brought in there. It was a wonderful thing that God should consider the position. It was a position that was right and desirable, and He would give it another opportunity. So that the vessel was there -- the new cruse, and the salt put into it, and the new source, as you might say, of the stream of influence, for God came in in the Spirit. That was how matters stood according to Acts 2.

J.S. In that way it was an open vessel and so it would be available to those in the place.

J.T. That was it. "We hear them speaking in our own tongues the great things of God". The things were there in freshness.

J.S. The principle of the new cruse and salt therein would apply to a local company in a city.

J.T. Quite, you want to see to that; as has been suggested things are dealt with at their source and their freshness continues.

Ques. You said something about the preservation of the salt. Has that any reference to the aspect of salt in connection with its savour and seasoning in Mark 9:49, 50?

J.T. The first thing you have there is, "every one shall be salted with fire" -- a most sweeping corrective of what is corrupt, for fire is the most drastic thing in dealing with what is corrupt, but if there is something of God there, it will stand -- it will stand the fire. Every one of us has to take that into account, and it is a most solemn thing that "every one shall be salted with fire". You cannot escape it, for God is too much concerned about the component parts of the vessel, that there should be any corruption allowed. Hence the sweeping process, "every one shall be salted with fire". That is a general thing. He will not have any evil left. Instead of the deluge, it is fire. And then, "every sacrifice shall be salted with salt;" the sacrifice is to be preserved. The fire will consume everything that is corrupt; the salt preserves what is good.

H.H. Do you get the principle of it in Joel 2:30? -- "I will shew wonders in heavens and on the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke". Morally they are the last days now. There is the giving of the Spirit, but there are the other elements brought in.

J.T. Just so. You see how the enemy's effort from the outset of recovery has been to corrupt, but we have this word: "every one shall be salted with

fire", for God will not tolerate the corrupt element. And then it is, "every sacrifice", that is to say, every one who has offered himself, which, I suppose, would apply to every believer, for we are not of much account unless we are offered as a sacrifice. The great result of Romans is that you offer your body a living sacrifice. I suppose that is where the salt lies. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness" (Romans 8:10). There is the salt -- the preservative element.

H.H. That is the elementary feature of what is priestly; you present your own body a living sacrifice.

J.T. Exactly, and it is living. "Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt", for God will not accept anything else. "With all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt" (Leviticus 2:13).

H.F.N. Would that be seen in Mark himself? The apostle said, "He is serviceable to me for ministry" (2 Timothy 4:11). I was thinking of what you were saying about being salted with fire and then salted with salt, and whether it did not work out in Mark's own personal experience, so that he is the great witness to recovery.

J.T. Quite; he speaks of the young man with the linen cloth, and then the young man with a long white garment. Romans, I think, works out the idea of priesthood initially -- from the very beginning of the believer's history. He delights in the law of God after the inward man. He begins to find the value of the law and to fulfil its righteous requirements. Then you get, "if Christ be in you, the body is dead". There the corrupt element has ceased to act so far as sin is concerned. Sin is the corrupt element. The woman of Samaria was corrupt to the very core, but she discerned by the Lord's remarks that her body was to be a vessel, that He could take what had been so corrupt and use it. It says, she "left her water-pot". She had come out of the city with a water-pot

to draw water, but the point was that she herself was to be the vessel, and she discerned this. So she left her water-pot and went her way into the city and went to the men. She is no longer exposed to their corrupting influence, she is able to speak to them about Christ; in principle, the Christ was in her instead of her life of sin, which was death morally. The point was the Christ; she herself raised it with Him, saying, "I know that Messias is coming", and He says, "I who speak to thee am he". His very words were living; they spoke of living water, and in principle Christ was in her, and so her body was no more the vehicle of sin.

H.H. What you have been saying would include the sovereignty side. I mean, the gospel of John enlarges on that.

J.T. Well, quite. The thing is to get hold of the idea of the vessel, that which is salted with salt. In Romans the believer as in this corrupt world is to present his body a living sacrifice. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin". It is no longer the vehicle for sin, so you present your body a living sacrifice salted, and thus you have, I believe, a component part of the vessel that God can use to preserve things. If each of us is governed by the light of Romans, our bodies are available, free from the element of corruption. Thus we are prepared for what is collective: "we, being many, are one body in Christ".

J.J. Do you think the Lord had that in view in securing Bartimaeus and Zacchaeus at this very spot where these waters were healed? Do you think He was after these vessels?

J.T. That is a good suggestion.

W.C.G. In Romans 12 you get the many who are after the pattern. Would that not be the cruse?

J.T. I thought that is where the vessel is first seen in Romans; "one body in Christ". We are

not one body by any fleshly, mutual accommodation, but as "in Christ". Thus you have the vessel free from corruption, and so available for the preservation of divine things.

E.J.McB. Then do you think that the present exercise produced by the ways of God with us, even to fiery trial, is to enable Him to secure a vessel that can be salted?

J.T. Yes, I should think so. "Every one shall be salted with fire". There is no escape from that; it will come one way or another; so the thought of salting with fire enters into the vessel. That is what comes out in Corinthians. The corrupting element was present, as we know, and the apostle speaks of "a new lump", by purging out "the old leaven", and then he goes on to speak about our bodies. One would especially like to make that clear, because without the idea of Romans and Corinthians in their bearing on our bodies, we cannot arrive at the divine thought as to the cruse. Romans and Corinthians deal with our bodies, so it says, "glorify now then God in your body". "Do ye not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 6:20, 15). They were exposed to corruption there and we are, so he emphasises the importance of keeping the body pure. When the new cruse was first introduced, as seen in Acts 1, it had been formed under the influence of Christ here, and the coming of the Spirit brought in the preservative power. But of course for the full divine thought of the cruse it supposes being built up not only in Paul's ministry but also as entering into the reality of John 20. We come to have our part in it by learning in a real and vital way the truth as set forth in Romans and Corinthians.

G.J.E. So sacrifice means sacrifice, and sacrifice salted with salt is a component part of this new cruse.

J.T. That is what I was thinking.

Ques. You indicated the cruse was fellowship.

Had you in mind, "called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Corinthians 1:9).

J.T. Quite. In the Corinthian epistles there is the fellowship of God's Son, the fellowship of His death and the fellowship of the Spirit. The principles governing fellowship are to preserve us from corruption.

Rem. It follows on Romans.

P.L. Would you link it up with the covenant of salt referred to in 2 Chronicles 13:5?

J.T. I think there you have the same thought. It is a covenant that does not decay. God sees to that. The kingdom was secured to David for ever.

J.B.C-l. The sons of the prophets in Kings would present a contrast to a new cruse with salt put therein. You spoke earlier as to the line of overcoming, and that would mean being in the power of what has been from the beginning. I was feeling, while you were speaking, that in these sons of the prophets there seems to have been a lack of power of overcoming, and a very meagre sense of what they were anointed to be the vessels of. Their history, as the Spirit of God gives it in Kings, seems to indicate they had not the power of blessing present with them. So I thought the power of overcoming is indicated in the ministry of Elisha, and in bringing in the cruse and the salt he heals the waters and brings in fruitfulness for God. Do you suggest it is possible for us to be formally attached to what has been from the beginning but not attached to it in a living way, as those who are overcoming?

J.T. Exactly. The sons of the prophets were their heirs, and they should have retained the thing that their fathers maintained. Samuel introduces the great prophetic ministry; others followed, but Elijah comes in abruptly, and fire marked his ministry. It was the testimony to the power of God to deal with corruption. The altar was built and the fire comes

down and licks up everything -- the offering, and the stones and the water; everything is licked up by the fire, alluding, I apprehend, to the power of God to deal with corruption, because it was corruption that was there in Jezebel. Now, these sons of the prophets should have reflected this and other prophetic features, but, as you say, they were defective indeed. They would set aside the leading truth for the moment. Though they recognised the Holy Spirit formally -- the spirit of Elijah resting on Elisha -- yet they were always at a distance in relation to what was spiritual. What was spiritual went on between Elijah and Elisha, which is very suggestive, but these sons of the prophets are at a distance. When the crucial time comes, they recognise the spirit of Elijah on Elisha, but they deny the ascension, and if you have not got the ascension, you have not got the new thing, for the new thing must involve that. The book opens with one man falling and another man going up into heaven. The leading feature of the new thing was involved in Elijah being received up into heaven. The new thing was a man going up into heaven by a whirlwind, and this is what the sons of the prophets deny. They deny it in a most effective way. So powerful was their influence, that it affected even Elisha. They bow down to Elisha, but speak of fifty strong men who should go to seek Elijah. This was nothing new; it was in keeping with the king of Israel, as we see in chapter 1.

G.W.W. Do you suggest that when corruption begins to do its work, the sense of the importance of ascension gets lost in the soul, and salt would preserve one from losing that sense? Corruption had already taken place with the sons of the prophets.

J.T. Exactly. So in Revelation the men on the earth are ready to acknowledge the God of the heavens. He is that, but He is the God of the earth as well. Men are giving up all thought of heaven as

regards themselves. Earth-dwelling, as marking those whose calling is heavenly, is resented. The hour of trial which comes on all the world shall be the portion of earth-dwellers.

G.W.W. Is not one great important principle in preservation that the soul is held in the apprehension of what is involved in the name of Christ?

J.T. Quite. His "new name". That is seen in Philadelphia, hence the Lord says, "I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Revelation 3:10). If we give up the heavenly, we shall dwell on the earth and become corrupt.

J.J. It was the men of the city who told Elisha of the water. Do you connect that with the reconciliation of the world owing to this new vessel being here?

J.T. It would come out in those who are serious about things. These men of the city were not the same as the sons of the prophets. They were not denying the ascension; they were not denying anything. They were consciously in need. They presented a very different picture from the sons of the prophets. They knew the situation and desired to have it remedied.

