Pages 1 - 258 -- "Features of the Truth Bearing on the Last Days", Meetings in Canada and U.S.A., 1940 - 44. (Volume. 164 - Old Series).

FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (1)

John 18:28 - 40; John 19:1 - 11

J.T. There are certain features of the truth that bear especially on the last days, and they are exemplified in certain persons. It is thought that these persons should be considered at this time. Of course the whole truth is presented in Christ, who is the truth, and hence in the first reading we shall consider Him in relation to what is specially in mind. The features refer to the position of the authorities, "the powers that be", in the last days. It is thought that the Lord Himself should be looked at first, as to His presence before Pilate seen in John 18 and 19; then Paul before Agrippa and Festus, then Peter in certain connections, John in Revelation, and finally Timothy.

What is to be noted first is the conversation between the Lord and Pilate, which we may say is peculiar to John, and it is thought it would bear particularly on the last days. The government as appointed by God has been greatly accentuated by events that have arisen during recent times, extending back about thirty years, and it has come into contact with the Spirit of Christ in His people. The Lord has been helping the saints to say what is right to them, as He Himself did, and to act accordingly in other things. At the outset of the origination of the gentile monarchies great events occurred. The history of Nebuchadnezzar is outstanding. God gave him to be "king of kings", and great wars were carried on by him. Nebuchadnezzar and his successors came into contact with God's people in Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego these

and many others were enabled of God to act becomingly and to bear testimony. And God acted in the monarchs, too, so as to enhance the testimony that was rendered in that time. The bearing of it has come right down to us. The Romans, of course, were marked by great things, as indeed were all the four monarchies, but the Romans particularly. During the period of their domination the Lord Himself appeared. And now great events are taking place, and the Spirit of Christ is again active in relation to the governing powers. God is acting in them governmentally, too, so as to give effect to the testimony that is being rendered by one and another of His people. The Lord's own remarks in the two chapters read in John should have peculiar force with us in view of the end. The Lord asserts that His kingdom is not of this world. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence", John 18:36. This is the most important passage of all that was in mind to be specially brought before the brethren at this time.

A.E.H. It is noteworthy in connection with the Lord going into the situation that, while generally in John He is moving of Himself, this passage that you have suggested starts with, "They lead therefore Jesus from Caiaphas".

J.T. He is now apprehended, not yet by the Romans but by the religious element in Jerusalem. He had gone into a garden, we are told in the beginning of the chapter. It is said, "Judas also, who delivered him up, knew the place, because Jesus was often there, in company with his disciples. Judas therefore, having got the band, and officers of the chief priests and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns and torches and weapons" (verses 2, 3). That is, He is pursued. He is still, in the beginning of the

chapter, acting of Himself, and goes to a place which had often been visited by Himself and His disciples, so that He is still free, acting as is customary with Him; but now He is pursued by the traitor who comes in a militant fashion with the officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. They have come to arrest Him, which they do, but He shows that His power remains with Him. They could not do anything save as He permitted them. He asked whom they sought (verse 4) and they said, "Jesus the Nazaraean. Jesus says to them, I am he. And Judas also, who delivered him up, stood with them. When therefore he said to them, I am he, they went away backward and fell to the ground". That is, He shows that they could not take His liberty away from Him save as He would permit them. This is in keeping with John' line. A divine Person was there and they could not do anything save as He permitted them. Therefore He again demands, after they went backward and fell to the ground, "Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus the Nazaraean. Jesus answered, I told you that I am he; if therefore ye seek me, let these go away; that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke, As to those whom thou hast given me, I have not lost one of them" (verses 7 - 9). These verses are of great importance in view of what is before us: a divine Person is there, and although those who would be His captors are armed with torches and lanterns and weapons, they could not do anything. As He said, "I am he", they went backward and fell to the ground. He is asserting His deity, so that the position is clear, all is at His behest; whatever He wills they may do, but nothing else. That is the position now, a divine Person is here, the Holy Spirit, and in His presence there is liberty; the bearing of this is universal. What is of God is maintained here in the fact that the Spirit of God is here. Nothing can

happen without God, so that we may allow ourselves to be apprehended if it be God's will. That is the position. It is a victorious position, though it involves suffering as the chapters plainly mark out. But the position in John is different from that in the other three gospels: the Lord shows that He can retain His liberty, Pilate could have no power against Him except as given from heaven.

H.B. Would the word as to His life in John 10:18 fit: "I have authority to lay it down"? He is in this situation in perfect control.

J.T. That is what comes out. Satan had selected his instruments, it was a satanic matter; Judas had come under his power and the devil was doing his utmost, but his emissaries were powerless. He himself was powerless. Then the Lord says, "If therefore ye seek me, let these go away". He could retain His liberty, but He is going to allow them to take Him. He provides however for the disciples, they are to be let go.

J.W.D. Paul, when he called himself "the prisoner of Christ Jesus", and "the prisoner of the Lord", would move into that thought, would he not?

J.T. Quite so. The history of the voyage from Caesarea to Malta brings out that he had retained his liberty inwardly. "An angel of ... God ... stood by me", he says, Acts 27:23. Even outwardly he is, in a sense, in charge of the position; and as he reaches Rome, although still a prisoner, he retains liberty to carry on his service; and from there we have the greatest things from him in written ministry.

A.N.W. When he secured certain liberty by claiming to be a Roman, what of that?

J.T. That was, of course, failure. The Lord suffered before the high priest, and said, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil". This was, as ever with Him, absolutely right, in contrast to Paul's giving way in pressure. He used his Roman citizenship

to relieve himself, which was a descent from the level of faith he was on; but the Lord graciously considered for him so that it did not interfere with the general position and testimony of the apostle. The Lord said to him immediately after, "For as thou hast testified the things concerning me at Jerusalem, so thou must bear witness at Rome also".

R.W.S. After the Lord's enemies fell backward, Peter uses the sword (John 18:10): he missed the import at the moment of who the Person was.

J.T. He was falsifying the position. The Lord said to him, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?"

A.E.H. Would the Lord's saying, "Let these go away", suggest that meeting the authorities in the proper way, and the consciousness of power, would help the brethren in carrying on; that there would be more liberty afforded them?

J.T. Yes. The Lord stands in the breach. He says, "I told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go away". An important principle comes in there: that is, the Lord says things in His ministry in view of future occurrences; He says things prophetically, so that faith might be fortified. When the application time came, those who had faith would know what to do. So in verse 9 it is, "that the word might be fulfilled which he spoke, As to those whom thou hast given me, I have not lost one of them". He had spoken that prophetically in chapter 17. It was not simply historical at that time, but that that principle should go forward -- the Lord preserving His people that they should not be lost. But Peter, as far as his action goes, negatives that thought; his act is against what the Lord is doing, what He had said prophetically in chapter 17. Peter is nullifying that as far as his action goes. It was no doubt corrected, but I think the incident

shows how we may come in to thwart a prophetic word. We are fortified when some event happens if there has been a prophetic word as to it. Peter's action was nullifying what the Lord had said as to the preservation of the disciples. "Simon Peter therefore, having a sword". Is not that the sequence of the natural mind in Peter? It is certainly not a sequence from what the Lord had said, that none of them should be lost.

Rem. We had a prophetic word in the last war with regard to the authorities.

J.T. The question of conscience came up in a remarkable way. So far as I know, there had been no conscription in Great Britain before, but the Lord allowed conditions to arise which necessitated conscription, that is, manpower conscripted by the authorities. At that time the Spirit of the Lord raised up a standard, and it has stood as a guide for the saints. No one at that time expected this condition to arise so soon afterwards, but that standard has afforded fortification for faith and devotedness to the Lord in the young brothers that are conscripted now. The Lord is making room for them as maintaining a good conscience before Him.

H.G.H. On the same line, does verse 32 confirm the prophetic words of Jesus in relation to Himself?

J.T. Yes, "signifying what death he should die". Prophecy would fortify faith in that way.

A.A.T. How do you apply verse 9 today?

J.T. It is a sheltering principle. John brings it in here, and in view of the extraordinary conditions of the last days it has particular force, for God has revived the truth and recovered His people. It applies to us in the present recovered position. I think God is helping the brethren to hold on to it. Instead of divisions amongst us, such as happened earlier and frequently, we have had none since 1908, none worth bringing forward. Sovereign mercy is preserving

us. It will continue to preserve us as we keep lowly. The promise to the assembly in Philadelphia enters into this: "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".

J.R.H. Does all this mean that the peace and liberty of the brethren has been ensured by those who take the forefront in the matter of declaring their conscience?

J.T. Speaking militarily, they are the spearhead. God has ordered things that way: a certain grade of human life in the brethren is called into the breach, and the Lord is helping them. It is a front line matter for the salvation of all -- the principle that was stressed in the last war.

S.W.P. Would one brother having the sword tend to endanger the position of all?

J.T. That is just the point. Here is one brother acting on his own initiative: "Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it, and smote the bondman of the high priest and cut off his right ear". The damage that he does is not remedied here. The Lord is letting things stand. How far will your action go? If I am disregarding the principle, the damage may not be remedied immediately. Here the Lord did not mend the matter, though in Luke He does.

J.W.D. The Lord says, "Put the sword into the sheath", as if there is hope in doing that.

J.T. The position is that the sword is sheathed and another feature of the kingdom takes its place. The Lord says, "My kingdom is not of this world"; if it were, He says, "my servants had fought". Well, Peter had fought, but the Lord is not charging that. In general that is the position, the brethren are not using the sword. That was a defect on Peter's part. The disciples did not take weapons to attack their enemies.

A.N.W. In using the sword Peter lowered for the moment the level of the Lord's people.

J.T. Yes, and the Lord did not attempt to remedy it according to John's account. If things happen amongst us that should not, if He comes in and remedies them, good and well; but in this case it is not so, and that is to remind us. Some brother enlists, disregarding conscience; hence the position is lost to that extent.

H.B. It seems to be put over against the cup given by the Father.

J.T. The moment involved the Lord's death. The sword would be used against Him for atonement -- not against me. The Lord says, "The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" The general position of the present dispensation entered into it.

W.R. "He was reckoned with the lawless".

J.T. In view of all this they must fortify themselves. They would for a moment be without the Lord's protection; hence His direction that they should buy swords. But the disciples did not understand, and so the Lord said, "It is enough".

J.W.D. The active agency against the Lord is religious power coupled with political power; it is active before we get to the Roman monarchy restored. Is there something of an analogy today that brings about this crisis?

J.T. I think so -- the traitor emanating from this combination. We are dealing here with the inner circle of evil. Judas emanated from the inner circle. Satan had hired him, and he led the band with weapons, torches and lanterns. Think of that as over against the light that shone in Christ! Judas was the centre of this satanic operation: "Judas also, who delivered him up, stood with them". That is the position. It is an inner circle of evil. There is the mystery of iniquity; it is working out in the last

days in a more concrete way than it did at the beginning. There has been a betrayal of the position, and those that have been betraying the truth are lending themselves to the devil. The group with Judas here corresponds with what is at work today. The Lord says, "The hand of him that delivers me up is with me on the table".

W.R. If we are not affected by the truth we are likely to betray it.

J.T. "Simon Peter therefore"; what is this "therefore"? The Lord had just said, "If therefore ye seek me, let these go away". Whatever it means it cannot be a sequence to the Lord's words. The Lord's words were a fulfilment of the earlier statement He had made, "as to those whom thou hast given me, I have not lost one of them". Thus it is clear that Peter, in using the sword, was out of accord with the Lord's mind. But the Lord does not heal the bondman of the high priest. He does so according to Luke.

C.A.M. Is this not one of the things that impresses you with the fact that John's ministry looks down to the last time? This section is prophetic of the maintenance of the testimony, especially at the end.

J.T. It is. There has been a revival of discipleship in the inner circle. But there has also been the betrayal of the testimony and those who lead in that come back: they know the spot, they know what the brethren hold and where they meet, and they are pretty sure to have their lanterns, and torches and weapons. Peter uses the sword, contrary to the Lord's teaching, but He would adjust Peter. He does not adjust Judas, but He adjusts Peter telling him to put that weapon into its sheath. He does not, however, tell him to destroy it. In effect it belonged to the governing authorities, but it is not a weapon for Christ's disciples. Another thing comes in here, the Lord's heavenly kingdom. Peter would

learn that he and his fellow disciples must be governed by its principles. They must follow the line of what He has been doing, what He says and does. That is where the testimony of Christ and the salvation of the brethren lie.

S.W.P. Is all this position the Lord takes up one of pattern, first His testimony to Annas, then to Caiaphas, and then to Pilate, all being suggested to bring out some features of Himself in these positions for our guidance and help?

J.T. Yes. This is a first line attack. Satan tries to do what he can; Judas is in his service as leader. Satan intended to do what he could with Judas and his band allied to the religious element. Then we have Peter denying the Lord, and alongside of this his use of the sword to cut off Malchus' ear. The "band" (verse 12), is again employed: "The band therefore, and the chiliarch, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus and bound him: and they led him away to Annas first". Then the Lord is led to Pilate. Now we are in front of the four monarchies, at least of the final one, the Roman.

H.G.H. In verse 29 the authorities seem to be showing a measure of favour towards the religious leaders. What is there in the fact of Pilate's going out instead of their coming in?

J.T. It was the Passover time and they could not, because of Jewish custom, enter the praetorium. They had religious scruples and could not go in there; Pilate has to do as they say, he has to go out to them. That shows the position of the government; religion usually has power there. And so he goes out from the authoritative place to where they are. You can thus see the influence at work even where the rights of God are involved. Pilate is not, however, available to Satan at first; he represents government in the abstract and his mind is right at first. Satan has no power over him until the Jews come in.

FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (2)

John 19:12 - 24

J.T. We scarcely touched on the passages read this morning, but what was said as to the prophetic utterances of the Lord is of importance, because prophetic ministry has acquired a place amongst the brethren, and it helps us to have understanding of the times. What Caiaphas said in John 18:14 is on the same line; he "counselled the Jews that it was better that one man should perish for the people". That was a prophetic word from him. We also noted Peter's negation of the light that came out by using a sword, and we should keep that point before us because it really enters into all that is before us at these meetings. The Lord told him to "put the sword into the sheath", adding, "the cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" (verse 11). There are many who correspond with Peter, notwithstanding that much light has come down from the previous war; there are those who advocate joining in with the claims of the government to the fullest extent. The effect of Peter's use of the sword was not remedied. According to John; and then he went to further extremes in denying the Lord, so that where we give way on one point we are likely to go further. Thus things in our day are going on to the end unremedied, and we are reminded of the danger of leading in error to an error to any extent, not knowing how far it may go.