E.S.H. You referred just now to life being the great preservative. I was wondering whether the words of the Lord in John 17:11, "Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me", would be the introduction of family life on the line of preservation.

J.T. Quite so. "Keep them in thy name" implies what is incorruptible.

H.F.N. Would you say a little further word in regard of the thought of ascension? One feels it is the great distinctive truth of christianity.

J.T. It is a very striking thing that the sons of the prophets should be the ones to set that aside.

It is a solemn question to all young people amongst the saints, because, unless the element of preservation is maintained in them, they will find themselves in a like position, denying the truth for the time -- the special truth for the moment, whatever that might be, particularly what is heavenly; whereas heaven is our distinctive place -- all our blessings are there.

E.J.McB. Is not that true in regard of resurrection? It can be taken account of as an action of God in regard of Christ, as the expression of His power, but ascension is the platform from which He is going to fill everything, and apart from that nothing is filled.

J.T. I do not think you could have christianity apart from ascension. Everything depends on Christ's going on high. Some years ago there was a theme amongst us as to the basis on which the assembly stood, whether on that of resurrection or ascension, and I think the Lord made it perfectly plain that it stands on the basis of ascension -- including His death and resurrection, of course.

E.J.McB. Hence the importance of the "large upper room".

J.T. Just so. I believe the word for 'upper' here (Acts 1) is stronger as to elevation than in the gospels.

E.R. There could be no coming of the Holy Spirit apart from ascension.

J.T. No. Everything begins with heaven, but in what is set up on the earth in the future, you do not get the element of ascension. I believe John 12-the scene in Bethany -- is a figure of what will be set up in the future; that is on the basis of resurrection, but John 20 is, "I ascend".

Ques. Would you say that what is exclusively church property is bound up with Christ going up -- with ascension?

J.T. Quite, so in 1 Timothy 3:16 it says, "received up in glory".

Rem. The distinction between Elisha and the sons of the prophets was that Elisha saw him go up, and the same fact is emphasised in the beginning of Acts, in regard of the disciples.

J.T. That is right, and they come back into the upper room.

W.J.H. The name of the ascended Man is maintained in that upper room.

J.T. Quite, also the Father's name: "my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God". That I thought is what underlies the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia -- the Father's name and Christ's new name.

G.W.W. The maintenance of all that is the great preservative from corruption.

J.T. Indeed; understanding John's gospel, the overcomer in Philadelphia appreciates the Lord's promise to him.

Ques. Do you think there is some special form of corruption which assails the assembly at every stage of its history down here, and we have to fall back on the salting with fire to preserve us in relation to the new cruse?

J.T. Quite; and so the component parts of the cruse, I think, involve that our bodies are kept right. "If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness". It is that that enters into the idea of the vessel or the cruse. It is a new one. The teaching of Romans prepares us to have part in the assembly, in which things are preserved for God, corresponding with Acts 1.

W.J.H. It would appear that that is what the disciples felt in regard of their prayer as to the one that was to take the place of Judas. They referred to God as the One who knew the hearts of all.

J.T. And so Peter when referring to the gift of the Spirit to the gentiles, says, "the heart-knowing God". Then you see how the psalms are brought in -- the Old Testament; Acts 1. What is so striking about the witness of the Spirit in Hebrews, when things had begun to decay, is the idea of life emphasised in ministry to the Jews. Things had begun to decay and the Old Testament would be held in the letter. So it says, "even as says the Holy Spirit, To-day if ye will hear his voice" (Hebrews 3:7), meaning that the Old Testament is a present living voice. It is not that they are simply written. The Spirit says it. It is a present living thing, and that is really how the Old Testament should be held. And so again in Hebrews 10:15, where you have the witness of the Spirit, it is the Old Testament brought in livingly as a present witness in the Spirit in regard of the new covenant. "The Holy Spirit also bears us witness".

H.H. You appreciate all the Lord's interests in regard of the Old Testament, but you can only do it intelligently in the appreciation of the new cruse, of that which is formed in the full light of Christ as the ascended Man.

R.S.S. The Lord said to the Jews, "Ye search the scriptures, for ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and they it is which bear witness concerning me" (John 5:39). Is it not true that very early in the church's history corruptive influences began to work? As far as the record goes, it was in the sin of Ananias and Sapphira coveting a place amongst their brethren, and then again, the murmuring on the part of the Grecians because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. These were corrupting influences.

If we do not follow righteousness, faith, love and peace with them that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, decay and corruption are going on. It is very essential that we should judge everything of a contrary

nature, anything that would bring in a corruptive element in the assembly.

G.W.W. Where there is deliberate going on with what is corrupt, recognising a corrupt principle and going on with it, one has no longer a pure heart. The salt is not there.

R.S.S. Then as to the murmuring, the Grecians were murmuring because their widows were neglected. It was a national thing and therefore corrupt.

J.B.C-l. Do you make any difference between the thought of the Lord ascending and being received up?

J.T. I think there is a difference. One is John's presentation and involves His Person -- that He was a divine Person. The other is Luke -- that He was received up -- or carried up, as it reads -- which would be His humanity, pointing to heaven's appreciation of Him as Man.

J.B.C-l. I was just turning over in my mind whether both these thoughts were not bound up with what you have been suggesting as to the position of the assembly. I thought possibly the Lord being received up accorded with the assembly being here in testimony and responsibility, and the other more connected with what she has in the way of privilege and so of heavenly power. But I am really inquiring.

J.T. I think that is right. John is pre-eminently the gospel that gives our position from the standpoint of counsel and privilege; the word 'assembled' (chapter 20: 19) should not be there. It is not that side at all. It is a question of persons in their relation to the Lord and in their relation to the Father, so we read, "where the disciples were". It is the family in its heavenly and eternal setting.

E.J.McB. I gather one great exercise that comes before us in this subject is the actual necessity of being here in the body in a way that is suitable to God.

J.T. I think that is one of the most important

things we can take account of. John's gospel leads up to the position of the saints viewed from the standpoint of divine counsel. They are in family relationship with the Father and the Son. Chapter 20 is thus light as to the mind of God regarding us. The breathing into the disciples effectuates the state in us suitable to this, and lays the basis for Paul's ministry. There is thus what is wholly new, and the vessel, as a collective feature, is secured in the breathing into the saints of the Holy Spirit, and developed in Paul's ministry. Thus there is that in which divine things are preserved livingly. What Christ was here is maintained in the assembly. It was truly a new cruse with salt in it.

THE NEW BOTTLES

Luke 5; 36 - 39; Acts 2:1 - 4, 41 - 47

Ques. Would you repeat your leading remarks of this morning?

J.T. We were considering those features of christianity that are spoken of as new, having in view that the Lord said He would write upon the overcomer in Philadelphia the name of the city of His God, new Jerusalem, and His own new name. The desire is that we may apprehend what is new and thus qualify for the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia. The subject is one in four parts. The first has reference to the preservative element, that which ensures the preservation of the things of God in freshness. The feature to be before us on this occasion has reference to the strength of the vessel into which the Holy Spirit came -- the vessel of the testimony. What one feels with regard to oneself is that one is not equal in spiritual formation to the light -- to the things that one deals with, so that it may be said we are not morally as great as the things we are dealing with, the things that we have by faith.

E.J.McB. I think we would all agree with that. I suppose that is what you had in mind as to the thought of the cruse.

J.T. Yes.

E.J.McB. Then, do you look on the question of strength as being connected with the actual relations of the saints in fellowship with one another?

J.T. Yes, I think the consideration of the thoughts connected with the new bottles would perhaps enable us to see that there is a great disparity between us as believers, as nominally in fellowship, and the things that we possess by faith and speak of.

E.J.McB. Then do you look at the bottles as more connected with the question of joy?

J.T. Well, I thought they symbolise what God intended should contain that which came in by the Spirit -- the great blessing administered by Christ in the coming in of the Spirit. The Lord intended by the use of these symbols -- this parable, as it is called -- to call attention to the greatness of the thing that was coming in -- the new wine -- the power of it, and what was needed to contain it, so that there should be no disparity, and that both might be preserved together. It is not in the way of criticism at all that I speak thus, but one feels it for oneself -- the great disparity there is between oneself as a vessel and the things that are dealt with. I suppose no one would avoid sharing that feeling.

F.H.B. I am sure no one would fail to own that.

J.T. I think that the divine intent was that they should be correlative. The heavenly city is not divine in its dimensions; it is human in its dimensions, but it has the glory of God. It contains morally what God has set out in Christ. There is perfect correspondence between it and what it has, and sets forth.

E.J.McB. Do you mean that, speaking practically for oneself, one should not be satisfied unless the matter dealt with, and one's own spiritual measure in dealing with it, are one?

J.T. That is what I think we should see, and I think Luke 5 and 6 help specially in the formation of the bottles severally.

E.J.McB. Would you just say one more word as to the difference in your own mind between the thought of the cruse and the thought of the bottles?

J.T. The thought in the cruse was that it was new and suited as a vessel for the salt. It was not a question of strength, but that it was new. The word denotes something open but containing. The salt

was put into it, which was a separate idea -- introduced and then taken out again and applied to the source of the waters, so that it is not a question of strength in the cruse, but rather that it was new. Here (Luke 5) I think the newness denotes strength. The first part of the parable has reference to a piece of cloth, but that figure is not carried through. It is alluded to only to emphasise what the Lord had in His mind. He refers to a new piece of cloth, that is to say, new in the sense of being unmilled or unfinished, as the word used in the corresponding passages in Matthew and Mark means. There was no strength taken out of it by the finishing process. He introduces that thought, which is very obvious, to convey what was in His mind as to the question of strength, and then He carries the thought through in the bottles, that there should be something continued. The new piece of cloth is not referred to again, it simply suggests what is in His mind, but is not referred to as carried through or preserved. In the cloth it is not a question of freshness but of strength; it is new in that sense, but the idea of continuance is in the wine and in the bottles or skins, so that what is in view is strength.

W.J.H. So that Paul and Silas in prison would be two bottles strong enough to hold the wine.

J.T. Just so. Under the greatest pressure from without the strength came out in prayer and praise. That is what comes out in Luke 6. The Lord spends the whole night in prayer before selecting His apostles. It was an important matter that the selection should be right. Thus we have in Him here an example of endurance in prayer -- an important feature in the "bottles". We are to pray and not faint.

A.E.M. Is the old bottle the man after the flesh?

J.T. It is, I think, what Judaism had become. It had come down to be a fleshly thing, and it was not great enough to receive what the Lord was bringing in.

D.L.H. Is there any thought in the new skins of that which is individual in the way of formation by the Spirit's power, so that the vessel -- each vessel in fact -- is qualified to hold what is put into it? I thought that the cruse is more the thought of what is collective, and that the bottles have the thought of what is very much individual. I do not know whether I am right in that thought.

J.T. No doubt the individual side is in view in the bottles, but the thought must culminate in what is collective. The allusion is to the bottling of wine in a vineyard and so the plural had to be used, for one bottle would not suffice in the figure. The Lord was speaking of the strength needed in that which should contain the new wine. The twelve men at Ephesus received the Holy Spirit at one time under the same circumstances; in them I think you have what was to develop into that which should contain the new thing in its fullest sense, that is, through Paul's ministry. I think the new wine acquired its greatest strength through the apostle's ministry. The word for 'new' here signifies what is fresh, young, so that the strength would increase rather than diminish.

R.B. I notice you made a point that the cruse was open, but these bottles would appear to be closed vessels.

J.T. I think there is a good deal in that. We all know, if we know anything about wine, that the bottle ought to be kept closed. I think the bottles signify the contents kept in -- the idea of the mystery is in it, things are hid. The wine should be kept in to maintain it in its strength.

H.F.N. Would you kindly say a word as to the previous incidents in the chapter? Do they show how the bottles are formed? Would it begin with Peter?

J.T. Yes, I think that is a good suggestion.

Chapter 5 is from the divine side; chapter 6 the result in us in the main, "Blessed are ye poor", etc. Chapter 5 begins with men taken up out of their business relations. I believe that our businesses are more in view in the gospels than we may have thought. The great servants of the dispensation -- the leading apostles -- are introduced in their business relations. Then what comes out as expressed in the next paragraph is that there is a state of sinfulness in the leprous man. Then the Lord cleanses the man who was full of leprosy. There has to be a definite judgment of sin in relation to our businesses. So the Lord cleanses the leper by a touch, and afterwards He Himself is seen without in desert places and praying. Then it says that there was power there to heal them all. The next case is the paralytic who is healed and who goes to his house, and then we have the Lord entertained in Levi's house; that is to say, there is a chain of adjustment in the soul, until the Lord acquires a place in the house.

The relation between the business and the house is obvious. My house should be according to my business normally. If I am governed by natural considerations, the Lord will not be considered. The guests in the house here were publicans and sinners, such as the Lord would wish to have.

Ques. Do the bottles suggest the new capacity given by the Spirit of God in the soul?

J.T. I was just endeavouring to follow out what was suggested, that the chapter really lays the basis from the divine side for the bottles; that is, that if we are to have part in the new heavenly thing that is coming in, the moral steps indicated in the chapter have to be gone through; and so your house is not now a question of your business or social relations. Levi made a great entertainment for Him and the guests were suited to Him. They were such as the Lord would have -- publicans and sinners. He had

come for those, and the Lord confirms the selection of the guests. He says that He had come to call sinful persons to repentance. I think that as you proceed in the chapter you see what underlies the bottles, because in the testimony we should be marked by all these features. Then in chapter 6 what the saints are, as the subjects of the work of God comes out. The Lord lifted up His eyes upon His disciples, and said, "Blessed are ye poor", etc. We have also instructions and exhortations, so that we should be adjusted and formed as "new bottles".

J.J. Then would you suggest that persons who are not right in their businesses and in their houses would not be strong enough to contain this testimony?

J.T. If you look at the next chapter in this gospel, you have first, as I said, the Lord spending the night in prayer to God, then He descends into a level place with the twelve, and lifting up His eyes upon His disciples, He said, "Blessed are ye poor". That is the thing, because the wealth accruing from riches is sure to damage the bottle.

H.H. Do you think it means literally poor?

J.T. Well, there it is. "Blessed are ye poor". That is the first thing He mentions here, and the first thing He mentions after He speaks of being anointed is that the gospel is preached to the poor. See chapter 4:18.

J.C.S. Would you say that there is in a way a very narrow boundary between our business and the world, and the strength of the vessel would be greatly tested in that connection?

J.T. "Blessed are ye poor" has its voice at the present time, I am sure. We must beware of growing rich through our businesses. The snare is great.

C.H.W. Why should God choose the poor? James 2:5 says, "Has not God chosen the poor as to the world?"

J.T. The apostle says, "consider your calling,

brethren". You have to look around and see whom God has called -- the kind of people He has chosen.

C.H.W. Christ is spoken of as "a poor wise man".

J.T. It says definitely, "For your sakes he, being rich, became poor" (2 Corinthians 8:9). I only just touch on that because I think it enters into the question of the bottles; the relation in the chapter between a man's business and his house should be noted. Levi corresponds with Peter, the chapter presenting sequence.

E.S.H. "Silver and gold I have not" (Acts 3:6).

J.T. That is how the dispensation began; that is what would correspond with the new bottle. "Silver and gold I have I not". "Look on us". That is a most searching thing, because in relation to the gospel you must be prepared to say that; not that you would actually say it, but you must be prepared for people to look on you and see just what you are in your locality -- what there is in your business and in your house.

H.F.N. Would you mind saying why you selected the gospel of Luke, seeing this incident comes in in Matthew and Mark? What is the great feature of Luke?

J.T. I was really thinking of the other narratives, but Luke adds one thing, and that is, "no one having drunk old wine straightway wishes for new, for he says, The old is better". He shows the difficulty of giving up the old, and the importance of laying aside what ministers to the old and makes the old palatable.

E.R. Is that the legal system which gives man an importance?

J.T. No doubt.

H.H. Do you think, 2 Corinthians 6 would apply at all, where the apostle brings before the Corinthians that their hearts needed to be expanded?

J.T.. Yes. They were narrowed in their affections through worldliness. They needed expansion towards

himself and towards each other, also to take in the truth in its fulness.

W.C.G. Do you think if a man's bottle is equal to what is in him, he is marked by power? Peter said, "Such as I have".

J.T. Quite. He was in keeping with what he had.

D.L.H. But the man is the bottle, is he not?

J.T. The man is the bottle, but he is liable to be affected by worldly things, so that he is not equal to what he professes to have. This is seen collectively at Corinth. In Galatia it also appears, for they were going back to law.

P.L. Do you see this with Elihu? You were saying the wine is to be preserved and better for keeping. He said, "Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; like new flasks, it is ready to burst" (Job 32:19).

J.T. Quite so; he was ready to burst. But you do not get that in christianity. You do not get the thing ready to burst; the bottle is strong enough. But still, there is a remarkable analogy, because he was able to keep the thing till the right moment came for him to speak. He spoke in that way to show the power of the truth in him.

W.J.H. As the Lord gets hold of us in relation to our business, and the question of sin is judged in our own souls, and our hearts are held for Him, there is preparation in that way for a vessel to contain the wine.

J.T. Your circumstances are to be in keeping with the new wine. I have no doubt the garment alludes to one's circumstances. You have in the types leprosy in a garment and leprosy in the skin. We have to be on our guard against these things. There the skin refers to profession, I think.

J.J. Do you think the condition Luke gives is expressive of what would come in by Paul? "Straightway wishes for new".

J.T. I think he says that to show the great strength of the old, so that you should be on your guard against it, and not ministering to it or providing for it. The old intrudes itself in many ways.

In our chapter we have the idea of fasting too, following out the suggestion that has been made, which I think is most helpful. Why did they not fast? Of course, fasting is right, but not till the bridegroom has left them. "Then shall they fast in those days". Fasting is to reduce. There are to be fasting and prayer; the one shuts out the flesh, and the other brings in God.

J.C.S. That would increase the strength of the bottle.

J.T. It would. It is a question for each as to how to be in the strength suggested in the new bottle. That is the point. We have had wonderful things handed down to us, but what about the containing vessels? As already remarked, we have the plural here, but the thought is to call attention to the strength required in what was to contain the new thing which was coming in from heaven. That, of course, is the assembly, and it is composed of the saints.

E.J.McB. I suppose that in the type the newer the bottle the stronger. So that, if we were fresher we should be stronger.

P.L. Would the expression, "A vessel ... meet for the master's use" enter into it?

J.T. It would in the sense that it might be used for containing purposes. The stone waterpots were filled up to the brim.

J.C.S. Would the idea of the bottle be seen in what the Lord said to the apostle when he was taken up, that he was to be a minister?

J.T. The apostle was equal to it morally. He says, "we have this treasure in earthen vessels" (2 Corinthians 4:7). He knew the value of the treasure, and the vessel was

equal to it. God helped him in discipline to maintain the vessel in accord with the treasure that was in it. I think 2 Corinthians shows that after the first letter Paul could open up the idea of a vessel. He set it out in himself; "we have this treasure in earthen vessels", but, in saying that, he deals with what he was personally, and he was a model for them.

H.D'A.C. But you would not put the earthen vessel on the same line as the bottle, for the earthen vessel breaks.

J.T. I am referring to what Paul was morally as outlined in that chapter; that whilst God disciplined him, the life of Jesus was displayed in his body. He begins by speaking about renouncing the hidden things of darkness "by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every conscience of men before God" (verse 2), and he goes on to show that, "If also our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those that are lost" (verse 3). All about him was in keeping with the truth; he was equal to it. His body might be dissolved, or swallowed up of life, but that is another thing. While in the body he had the treasure.