J.W.D. Do you think we can apply the thought of the cup, which the Father gave Him to drink, in any crisis that might be linked on with governmental difficulties?

J.T. Quite so; the Father's will is the immediate issue. It is "the cup which the Father has given"

here. "The Father" is John's way of presenting God in the economy of grace; the Father's will extends to us throughout the dispensation.

R.W.S. Will you enlarge on that suggestion about the ear not being healed according to John, and Peter's case being left?

J.T. I think it is a solemn matter that the Lord just left these facts. At least, the Spirit of God does not record through John that the ear was healed, and Peter's denial is not pursued to its full sequel as in Luke. I think it is to remind us of the seriousness of any overt acts of sin, however spiritual we may have been. In the government of God they may be left and they may extend beyond anything we might have intended.

A.N.W. The probing at the end of the gospel has some reference to these matters: "Lovest thou me?" three times repeated.

J.T. That comes into our enquiry. What shall I be when I am old? The Lord says to Peter, "When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and bring thee where thou dost not desire", John 21:18. He referred to the death he should die, that he should be a real martyr.

S.J.H. Would you say a word as to why, in John, it is the kinsman of the one whose ear he cut off that raises the issue with Peter in the palace court? "One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" -- as if he had become prominent in that way.

J.T. Quite so. It would indicate that, as we have said, wrong things done may stand, and spread too. There is the spreading of the thought in the fact that this kinsman would notice him. The confessions that have been made today in regard to the truth are spreading, people are hearing things they never

heard before; but then on the other hand, if we fail in the testimony, the right testimony, as Peter did here, that effect will spread. Great damage has been done through certain ones denying the real point at issue in these recent matters. The authorities make much of contradiction among those who are nominally of the same view, the same faith, as they would say. So that Peter's course here points to serious conduct of any kind, especially the denial of anything that has been clearly set out as a principle. In the previous war all this matter of conscience was clearly set out. Never before, so far as I know, was the matter an issue in Great Britain, because there had been no conscription there.

R.A. What is the position of the sword today?

J.T. It is in its sheath. Peter had it. The point would be that it will be used again, but the extraordinary circumstances now preclude its use. What Jesus calls His kingdom is a new thing come in as different from other kingdoms, and the sword is precluded from that kingdom. He says "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom; if my kingdom were of this world my servants had fought that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now my kingdom not from hence". I would call it a provisional kingdom, not in keeping with the wars that were waged before Christ, and with wars that will ensue after His second coming. When He comes out to deal with the nations the sword will be used again: but not now. It is a provisional state of things, and the fact that it is such and not accredited as David's kingdom was for instance, makes it difficult for those who confess this kingdom at the present time. It is difficult because men do not understand it. I think that is why John is used of the Spirit of God to record these conversations between the Lord and Pilate. They have an inwardness and a depth that do not appear in the other gospels; and I believe the allusion is to

what God has brought about in these last days, spiritual conditions wherein these inward things are discerned and held, although others do not understand them.

A.A.T. Would you call Peter an extremist, that is, not well-balanced in regard to the question we have before us?

J.T. I think he must have taken up literally the Lord's words in regard to the sword as spoken in Luke, and therefore used the sword.

A.N.W. Regarding the inability to explain to men the difference between David's kingdom and the Lord's kingdom, would the best explanation be to be prepared to go to the wall?

J.T. That is what we have to do, because our statements are highly objectionable to some; and others who would be more or less favourable cannot see the point that is made, which the Lord brings out here. And that is why spirituality is so essential to this matter. The Spirit of Christ is always a testimony. The Spirit of Christ is seen especially in this section of John's gospel. When the Lord speaks about "My kingdom" and says that His servants would fight if it were of this world, Pilate enquires, "Thou art then a king?"

R.W.S. There are certain imitated features of this, are there not, certain who will not take up arms who know nothing as to this kingdom?

J.T. That is another matter, and it makes a real difficulty. It beclouds the real issue, because these persons are not spiritual and hence do not commend the truth. Quakers -- Friends, as they are called in the United States and England -- have great influence in this matter. Governmentally they have helped, but as to the inwardness and spirituality of the truth involved, they do not understand.

W.R. Would you say in connection with the bondman of the high priest whose ear was cut off

that Peter could hardly preach the gospel to that man effectively?

J.T. He could not. He had denied the dispensation.

S.J.H. Does it ensue that if anyone belongs to this world he should fight, but if he takes the ground that he does not belong to it, that he is a stranger here, he should not fight?

J.T. Yes. As Christians we have definite principles which we have learned from the Lord, and those who have not got them we just leave, as we seek to make our position clear. They are of this world and the sword belongs to them. We have to suffer, as people do not understand us. That is the attitude we have to take up; that is the attitude the Lord took up here.

J.W.D. "The powers that be" are God's servants in government, and we regard them in that sense and pray for them. That is another matter.

J.T. That is what Pilate represents in this passage. Matthew makes a little more of Pilates official place because he says, "Jesus stood before the governor", Matthew 27:11. That is the position. He stood before the governor. Matthew makes much of the governor because government is a point with him, and Pilate represented the empire; he had the official title of "governor". His wife sought to dissuade him from interfering with the Lord: "Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man", she says. Matthew 27:19. The nearest person to him, his own wife, suffered because of Jesus. We may count on that sort of thing among those in authority; someone may have sympathy with what is right. That is what Matthew presents to us. John is dealing with the more spiritual side of the thing. The Lord reserves this matter of heaven and the authority that Pilate has almost to the end of the conversation, because John is dealing with the inwardness of things, and we

have just to accept that they do not understand us. It is impossible for them to understand us really, and yet some see that the position is logical. But we must make it a matter of the truth of God; it is not simply that we have that view -- it is a system of teaching inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ that had not existed before and will not be in force after He returns. It is a provisional teaching, and the kingdom involved in it is for this dispensation. We must thus enlarge on this dispensation, what it is in relation to all other dispensations.

A.E.H. The Lord seems to turn this occasion into an opportunity to view Pilate, not so much as a governor, but as a man. Do you think that He is dealing with Pilate as to his own soul? He says, "Dost thou say this of thyself, or have others said it to thee concerning me?"

J.T. I think that is right. He says further to him, "He that has delivered me up to thee has the greater sin". The Lord considered for Pilate in a marked way. Pilate abstractly regarded the Lord as righteous, as wholly innocent of the charges against Him and, as far as the passage is concerned, he never lost that view. He wrote a title and put it on the cross: "Jesus the Nazaraean, the King of the Jews. This title therefore many of the Jews read, for the place of the city where Jesus was crucified was near; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, [and] Latin. The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, Do not write, The king of the Jews, but that he said, I am king of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written". I believe that he got light in spite of himself by what had passed. Toward the end of the conversations the word came to him that the Lord Jesus said He was the Son of God. Pilate said, "Take him ye and crucify him, for I find no fault in him". Then the Jews say, "We have a law, and according to our law he ought to

die, because he made himself Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard this word, he was the rather afraid, and went into the praetorium again and says to Jesus, Whence art thou?" Where is this man Pilate in his soul? Is he simply sitting in a seat of authority or is his soul being touched? Is there light current even for Pilate? Is it not so that light is for all? You have that always in mind and so are not afraid to touch the deepest things, things now that relate to the deity of Christ. Pilate feared. There was a struggle in him in favour of Christ, but the sequel does not indicate any permanent result.

A.N.W. Luke tells us the Lord made no answer at all to Herod. Are we confronted with any element like that today?

J.T. I think so. There are such as are given up by God -- apostates. The Lord did not answer Herod. There are persons as to whom the matter is settled. But He spoke to Pilate. The authority of the four monarchies, that is, of the last one, is still existent, and the Lord is bringing that forth here; the representative of that power is being searched in his soul by the Son of God before whom he stood And what am I in the presence of those men who represent government? What is any of us who are called to witness before them? Is it the Spirit or Christ that is seen in us? This is no mere special view that I have, but it is a consistent system or teaching that is provisional for the present time and gives character to our dispensation.

C.A.M. I suppose that is what Peter would call as a Christian. Would you say a word about the fact that as God's ministers, there are those that use the sword?

J.T. Romans teaches that most plainly. The great initial epistle of Paul asserts in the plainest possible way that the powers that be are ordained of God. He enlarges on that more than the Lord does here

-- "it is God's minister to thee for good", Romans 13:4. That is a very important side to the position; it ought to be made plain in speaking to men of authority. But this inner, spiritual side of the truth that we are looking into in this section of John is of the utmost importance, because it lends body to the whole truth of the dispensation and presents to people something that they cannot overcome.

C.A.M. Men generally quite misunderstand. They would say, Help in the cause, assuming that God is in it as He is in Christianity, not seeing that God as God is governing the world with a view to the preaching of the gospel and maintaining the assembly in it; but that He is doing this providentially and indirectly, whereas He is in the assembly directly.

J.T. They have Christianized their nations largely, simply adding on nominal Christianity, and are doing their best, as the leaders will show in what they say; but what the Lord is speaking of here in John is an inward spiritual thing which is beyond them altogether.

R.W.S. If I am speaking to a man on the street I must be careful what I say about the gospel; I would speak to him about the gospel as to a sinner. But to a man in an official position might I be free to speak about the assembly, as making the general position clear, conveying the idea that we hold nothing back as to the divine system?

J.T. It ought to be made clear that Christianity is a system of teaching. Paul says, "But thou hast fully known my doctrine, my manner of life" 2 Timothy 3:10. "My doctrine" -- that is a system of teaching. The Lord is presented in John as a Teacher. The first followers of the Lord in John call Him Teacher. The last one in this gospel who calls Him Teacher is Mary Magdalene; she calls Him, "Rabboni", -- 'my Teacher'. You cannot make Christianity

fit in with man's mind, and that may cause you suffering; Christianity is a mystery, and the Lord is on that line here. The mention of the Son of God causes fear in the heart of Pilate. If you follow the creeds you will make the truth of Christ's Sonship fit into the natural mind. The real truth of the Son of God will not fit in with the creed at all, and therefore it comes into what the Lord has been helping us on, that it is an inward thing, a spiritual thing, and you cannot make it fit in with man's mind. Pilate is before Christ; he is at the divine bar really and he fears. Abstractly he would not crucify the Lord, but another thing comes up: he is a politician and he has to give way. As to his own soul he was convicted, not converted. How solemn it is for a man like that to come face to face with the light of God and not bow to it!

J.R.H. Would you say his inward judgment was nullified by the outside influences?

J.T. Yes, the outside influences were greater than the inner convictions.

J.R.H. He seemed to get on with the Lord talking with Him alone, but each time he goes out he is put to the test again: it happens four times.

J.T. He should have stayed in the praetorium. The proceedings should have been there. The Lord was there apparently until Pilate brought Him out Pilate went out to those who could not go into the praetorium for religious reasons, because he was politician. That is the danger in all such men. They have political importance, so that they give way to the voice of the people.

J.W.D. "He who restrains" -- does that work through spirituality in those who are in the truth?

J.T. We may not think of it at a meeting like this, but there is at all these meetings an influence bearing against apostasy. Thus we ought not to

shrink from bringing the truth out, in its inwardness, in dealing with people.

Ques. Is that why the kingdom comes in here? Not only are the saints not of this world in a negative way, but being of the kingdom we have something positive to bring before people.

J.T. You notice it is "My kingdom"; that has to be fitted with other references to the kingdom. It is a phase of the kingdom in a general way that is provisional, and those who are in it, the Lord's disciples or servants, are not of this world. They are not governed by the principles of this world and hence do not use the sword.

J.W.D. Luke mentions Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, and different tetrarchs (Luke 3:1), as if in the sphere of the glad tidings these authorities set up by God were to be influenced by it, wicked men though many of them were. Would you go with that?

J.T. Yes. That is characteristic of Luke. For him grace reigns. John's gospel is remarkable, a previous provision especially for the last days. The inwardness of it and the abstract character of it strike you; you get to the roots of things there. Pilate is in the presence of that here. When Pilate heard the truth from the Lord in the praetorium, why did he not stay there? The whole matter is there between himself and Jesus. As for those who would not go in because of religious ideas, let them stay outside. Pilate is in the hall of judgment and he is responsible to judge righteous judgment.

J.R.H. You mean that he would have got divine support if he had stayed in the place of judgment?

J.T. That is the point. The Lord said, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above", John 19:11. He might have added, You want the support of the Jews. But Pilate is in the presence of the King, and

he felt it too. The point for us is to keep to the abstract truth: this was placed before Pilate in remarkable clearness.

S.J.H. We need to be governed by inward things; various other things are at work outside. Sometimes we tall into a little trap; I might lose my work, or pay be reduced. Can I carry on? That is all outside.

J.T. Yes. The Lord distinguishes between persons who believed because they saw miracles and persons who were born again. The former the Lord did not trust (John 2:23 - 25), and He went on to teach that "except any one be born anew he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3 - 6). Christianity implies that those who receive Jesus receive from God a title to take the place of children of God, and that they are born "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God", John 1:13. John in his epistle says "See what love the Father has given to us. That we should be called the children of God" (1 John 3:1) a certain class of people "called the children of God". "For this reason the world knows us not, because it knew him not".

S.W.P. Do you think the influence of the three men that have been alluded to, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, spreads out widely? It says the "The satraps, the prefects. And the governors, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men", Daniel 3:22.

J.T. Undoubtedly. You notice there the Son of God coming into view. Who was lie? There is a mystery. Nebuchadnezzar and his counsellors could not understand that. There is mystery and yet saving power connected with the Son of God. Pilate, as we have seen, feared as the Name was mentioned.

G.W. Paul says to Festus, "For this thing was not done in a corner", Acts 26:26.

J.T. Quite so; that is Paul's side of the matter, it was not done in a corner. But really he is not thinking of Festus, though he has some thought about Agrippa; and the Lord has some thought about Pilate here. There are men in high places that are capable of being affected by the testimony of God.

A.E.H. Does not the teaching of the Lord provide a basis for the judgment of the apostate system at Jerusalem? The apostasy of the system that has the greater sin would be brought before his mind. There are similar conditions today.

J.T. Inwardly Pilate judged that the Lord was innocent. What he did in delivering Him over was purely due to external influence over him. He was a politician and he was lost in his politics, and I think the same is true of Agrippa: "Almost thou persuadest me", Acts 26:28. That is, the persuasion was there; Christianity is great enough for that. It is not a system of sermons, it is the real thing that affects men's souls inwardly. But while Agrippa was convicted mentally, we have to say that there is no evidence of his conversion.