H.D'A.C. But where does the renewal of the man come in in that chapter? Is that allied to the vessel in any way?

J.T. I am sure it is. He is renewed day by day. Paul alluded to his body in speaking of the earthen vessel, but the moral thing underlay that. "We have this treasure in earthen vessels".

H.H. Would the thought of enlargement come in in your way of looking at it? The skin would expand and allow for that when the wine was put into it. Is the vessel made suitable in that way?

J.T. Yes; its elasticity would enhance its strength.

H.H. "In pressure thou hast enlarged me" (Psalm 4:1).

D.L.H. And is there not a suggestion, in a way, of the expansive force of the wine that is put into

the vessel, and the vessel which would be suited to hold this new force?

J.T. I think that leads to what was in one's mind. The Lord said in His instructions when He sent Peter and John to prepare the passover, "He will shew you a large upper room" (Luke 22:12). The Lord had in mind, I believe, in this instruction the great influx of persons that should result from the preaching of the gospel; then, too, in the first part of the Acts we read, "they were all together in one place", and the Holy Spirit came. Now, they were not disconcerted in any way, they were not perturbed; the thing was expected, and they were ready for it. In contrast to that we find that when the Lord came in after He rose, they were not prepared for it. They were not as great then as they were at Pentecost. There is not the slightest indication of any perturbation or inconvenience when the Spirit came; indeed, what happened was that they began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance. There was room for the Spirit to move even in regard of their articulating organs; all that shows the formation there was.

Ques. Do you look on every believer, in receiving the Holy Spirit, as being a new skin -- a new bottle?

J.T. Certainly. Potentially he is; but it is a question of how great I am morally. When the Holy Spirit came in, there were there one hundred and twenty as far as we can reckon. If you were to take the greatest men on earth at that time, selected out of Greece and Rome, what would they have done under such circumstances? But these men were prepared for it; they were great enough for it. Then, later on, the Holy Spirit says there were three thousand added. It is mentioned to show the great influx from the first sermon, and there is not the slightest evidence of any inconvenience.

H.D'A.C. What do you mean by inconvenience?

J.T. Well, if we take the question of rooms, you

say, where are they going to meet? Where did they meet? Who can tell? Three thousand persons added, it is quite a number, and yet there is not the slightest evidence of any inconvenience at all. They broke bread "in the house", we read. They knew what to do.

.E.J.McB. Was your thought that the Lord had actually secured in the first incident a bottle sufficiently strong to stand, speaking reverently, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and then, as the thing enlarged, its capacity stood the enlargement?

J.T. That is it, exactly. Here is the greatest thing come in from heaven -- heaven's maximum in the way of gift, for that is how the Lord puts it Himself. "How much rather shall the Father who is of heaven give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13). The Holy Spirit Himself comes in and there is not the slightest evidence of any perturbation or excitement whatever.

E.J.McB. And in contrast to that, earlier they had actually been afraid when the Lord came in.

J.T. They were not equal to it then, but the forty days during which the Lord had been with them as risen had intervened.

W.J.H. When the angel appeared to Manoah, he was afraid.

J.T. That illustrates it. But in a man like Abraham, you have one who was perfectly equal to a divine visitation. It is a question of moral greatness. See Genesis 18.

D.L.H. But then that is a question of formation. Being sealed of the Holy Spirit is, of course, characteristic, properly speaking, of every christian, but is there not the idea of formation by the Spirit? That seems to me to be suggested rather in the thought of the skin -- the bottle -- that which the Spirit has actually formed by His operations in the soul, so that

it is equal in the power of the Spirit to what God may do.

J.T. I think that is right, only you would admit, as our brother suggests, that any one sealed is potentially a bottle?

D.L.H. Quite so.

R.S.S. Do you see development brought about in those present on the day of Pentecost?

J.T. Certainly, development from what had marked them earlier, as we said; Luke 6. I think as you look at this chapter, you get the main features of the bottles. We cannot go into it now, only to mention it. The Lord shows that He made His selection after a whole night in prayer, which is an important thing to notice; Luke 6:12. As remarked already, He sets an example of endurance in prayer; and then later He looks on His disciples as if recognising what they had become as under His influence and teaching.

R.S.S. And then it says in Mark, "that they might be with him". That would bring about a certain development in their souls, and then they would be acquainted with Him in resurrection and also in ascension, and thus further development be brought about which enabled them to carry themselves on the day of Pentecost in the way in which they did.

J.T. They were the subjects of His own handiwork, and they were formed by what they saw in Him. We were remarking this morning on the objective environment -- what the Lord was as with them. At the baptism of John, He is seen praying as He is baptised, and then the Holy Spirit comes in a bodily form, and abode upon Him; and during all His ministry amongst them, the Holy Spirit was there and known to be there in Him. Well, the disciples had to be brought to that; they were to receive the Holy Spirit, and hence the qualities of

Christ in the way of power had to be worked out in them, and I think, as you said, the education during the forty days greatly augmented them. His own first visit to them after He rose perturbed them greatly, but here is the Holy Spirit coming in from heaven, and there is not the slightest intimation that there is any perturbation at all, and they spoke as He gave them utterance. They were subject to the Spirit immediately. Supposing you have a great gift from the Lord and you are not formed, you will not speak as the Spirit gives you utterance. You will begin to study oratory. That is what people do who are not formed, and you can understand it, but what you find in these vessels is that they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. They were prepared, as I said.

H.H. It is remarkable that men were there from every nation under heaven and they admitted they heard the wonderful things of God in their own language wherein they were born. The men who spoke had been formed by the Lord.

W.C.G. Do you think Paul had the same thought of strengthening in mind when he said, "Admonishing every man, and teaching every man, in all wisdom, to the end that we may present every man perfect in Christ" (Colossians 1:28).

J.T. Just so.

H.F.N. Do you think that Peter, in the vision he had later on, was not wholly equal at that moment to the light that was coming in, and did the Lord's dealings with him increase the strength of the bottle so that he could take in the light?

J.T. I think so, but at the very beginning as the numbers increased -- we have it mentioned twice, three thousand and five thousand -- they were ready for it, but then there was on the other side what came in from heaven. What comes in from heaven goes with that; I think they should run together, that is

what comes in from heaven, and what comes in as the result of the testimony. There was steady increase and yet no inconvenience or anything uncomely. The bottles were marked by strength. I think that is the thing.

J.C.S. So there is not a drop of wine lost here.

J.B.C-l. Do you think the apostle Paul was concerned, when speaking to the elders at Ephesus as to the test that would come upon the saints in relation to the ministry they had received through him? One of the things he states is that he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. He evidently felt that would be the test. Historically it comes out that it was so, because many apparently left him when he brought in the heavenly side of his ministry. It does not say they left the profession, but evidently they had not acquired a taste for the new, for they turned away from Paul. Is your exercise that the time may have come when the Lord will test brethren as to the ministry they have received?

J.T. I am sure that is true. His intent is that the saints should be morally equal to what they have received.

E.J.McB. Had you any thought in your mind that the Lord might add to us many of His people who are around us?

J.T. Do you think we are equal to it?

E.J.McB. I would like a ministry that would enable us to be.

J.T. Supposing the Lord brought in a distinguished gift in P -- -- -- -- . How would you feel about it?

E.J.McB. I think we would receive him with open arms, even if it displaces us.

J.T. Well, do you think it is so generally? Do think we would like our localities invaded by men who are our equals, or even our superiors?

E.J.McB. I believe what you raise is a very grave question, but I think the interests of Christ

would become more real to us if vessels were raised up even above ourselves.

J.T. I hope so. I take the matter to myself, but it should be an exercise as to whether we are ready for what God may do in the way of gift and addition in every way.

H.D'A.C. Were not these early disciples very specially prepared so that they could begin at once to do what they had to, whereas in these days perhaps it takes years with many of us before we are much equal to any service? Is it not so? Likewise with Paul, the apostle was ready at once for the service.

J.T. He was, but were the brethren ready for him?

H.D'A.C. No, I do not think they were, but at Pentecost they were all ready.

J.T. If Paul had been brought in at Pentecost, they would have gladly received him, but the Lord had to go before to prepare the brethren to receive Paul at Damascus, and Barnabas had to introduce him at Jerusalem.

E.J.McB. That evidently touches on an interesting fact in regard of this line of exercise, that is, the different view of the position as seen in Acts 2 at the start and our present position today, for there it was pretty evident that the vessel was adequate to the occasion.

J.T. So I think if Paul had come in then, there would have been no question, and that is what one is exercised about. How much can we stand of that? If God brings in to your locality men or a man of greater calibre, are you equal to it? God is entitled to do that. He has "set certain in the assembly", and He can do that. Still, am I equal to it? Then again, if God is pleased to work and bring in a large number in any locality, are we prepared to take account of that and house those people according to God?

D.L.H. If we have got our hearts set on the assembly, surely we would thank God for every one He would send along who would help the saints or be a real blessing in that way. I mean, any thought of self is a perfect abomination in the assembly of God.

J.T. Well, it is, but then, while that is quite obvious, are we always in accord with it?

E.J.McB. Then that raises an interesting thought in relation to the remark you made in regard of the skins. While there is no doubt whatever the old bottles were skins, they were not skins capable of containing new wine. Very often, the opposition does not come from what is not skins, but from old skins.

W.J.H. Barnabas seemed to be equal up to a point. At any rate, he went and brought Saul to Antioch, where God was adding. He was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit.

J.T. I think he came in where he was needed, and the apostles were also equal to the acquisition; it was for that reason that they surnamed him. You have to surname the man that comes in, that is, you have to make room for what God has wrought in him. Barnabas was a "son of consolation". That requires discernment, which enables one to know what an incomer is capable of.

Ques. Would our ability to answer to such a test be the place the Lord has with us individually? That is where we would be tested.