H.B. Why does the Lord not answer Pilate when he says, "Whence art thou?"

J.T. The Lord knew he was convicted. His silence was according to dignity and would gauge Pilate's intelligence and motives. All was in infinite wisdom. See what Pilate does as recorded in John 19:1 - 4: "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers having plaited a crown of thorns put it on his head, and put a purple robe on him, and came to him and said, Hail, king of the Jews! and gave him blows on the face. And Pilate went out again and says to them, Lo, I bring him out to you, that ye may know that I find in

him no fault whatever". That is the kind of thing we have to deal with in politicians.

R.W.S. I wondered if he thought he could make a compromise to satisfy the Jews by scourging Jesus without going so far as having Him crucified.

J.T. That is likely. But it shows what an unconverted man is even though he is convicted, when Christ is in question. I suppose Balaam was convicted too; he says, "I shall behold him, but not nigh". The power of the truth is capable of that, but we cannot rely on the work.

C.A.M. "But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God, to those that believe on his name", John 1:12. That seems to be a great help. Often the persons you are talking to say they are Christians just the same as you are, but this inwardness of which you are speaking makes the difference.

J.T. Yes. John says, "And this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith", 1 John 5:4. That is the character of his teaching. So we have the things in a systematic way, and we know of what we are speaking. We are speaking logically, so to speak, because of the way the teaching of Christianity is developed in John and in other scriptures, but in John particularly. Our faith, he says, is the victory. They may not understand it, but it is the victory.

A.E.H. As to Pilate's question, "Whence art thou?" which the Lord does not answer: would this indicate that the system of teaching under which we come on such occasions as this is to stand in its own dignity and power?

J.T. Yes; so that Mary of Magdala says, "Rabboni" -- 'my Teacher'. The Lord says to her, "Touch me not; for I have not yet ascended to my Father". That is the inward thing, the heavenly thing. He says, "Go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and

your God". She went, and it says she said these things to them. That is, the things were in her, that is the principle; she was representative. She would belong to the teaching. "My Teacher", she says; she has got the truth -- the systematic truth that the Lord Jesus brought into this world. In result it is the victory. It is the heavenly relationship into which we are instructed and by which we are formed; our life is bound up with it. But the teaching of John 20, although in current ministry for many years, is beyond the understanding of the average believer; but as formed in it and holding it you cannot be overcome.

J.R.H. Is not the great point that all the power of God is behind the witness to the truth?

J.T. Quite so. It is the divine Presence. That is the point in John 18 when they went backwards and fell to the ground; yet the Lord is asking, "Whom seek ye?".

S.W.P. Do you think the man in chapter 9 of this gospel comes under the benefits of the teaching?

J.T. Yes; there you have the idea of the Lord following up the work. He is watching at a distance as to the progress of the truth in that man's soul until they cast him out. Now he is in a position to get the full thought, and the Lord says, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" The Son of God did not cause fear in that man! He enjoyed the thought of it. "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him?"

T.L.S. Is the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God resting upon you in that position?

J.T. That is the way it would work out. Stephen's face shone.

S.J.H. Is there any suggestion in the seamlessness of the Lord's body-coat? By analogy, everything

fits together in all this system of God's teaching.

J.T. "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his clothes, and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the body-coat; but the body-coat was seamless, woven through the whole from the top. They said therefore to one another, Let us not rend it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled which says, They parted my garments among themselves, and on my vesture they cast lots. The soldiers therefore did these things". That is a subject that requires attention -- as to how it enters into the system of profession abroad, because there is a division into four parts, and then there is the whole garment that someone has. Someone has a whole idea. God has restored the truth, the whole system of truth, as to the Person of Christ. The brethren, by the Spirit of God, have brought it in, and we are kept in it more or less. The point is to get into it more. But then there is a great religious system that professes to have the whole garment; the Roman Catholic system assumes this. They claim all -- and that what others have is spurious, whereas the real ones are those who have the Spirit; such form the body of Christ. It is by the Spirit the good deposit is kept (2 Timothy 1:14). No one has the full idea of Christ but by the Spirit.

A.H.P. Over against those that claim the Lord's garments are these persons standing by the cross of Jesus.

J.T. Yes. "And by the cross of Jesus stood his mother, and the sister of his mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. Jesus therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then he says unto the disciple, Behold thy mother" (verses 25 - 27). You have the beautiful

thought of the way of the Lord in dealing with matters; He sets up the loved one, that is, John, in family relation with His own mother. She is to be John's mother. He does that at the cross. So that at the extreme point of suffering we can adjust matters amongst the brethren in our relations with one another. But as to this whole garment, -- someone has it. It is stolen, because it really did not belong to them. If the Lord had made disposition of any belongings He had, He would not have left anything to the system of which we have spoken. Yet they have got everything; they regard themselves as Christianity, and all else from their point of view is just tolerated.

Rem. This body-coat would correspond with what you were saying about the inward side.

J.T. It would remind you of the whole Christ, as it were. Who are worthy of that? The next paragraph is the love circle (verses 25 - 27); the Lord is thinking of them. If He were leaving His belongings, He would leave them with these. It is not said the Lord made a will at all. The idea of a will is your disposition, what your thoughts are about persons in what you give them. Verses 25, 26 and 27 would be the love circle in which the Lord would deposit all that He valued.

What John is doing in his whole gospel is enlarging on the Person of Christ. The Lord says of the Holy Spirit, "He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you", John 16:15. What the Spirit brings down to us from heaven is the whole thought, it is by the Spirit that we keep the good deposit.

A.E.H. Would you think the quoting of Scripture in verse 24 would suggest that the divine authority of the Scriptures is supporting the position?

J.T. I think it is a very important thing in John 5 that the Lord puts Moses' writing as equal to His own words: "If ye had believed Moses, ye would

have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (verses 46, 47). Divine teaching is stressed. As already said, the Lord is regarded as Rabbi by those who followed Him at the beginning, and as Rabboni by Mary of Magdala at the end.

G.W. Is it not important that he who gets the victory over the world is begotten of God?

J.T. Yes. And then, "this is the victory which has gotten the victory over the world, our faith"; it is what we have learned.

F.K.C. Would you think that what John's gospel produces is this matter of inward power? In chapter 20 it says there are many other things that Jesus did "which are not written in this book; but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name".

J.T. John is saying that he selected something from infinitude in order to build up our faith. That is the intent, that we should have faith. "This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee ... and his disciples believed on him" (John 2:11); it was that people might believe really, not merely nominally. John tells us further in chapter 21 that "there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written". These works are selected to confirm and exemplify the spiritual system of truth that is to be understood and believed by the saints. Anyone thus instructed is superior to 'modernism' and 'higher criticism', because these errors are dependent on the natural mind of man which "does not receive the things of the Spirit of God", 1 Corinthians 2:14.

R.W.S. "The place of a skull".

J.T. That is the end of it.

A.H.P. Over against the idea of "The place of a skull", is there not the thought that Peter suggests of arming ourselves with the same mind that is seen in Jesus here? "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin", 1 Peter 4:1.

J.T. "The same mind", that is the contrast to the thought of the skull. The great fact is that we have the mind of Christ -- the same kind of thinking power.

The gist of all that has been in mind as to these two readings is the thought of "My kingdom", which the Lord expressed to Pilate. He makes it a matter personal to Himself. It does not exclude the thoughts of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of the Son of Man, the kingdom of heaven; but the Lord is pleased to make it a matter of His own. It appeals to those who love Him. Are we all with Him in it? It is a heavenly matter, and you are not to use a sword to defend it. You are to pursue this kingdom, as He does here, recognizing the authority in Pilate, but holding to the principles of the dispensation.

H.B. "My servants", that is a beautiful expression.

J.T. It is very beautiful. It ought to touch us if we love the Lord and what belongs to Him.

Ques. Are "my brethren" and "my servants" synonymous?

J.T. Quite so. It is a personal matter between Him and us, and He is telling Pilate what kind of people His disciples are, that they are like Himself. That is proof that we are not deviating from His way as seen in these passages.

J.W.D. It is a remarkable thing that even after Pilate had crucified Christ, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea still refer to him.

J.T. Quite so; he is still the governor. Men may be quite capable of being affected by the Lord Himself, and yet not be real Christians. But how far they may be able to go in helping us! Pilate granted the request of Joseph of Arimathaea. In this case the word "demanded" expresses a certain equality in Joseph, as if he had liberty in speaking to Pilate (see the Darby Translation note to "beg" in John 14:16).

J.W.D. The expression of government can be recognised in a day of grace.

J.T. We do not want to antagonize Pilate. If we know him personally and seek his aid to relieve the brethren, we will talk to him personally. Why not, if you can use your influence with that in view in the name of the Lord Jesus? He is "God's minister to thee for good", Romans 13:4. We have these two men in the end of chapter 19; Joseph does not come into Scripture earlier, Nicodemus does, and here he comes in to finish the matter with Pilate; and what they wished is granted. It says, "They took therefore the body of Jesus and bound it up in linen with the spices, as it is the custom with the Jews to prepare for burial".

W.W.M. "With the rich in His death" -- the fulfilment of prophecy. That was ordered too.

J.T. Quite so.

J.R.H. Do you think the account in John's gospel of the Lord's words with Pilate is the witnessing of the good confession?

J.T. Mainly, I think.

R.W.S. These two, Joseph and Nicodemus, were, as representing God, greater than Pilate.

J.T. Quite so. It is a beautiful touch that John brings in Nicodemus in this way. Nobody else says anything about him. John seems to recognise every evidence of the work of God.

W.R. Acts 3:13 refers to Pilate again: Peter says the Jews denied the Lord "in the presence of Pilate,

when he had judged that he should be let go". He is a recovered man, and thus free and able to speak in power.

J.T. The Spirit of God carries through that Pilate was minded to let Jesus go. The practical lesson is that we may count on God to influence people in power to help somebody in need, and God is doing that at this very moment in Christendom.

FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (3)

Acts 26:1 - 32

J.T. I thought we could look at the scripture before us in relation to Paul. It is clear that, after the Lord, he stands first in the dispensation, especially in its universal bearing, and this chapter affords opportunity to consider him in this respect in the presence of the representatives of the gentile rulers. The Lord said that He had taken him up in relation to them. He said to Ananias, "Go, for this man is an elect vessel to me, to bear my name before both nations and kings and the sons of Israel", Acts 9:15. It mentions nations first, and then kings. This is in accord with Simeon's prophetic word: "a light for revelation of the Gentiles" (Luke 2:32), meaning that they were brought into evidence for blessing. The original word 'revelation' means 'unveiling'; there had been a veil over them, but now they are brought into distinct evidence, being unveiled through Christ. And Paul is the servant to be used particularly in this, so that he certainly has the first place after the Lord in our consideration. He is an example for us of service and conduct before gentiles and their rulers. He is a model. But then it should be also noted that this chapter contemplates that the apostle had been wanting in recent movements, insisting on going to Jerusalem, whereas his ministry was to be towards the gentiles. So that the position fits with our own times which are marked by the Lord coming in to take matters in hand Himself, the ministry in the hands of others having generally failed. Mark has this in mind, recording in his last chapter want of faith in the disciples, the leading ones particularly, so that the Lord had to take the matter in hand Himself and readjust the

position. Paul therefore is seen here as having gone through all this experience. He tells us at the beginning of it "that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and tribulations await me", Acts 20:23. This meant that the saints at all the meetings he visited on the way to Jerusalem testified by the Spirit that he would suffer; and at Caesarea in particular Agabus acted the truth, which was a most exceptional thing; he bound himself to show that Paul should be bound at Jerusalem. And yet Paul was not dissuaded. So he went to Jerusalem and was arrested and brought before the gentile powers. But the chapter which we have read shows that he was superior to his circumstances, so that he is an example, wishing that all those present in Agrippa's court were such as he was at that time, without his bonds.

A.E.H. Would bearing His name before nations link on with what you had in your mind last night in connection with the leaves of the tree (Revelation 22:2)? It is in the testimony that the healing qualities are. The sufferings that the apostle endured in serving would be like the preparing of the leaves for giving effect to their healing qualities.

J.T. Of course that reference is millennial, but there is in it a link with Paul. God arranged in Genesis 11 the place the nations were to have. The four monarchies began later, and are distinct. The Assyrian kingdom began at Babel and had no place in the four monarchies. At Shinar God assigned the position of the nations, according to Deuteronomy 32:8, 9: it was in relation to the children of Israel; it had their blessing in mind. They were to stand there until the testimony of the gospel was introduced as the time arrived for it. Paul speaks of the redemptive work of Christ as purposed to be witnessed: "the testimony to be rendered in its own times; to which", he says, "I have been appointed a

herald and apostle, (I speak the truth, I do not lie,) a teacher of the nations in faith and truth", 1 Timothy 2:6, 7. So that the position is marked off in that way, that Paul is the appointed vessel for this purpose; and in our chapter he uses a dignified word for the official position he was to occupy. He says, "And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise up and stand on thy feet: for, for this purpose have I appeared to thee, to appoint thee to be a servant", (the word signifying an official servant, not a slave, but an official person) "and a witness both of what thou hast seen, and of what I shall appear to thee in, taking thee out from among the people, and the nations, to whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me" (verses 15 - 18). Paul is an official personage, having the status of an ambassador according to 2 Corinthians 5. The position therefore is clearly marked off as to his service and his relation with the ruling powers. He had this status in the assembly in the gospel. He says of himself that he was an abortion, that is, a person born out of due time, not born after but before; meaning that he represents the Jews in the last days and the mercy that would be shown them in spite of their lawless course, which before he was converted characterized himself. He would love to minister to them. He said he had wished to be accursed for them, he loved them so much; but they were not his primary mission. His position is as a present dispensation minister, involving the new covenant and reconciliation. This gospel brought, not cursing but blessing, so Paul says that the blessing of Abraham has arrived at the nations. It is not 'the gentiles', but 'the nations', meaning the position they occupy in the

government of God. It is not that the government of God is adverse to them, but rather preserving them in their settings for the time of the gospel. It is through Paul that the blessing of Abraham had arrived among the gentiles. In Galatians he speaks of himself as representing Christ among them, -- "Jesus Christ ... crucified among you". He ministers the Spirit amongst them also, bringing Him in in a practical way; not only the ministry of Christ, but that of the Spirit, too, was witnessed there. I think therefore Paul is a full representative of what we are speaking about -- witnesses of the gospel coming in contact with the rulers of the nations. The chapter before us indicates how he behaved. A leading point in our enquiry is how we are to behave in having to do with those in authority.

A.E.H. Would the four gentile monarchies be in mind in this?

J.T. Yes. Nimrod appears as the first monarch, and he was under God's eye -- "a mighty hunter before Jehovah". Destroying God's creatures for pleasure did not commend him. He was the first monarch, but God did not take him up specially, nor did He take up any of the Assyrians in the same grace in which He took up Babylonish and Persian rulers. He took up Nebuchadnezzar and constituted him king of kings. He did not change his heart at the outset, but He intended to do so, and He worked matters circumstantially so that Nebuchadnezzar could show what he was, a degenerate gentile monarch. But God was pleased to bring one of His choicest servants into contact with him in an attractive way as a servant. The Spirit of Christ had been in mankind before the flood; then He was in Noah, and now He is in Daniel, who was brought into direct contact with this monarch, and ministers to him the truth in the most striking and favourable way. He announced to Nebuchadnezzar in a prophetic

way that he was the head and beginning of the great system of government which God was setting up. He said to him, "Thou art this head of gold". God had constituted him that, which would imply that he was fitted for it. He became converted to God, which is one of the most important things we can mention in this subject. The first great monarch, the head of the first empire set up of God among the nations, was converted; so that the Spirit of Christ was not only in Daniel but in the king. Thus the gentiles had palpable testimony in their own monarch to the God of the heavens, and that testimony has been there ever since in one way or another, even in the Lord Himself as before Pilate. I am speaking of it particularly as bearing witness to those in authority. How beautifully Paul spoke to Agrippa, as we have seen! He differentiates between Agrippa and Festus.

H.G.H. It would seem that Paul was brought into these conditions because he actually appealed to the authorities.

J.T. That is another thing -- we might say it was below the level of his testimony. If a young brother were to say at a military tribunal in the United States that he was an American citizen and had the right to be heard as to his conscience, the law would be behind him, but he would be on a lower level than that taken by the Lord before Pilate. The brothers, however, are taking the ground of being in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus, as the Lord says, "My kingdom is not of this world", and thus they reflect the Spirit of Christ in their confession. I think Paul lowered himself in appealing to Caesar. It is a question of whether I assert my rights before a tribunal as a citizen of the country, or whether I appeal as a devoted follower of Christ, owning allegiance to Christ and to God. The believer at the same time acknowledges that he is ready to serve

the authorities so far as the Scriptures warrant -- but that he must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

A.E.H. Did not Paul primarily come into contact with the civil authorities in desiring to escape from the hatred and venom of the religious authorities?

J.T. He did. He appealed on the ground of his citizenship at Jerusalem. He says, "I appeal to Caesar", so that he put himself on that ground and God overruled it. According to all appearances, he would have been slain in Jerusalem had he, not taken up this ground, but that is another matter. It was God's overruling.

Ques. "Such as I also am", he says to Agrippa. Would that be a help?

J.T. That is what I thought we might see. He virtually says, 'Now I am going to take the liberty of giving you a life-sized picture of myself'. Previously Agrippa had said to him, "It is permitted thee to speak for thyself". The apostle recognizes that the king has the power to accord him liberty to speak. If he were out preaching the gospel, he would not act on that line at all, he would stand up and preach the gospel as he had done many times, and would suffer in connection with it too; but here he is before the authorities and he is respectful to them. Agrippa says, "It is permitted thee to speak for thyself". Paul did not begin his oration until he was given liberty to speak. That brings up the whole matter of our behaviour before the authorities, and the spirit in which we should address them.

J.R.H. Paul stretched out his hand. Would that be expressive of God's attitude in healing? In chapter 4 we read that the Lord is requested by the saints to stretch out His hand to heal.

J.T. Just so. It is a phrase quoted from Isaiah: "All day long I have stretched forth my hands

unto a ... gainsaying people", Romans 10:21. I suppose there is some allusion to that. You have the same idea in Antioch in Acts 13:16, where Paul made a sign with his hand. I suppose the idea is that God is favourable.

A.A.T. I notice that Paul twice in speaking to Agrippa says, "O king", and to Festus he says, "Most excellent Festus". Is that part of the behaviour?

J.T. I think it is. We ought to be very deferential to persons in authority. Peter says, "Honour the king"; and Paul says, "Render to all their dues: to whom tribute is due, tribute; to whom custom, custom ... to whom honour, honour". But if a Roman Catholic dignitary claimed honour, that would be another matter; he has no authority from God.

R.W.S. Behind all this pomp seen in our chapter, the preceding chapter shows these two men talking together between themselves. Would that have a parallel today?

J.T. It would. The influence of Agrippa seems to be in favour of the right; that is important. You get some men in authority in favour of the right.

C.A.M. Agrippa says to Paul, "It is permitted thee to speak for thyself". "For thyself" gives the apostle opportunity to bring out what was in his heart.

J.T. Later Festus interrupted him but Agrippa did not. Agrippa was a different man, and that is a thing to be noted. Men are not all the same. The President of the United States is a different man from the leader of Germany. There are differences in rulers, and differences that are of God. Agrippa was different from Festus, and Paul knew it, and as he was speaking to him Agrippa was evidently affected by what Paul said. I was thinking of how the matter of personality comes into the gospel, into the service of God. In the book of Genesis we have

the idea of generations, suggesting origins in men and things. There are ten of them mentioned there: the generations of the heavens and the earth, the generations of Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. These persons or systems are traced from their origin. So with a man: he is not regarded simply from the time he is converted, but what preceded his conversion is taken account of; God evidently has to do with that. Every man receives his spirit from God, so that his history really begins with God in that way; and Paul intended here that Agrippa should have a life-sized picture of himself because of the place that the Lord had given him officially. He was an official servant and Agrippa would understand such an office. He was an official personage himself. Paul says, "I count myself happy, king Agrippa, in having to answer today before thee concerning all of which I am accused by the Jews, especially because thou art acquainted with all the customs and questions which are among the Jews; wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently" (verses 2, 3). That is a most apt way of beginning to put his case before a man like Agrippa. Paul did not ask Festus to hear him, but Agrippa was of a higher rank. The idea of rank is always to be observed. Michael observed the rank of Satan, that is the rank he still had although now fallen (Jude 9).

Paul begins, "My manner of life then from my youth, which from its commencement was passed among my nation in Jerusalem, know all the Jews, who knew me before from the outset of my life, if they would bear witness, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand to be judged because of the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our whole twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night hope to arrive; about which hope, O king, I am accused of the Jews" (verses 4 - 7). That is

Paul, briefly presented to the king. He is presenting himself, his personality in a way, to the monarch. The issue is very clear: here is a man competent to give a full account of the truth, and he is dealing with a man who has interest and knows certain things about the truth. Well, this is a practical matter, because the men that we have to do with, both in the United States and the British Empire, do know something of it. They know something about the way of Christianity. Why not appeal to that in them? That is what Paul does here.

A.E.H. Why do you stress the thought of 'official servant'? Do you think that we should have this character about us? While we pay proper deference and respect to those in authority, there is a consciousness that being of God we have spiritual dignity.

J.T. Christianity involves a system representative of God. It stands in that dignity before the gentile rulers. Paul speaking before Agrippa alludes to himself in this way (verses 15 - 18). Christianity is not something done in a corner, a mere sect that has arisen to disappear into oblivion. It is going to stand. It is of God, and great moral dignity is attached to it.

A.E.H. The Lord Himself saying, "I am", enters into the whole course of Christianity through the world.

J.T. When His enemies enquired for "Jesus of Nazareth", He owns that title, but in replying He does not say. I am Jesus of Nazareth, He says, "I am"; 'he' is not in the original. That implies Deity, as in Exodus 3:14; that is behind the whole position. Pilate was much concerned because the Jews said the Lord "made himself Son of God". Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace one "like a son of God", Daniel 3:25. These great facts indicate the presence of God.

R.W.S. Are you viewing Agrippa more favourably than Festus?

J.T. Quite so. He is a different man -- you can see that. When Festus spoke to Paul he said "with a loud voice, Thou art mad, Paul". That is a very disrespectful word. But Paul says, "I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but utter words of truth and soberness; for the king is informed about these things". He sees that Agrippa is a different man.

R.W.S. I asked that because Festus is a governor for Herod, and Agrippa is a king.

J.T. Agrippa is representing his own authority. For instance, a young brother has to do with the Board, and the Board says, You are granted exemption because of conscience. He is given a card to testify to that. When the young man goes to camp an officer may ignore that. Why does he do that? He is of a different mind. He is an officer and he wants to convert the young man. He has other motives, whereas the Government of the United States is abstractly in accord with Christian conscience as to military service. They do not here make provision for Christianity formally as they do in Great Britain, but nevertheless they do in effect in their state papers. They do not make provision formally in the constitution for Christ, but they do in effect, and that involves divine influence. Primarily that arises from the knowledge of Christianity held by persons that immigrated to the United States; it would not have come from the original inhabitants of the country, for they were heathen. People having come in, many of whom were real Christians, they exercised influence in favour of Christianity, and this affected the government. So that Christ is honoured in a way in the state papers, and so, abstractly, the Government of the United States is in favour of conscience out and out; but when it comes to working it out, some individuals

are not. The officers often endeavour to convert the young men inducted into the army to induce them to give up their consciences. That is what you have here. Festus is different from Agrippa, and Paul says in effect, I am really speaking to the king. He knew Festus. We have to meet men of that character; but bearing in mind that the President of the United States and the Government are abstractly in favour of Christian principles, the true believer is encouraged to assert his conscience toward God.

A.N.W. It is quite in order to think that God had to do with the clause in the constitution granting freedom of worship. Is that not where the fear of God might be brought in?

J.T. Wherever the thought came from it is there, and it is of God. But we ought to differentiate between persons. If an officer is hard and exacting and unfeeling, you would say, That is Festus. You would not be disrespectful because of that, but Paul would say, I am speaking to the king. It was Agrippa's day and Paul was not at all misled. He knew Agrippa had some favourable feeling about the truth, and as the king gave him liberty to speak, he was the more bold in his presence.

A.A.T. I thought you said a brother would weaken himself by appealing to Caesar?

J.T. He would. The young brothers generally do not do it. The ground they take is that they belong to the Lord, and they follow His teaching and His example. But if a brother says, 'The law supports my conscience', what can you say? It does support the believer's conscience as refusing to take the sword.

C.A.M. The officers very often say there is a difference between conscientious objectors, and underneath there is the fact that they will take account of what an inducted man is personally.

J.T. Yes: I thought we should see that in this chapter. It is a striking picture of Paul, and at the end he says to Agrippa, I would like you and all who hear me to be like me, as I am now. He would say, I do not want you to be like me as I was as a young man; when I was a young man I murdered people; but God saved me out of that, and you can all be saved likewise.

A.S.B. Would there be something in the soul of Paul corresponding to what is seen in Daniel in speaking to Nebuchadnezzar? He says, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of the heavens set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the sovereignty thereof shall not be left to another people" (Daniel 2:44): one people and one sovereignty in relation to one kingdom.

J.T. Yes. The kingdom is a divine thought. The idea of kingdom never ceases with God. It became stressed after Babel, but it runs on even to the eternal state when the Lord Jesus, having subdued all things, delivers up the kingdom to God. That is to say, the kingdom never ceases; what God calls 'kingdom' never ceases. It may take different forms; but the Babylonish one and that of the Medes and Persians as well as the Grecian and the Roman kingdoms will disappear; they will be broken in pieces by the stone cut without hands. But the kingdom set up by God will never come to an end.

J.W.D. Is not the prime intent in this feature of the testimony as ordered by God, to build up the Christian's constitution? There is no evidence that it has vitally affected the authorities, but something essential is built into the personalities of those of the assembly.

J.T. Just so. God is carrying on this operation of building; it is something that is to exist in the nature of a structure. You are begging leave to go

on with that, making full allowance for the authorities.

J.W.D. There are many chapters in this section of the Scriptures that are taken up with accounts of long discourses as to the truth to men that were apparently unaffected. I was thinking of what you said of the personality of Paul, how all these difficulties regarding ourselves and the authorities are to build something in us constitutionally in relation to eternity. Agrippa was very derisive; he knew certain things connected with Christianity and no doubt was affected to a certain extent; yet is not the main thing in this long chapter, describing such a marvellous outshining of the truth, the personality of Paul, representing what should belong to the personality of all the saints?

J.T. As far as we can see, Agrippa was unconverted. Whether anything came out of this marvellous occasion we cannot be sure. God was there, not only in words in the remarkable speech Paul made, but in the person himself. What influence that had we have to conjecture, but certainly it placed knowledge where knowledge would be disseminated, that is, in high circles. God would get to the highest. Paul is to be sent to the nations -- that is the first thing, and then to kings (Acts 9:15). We have no record that any one of these kings was converted; but the first dignitary with whom Paul and Barnabas had to do, the proconsul of Cyprus, evidently was converted. The eunuch was another representative of monarchies and kingdoms, and he was converted; and Cornelius was a military representative of Rome, and he was converted. These are not to be passed by. We do not know what happened after Agrippa and Festus heard this wonderful speech -- and the women too who were present. What would be said, and what influence might be spread abroad in the Roman Empire from it! I

think that idea is important; what, for instance, might have been disseminated from Pilate? Take Pilate's wife: what would she say to persons of her rank about Jesus? Would it not be in accord with her testimony to her husband? All that was intended of God to spread as a testimony. There is something that the Christian can appeal to in Christendom that is not in heathendom.

S.W.P. The night that Belshazzar was slain Daniel had been in to the king and told him the truth.

J.T. Yes; and the queen mother was in the hall of the feast that Belshazzar had made. There were a thousand of his lords there when she came in. She had not been at the feast, the revelry previously; she came in to tell the king about his father. She said, "There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods", and then Daniel is brought in. I am calling attention to what persons such as the queen here would say. Evidently there were women at this occasion in Caesarea; what would result from their report as to what Paul said? These women might say, We never heard such words before! At any rate something had come into the Roman Empire that had not been there before. Now in our day there are a good many in non-combatant service in Great Britain; these men are lovers of the truth, and they speak of it to one another and to others. That is not for nothing. God is following it up.

A.E.H. Is there also involved the idea of restraint -- what restrains or hinders?