J.T. I am sure the brethren are tested all over the world on that very point. The test at any time is whether we can make room for what God is doing. I believe if there is little done it is because there is little room. On the one hand, there is generally but little expectation that God will act, and on the other, little preparation if He does act.

E.J.McB. Now, in regard of the cruse, was your

thought as to it the basic principle on which this can operate?

J.T. I think so. I think that comes first.

E.J.McB. We have peace amongst ourselves as having the salt in us.

J.T. Yes, and you have things preserved. Thank God if our doctrine is pure and we are able to discriminate in regard of those whom we receive, and we seek to maintain holiness in God's house. But look at the greatness of God and the greatness of the work of God! Think of what He may do if there is sufficient moral greatness for it! Hence Ephesians answers fully to what we are saying. The apostle's prayers in that epistle have in view this very thing, that there should be first that expansion in the way of intelligence to take in the great things of God -- to take in what is for Him, and then, secondly, to apprehend the greatness of the things into which we are brought.

H.H. It lies, as you were saying, in the thought of the large upper room furnished. We have to keep that before us.

J.T. I thought that would help, because the Lord provided in that for what should come in, and what you find in the three thousand added at once is that they merged with the others. It does not say the Lord added them in verse 41. The point there is not that; but that so many were added, and they were in keeping with that to which they were added; hence, it was a work of God. "They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers". They were in keeping with the thing. In verse 47 it is stated that the Lord added.

F.S.M. Would the thought of the new wine admit of the holy, pure, and heavenly joy in contradistinction to natural experience? How much that is associated with the thought of joy. If we were more truly happy, how the Lord might use that in

attractiveness to those who are sad and without that joy.

J.T. What one finds is that one has more light than joy. I fear but little is known of the blessedness of the new wine. The wine is new in the sense of being young, fresh, and increasing; the bottles are new as different from what existed before; and strong, in the sense of being contrary to what is around religiously.

G.W.W. Do you think the Spirit ever proposes anything to us for which He has not prepared us? Do you not think there is a work that goes on that renders one capable to receive what is proposed? The Spirit is always seeking to strengthen the vessel in view of a higher appreciation of this joy. But the strengthening of the vessel has to go on before it is capable of receiving a fresh accession of light, whether individually or in a company of saints.

J.T. Quite. I have no doubt that God came in when conditions at Jerusalem waned. The strength of the bottles, so to speak, had not been maintained. Barnabas coming in had that in view; it required that element of interest in what God was doing. The question was what God was doing now since Jerusalem was weakening. At Pentecost it was equal to what God was doing, but the later chapters show it was weakening. As an illustration or proof Peter was in prison, and it says that continual prayer was made by the assembly to God for him, and God answered. But when the answer came they were not ready for it. Rhoda comes in and says, Peter is knocking outside, that is, God is acting. No, they say, you must be mad. The bottle was not there; they were not equal to what God was doing, even in that. But then Peter continued knocking, for that is the way; God keeps at it. And then, sure enough, it was Peter, but the vessel was weakening. But now there was a Barnabas, and he was in touch with what

God was doing outside. He heard about what had happened at Damascus, a long way off, and he brought Saul to the apostles at Jerusalem, and later on went to Tarsus to seek for him and brought him to Antioch. It says that he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit. He was a bottle in that sense, He represents the idea, I think, when Jerusalem was waning. He had no thought of himself at all, and it was necessary that there should be such a man as that, because God was going to bring in the greatest accession of light, and it was very important that there should be preparation for it, and Barnabas is the link for it.

R.B. So you refer to the new bottle as having regard to the assembly; new, as contrasted with Judaism, which was not capable of holding what God had to give.

J.T. Yes. I think the newness is in the strength of it.

A.L.O. Why do you say the wine had to be kept in?

J.T. I think that means the mystery; the new bottle represents the ability in us to cherish the precious things of God, so that we do not profane them by bringing them down to the level of man's mind. The thing is to be preserved in its integrity. But I think it is very beautiful to see how Barnabas meets the contingency that was arising. When he takes Paul and introduces him at Jerusalem, they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Then, I think, the bottle is developed at Antioch, and later at Ephesus. What you find is that Barnabas and Saul laboured; they laboured at Antioch in the assembly, and then it says that there were such and such in the assembly that was there -- a number of gifted men -- such men as were needed for the new development of the work of God. That is what you get.

E.J.McB. Would you say a word as to the twelve men at Ephesus?

J.T. I think what I said leads up to that. You have indicated, it seems to me, under the influence of Paul and Barnabas, the development of the bottle, of that which is great enough to take in the new thing that was coming in. Anyone can see that the basis henceforth is Antioch and not Jerusalem, although in the wisdom of God the link with Jerusalem was preserved. So Barnabas and Paul go out and there is a wonderful work of God -- an extraordinary work of God. They come back to Antioch and relate what had been done, and things are quite normal. There is no evidence of anything abnormal. Antioch is quite in keeping with the new work -- this great work of God through these men. I think that is how the thing is seen in the Acts. From chapter 11 to 15 everything is operating in relation to Antioch; after chapter 15 you have Europe, and all that God did through Paul in Europe, and I think that would link on with Ephesus -- the great work in Asia.

Ques. How do you account for the fact that Barnabas was not quite equal to that?

J.T. There again you have the bottle weakening. What he shines in at the beginning, he breaks down in at the end. There is a warning in that.

Rem. We would not like to compare ourselves with such a man as Barnabas, but it is wholesome for us to consider the fact of his breakdown.

J.T. The thing is to be great enough morally for what God is doing -- that you are able to take it in. There must be no natural feeling or rivalry.

G.W.W. Do you think that in John 17 we have the Lord speaking to His Father in view of this new vessel?

J.T. I do, indeed. The position of the saints here in testimony is mainly in view there.

G.W.W. Then one was thinking and connecting it with what you were saying about the work at Jerusalem, and then Antioch, and then Ephesus, and then Philadelphia, and finally the new Jerusalem. It is all on that line; the new bottle is there, and the comfort for us today is to be found in the fact that in Philadelphia you have the Spirit bringing about the present answer to Christ's prayer.

H.F.N. Do you see a link between the twelve apostles in Luke 12 and the twelve men at Ephesus?

J.T. It is "about twelve" at Ephesus, but I think twelve being mentioned has a spiritual meaning, and this underlies the great structure that Paul reared up. Twelve is a complete administrative idea. They received the Holy Spirit at one time by the laying on of the apostle's hands, and this would greatly tend to unity and strength. In connection with this, you have the rearing up of the assembly at Ephesus. Acts 20 and the epistle to the Ephesians would show that this assembly expressed pre-eminently the strength of the new bottles.

Ques. Would you say a word why the apostles select Barnabas to go to Antioch? When he goes there, he is struck again with the great light that God has sent, and he goes again and seeks out Paul. Why would you say the apostles sent him again?

J.T. I think they saw what God was doing. Barnabas is to be regarded as a special provision to meet a certain emergency. God is always doing these things, and the saints would do well to take note of them. They were great enough at Jerusalem to take note of it. They saw the link between the work among the Gentiles and Jerusalem, and the report of it reaching the ears of the assembly there, they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch.

A.S.L. Barnabas had salt in himself.

J.T. "He was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith". Thus he was peculiarly fitted to overcome any national feelings or prejudices that may have existed, so that unity was maintained in relation to the work of God, as it was then extending out among the nations.

THE NEW MAN

Colossians 3:9 - 17; Ephesians 4: 17 - 25

Ques. Could you give a short summary of what was before us yesterday for the sake of those who were not here?

J.T. Our subject in all four meetings is one, that is, it embraces the features of christianity that are spoken of as new under four distinct heads: the new cruse, which we considered yesterday morning; the new bottles, which we considered yesterday afternoon; the new man, which we propose to consider on this occasion; and then the new Jerusalem, which it is thought should be considered this afternoon.

At our first reading we dealt with the new cruse, reading from 2 Kings 2, part of Acts 1, and the closing verses of Mark 9, to bring out a little the preservative element in what was left here by the Lord as formed by Him. The vessel, or cruse, it was thought, was seen in Acts 1, and the new features were noted. Then the salt put into it was particularly enlarged on in a practical way, as showing how divine things are preserved in freshness amongst the people of God. Then, in the afternoon, the closing verses of Luke 5 were read, which speak of the parable of the new cloth and the old garment, the new wine and the new bottles, in conjunction with the opening and closing verses of Acts 2, to point out the strength of the vessels into which the Spirit came; how the assembly at the beginning was great enough, or rather those who formed the assembly, were great enough to receive the Spirit. There was no evidence of any incongruity in the away they behaved. With the presence of the Holy Spirit in them they were equal to the further increase, as it were, from heaven through the apostles' ministry -- the vessels were great

enough for it -- and great enough also for the influx of converts through the gospel. So in that way it was a question in the bottles rather of moral greatness and strength.

E.J.McB. The general impression in my own mind in the morning, was that we reached the thought of what was preservative, and the feeling in relation to peace among ourselves; and in the afternoon we saw the importance of there being a vessel here that would answer to any outpouring that God might give in relation to it, so that whether it was a question of increase of spiritual capacity it would stand it, or an increase of numbers in the saints it would stand that too.

J.T. Our subject on this occasion, as has been remarked, is the new man, which obviously presents a different line of thought, and I think what may be borne in mind to begin with is that the new man is what is for God in the midst of what is old and corrupt; first, as in Colossians in the way of freshness in the energy of life, and then secondly in Ephesians, as a creation, a positive creation marked by what stands in the midst of the corruption, and holds for God in that freshness. It is "created in truthful righteousness and holiness", and the renewing in the spirit of the mind involves that that is maintained in freshness. The word, "being renewed", would indicate that what is created does not grow old; it remains fresh.

A.S.L. What is the thought of the new man in Colossians being spoken of as fresh, and in Ephesians as what is entirely new? What is the precise point? You said something about it with regard to life.

J.T. In Colossians there is that in the new man that is fresh as a child is to its parents -- the freshness of life. The knowledge that marks it is of a different kind. The idea of youthfulness is not in that knowledge. "Renewed in knowledge" is not the idea of

youthfulness, but knowledge that is different, whereas in Ephesians the creation is different. It is a new man "created in truthful righteousness and holiness", and the renewal of the spirit of the mind is what conveys the idea of youthfulness. There is remarkable wisdom in the use of the words; perhaps you know that better than I do.

A.S.L. It is very interesting and practical. It is new in Ephesians in the sense of that which never was before -- the new man created new altogether, but then kept fresh.

J.T. Kept fresh. The "being renewed in the spirit of your mind" is the youthful thought in Ephesians, whereas in Colossians "renewed into full knowledge" is the thought of a different kind of knowledge.

E.J.McB. Then is the Ephesian thought to secure something that never gets old?

J.T. That is what I thought. There the word 'new' means it is different, whereas the renewal of the spirit of the mind is, it is kept youthful. There are two words used in the original in Colossians, the new man is youthful and the knowledge is different; "renewed" there is not the idea of youthfulness, because it is to the image of Him who created him.

G.J.E. Was there anything in the reading of Colossians first?

J.T. I thought we might consider what is for God in youthfulness first. We have, I think, indications in the Old Testament of what God found, or intended to find, through the death and resurrection and ascension of Christ. For instance, in Genesis 1 the earth emerges from death, as you might say, and we have immediately the evidence of life, and, as is obvious, in peculiar freshness. The earth coming up out of the waters brought forth by the divine word grass, herbs, and trees. There would be nothing old there. The life obviously would be all fresh and new. A delightful scene it would be for any one capable of

taking it in. I think in measure as the earth emerged from the deluge, there would be that also. Things began over again.

A.S.L. And new in the sense of what never existed, coming out in freshness.

J.T. Then again in regard of persons -- the Israelites coming out of Egypt: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him" (Hosea 11:1). There God was taking account of the freshness of the affections that marked them as coming out of Egypt through the Red Sea. Then again he speaks of "the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land not sown. Israel was holiness unto Jehovah, the firstfruits of his increase" (Jeremiah 2:2, 3). There was that beautiful freshness in them that delighted God, and though He would have preserved them, Ephraim grew old and developed grey hairs: "grey hairs are here and there upon him" (Hosea 7:9). So in Romans 6: 4 you have the same thought: "so we also should walk in newness of life". The word there is not the same as here, I admit, but still there would be what was for God, the "newness of spirit" and "the renewing of your mind". All these things, I think, lead up to what we have formally stated here as the "new man".

A.S.L. Newness of life would be a kind of life that had never been before.

J.T. Yes, in Romans, that is the force of the word "new" used throughout.

A.S.L. "Newness of spirit" in Romans 7: 6 is the same word -- quite a new kind of thing.

J.T. And so, too, the renewal of the mind in chapter 12.

P.L. Do you distinguish in that way between the words in Genesis 1? "In the beginning God created". Would that go with the Ephesian thought? Then

later, "God made". Would that go with the Colossian thought?

J.T. It is interesting to note that you have not got the word 'made' in connection with the new man in Colossians, but you have it in Ephesians. In chapter 2 you have the word 'formed' in regard of the new man: "that he might form the two in himself into one new man". He is not only created, he is formed. I think that the distinction would be like what we get in Genesis 1; that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Whatever there was we do not know; whatever there was for God is not stated, but when you come to the third day of creation, you have life for the first time, and it is in the sense that we are speaking of it. Then on the fifth day, you have animal life. In Isaiah 45:18 we read, "he formed it to be inhabited".

R.B. How do you speak of the new man as having the Lord Himself in view?

J.T. Well, it would only be as a pattern. I do not think it ever speaks of Him directly in that way.

R.B. Not personally.

J.T. It would be in the sense of the race. We have in Genesis the word 'man' as covering one person; it is used to designate Adam when there were no other men; then you find it as designating the whole race. The new man would refer to what Christ is in character rather than what He is personally; it could not refer to Him personally. True enough, He was a different kind of man, but He was not a creation. Of course, as come personally into manhood, He was necessarily a different kind of man, but then the new man is said to be created, therefore you could not apply it to the Lord personally, but you can apply it as referring to His character. The old man, as a race, took its character from Adam, and so we take our character from Christ, only that the new man is definitely a creation. It is not the idea of a

person at all. It is the idea of the character of those who have put it on.

E.J.McB. The pattern from which life characteristically is formed is Christ.

F.H.B. What came out in Christ as a Man is seen characteristically in the saints.

A.S.L. You could not have the new man without Christ as model and pattern, any more than you could have the old man without Adam. It is a collective thought, is it not?

J.T. Yes, it is. It includes all the saints; it is not their persons exactly, but their character, what they are characteristically, as already said.

J.J. Would the new man be illustrated in Acts 3? You have mentioned chapters 1 and 2 in connection with the other two points. The freshness of the man leaping up, walking and praising God, and then the times of the restitution of all things being brought to light.

J.T. Well, quite. The new man was there characteristically in Peter and John, and then, too, in the man that was healed.

Ques. Does it connect with the second Man out of heaven?

J.T. That would enter into it, but the idea stated of the second Man is that He is "out of heaven". It refers to the Lord personally. We take character from Him as heavenly. The idea of the new man has in view our being in the midst of what is still old. We shall not speak of the new man in eternity. Of course, when you come to new creation, you do not get any designations of contrasts, for all things have become new.

J.J. What connection is there between the new cruse and the new bottles and the new man?

J.T. The new cruse involves preservation, as we have been seeing, and the new bottles, being containing vessels, refer to how things are contained here.

It is how the things of God are contained -- a vessel great enough to contain what came in. But in the new man it is not that at all. It is not either of those things. Of course they all run together, but the new man is what is for God, and what is here thus in testimony in contrast to the old man. It is put on, as the old is put off.

E.J.McB. Would it not be right to say that in the new man both of those thoughts of preservation and containing are conserved?

J.T. No doubt there is a sort of constructive line of thought leading up to the heavenly city, but you can see in the new man what is for God. The man is for God. I think if we bear that in mind, we can understand that ultimately it will be God and men. I think in the new man we are in the presence of what is for God, not exactly in the future, but now, in the midst of what is corrupt, in the midst of what is under death and decay. There is that which is fresh and which continues fresh and which is incapable of being contaminated or corrupted.

W.C.G. Would you say that the new man is the testimony and in having part in the new man we have part in the testimony?

J.T. That is the effect of it, but I think it is what is for God first. I quite go with the thought of the testimony which the Lord may make clear, but I think we should see what is for God. Compare Colossians 3:12 - 17.

W.J.H. The cruse and the bottles, and indeed the new Jerusalem are vessels, but the new man is not exactly a vessel, it is a character.

J.T. Although we say it is not a person, yet it is a creation involving persons, and primarily that must be for God. It seems to me that if you think of man as a creation you must think of God "by him and for him", we read. Every creature is for God's

pleasure. "For thy will they were, and they have been created" (Revelation 4:11).

Rem. That is the great thought in your mind -- what is for God, for God's pleasure.

J.T. I think we have to keep that before us -- what is fresh, as in the energy of life, and different to what is around.

H.H. And it is what is on the earth. Colossians does not go beyond the earth, does it?

J.T. No, it is what is developed here, I think, in relation to Christ. Christ is the characteristic feature of Colossians.

H.H. Is there not a link between Romans and Colossians which would not come in in regard of Ephesians? I thought there was a sort of past history in regard of Colossians, that is, you could not really, so to speak, be a Lazarus unless you had come under the grace of Christ and divine support previous to that. Colossians would view the saints as risen, but on the earth.

J.T. Just so. I see what you mean. Christ is the dominating feature of Colossians. We are not exactly in the presence of the sphere of divine counsel in Colossians.

P.L. Moses in Psalm 90: 17 says, "let the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us", and it says of him in Deuteronomy, that his eye was not dim nor his natural force abated. Would that be what is for God in freshness and life?

J.T. I think that is good. There was the work of God. Psalm 90 contemplates what man is as dying, and then what God would do. "Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy majesty unto their sons. And let the beauty of Jehovah our God be upon us; and establish thou the work of our hands upon us: yea, the work of our hands, establish thou it" (verses 16, 17). There would be, I think, there the thought of what we have before us, the beauty of the Lord.

H.F.N. You made a very interesting connection yesterday between the new cruse and Acts 1, and the new bottles and chapter 2. Is there any point in the history of the Acts where the truth of the new man is developed?

J.T. Speaking of it fully contemplates the Jew and Gentile. In Acts 3, as has been suggested, you have Peter and John going up to the temple together at the hour of prayer. They went up together. I think there was there God's best, as it were -- Peter and John, a beautiful blend of experience and love. They went up together, it says, "into the temple at the hour of prayer", and then the invited the man to look on them. "Look on us". I think that heaven would look on them with supreme delight at that time. In fact, if you take the closing verses of chapter 2 you have the features that we are dwelling upon, in the beautiful relation in which the saints were set; it is not what they were told to do, but what marked them, as it were, naturally; I mean, of course, in a spiritual sense.

There were added three thousand on "that day", and, as we remarked, there was no inconvenience. There is seen to be ample accommodation, and then the Spirit goes on to tell us what marked them, not in the way of obedience to a commandment, but what they did. "They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers" (Acts 2:42). And no one counted anything they had as their own. They continued in a happy mutual state, and it says that they broke bread in the house. I think that there must have been a great many houses in Jerusalem. The wide reference to the house in the Lord's ministry must have had in view what would come in as the Holy Spirit came down -- the great influx of converts, so that they should be properly housed, that they should be under hospitable roofs, as it were, where family affections should be

developed. We do not know whether there were any halls in Jerusalem large enough to accommodate such numbers; I do not suppose there were any such, but they were not without accommodation.