J.T. Yes; there is "that which restrains", and "he who restrains". Evil is thus kept in check.

S.McC. It is remarkable that in Mark 13 and in Luke 21 reference is made to this kind of situation. The Lord in Luke says, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your opposers shall not be able to reply to or resist"; but in Mark He says, "Whatsoever

shall be given you in that hour, that speak; for ye are not the speakers, but the Holy Spirit". In Luke stress is laid on the human vessel, and in Mark on the Holy Spirit in the vessel.

J.T. Quite so. Then another thing is the matter of government. Government is a restraining power, and it is more restraining as it comes under the influence of true Christianity. In Germany there is no recognition of conscience in the army. That country has not come under the influence of the Spirit of God in the ministry as, to some extent, the British Empire has, and God is taking account of that; for there is more respect for conscience in the governments where the truth is announced. It is undeniable. God uses the ministry as making way for conscience. The authorities are set up by God, and in the countries I have mentioned way is made for the gospel. So even the Roman roads were used by Paul; the Romans built great roads, and God used them to spread His testimony. What is current in a similar sense today is provided by the authorities; and we keep on praying that the use of these necessities might be kept open for us in our service and testimony.

H.G.H. Paul refers to "the promise made by God to our fathers", Acts 26:6.

J.T. Quite so. He brings not only himself, but the truth too before Agrippa. He speaks of "the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our whole twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night hope to arrive". That is another matter, that there is the service of God carrying on all the time. There is a real service of God going on; it is the full thought. The whole twelve tribes are said to be in it. He also speaks about their hope, "about which hope, O king, I am accused of the Jews". And now he is going to say something directly to this man: "Why should it be judged a thing incredible

in your sight if God raises the dead?". It is a question of consistency. If he believes in God, why should any sensible man think it an incredible thing that God should raise the dead? I mean to say that these are examples for us as to what may be said in dealing with the powers that be.

T.L.S. In connection with conscience and the matter of trade-unions, if the employers do not listen to us, would it be right to appeal to the authorities?

J.T. God gives us wisdom in these matters. For instance, in New South Wales the Government is very radical, and they want to impose trade-unionism as a law. However, it is deferred for the moment, but it is in mind. In the meantime you might have the opportunity of talking with a trade-unionist in the Government who is a Christian (he might also be what he would call an out-and-out Briton), and you would refer to unionism as to whether it is consistent with the gospel, with the truth of Christianity. You might also point out that it is not consistent with Magna Carta, and he could not show that it is. On the contrary, you could say, it is entirely out of consistency with Magna Carta; for as a member of a trades union I could not give my son work in my shop because he is not a trade-unionist. The thing is utterly unfair. I would not have any difficulty in bringing forward reasonable points of the foregoing kind to enforce the truth; but to go to court about it -- I could not do that. Paul, in stating the truth to the Athenians, said, "Some of the poets amongst you have said, For we are also his offspring".

J.A.P. Is it well to bring in that we are subjects of the grace of God in speaking to these men?

J.T. We are coming to that, what the converted man is over against what he used to be. Paul tells them what he used to be, "an insolent overbearing man". He had been a very, very bad man. But he

was not that since he was converted. What had changed him? As we proceed down the chapter, we see that he brings himself in as he is now: "King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said to Paul, In a little thou persuadest me to become a Christian. And Paul 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" (verses 27 - 29). That is the next thing, what he is now. It is not simply what happened when he was converted, but what he is now before them: "such as I also am, except these bonds", the apostle says. That is the final feature of this remarkable interview between Paul and Agrippa.

A.H.P. Is it that "My kingdom" is operating now, so that Paul stresses the idea of the heavenly vision and of what he was as the product of the operation of Christ in his soul?

J.T. God had operated in him; and God has operated in the young men who have a conscience toward Him who are inducted into the army. The subordinate officers will come in contact with the young men, and the spirit they see in them will be a testimony to them.

C.A.M. The mighty change that took place in Paul has, in measure, taken place in these young men.

J.T. Paul is suggesting that it might be taking place in Agrippa. The power was there to change him.

J.H. Would you say that this kind of representation is what God used in justifying the way that He finally dealt with Belshazzar and the Babylonish empire?

J.T. Yes, Belshazzar knew of it. This occasion with the apostle will face Agrippa at the judgment

seat; so also with Pilate as to the Lord. Hence the importance of bearing testimony to persons in high places. The point that is before us now is that such men at least are capable of being influenced for good. Agrippa's court said one to another of Paul, "This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds". And Agrippa said to Festus, "This man might have been let go if he had not appealed to Caesar". That is what you want to get, that the public rulers should be affected, that the way should be made for us.

S.W.P. Does the fact that King Agrippa uses the word 'Christian' show that he had some knowledge of the things that preceded this issue?

J.T. That is the ground Paul takes, that he was conversant with the matter. He knew the word 'Christian'. If you were to ask him what that word meant, he might say, Just a sect. Paul was expressive of it as of God -- suffering as a Christian.

W.L. Would you say that spiritual history was an important underlying feature with Paul?

J.T. We are trying to show that. We are now coming to the man. Paul is not here claiming that he is a Roman, that is not now good enough for him. "Such as I also am", he says, not a Roman citizen, but a citizen of Christ's kingdom. That is what he means.

R.A. He speaks of his "manner of life", and also of "the outset of my life"; are these important?

J.T. There were incidents in his early life of which the Jews were cognizant. He was a known man in Jerusalem, especially as a persecutor of Christians. What effected the change? That is the whole point. Christ's kingdom effects the change, and Christ says that the power of His kingdom is outside of this world. Paul belonged to another world.

A.A.T. Is there not today a double testimony rendered sometimes? The military boards are made up of different kinds of men, and on the boards there is sometimes a Jew.

J.T. We have to make allowance for that, and also for the fact that sometimes a man comes outside when you are leaving and says, "I have sympathy with you". That happens.

A.N.W. One of the judges once said to a young brother, "I wish there were more in our church like you".

J.T. That is what we are to look out for. Even if they are not converted, these men have good influence.

F.K.C. You quoted from Paul's words in Timothy, "That in me, the first, Jesus Christ might display the whole long-suffering, for a delineation of those about to believe on him to life eternal". Is this the kind of impression king Agrippa gets?

J.T. That is the point. A kind of man is now before the board, or having to do with the commanding officer in the camp, who is different -- a man like Paul: "such as I also am", as he says. He will make his presence felt there. Instead of their endeavouring to convert him from his views, they will admit there is something in him beyond them.

T.N.W. Many of us may be weak. If we take all this on now it will help us in our prayers.

J.T. It is a great matter to have a clear understanding of the times; all this sorrow in the world has not come up accidentally. It is a question of the times. Of David it says, "the times that passed over him". Extraordinary times are passing over us. God would make us fit for them, He would have us understand them so as not to defeat His purpose in them.

R.A. He is holding nothing back; He reveals His mind through the prophets.

J.T. So Paul says, "I would to God, both in little and in much, that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds". He is preaching the gospel now; it is a gospel time and the point is that a person is speaking who knows. He is permitted to speak and he is using his liberty to unfold the truth, and he is an example of the truth himself.

S.W.P. Is it of importance that he says he is "saying nothing else than those things which both the prophets and Moses have said should happen"? Therefore what he says carries authority and weight with it. He does not inject his own thoughts or opinions.

J.T. Yes. There are other things that he says here carrying down the testimony of God from the start. It is no question of something done in a corner, or of a mere religious sect. It is a universal matter; that is what Christianity is. It is immutable.

J.W.D. Why do you think that today the testimony is linked on with the very young? Those who are the standard-bearers of what Paul represents here are young men, nineteen and on. Why do you think God has ordered that it should be in their hands today, whereas here it is in one who is the very acme of spiritual excellence?

J.T. No doubt under God there has been a measure of preparation, and now it is urgent that the truth should be kept before all grades of the young. There are many here today. They are getting the truth; they will be called upon to use it. The little maid in Naaman's house is an example: she knew enough to say what was needed, and she said it well.

Rem. A young sister in Great Britain was called up to serve, and when it came to the matter of the clothing she was to wear she responded that she could not wear men's clothing, quoting Deuteronomy 22:5.

J.T. That was a practical testimony, a thing to be noted by young people. How quickly we take on worldly fashions as against Scripture! She took her ground on the basis of Scripture as to the use of men's clothing, a stand which is much needed. So with Rhoda in the prayer meeting at Jerusalem, how well she stood her ground! She was persecuted; she was out of her mind, they said, but she was not. It may not be a matter of preaching the gospel or of teaching, but you know something of God that is needed to be said, and you say it fearlessly and in a becoming way.

A.E.H. Would Paul's words come in here, that his bonds were manifested as being in Christ in the praetorium and in other places?

J.T. Just so; he was not a felon, he was a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and that became manifest. So in Ephesians he says he is Christ's prisoner, not Caesar's prisoner. That is a great thing.

H.G.H. Would you say a word about the last verse? It says, "This man might have been let go if he had not appealed to Caesar".

Rem. Before that it says, "This man does nothing worthy of death or of bonds".

J.T. The apostle is exonerated both morally and legally.

FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (4)

Acts 3:1 - 11; Acts 4:23 - 31; Acts 12:1 - 7

J.T. The thought at this time is that we should look at Peter. He comes before us in the Scriptures as one occupied in a legitimate business. The Lord called him, and said He would make him a fisher of men. It was in this capacity, when at Caesarea, that he secured Cornelius and his company, thus having to do with the nations or their representatives; and the Spirit also uses him as representative of leadership amongst the people of God. In Matthew in the list of apostles given, he is first, and so the Acts takes him up in that way. The Lord ascended to heaven and Peter is seen in the upper room with the others and proceeds to serve according to what was needful. Then in chapter 2 he is seen as representative of the ministry; his ministry is linked up with the eleven, he stood up with the eleven, giving a lead amongst them. He was divinely qualified and did his work well. He is put forward as representative of the Lord's own handiwork. The idea of it is of one being made.

In chapter 3 John is seen taking a second place. Peter is always first. He and John are seen together in chapters 3 and 4 -- we may call them 'Peter and John chapters', but Peter is leading. Chapter 4 brings them forward as sufferers, but knowing how to avail themselves of the circle formed, a retreat provided in the company, into which they merge. Peter, however successful in his leadership, merges with the others; he lends whatever he has to the company. The company is enhanced by whatever one is, as of God, or whatever he has of God, and the chapter shows how the position is so regarded. It is a strenuous time, hence God is alluded to as a

'Despot', which is the word for "Lord" in the original here. "And having been let go, they came to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord, thou art the God ..." The word 'Despot', or 'Master', alludes, as remarked, to the strenuousness of the times. There can be no will, save the will of God; in His kingdom the will of God must be adhered to. So they lifted up their voice with one accord to God, quoting David, "Why have the nations raged haughtily and the peoples meditated vain things? The kings of the earth were there, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ. For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass. And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word, in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus". Now it is for us at this time to see the circumstances, and the truth entering into them; also how far they enter into the present moment.

Then finally, in the passage in chapter 12, Peter is seen in prison, again representing the ministry, although the ministry was rendered impotent for the moment; Herod representing the authorities, which is, the Roman Empire. We see what happens to the rulers as they disregard the will of God, the service of God; the facts are prophetic. In this chapter Peter still represents the ministry. Satan had intervened through Herod to kill James, and then he took Peter because it pleased the Jews, which fact brings

out how the authorities are affected by the people, the populace. So that Peter is put into prison, and therefore the ministry becomes hindered, at least for the moment. And now the point to be understood is how God met the emergency which the chapter discloses.

A.N.W. This morning you seemed to give Paul a place in precedence to Peter, which is confirmed in Scripture; is it that Peter is "first" in relation to the eleven only, and his ministry preparatory to that of Paul?

J.T. Yes. He takes the lead in relation to the eleven, what the Lord left here, His handiwork. But Peter links on with Paul in chapter 10; that is, not formally, but in his ministry; although it is remarkable that Paul went up to see Peter after he was converted and remained a certain time with him, as if there was at once a spiritual link between them. But Paul as in relation to Barnabas takes the lead, not by formal appointment but by power and efficiency. Saul in chapter 13 is identified with Paul, and it is now "Paul and his company"; a similar comment is never made of Peter or of any of the other apostles. And so Paul is already in the lead in chapter 13, and in chapter 15 he is pre-eminently in the lead, that is, not by appointment, but by fact, linking on with receiving the right hands of fellowship of Peter, James and John. Finally in his epistle Peter formally commits himself to Paul in the ministry, and as a Scripture writer, too. So that I think these facts make the matter clear that Paul is outstanding, a universal minister, a person who has received ministry from the Lord personally more than once. Peter is stressed by the Lord as put in administration in the kingdom -- not in the assembly, but in the kingdom. But our point is to see the link between him and this main subject, that is, how the rulers of the world came in contact with the ministers

of the truth of Christianity, and how the ministers behaved in relation to them.

H.G.H. It speaks of the hour of prayer in Acts 3, but in chapter 4 the prayer was specific, about a certain crisis that had arisen.

J.T. That is seen in comparing the two chapters. Chapter 3 speaks of the hour of prayer, the prayer was going on in the temple, and Peter and John went up at that time, showing that it was still a transitional time, and the disciples had part in it, as stated in chapter 2: 46. But Peter and John outshone anything that was there. The temple was really put into the shade, and yet they recognised it. In chapter 4 the prayer is specific, but not in the temple; it was in "their own company", Peter and John merging with the others. It is a question of the company and how thoroughly they were one and how love prevailed, and that God answered them. While they were together in the building it was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

A.E.H. In Paul have we in a general way the idea of a model set before us, an elect vessel chosen to set out the divine thought; but in Peter, the working out of the truth morally, and therefore the forces of opposition especially stressed with him? There seems to be more sympathy shown on the part of the authorities with Paul.

J.T. The personal touch between Peter and the authorities is not much stressed. In Peter the expense, the overhead, was heavy; the Lord had to spend much on him to make him conform to what He had in mind; whereas the word 'vessel' is applied to Paul from the outset. He is an "elect vessel", meaning that he would be usable and that from the start.

A.S.B. You referred to the idea of processing. That is seen with Peter, as under the hand of the

Lord; but the result of the Lord's work with Paul is almost instantaneous.

J.T. Paul started to work immediately, and with the right thought: he preached that Jesus is the Son of God. That was the leading thought then and it is the leading thought now. Peter comes to it at the end of his ministry. He never brings it in in his early ministry; that, of course, would be according to the Spirit's guidance. He is about to depart from the service when he speaks in his second epistle about the Son of God.