I think the Lord had prepared houses for the saints, so that there must have been a great many houses for the breaking of bread. They broke bread "in the house", that is to say, not in any particular house, but house-wise, as we might say; the whole scene must have been perfectly delightful to heaven. It was the immediate result of the testimony of the Spirit here. Peter and John, I think, would be, as it were, the very cream of that in the way of intelligence, and experience, and love. They were perfectly united, for the Spirit says they went up together to the temple.

J.B.C-l. It seems significant that the first great interruption to what you speak of was on the line of untruthfulness. The bringing in of the lie against the Holy Spirit was the first great interruption of what had been separated in the power of the Spirit.

J.T. That is a most important remark, because one has felt of late the peculiar influence of lying, which is, as you might say, the first mark, indeed, the characteristic feature of the old man. How it comes up in difficulties of local matters -- a spirit of untruthfulness. You can hardly fasten it on anyone, and yet there it is. As soon as a local difficulty arises you have an untruthful spirit, and hence in Colossians it says, "Do not lie to one another" (Colossians 3:9), and in Ephesians, "having put off falsehood" (Ephesians 4:25). I believe that the traits of the new man would be the antidote; "The law of truth was in his mouth" is said of Levi; Malachi 2:6. It is not only that he says the thing literally that is true, but the law of truthfulness is there. He will not deceive you whatever he says to you. He will convey what is true, whereas a man who has not got that law in his mouth might say true

things, and yet leave you with an untrue impression.

G.W.W. That is the very opposite to what came out in Christ. When they asked Him who He was, He said, "Altogether that which I also say to you" (John 8:25). There you have truth.

J.J. So the new man would be transparent like the heavenly city.

J.T. And as was remarked, this beautiful thing that came in consequent upon the ministry of the Spirit was interrupted by untruthfulness. It was the old man working, as you might say.

R.S.S. Untruthfulness and lying were immediately exposed in connection with christianity. In the Old Testament lying was passed over. Take Rahab, for instance, and many other instances of the same sort. But when the Lord came into the world, when grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, great account is taken of truthfulness, and so we get the new man "created in truthful righteousness".

J.T. Quite. That is very interesting, and because, of the old man God bore with things then which are simply intolerable now, because we have now got the new. We have discarded the old.

J.C.S. Is the new man God's way of securing in a scene of falsehood and corruption those precious features presented here in Christ?

J.T. That is right; that is just what it is -- the continuance of the features of Christ in the scene of corruption; and it is, I assume, what we should keep before us -- that there should be, however small, at least that.

J.C.S. How would it work out in regard of one another? The primary thought is what is there for the approbation of God.

J.T. That is what I thought. It is seen as it should work out amongst the saints, in the verses we have read; Colossian 3:12 - 15.

R.B. How does the word fit in to Laodicea?

"The faithful and true witness". Does that stand related to what we are speaking of?

J.T. I think it would. Faithfulness is that you are true to what you say, or you are true to what you are entrusted with; it is a great feature. To be true is that there is no deviation from the path; you stand by it in all its features.

W.L. So in the interruption that came in in the early days of christianity, what was said was true but was not the truth.

J.T. Just so; it was not all the truth.

H.F.N. Does it work out in the close of Revelation, where it speaks of those within who have washed their robes and have right to the tree of life, and without is every one that loves and makes a lie? Is the Lord working with us in regard of local difficulties to make us realise what properly belongs to the within and the without, so that in result every one that makes a lie is found without?

J.T. It is very searching and solemn; wisdom is so essential in regard to those difficulties. "But wisdom, where shall it be found?" (Job 28:12) and "Thus there is not a wise person among you" (1 Corinthians 6:5). Wisdom comes into evidence, I think, in the locating of the offender, so that the least possible damage is done. I believe that one of the greatest things in discipline is that there should be the least possible damage and yet that the offender should be dealt with according to God. So, as you were saying, the one who loves and makes the lie is outside. It seems to me that the peculiar attack at the present time is in local eruptions. In these the features of the old man develop, and the antidote is in the development of the features of the new.

Now in 2 Samuel you have, I think, an antichristian uprising, first of a general character in Absalom (chapter 15), and then of a local character in Sheba (chapter 20). The latter would have made it a general

thing if he could; he said, "We have no portion in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, Israel" (2 Samuel 20:1). Many went after him, but happily the uprising became local. He was in the city Abel and apparently no other city was involved. Now Joab would have destroyed that city in dealing with the offender, having no thought of saving all the others. His one thought was to destroy the offender, but without any thought of the many that might go down with him. And I believe that is where wisdom comes in. It says there was a wise woman there and she went to all the people in her wisdom -- mark, to all the people. In a local matter it is the responsibility of every person there, and you want every person to act, because it is in acting, in taking up the obligation, that one saves oneself and proves oneself clear in the matter. So it says that she went to all the people in her wisdom and they cut off Sheba's head. They did it, and threw it over the wall, and the city was saved. The offender was dealt with, but the saints were all saved. There was the least possible damage; there was no damage in regard of anyone, but the evil was dealt with.

It is a question of developing what is new in dealing with these things. It is not certain ones in the company grouping together against others. That is simply the old method -- the old man. We have to revert to new measures, and new measures are wisdom's measures, and wisdom's measures are God's measures, and they are effective.

J.S. Hence the importance of having that which is new in the meeting.

J.T. It is so very easy to group, to take sides in matters, and the meeting become divided. That is not new at all. That marks the world.

H.H. The woman did not undertake to cut off the head of Sheba and throw it over the wall; she spoke to the inhabitants of the city and they did it. The

principle is important. I must not cut off the head of a brother.

J.T. No, you must not. That is very important. Sometimes it is done. All the saints should be brought into such matters.

H.H. In that same scripture you have referred to, the wise woman said, "They were wont to speak in old time, saying, Just inquire in Abel: and so they ended" (2 Samuel 20:18).

J.T. I have no doubt the allusion is to what is available locally. It says, "Inquire in Abel", that is where the trouble was. For instance at Corinth -- that is where the trouble was -- they had the means of dealing with it. They might have inquired; they were "temple of God". "Inquire in Abel; and so they ended".

A.S.L. The wise woman did not dwell at Corinth.

J.T. Apparently there was no wise woman there. The apostle says, "Thus there is not a wise person among you" (1 Corinthians 6:5).

G.J.E. The elements set forth in the wise woman, and her being able to influence the city, one would desire to be found in every local gathering.

J.T. That is just what I was thinking. 1 Corinthians develops wisdom, but it is called "hidden wisdom", and I believe that is available in the temple, and it is wisdom that was predetermined before the ages for our glory. So we have resources that existed before the world; all will remember the well-known allusion to Hebron -- that it was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt. His princes were at Zoan. It would appear to be the place of worldly wisdom, and I believe that many of us are there in dealing with assembly matters, bringing in the ordinary methods of the world in grouping together locally, one against another, instead of resorting to inquiry together as the temple. Then you get at the resources that were before the world, and so you are sure to

undo what Satan is doing. They are the only methods, the only resources capable of undoing what Satan has built up in this world.

Judah's princes were at Zoan; there they would take counsel, but Jehovah said, "they are but fools, the princes of Zoan, ... their counsel is become senseless" (Isaiah 19:11). The princes of this world do not know anything about the hidden wisdom; they crucified the Lord of glory, but the believer knows. He knows, or should know, and the appointed way is to inquire. If we ask of God, temple-wise, there will be a solution; I am sure of that, and we do not need to lean on any party. God will come in and there will be the locating of the offender, and all the saints will be with you in it.

W.W. Would the "wise woman" involve the formative work that would come to light in Colossians?

J.T. I think she does. Colossians is what was before the world morally. You have something that is of God set over against what is in the world, so that philosophy or human wisdom is rejected, not only because it is bad, but because it is not needed. You have got something better.

E.J.McB. So in a way you have got the Colossian thought in Antioch, where they were first called christians. I thought a totally new character of man was in evidence that you could not connect with either the Jew or the Gentile.

W.J.H. And Peter and then Barnabas tried to bring in the old man through the principle of dissimulation. The enemy is always at work on that line, because he is a liar and the father of lies, and the old man was begotten by him.

J.T. Certain came from James, showing how we may influence one another in what is evil.

P.L. So that just after Antioch, Elymas the magician appears. Is that the element of the old man and opposition to the new man?

J.T. Just so.

H.F.N. The brethren sending relief to the poor saints in Judaea from Antioch would be the contrast to that -- the early working out of the new man.

J.T. I think in following the thread in Acts (we have been dealing with chapter 3) chapter 4 presents the climax of it in Jerusalem. Peter and John had rendered their testimony together, and the man "held" them. He leaped up and walked with them into the temple and praised God -- a delightful condition that was in itself so pleasurable to heaven. Now chapter 4 shows that their testimony, as set out in these two chapters, being finished, they went to their own company, and they merged in it, for, as they reach the company they are no longer distinctively Peter and John. As together they represented something for God, they served in that connection, but when that is finished, they come back to the company and merge in it. So it is no longer Peter and John in the company, but the whole company and all the apostles having their place. The same features that appeared at the end of chapter 2, seen in that company in an intensified way, is the climax of the work of God in Jerusalem from the standpoint from which we are speaking. After that you have the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, and then the dissatisfaction of the Hellenists, which give, as it were, the end of a chapter; so that from that point God operates towards Antioch and the things that we are speaking of develop there. We get the assembly that was there and things are presented as wholly according to God.

J.B.C-l. The introduction to the gospel of Luke seems to have this Colossian idea in view, I mean as to the divine pleasure. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men" (Luke 2:14). I was turning over what you suggested as to the new man being for God first. It would really be the bringing to pass in the power of recovery of what was for the divine pleasure in the midst of corruption.

J.T. Yes; that is so.

W.J.H. So untruthfulness in Ananias and Sapphira and the sectional spirit in the widows were the first efforts of Satan to get a footing in that which bore the character of the new man in Jerusalem.

J.T. Yes; the old showing itself in opposition to the new.

P.L. So as things were waning in Jerusalem the features of the new man are seen in Stephen -- the shining countenance and the spirit of Christ.

J.T. Quite so.

F.S.M. The expression, "Having put on the new", in Colossians -- would you say a word as to how that works out?

J.T. The idea has to be laid hold of in your mind. Putting it on would be an act of your mind, as I understand it; that is, you take it up as an act of your mind, being enlightened as to it. The apostle does not introduce it as something they did not know about. He refers to it as something of which the Colossians knew -- something they had done; and I apprehend they had, on the principle of faith and in their minds, taken up the idea of the new man, which, I suppose, would have come to them, through whomsoever the light came, as the character of Christ. They were evidently lovers of Christ; they had received Him, it says, and they would, as loving Christ, put on the new man. But the taking it up in that way as an act of your mind does not mean that the thing characterises you, and so, I think, the apostle introduces it here that it might characterise them.

You will observe that he goes on to point out what marks the new man which they had put on, that he was renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him. There was no room in him for Greek philosophy or anything of that kind. It was the kind of knowledge, as it were, in God Himself,

the Creator. Then he points out that there is no distinction of nationality, nor is there anything there that marks men in this world. He states first what this new man is, and then he says, "Put on therefore, as the elect of God". That I think is what confirms what we are saying, that the new man is for God. As having put on the new man they were God's elect. "Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth!" (Isaiah 42:1). They corresponded to Christ. He had elected Christ. It is not a question there of what the Lord was in His own divine Person, but what He was here as a Man -- that He was delightful to God. He was God's elect, in whom His soul delighted, but they would give delight only in the measure in which there was this beautiful freshness in what they were to put on. As it says, "holy and beloved, bowels of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering". These are the things that God has delight in.

W.C.G. The hymn we sang helps us in that connection, 'Lord Jesus, source of every grace' (Hymn 114).

J.T. Just so.

F.S.M. While having put on the new man, they still needed the exhortations that follow.

J.T. The exhortations indicate how it works out in you. You are regarded as having taken the thing up as a matter of light by faith, but now you put on all these things and you are perfectly delightful to God. One would love to get the thought into one's soul in "Mine elect in whom my soul delighteth!" -- God speaking of what He found in Christ, and, in measure, what He finds in the saints also as His elect.

F.S.M. You pursue the things so that they may be true characteristically.

J.T. The things are illustrated by the green grass, herbs and trees -- which the renewed earth, the earth as coming up out of death at the beginning yielded to the Creator. Everything was fresh, and so it is with the saints. It is one thing to come up out of

death, but then the earth might be bare. You might have the earth coming up out of death without grass. It is the grass and the herbs and the trees that make the thing delightful -- the evidence of life is there.

D.L.H. I was going to ask whether, having put off the old man and having put on the new, does not correspond with what we have in the previous chapter in the thoughts of circumcision, burial, risen with Christ, and quickening. Do not these thoughts of having put off and having put on correspond with those statements in the previous chapter?

J.T. I should say that fully. Chapter 2 is, as you might say, the doctrine.

D.L.H. And that is how it is applied, because, if they were buried with Christ, where was the old man? And if they were risen with Christ, there was the new.

P.L. Would not the half-open flowers in the temple, within and without, answer to the thought? The within for God and the without in testimony for men.

J.T. The half-open flowers are the evidence of fresh life.

A.S.L. Would you say a word on the remarkable expression, "As the truth is in Jesus".

J.T. Well, in Ephesians you come to the complete thought involved in the new man and in the old. The truth as in Jesus is stated there as involving the putting off of the old and the putting on of the new, so that it would involve His death and resurrection.

A.S.L. The personal name is striking -- Jesus. "Bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus" (2 Corinthians 4:10).

J.T. Do you not think this would link on the idea from Colossians with the new man in Ephesians, in that he begins with Christ in the passage? "But ye have not thus learnt the Christ, if ye have heard him and been instructed in him according as the truth is in Jesus".

F.H.B. Why does he say "in Jesus", rather than "in Christ?"

J.T. Christ is the One in Ephesians who does things for God. What I learn, I learn from Him. I have heard from Him because being anointed He instructs; but then, what the apostle is at is to bring out the connection between Jesus, which is what He was here as a Man and what He is now too, and the new man. What He was personally as here, we are as a creation; that is, we are "created in truthful righteousness and holiness". It is the difference, I think, as to the kind of man, between Adam innocent and Christ. Innocency will not do, and that shows what this word 'new' signifies. You might have another Adam like the first one. God could do that; it would be new in the ordinary sense of the word, but it would not be a different one. The point is to see that it is a different one. The difference is that Adam was created in innocency, not in righteousness nor in holiness.

The new man is created in truthful righteousness and holiness, and that is what Christ was as become Man, and if you have a creation in truthful righteousness and holiness, that creation is going through. That can never be dominated by Satan and that is the reason why Ephesians presents the full thought -- that God has got something capable of standing in the corruption. It is a creation, but it is a creation in truthful righteousness and holiness, and then the renewal of the spirit of your mind keeps it in freshness, because the word for renewal is that for freshness. It is ever fresh and untaintable. It never grows old.

A.S.L. Does not the thought of the introduction of the personal name of Jesus take you to the cross, where the old man had been dealt with and removed?

J.T. Quite. I think it is a question of what has come about in one Man, in Christ as a Man, in Jesus.

D.L.H. But is it not the moral features that were set forth in Jesus as a Man here?

J.T. I think it is, only the truth involves His death. There could not be the putting off of the old without that. It is to be noted that in Ephesians the new man is created "after God", as it is said. The new man reflects what God is morally as revealed in Christ.

J.J. In Ephesians it is, "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and chanting with your heart to the Lord". In this connection, I suppose it would save from all local difficulties.

J.T. What precedes what you have quoted is, "but be filled with the Spirit", so the saints are preserved in being filled with the Spirit; all that goes to make up what we are speaking of. There is the preservation of the new thing in freshness, so God's delight is in it, and one would particularly like to keep that in view, because God looks for His own part, and if we love God, we shall not deny Him His part. So I think we want to preserve these beautiful traits of Jesus in our relation with one another.

A.S.L. "Ye have not thus learnt the Christ". Did you think that the expression "the Christ" would involve the new man -- Christ Himself and this company associated with Him? Because there is a difference between Christ personally and the Christ.

J.T. I think "the Christ" is a question of the anointing. There is that which God anoints. As anointed, He has set forth what God is, and the new man corresponds with this; he is created "according to God ... in truthful righteousness and holiness".

A.M. "If the Lord delight in us". Would not that be the commencement? If God delight in us as expressing the new man, we shall have the consciousness of it.

J.T. He creates what He delights in; He creates

"Jerusalem, ... And I will rejoice over Jerusalem" (Isaiah 65:18, 19). Enoch had the testimony that he pleased God. There was that there for God in the midst of corruption.

H.W.S. Would there be the possibility of the acceptance of the truth of putting off the old man without having the qualities of the new?

J.T. I think that is what is intimated here. He brings in these qualities that they should not be lacking. You may sow your field and it is potentially the crop, but you have got to wait for the springing up of the crop.

J.C.S. God will accept no human substitution for these qualities.

P.L. Would you think that the expression in Proverbs 12: 11, "He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied", goes with it? Satisfaction is in the tillage.

J.T. Quite. A divine thought received into an honest and good heart and understood is the seed. Then there is the needed care that the desired fruit may come.

J.C.S. Would you say a word how the assembly, the body, and the new man are presented in Colossians?

J.T. They run together. Colossians does not go on to the full thought of the assembly. You do not get the full thought of God in Colossians. What is emphasised is life in the way in which we have spoken of it, and one can see how that bears on the truth of the body. He is Head of the body, the assembly. That is a general thought in Colossians, which is worked out in Ephesians. It is brought in in the former epistle to show His greatness, but the truth of the mystery is not really developed in Colossians. It is a question of the greatness of Christ and the saints having life. It really resolves itself into this, do I love Christ? If I do, then Christ is everything to me, and the more I know Him, the more I know I have everything

in Him. That is how I understand it. Everything comes out of Christ, but the main thing is to see that He is my life, and that in the new man He is everything. "Christ is everything, and in all". You want nothing outside of Christ.

As said before, Ephesians presents the full thought of the new man, he is created after God; he reflects the character of God -- righteousness and holiness of truth.

THE NEW JERUSALEM

Revelation 3:7 - 13; 21: 1 - 17

D.L.H. What is the connection between what we have been considering and the new Jerusalem?

J.T. I think the promise to the overcomer in Philadelphia would indicate that he would have knowledge of the new man. He would understand the bearing of the word 'new', as we have been remarking. The new man is evidently for God, that in which He finds delight on account of its freshness, but the new Jerusalem introduces another thought. It is a complete vessel, including, I judge, all the other features that have occupied us. The element of preservation is evident in the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; what is presented includes what was from the outset. The foundations were made intact and would be included in what was new. In other words, the fruit of the work of God in the whole dispensation is seen there and is included in the newness. I suppose that every thought of God in regard of government is found in it, and that livingly. His government through providential means, and His government through Israel -- the twelve tribes -- all these thoughts are there.

D.L.H. Would you mind saying a word in regard of the distinction or difference between the new Jerusalem in its eternal setting and the holy city in its millennial setting, to which you are just now referring?

J.T. Its bearing towards the eternal state of things is evidently as a divine dwelling-place; that in which God will be with men. The thought would be, I suppose, taken up from the Lord's presence here. He became flesh and tabernacled amongst us. It was new. God had tabernacled with Israel but "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). It was a wholly new way. God was there, but there in a new

way, and so He will be, I apprehend, eternally in that new way. The assembly will be His tabernacle among men.