C.A.M. Paul said, "God, who set me apart even from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations". Would that stand in contrast to what He made Peter?

J.T. I think so. In Paul the idea of the vessel, of one available, is noticed and he had been long in the divine mind. Of course, Peter had been, too, but that is not stressed. There were more personal touches in Paul.

A.N.W. By the 'expense' the Lord had with Peter, do you mean the repeated corrections which seemed to be necessary for him?

J.T. That is what I mean, the exercise the Lord must have had about him. It is remarkable how many instances there are in regard to him. It is meant for us now as to how much overhead the Lord has in regard to each of us.

A.P.T. "I have prayed for thee", would that indicate some of the overhead?

Ques. "I have prayed for thee", would that gain all the apostles? The Lord told them that Satan had sought to have all of them to sift them. But He said to Peter, "I have prayed for thee". He would have Peter notice what he was costing Him. Not that He did not pray for the others, but He says

to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not".

A.A.T. Was the service of Peter more in connection with the kingdom, whereas Paul's was in the assembly, involving the truth of the Son of God?

J.T. The Lord said to Peter, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens". It was an administrative matter; whereas Paul had committed to him the ministry of the assembly, the truth of the mystery, the truth of reconciliation and the completion of the word. He was also a competent minister of the new covenant, and he tells us himself that he laboured more abundantly than they all -- Peter and the other eleven apostles. It is plain that he has the first place in the service of the Lord. But Peter had the first place among the early apostles.

A.E.H. The subject of overhead costs, involving mathematics, is interesting. I wonder if that is why Peter uses the word add in his second epistle, that the spiritual project might be a growing one?

J.T. According to that scripture the believer is to have in one element another, and in this, another, leading to regulated completeness in the features of Christianity. He says, "Simon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have received like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. As his divine power has given to us all things which relate to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that has called us by glory and virtue, through which he has given to us the greatest and precious promises, that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust". And then he goes on to what you alluded to as additions: "But for this very reason also, using therewith all diligence, in your

faith have also virtue, in virtue knowledge, in knowledge temperance, in temperance endurance, in endurance godliness, in godliness brotherly love, in brotherly love love". There we have the idea of a great system of operation -- elements operating to produce other elements. It is a system of things, and it covers what we are saying as to cost, each believer adding or producing.

A.H.P. Is it not significant that the ninth hour, the hour of prayer, was that in which Peter and John went up to the temple together, linking it on with the sufferings on the cross? There was darkness over the earth from the sixth to the ninth hour.

J.T. It has often been noted and I am sure it is true. It is a question of spiritual sentiment.

T.L.S. Just how much does Peter's occupation enter into this matter of what he was going to do now?

J.T. The word "fisher" is used of him; the Lord says, "I will make you fishers of men". The thought of a fisher would run right through his history. His position at the end of chapter 9 was at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean and not on the Sea of Galilee. That would accentuate the idea of men, the universal thought. In that connection he links on with Paul; it is a question of men. Cornelius was a man, and Peter said to him, "I myself also am a man".

C.A.M. Do you think the name Peter, meaning "stone", which the Lord gave him, would link his personality with his service?

J.T. Yes. We have noticed that he was not called, as Paul was, to special service in the assembly; the name given him implied that he was material for the assembly. His commission specially referred to the kingdom. The Lord said to him, "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the

heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens", Matthew 16:19.

A.E.H. Do you think the original work given to him and Andrew, when the Lord said "I will make you fishers of men", would suggest to Peter that in dealing with those in authority, they too were men? He could pay respect to them, but still they are men, and hence there would be an element in them to which there could be some appeal as having to do with God.

J.T. On the other hand, as opposed to God and His testimony they are degraded -- just clay. The truth works both ways. Peter had to do with a man judged by God in this sense. Herod, although a dignitary, persecuted the apostles, and was eaten of worms.

C.A.M. You were alluding to Cornelius as in a position of distinction. Manhood comes up in that connection with Peter.

J.T. In that section of Acts he links on with Paul as to the whole race. It is striking at the end of chapter 9 that Peter is viewed as "passing through all quarters", implying that he was in accord with the Spirit at the moment as reaching out to the nations -- seen in the next chapter. Today we have been praying as to the saints generally coming into accord, being united; we do not wish to have a different line of things here from that in Australia and Great Britain; we wish to be universal, which the Holy Spirit requires and promotes. Peter seems to come into line with what the Lord is doing, he goes to all quarters. He is seen on the shores of the Mediterranean, and while in prayer he goes into an ecstasy. The vessel comes down from heaven which was to enlarge his view of things, making way for Paul, and therefore he regards Cornelius as a

man -- as he was. He was a man of Italy, and Peter says to him, "Ye know how it is unlawful for a Jew to be joined or come to one of a strange race, and to me God has shewn to call no man common or unclean".

J.W.D. Going back to Herod -- if you had been living in the dominion that he governed, how would you have prayed for his government?

J.T. It is a question of the circumstances. God may raise up a man, or allow a man to be raised up to do certain things in relation to His people in a disciplinary sense, and he does them. But he may do far more, becoming lawless and destructive. Then he becomes an enemy of God and an enemy of men. The position changes; the spiritual would discern that. Herod "laid his hands on some of those of the assembly to do them hurt, and slew James", and put Peter in prison, intending to kill him. Here is a man definitely against God's servants and testimony, having the character of antichrist. I should not pray for him -- unless that if it were God's will he should be removed. He is an enemy of God and is eaten of worms. Although this dispensation is one of grace, God in certain circumstances acts in it in the severest way.

J.W.D. God removed him in a summary way without causing the destruction of great multitudes of people. Could we not intelligently pray that an angel of the Lord might operate in a similar drastic way with certain individuals in governments who oppress God's people?

J.T. I pray for that very thing regularly -- that God, if it were His will, might, to save the carnage, deal with the men who are specially responsible for it. God can do that. The great battle mentioned in Revelation 19 is in relation to the beast and the false prophet and the whole world under them. The

two leaders are taken first; the beast and the false prophet are taken first and cast into the lake of fire. God can do that.

A.A.T. In the verses you read in Acts 4 the brethren as they prayed asked the Lord to look upon their threatenings, but did not exactly pray against the government. They ask that they might have boldness to speak the word and that the Lord might stretch out His hand to heal.

J.T. Yes; the idea of the dispensation is greatly stressed in that prayer: "And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word, in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus. And when they had prayed, the place in which they were assembled shook, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness". It is the gospel they are concerned about, that is a very important item to have before us. It is God's work going on, not simply our relief, that is our concern.

S.McC. Peter had learned this in a practical way when with the Lord. He cut oil the ear of the high priest's servant, but the Lord stretched out His hand and healed it.

J.T. Quite so. That is Luke's point of view; it is the question of the gospel; But John does not mention that, as we had yesterday. From his point of view such things may be allowed to go on to the end unremedied. Now God may not today act in any such drastic way as we see here, but I think we are entitled to pray that He might come in and deal with matters in such a way as not to cause such enormous loss of life and property. God may do that, because it is a gracious time. He may listen to that.

Ques. You were speaking about the preparatory work in Paul in view of his service. What would you say about Galatians 1:17?

J.T. I think that bears on the thought of overhead that we were speaking of. The Lord would be saved certain expense, so to speak, by Paul's movement into Arabia. It is a question of how much we judge ourselves. Going into Arabia would be going into wilderness circumstances; instead of building up your personal circumstances, comfort or affluence, you take the other course and starve the flesh. If you starve the flesh, you save the Lord expense; I think that is what is meant. Instead of going to Jerusalem, he went into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus; and after three years he went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Peter.

J.W.D. Do you mean that whether we are on the Peter line or the Paul line is a matter for ourselves?

J.T. I think we can in a sense take things on ourselves to obviate the necessity of discipline. In disallowing or non-feeding the flesh much is accomplished. I think Arabia means that we are denied the means of feeding the flesh. John the baptist was brought up in the deserts, meaning that he was brought up in circumstances that prevented the feeding of the flesh. The more we do of that the less expense the Lord has with us. John the baptist's ministry was short; he was only a young man when beheaded, but he was very successful -- of those born of women there was none greater. He kept his body in control. Paul says, "I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest after having preached to others I should be myself rejected", 1 Corinthians 9:27.

A.S.B. Is that why the apostle said, "I took not counsel with flesh and blood", in relation to going up to Arabia?

J.T. I think so. He was resourceful in taking care of himself. The fact that he took not counsel with

flesh and blood would mean that he did not rely on human wisdom, he relied on the resources which God gave him. Going into Arabia implied that he would not trust himself, that, as we have said, he would not promote fleshly tendencies in himself. "Confide in Jehovah with all thy heart, and lean not unto thine own intelligence", Proverbs 3:5. The Lord said to Peter, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not"; not that he should not fail, but that his faith should not fail. He could go on with His work with Peter if his faith did not fail. Buffeting his body is a good illustration; the apostle kept his body under. Of course he would look to the Lord to keep him, but then, he saw to himself and did not allow the natural to rule. The basis of this doctrinally is in Romans 6, 7 and 8.

H.B. Is there overhead seen with Israel in the many days of their wandering, over against the eleven days' journey they could have taken?

J.T. Yes; God journeyed every extra mile with them. Everywhere they went He went, whereas it was only eleven days' journey from Mount Horeb to Kadesh-barnea.

J.A.P. We often allude to Peter and John returning to their own company. They were not puffed up by their service, but took their places in the company as before; they kept lowly.

J.T. I think we know the gain of keeping among the brethren. How our young brethren in the services are at a disadvantage in having been cut off from the meetings! In Great Britain they usually get to meetings, but not in this country and the United States; that is, "their own company" is not generally available. That is a serious matter, they have to progress in spite of that. In these circumstances the word to Timothy is particularly needful: "Youthful lusts flee", and in keeping with it, "pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those

that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart", 2 Timothy 2:22. The young men have not the brethren near them to "follow ... with", but they can flee youthful lusts and maintain self-judgment, including buffeting of the body, as well as practical righteousness.

W.W.M. Do you think that the thorn in the flesh that was given to Paul saved the Lord a great deal of trouble with him?

J.T. Yes; He gave that to him to work for him. That was one of the workers in his favour: "And that I might not be exalted ... there was given to me a thorn for the flesh, a messenger of Satan that he might buffet me". He also knew how to do the buffeting himself, but he needed more of it and the thorn effected it. He says himself, there are certain things that work for us: "tribulation works endurance; and endurance, experience; and experience, hope", Romans 5:3, 4.

A.E.H. What do you see in the fact that in the beginning of chapter 12 God allows an apostle to be slain, and before the chapter finishes He allows sixteen soldiers, I assume, to die to save another apostle? Such a vast difference in the way these two brothers fare!

J.T. That is a remarkable chapter for us now; it is a sort of parenthesis in the general history. The history is dealing with Paul and Barnabas, who come into chapter 11. While they are labouring at Antioch successfully, Agabus comes down there and prophetically announces a famine; the chapter finishes with persons in Antioch who are "well off" sending money to Jerusalem to meet need occasioned by the famine. Now in chapter 12 we have another matter altogether, what is going on under Herod's rule; not against Paul and Barnabas, but against Peter, John and James who were of the twelve. Then the political side of Herod is brought out: he saw the murder of James pleased the Jews and he arrested Peter

and put him into prison, having in mind to slay him too. Now we have a most remarkable account of divine intervention; the attack was against the ministry and in Peter's deliverance God shows man's impotence. These are touches in connection with Peter's imprisonment which indicate that the revival of the ministry, as well as the restoration of it was in mind, and that the Lord's supper is linked with the latter. The angel smote Peter's side, which would remind him of the Lord's smitten side and what it suggests as to the assembly; as risen from the dead the Lord showed to His disciples His hands and His side, the witness of His unchangeable love for the assembly.

H.G.H. Is it not interesting to see the part prayer takes in connection with that?

J.T. Yes; unceasing prayer was made by the assembly to God for Peter, and a number were gathered in the house of Mary the mother of Mark engaged in prayer, as he was delivered from the prison. Evidently, however, they were not looking for the divine answer, for when Peter appeared they did not believe it was he. They were not ready to receive the testimony that he was released. I only refer to that to show there was a decline in Jerusalem. The chapter is somewhat parenthetical as linking the history of the assembly at Jerusalem with the great movement of the Spirit through Saul and Barnabas among the nations. The remarkable happening in the prison is particularly what we should notice -- how Peter is released and how, when he comes to himself and comes to know where he is -- in the street, left to himself -- he goes to the prayer meeting. But there is a want of faith there. The main line now is evidently in connection with Paul and Barnabas. The need at Jerusalem is met by the bounty of the saints at Antioch, which is sent up there "by the hand of Barnabas and Saul". The work of God in the gentiles was taking the lead.

He may work in one section, and in other parts His work may be lessened; we have to notice that. But this chapter shows that God does not neglect any part of His field. We see here, too, how God revives His work where there is a tendency to decline, while at the same time entering on new fields.

C.A.M. Do you think He was linking Peter on with the assembly in its wider aspect as seen in chapter 13, and from there on?

J.T. Yes. The assembly had been recognized officially as in Jerusalem -- that was the external position: "At that time Herod the king laid his hands on some of those of the assembly to do them hurt"; they were known to be that; it is "the assembly", having that status at Jerusalem. But now the work of God is moving among the nations, and full notice is to be taken of those who are leading in it. This comes out more clearly in chapter 15. The apostles remained at Jerusalem, we are told in chapter 8; God is not neglecting what is there, there are still godly men devoted to Christ; but there is some weakness, and God is allowing this man Herod to attack them. But the outcome is not that he destroys the assembly at Jerusalem, but that he himself is destroyed; and the ministry is to revive and to link on with what Paul is doing. He is engaged in the universal movement of the Spirit. It is to begin at the Lord's supper; it involves the Lord's side.

J.J. Does the fact that the saints are going through and that the young men in the camps are being maintained imply that the ministry should be increasingly wider and better?

J.T. Yes; and what is indicated in Peter's release from prison is that the ministry is to be free from bondage, but not as released in a mere arbitrary or physical way. It is to be set free in connection with the meaning of the Lord's side as pierced. We are to be brought back to the typical teaching of Adam

and Eve, meaning the death of Jesus as in John 20; He showed the disciples His hands and His side.

J.R.H. Do you mean that Peter representing the ministry suffers in a representative way in order that the assembly at Jerusalem may be helped and link on universally?

J.T. Yes. It is evident that Jerusalem needed to be sympathetic with the movement among the nations. The passage states: "And lo, an angel of the Lord came there, and a light shone in the prison: and having smitten the side of Peter, he roused him up, saying, Rise up quickly". Peter had been taken out of prison before, but the record is not nearly so vivid and so touchingly suggestive as in chapter 12. Then we have to enquire, Why all this? Is it not spiritual? Is Peter not coming out of prison a roused-up person with his side affected? And by contemplation and comparison would not Genesis 2 and John 20 come into his mind?

J.H. Acts 4:27 says, "Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass". Would that indicate that governing authorities retain the character of God's ministers even when in an attitude of opposition to the testimony?

J.T. They may; the Lord recognizes that in Pilate. He says, "Thou hadst no authority whatever against me if it were not given to thee from above". But it is when they go wantonly beyond that that a difference should be made, and I think Herod in chapter 12 is thus marked. He is definitely opposed to the ministry. James is one of the ministers; it is a question of attacking the ministers. Earlier, the persecution at Jerusalem scattered the saints generally; the apostles were allowed to stay there but they were attacked. The people are not attacking, but

Herod is directly attacking the ministry; that is, Satan would destroy what is of God at Jerusalem. What Paul and Barnabas were doing at Antioch is another matter.

A.S.B. Why is it said that "a light shone in the prison"?

J.T. That is a beautiful thought. God is moving in the light. He would make clear to His servant what He is doing; He was not acting in the dark. Peter is to be brought out intelligently.

S.W.P. "Immediately the angel left him" -- you might think he would be needed more than ever at that point.

J.T. Peter knew what to do at this time. I believe the terrible attack on Great Britain was to bring out the work of God; what is there is far more than Satan had calculated, but God diverted the attack in due time. Not that it is over yet, but the main effort is over.

Rem. It would appear that Herod thought he was going to triumph. He had taken one servant and was proceeding to eliminate another.

J.T. It is one thing after another! Well, God may use men in His governmental purposes, but they may be going beyond what God intended and in that case He takes issue with them. I believe that is the present position.

C.A.M. Do you think the fact that Rhoda recognized Peter's voice would show that there is sympathetic discernment as to whom God is using amongst the saints; that there is youthful feminine feeling in spite of all this outward pressure?

J.T. A beautiful touch! There is in the whole account a remarkable train of circumstances bearing the evidence of God's hand in the preservation and deliverance of His servant: the angel's intervention and guidance as the light shines in the prison,

the smiting of Peter's side, the gate leading to the city opening of itself, the prayer meeting and the person inside who recognizes Peter's voice. They said Rhoda was mad, but she was not mad; nor was Paul mad when he was speaking to Agrippa, though so charged. Rhoda represents the great importance of standing firmly by what we know in such circumstances. "But Peter continued knocking: and having opened, they saw him and were astonished". God has gained His end and the ministry is released; but those who were praying are put to shame, for they were unbelieving as to Peter's deliverance. There may have been a general need of stirring up in the assembly at Jerusalem. Peter is smitten on the side and the light shone inside in the prison, and over against this the prayer meeting is wanting in faith as to what had happened. Then Herod was eaten of worms; this was the direct judgment of God, "because he did not give the glory to God".

J.R.H. There is an expression here that reminds you of Luke 15; it says, "When Peter was come to himself". Would that be the work of God in the ministry shining out in its proper native character, underlying the voice of Peter?

J.T. That is the real Peter. There had been conditions that had affected him, but it is now himself. The Lord has him much in mind as His great servant, especially as to the turn things have taken at Jerusalem; and I believe that is the way we arrive at the meaning of chapter 12, which is, as I said, a sort of parenthesis in the history. There was to be a co-ordination there with the work of God in Antioch. Chapter 15 is a sequel to this, where you get the actual facts of certain opposition to the truth arising in Jerusalem, and how an adjustment was reached in which Peter took a most important part. Unity was maintained, the Holy Spirit graciously helping.

S.McC. In connection with the circumstances Paul was in that we were dwelling on this morning, there is no mention of prayer being made for him anywhere. There does not seem to be from the scriptural record, the same interest in his imprisonment as there is in Peter's.

J.T. That is of deep interest and suggests enquiry. But it is to be remarked as to the comparison between the two apostles that the reference in Acts 12:5 as to prayer being made for Peter is evidently connected with the assembly at Jerusalem. In Acts 18:22 Paul is said to have "saluted the assembly" and the context shows that there also the assembly at Jerusalem is referred to. Peter's special place as the leading apostle of the twelve makes clear why much prayer was made for him by the assembly at Jerusalem. The same interest, no doubt, would be shown in Paul as in similar circumstances. Consider, for instance, the great affection for him manifest in the Ephesian elders at Miletus.

A.H.P. What do you say as to the fact that Peter was asleep in the prison, but Paul and Silas were singing praises in the prison?

J.T. There is a difference. It is not that you would discredit Peter, but he sometimes has to suffer for our learning. In the records of Scripture incidents that love would cover are mentioned so that saints following after might avoid any dangers indicated in them. Singing praises to God with your feet fast in the stocks has more testimony and pleasure for divine Persons than being fast asleep.

S.W.P. Does the mention of these various parts of Peter, his side, his hands, his feet (in reference to sandals), his voice, carry the suggestion that the personality of the servant gives power to his service?

J.T. I am sure that enters into what we are saying. The chapter is remarkable as to what it opens up to people who know and maybe have forgotten,

or who failed to use what they know. What they may have known in power has lapsed a bit; so that when they are touched it all comes up again. The whole position is brought to light in what happens, and Herod is removed most ignominiously. That enters into the present position, and I believe that if we lay hold of it and keep on praying, God will do something about it.

A.A.T. Do you think the sisters have a distinct place in our prayer meetings?

J.T. They should be there. Many stay at home because they think it is not so important as other meetings. God has put a premium on it, that we should be made glad in His house of prayer (compare Isaiah 56:1 - 7).

FEATURES OF THE TRUTH BEARING ON THE LAST DAYS (5)

Revelation 1:9 - 11; Revelation 10:8 - 11; 2 Timothy 2:1 - 6; Hebrews 13:23 - 25

J.T. I thought we might consider John and Timothy at this time. We have thus far considered the truth in relation to persons: first in the Lord Himself, then in Paul, then in Peter, and now we shall do so in John and Timotheus. The thought is to speak mainly of John, one who was used of the Lord and served well indeed, a reserved servant as has often been noted, carrying us on to the end. Our enquiry is to consider how he is seen in relation to the authorities, those who are called formally "the powers that be", who are ordained of God. He speaks of them as either apostate or about to be apostate, so that the whole system of rule ordained of God in the four empires culminates in the man of sin who is openly opposed to God and to Christ and to Christianity. This is an important side of our subject, a sub-division of it but a most important one, because it contemplates terrific dislocations on the earth as the ruling powers begin to take issue against God, and God takes issue with them. So that the struggle is terrific. The man of sin, the beast, and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire, according to John's point of view. This requires a change of view on our part, and it is intended, too, to influence us as having to do with the authorities, while we might say that in general they are in a favourable attitude towards the saints of God.

Hence John is seen in the passage read in Revelation 1 as the brother and companion of the saints: "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of

Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (verse 9). He is representing the ministry in a sense, yet he is a brother and companion of the saints in tribulation and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus; so that the Lord would use him to help us as to how to be in the present situation triumphantly, as accepting the tribulation. It is a time of patience, but nevertheless the time of the kingdom of Jesus. There is one in it -- John -- who knew Jesus, and whom Jesus loved in a special way, who lay in His bosom. The ministry is showing itself in brotherly feelings and affections, but at the same time in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus. These three features are linked together peculiarly, as the note shows, by one article governing them.

J.W.D. Is God dealing with the nations punitively today?

J.T. There would be a punitive element in it, I think; however, it is to bring out certain conditions in view of the final conflict. It is preliminary; that is, God is not openly punitive, because it is still the period of the Spirit and of the gospel and of the assembly, so that I think there is a certain modification; but at the same time these terrible throes that we are in and have been in more or less for a quarter of a century, point to what is final. I think John's ministry is being used to help us in these circumstances in bringing about the brotherly side in the ministry. In the history of the assembly the ministry took on the lordly attitude in the earlier Episcopalian systems, including Rome; and to some extent in other systems it has taken on a lordly attitude; whereas John's ministry brings in the brethren, and the ministers express brotherly feelings in suffering with all the saints. I think here it is preliminary. We shall not be here in the actual

fulfilment of the throes, but we are sharing something of it, and the brotherly spirit is of great importance; the ministry is enhanced by it.

R.W.S. Does the kingdom here link on with our first reading?

J.T. Yes, the kingdom in Jesus. You will notice it is first "the tribulation", then "and kingdom and patience, in Jesus". The word "tribulation" is a strong word. Tribulation may enter into the kingdom, but it is the kingdom in Jesus, and then patience going with that.

A.E.H. Does a good family man make the best kingdom man in that sense? In John 21 Peter turns and sees the other disciple following, the one who leaned on Jesus' breast at supper, as though that would enter into all the brotherliness that was attached to John, and make a good kingdom man of him and a good brother, helping him to be patient in the flood of apostasy coming in.

J.T. Yes. John is a good second. He is presented in Scripture as a good second; it is "Peter and John". The earlier chapters in Acts say hardly anything about what John did and said, but he was there as adding to the position. As there the apostle was second; Peter was in the lead. The brotherly element clearly was there and the man that got the blessing in Acts 3 held them both, as if the ministry of authority must be held as well as the brotherly state.

A.A.T. Verse 9 says "fellow-partaker". Does that mean that others were in it?

J.T. That is the idea. We are all partaking of these three things, the tribulation and kingdom and patience. It is a mutual feeling that is stressed, that there is one brother; the idea of a brother is seen in John, "your brother", not simply one of the brethren. God had given him a distinctive place which

the brethren would readily recognize, but he was still one of them as a brother.

S.McC. What you said as to the ministry is important, bearing on the present moment. The enemy is intent on impairing and hindering the ministry.

J.T. That is what we shall see, I think, how the devil comes into this book. He has the throne in this book. Satan has a certain place, not yet in the infernal regions; it is a certain historical and geographical position where Satan's throne is (Revelation 2:13). To those in Smyrna the Lord said, "The devil shall cast some of you into prison". He is viewed in a military position. The devil had put into the heart of Judas to betray the Lord, and during supper he entered into him (John 13:27). It was to get into the position militarily, to get as near to Christ as possible to attack Him. John was in the bosom of Jesus then. The Lord told Judas that what he did he should do quickly; the Lord is holding the reins even as to what Judas was to do. Judas was to do it quickly, yet Judas was possessed by the devil. Now John, according to the Lord's own word, is telling us of the devil being in a certain place; he has a throne here on earth and he is casting some into prison. The agencies by which he is casting some into prison are clearly imperial; that is, they are the same persons or agencies that we are enjoined earlier to respect; but now they are in the devil's hands, his throne being obviously in the very centre of the empire. That, I think, marks off the position in this book, and what is to meet it is this brotherly attitude, one person outstanding, a brother of all the rest, not simply one of them. He is in an outstanding place.

H.G.H. Is there any authority in the term, "your brother"?

J.T. I think there is in a moral sense; just as John had moral authority to address the saints as a

father and as the elder, calling them his children. He is parental peculiarly. Paul was too, but John is peculiarly that, and if he takes the place of a brother it is a distinctive place, not simply one of them; but on account of his moral qualities and experience and office he addresses them as "I John, your brother".

A.N.W. "I John" brings his personality before us.

J.T. That is important to bring out, "I John". This book brings out his name, his personality, strikingly. What that would mean to suggest to us is, Do not forget the history of this person and what is involved in it, because it bears on the moment. When he says of himself in his gospel that he is the disciple whom Jesus loved, he is stressing more the love of Christ and that he knew Him; but now his personality is established, and it is important in the testimony to have a personality, one that is known and can be trusted. He has established his moral integrity.

W.R. Would the fact that he speaks of himself as a brother be a comfort to the young men in the camps who are suffering as the result of standing for the testimony? They can look back and see how this brother stood in difficult circumstances. He was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.

J.T. That is the idea, it is what impresses them. That will come out as to the younger men in Timotheus, but of course John as having love is the great disciple of love, of how love has become known.

R.W.S. Are we entitled in our prayers to discriminate as to the nations today, praying for the prosperity of nations that favour the testimony, and praying against those that hinder?

J.T. That is good. We are supposed to know them. It is remarkable how the Lord, when He brought up the question of sonship with Peter, referred

to the kings of the nations, as to how they did things and how they regarded their children and their sons. Peter knew and he could answer Him. It is remarkable the knowledge the disciples had of ordinary things. So in chapter 10 of Revelation the last verse says, "Thou must prophesy again as to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings". That is, the fact that John is to prophesy about them implies that he would know them. It is remarkable how in these wars God has opened up the geography and history of nations to us, how familiar we have become with mundane affairs in that sense, so that the Spirit of God can refer to things spiritually in the book of Revelation and we understand. We are able to discern and to apply what is meant.

Rem. This isle of Patmos is in the Mediterranean.

J.T. Yes, in the Aegean Sea. That is, it is in the centre of things geographically. How was John to prophesy again as to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings? How was he to be used of the Lord save as he understood these items: "peoples and nations and tongues and many kings"? Their histories are supposed to be known; they have a bearing on the testimony. We become interested when they involve the brethren. Now take Russia: little was known about this dark country, immense in territory and power; but a few brethren were there twenty-five years or so ago in St. Petersburg. Little or nothing was known about them, but presently they were attacked and one of them, an old brother often written about since, was carried away to the Caspian Sea. We followed him in the letters we read about him, and it brought out the hostility against the saints that was arising at that time and that we have followed since in relation to other powers. It is what is going on in central Europe, in the Balkan provinces and Greece, and we

may say the whole of Europe is involved. That is why John, I think, is directed to get the little book which the angel has in his hand and to eat it, which he does. He says, "And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up". The thought of eating is usually appropriation of a thing for a purpose; in this case it is that it should enter into the whole constitution of the person who is to be used in the ministry; and of course he must know what nations and peoples are involved. The prophecy is to affect the Lord's people. John ate the little book, and it was sweet in his mouth because it involved the word of God, as revelation always does. It is always sweet, but the consequence, what it speaks of, causes bitterness to those who love the saints because of what they have to endure.

H.G.H. It says, "The voice which I heard out of the heaven was again speaking with me", not, to me. Does that mean John was in accord with what the voice was saying?

J.T. Yes. He says in chapter 1, "I turned back to see the voice which spoke with me" (verse 12). This is a similar expression; but in chapter 1 John regards the voice as a person. He turned to see the voice, but he really turned to see the Person: "I saw seven golden lamps, and in the midst of the seven lamps one like the Son of man, clothed with a garment reaching to the feet" (verse 12, 13). The point is that you see "the Son of man". But before the Son of man is mentioned, that of which He is in the midst is spoken of, that is, the seven golden lamps. They are seen first. The Lord Jesus is going to have to say to them in a special way. They do not represent the powers that be, they represent the assembly with which the Lord is immediately going to be occupied. Chapter 10 alludes to Him as coming out to occupy Himself with the sea and the land, the literal earth and sea, and that brings in the great conflict that

is depicted in the remaining part of the book. The Lord comes out and puts His right foot upon the sea, and His left foot on the earth, and He roars as a lion roars. There is "the little book", and that is what John is to appropriate and assimilate so as to know what is going to happen and how it is going to affect the people of God; and that causes him to feel things keenly.

J.W.D. Do you mean that when we are thinking in our prayers and interests as to the governments of this world, we are thinking of them in relation to what is in the assembly, so that our conflict and exercises give us spiritual power? We have no interest in Greece or in the Balkans, for instance, outside of our concern for general mankind, but we have a very great interest in Sweden.

J.T. That is, in the countries in which the saints are; and there are some in all nominal Christian countries. The little book assimilated by the prophet makes him understand. Of course those of us who have travelled into these countries have first-hand knowledge of them, at least to some extent, but most of us have not travelled. But the little book would acquaint us with them. From the divine point of view it is not a big book; God does not intend us to be much engrossed with it. It is a brief account, but it is enough, and it qualifies us to minister because we know the consequences negatively or positively. The negative consequences here are bitter, and we need to know what to minister accordingly. So I do not think what we call our ministry meetings, involving the prophetic ministry, can be rightly entered into or understood aside from the knowledge of this little book. We know what the brethren are, we know where the brethren are, we have our little book as to locations of meetings in different countries; it is indeed little, but it is essential, so that you have a right understanding of what is current in all

of these countries, whether God is working or not and what He is saying about them.

Ques. Would that be helped by the reading of letters wherever possible?

J.T. Yes. Sometimes we get excellent accounts of things. We read them in our prayer meetings and I believe they should be circulated as much as possible in so far as they indicate what God is doing.

S.McC. How does this knowledge affect the meeting for ministry? We generally think of it as affecting just the prayer meeting, enlarging us in our scope of outlook in prayer.

J.T. Do you not think that what is said here in verse 11 helps in that? After John tells us that the little book was bitter in his belly he is told, "Thou must prophesy again as to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings". He is qualified to prophesy as appropriating the little book, and it is pretty clear the little book relates to Europe where the enemy is particularly situated and where the work of God throughout the history of Christendom has been mainly carried on. It is only within comparatively recent times that it has extended out to these western countries, but even then it is still in the main in Europe.

A.E.H. The prophetic word then would illuminate the saints as to the elements that exist in these nations and peoples, and as to whether they are favourable or opposed to the testimony and Christ.

J.T. Yes, that is the way I would look at it. We had a sorrowful experience some years back with China. We thought we knew; many of us thought we knew what was there, but really we failed to grasp what was there. What we thought was a work of God was not really such. I only bring that forward as illustrative of what is in mind. The prophet here is to assimilate the little book first and then to prophesy in regard of all the things in mind.

A.E.H. We might not have been led astray if we had understood what was in the little book.

J.T. Just so; because the little book would at any rate tell us that China must be left for a later day. I do not think the little book gives any account of Asia; I think that is left. What God has been mainly engaged in throughout this dispensation is Europe, that is quite obvious. Eastern Asia is more populous, but it is left for another day. I think the little book has to do with the areas in which God has been working, which Paul indicates in going to Philippi.

A.E.H. What is said of Paul as to the Spirit of Jesus forbidding him would be like a concise chapter in the little book.

J.T. Yes, the Spirit of Jesus. That involves the word we get here: "the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus". That would include Europe undoubtedly. Patmos was not in the east; John was in Europe.

S.McC. It has been generally thought and expressed that the meeting for ministry is directly bearing on local conditions. Do you think that is right altogether?

J.T. I think it should bear more widely than that. I think the outlook of a prophet should be universal as to where the saints are. That is John's outlook. He refers to the saints, the seven assemblies including all who form the assembly. He was their brother. It is John the prophet we are dealing with here, not John the apostle. In Revelation the point in John is not the assertion of apostolic authority, but of prophetic authority, moral authority through one used by God as with Him, as seen here. He is in Patmos and he is there because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. The bearing is clearly the seven lamps. Where are they? You say they are in Asia. But they are in the province of Asia, which is very near to Europe. Now Mohammedanism has taken

all that territory away from Christianity; it is neither Christianity nor Judaism nor heathenism. It represents apostate power. Mohammedanism has taken all that territory away, so that Christianity now is practically out of Asia altogether and out of Africa. It is in Europe and the outgoings of Europe. You might say I am dealing with mere history and geography, but it is a question of how Scripture deals with these matters, and the effect of the little book on the prophet. What is the little book dealing with? Is it dealing with the East, or is it dealing with Europe? It is clearly dealing with Europe. That is where the work has been all these centuries, and we are to understand it. That is what one would like to get clear.

J.W.D. If we understood the territory governed by the little book, we would understand what was brought out by the Old Testament prophets; God used them to prophesy against the nations adverse to the testimony.

J.T. As you look at the Old Testament, Jeremiah was directed to prophesy about all the kingdoms around him, and he himself travelled as far as the Euphrates. Very few would do that, but he did it, and according to this scripture John too would travel long distances. He was directed to "prophesy again as to peoples and nations and tongues and many kings". But in the first chapter it is a question of his brotherly relations with the saints.

S.W.P. Does that help us to understand the insular conditions of Patmos? The enemy would isolate things. The thought of the brother brings in the much wider geographical position you are speaking of.

J.T. Just so -- the seven assemblies.

A.N.W. Would you take the reference to the many gates of the heavenly city as the opposite to isolation?

J.T. Yes. The whole of Latin America is divided into independent nations. This dominion is in effect an independent nation. In the British family of nations each is practically independent. We have to understand all these things in order to minister the mind of God in the different countries. In this dominion there has been a peculiar kind of antipathy to the conscience of Christians. We have to think of that. It is not so in Australia, New Zealand, or even the United States. What is the reason for it? The brethren here have to suffer from it.

C.A.M. Linking our prophetic meetings and our prayers would suggest the situation with Mordecai: he and Esther were operating in a comparatively small area but the area they affected was immense.

J.T. One hundred and twenty-seven provinces! That was a question of subdivision of provinces; but these provinces have to be understood. The Jews were scattered throughout them. We are to know current conditions, what the brethren have to deal with or suffer from.

H.G.H. So we should be helped in our ministry meetings by the closer personal contact we have with our brethren universally.

J.T. It does greatly help. Some have had the advantage of visiting the brethren in many countries; we know something of their actual conditions. But if we listen to letters, and enquire, we shall get to know what is happening. Take Paul's work at Corinth: Aquila and Priscilla were there. Why were they there? Because the emperor had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. They were suffering from that edict. So the brethren are scattered about and are affected by certain conditions, and we are to know these conditions, and if we write articles for publication we are to bear these things in mind.

Rem. You made a remark recently about Puteoli; it says in Acts 28:13, 14, "We came the next day

to Puteoli: where we found brethren".

J.T. It is on the way to Rome. It is important. Why should that place be mentioned? We hear today of the greatest events current all around there; but what is most important the saints are there; there is a little meeting a short distance away, in Castellamare. Some of us saw them. There is another little meeting north towards Novi, not far from Genoa, not far from Milan. Our brethren are suffering in all these places, and some down in Rome, too; and in Toulon I suppose the brethren are suffering. Why should we not understand that and minister or pray accordingly?

A.E.H. We need a great deal of moral discernment in a moment like this. Military movements may in the main be favourable to the saints and yet cause them much suffering.

J.T. That is the whole point, and suffering will cause us bitterness; in thinking of what the brethren are enduring there will be bitterness in our souls.

A.S.B. It appears there is to be not only the reading but the eating of the book, as though our feelings and our whole constitution are to be affected by it.

J.T. I think the Lord is intending, by what is taking place, to make us sober and feeling in regard to what is happening to the brethren everywhere. It is having its effect in more knowledge as to what our brethren are suffering.

S.W.P. Does the hand of the angel in any way limit the bitterness of the book? I was thinking of it providentially.

J.T. The Lord is seen in the first part of the chapter: "And I saw another strong angel coming down out of the heaven". We must remember that this is not in the church period strictly, but the preliminaries of it are in the church period. The book of Revelation is divided into three parts, the third

part beginning in the fourth chapter. This that we have read in chapter 10 enters into the final period but the preliminaries leading up to it are earlier. So we have this angel coming down out of heaven, "clothed with a cloud, and the rainbow upon his head, and his countenance as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire, and having in his hand a little opened book. And he set his right foot on the sea, and the left upon the earth, and cried with a loud voice as a lion roars", Revelation 10:1 - 3. Now this is Christ. We are to discern this. It is only Christ who would answer to this.. He is Jehovah really; He is God, because it is a question of the covenant entered into with Noah. He is dealing on a wide basis, what happened from Noah down to the present time -- "all the days of the earth". There is a covenant with man and the Lord is coming in connection with that covenant. He is a covenant Keeper. The current political leaders in Europe are covenant breakers. He is not that; He is going to fulfil His covenant with men. He has wonderful power, and He has this little book; and the point is that John is to get it and eat it so as to make him suitable to prophesy.

F.K.C. Do you think that Genesis 10 gives a clue to the beginnings of the nations, and especially in regard to the little book?

J.T. Quite so, the nations begin there; not only the Roman Empire but all the nations are in mind. The sea is invaded by the devil and it has hindered the brethren from moving about. The Lord puts His right foot on the sea; that means He has His rights in the sea, in the meantime we may expect Him to show that He is thinking of the brethren and that the way across the seas is to be opened again. That is one thing that we might count on. But John is the person in mind in this chapter, that is, the immediate working out of the thing is in the minister, a prophet -- one who can take up the mind of God

and knows how to apply it. He has some conception of what God thinks of the nations from the days of Noah. God is working on a wide scale; there are many things that He has to work out that we know nothing of. But the little book will help us, especially if we are to be used in prophecy. We shall know how to speak of this and that nation; the prophet has to do with the Lord's people in all these settings.

Ques. Why do the prophets lament as to certain nations that persecuted Israel?

J.T. They were the nations surrounding Israel. I believe that God was feeling indignation in regard to them. It is remarkable how they are addressed by the prophets. Today it is the nations surrounding the assembly, what they are and how they are persecuting us; the prophetic ministry is bearing on this. You know where the saints are and what is affecting them there.

S.McC. You have a remarkable chapter in Isaiah 20 -- it bears on what you are saying. It says that Tartan "fought against Ashdod and took it", and "at that time spoke Jehovah by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy sandal from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And Jehovah said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years, a sign and a wonder concerning Egypt and concerning Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt" (verses 1 - 4). God makes Isaiah a sign concerning Ethiopia and Egypt.

J.T. Well, in a reading like this we can only touch the fringe of all this, but it opens up something for the brethren to look into. The Lord is saying that He needs us, and He needs to have us

understand the conditions in which His people are, and if we are ministering, not to overlook these needs. He will deal with these nations punitively presently, but in the meantime He will deal with them through the prophetic ministry.

F.L. What is the spiritual thought of the book being sweet in his mouth?

J.T. I think it is the initial thought of the word of God. The Christian always values the word of God, even such a passage as Revelation 20 which tells us about the lake of fire, for God Himself ignites the lake of fire. Anything God does has to be sweet. But when you see the consequences on the saints you begin to be sober. Even the Lord Jesus Himself wept when He saw Jerusalem because of what was coming on it.

S.J.H. How would this find expression in a ministry meeting?

J.T. Take any of the prophets, whether those we call the major or the minor -- we must not think that the Scripture is of less import in the minor, so-called, than in the major; Malachi is no less important than Isaiah -- take Amos: he gives the list of nations and he speaks to each one of them, "For three transgressions ... and for four", showing that God is not overlooking what is happening. And so none of these nations that are acting against His people today will be omitted; God will deal punitively with them all. God is looking on what is happening, but the real issue is the saints and the gospel and the assembly.

A.E.H. I suppose prophetic ministry of this kind would help us to get deliverance from nationalistic feelings and give us assembly feelings?

J.T. That is our business -- with the saints. If we have any prophetic ability we have it to use in the midst, the gifts are set in the assembly. The ministry of the prophets bears on the whole assembly.

J.R.H. In his Collected Writings Mr. Darby has much to say in relation to the nations of the present world; and do you not find that there is much in the way of moral results affected by considering them?

J.T. Certainly. The first meetings they had in Dublin over a hundred years ago were on prophecy. That was to open up the prophetic field in connection with the testimony, how a saint is to regard it. Mr. Darby has commented on Europe and on the nations generally. It is not that we are to be occupied with the nations in themselves, but rather with the saints in them, and what we have to think of in ministering in regard of them.

T.N.W. Would you think the Lord may have some means of giving the prophets in Germany an understanding of the little book at the present time?

J.T. Just so. What a history Germany has had, especially in regard to the Reformation! How the heart thrills at what God did in that country three or four hundred years ago! And then you think of what the devil is doing there now. But still, God has His portion there yet, and a large bit of property too, and so we are not unconcerned about that.

A.N.W. All this would help us to hold the eastern nations in reserve.

J.T. God has that territory reserved and when He starts He will do things there quickly; the angel will preach the everlasting gospel, and the healing of the nations will all be done quickly. But this is the time of the long-suffering of God, waiting in patience on the western nations, not willing that any should perish.

W.W.M. Would the feelings that Abraham had as to his brother Lot be right feelings for us to have? He was thinking only of his brother in the conflict against Sodom and Gomorrah, not of the rest of the matter.

J.T. That was all his concern in that war, and it was a great war. He was concerned about his brother.

R.A. What would you say about the angel "having in his hand a little opened book"?

J.T. It is over against the sealed book in chapter 5, it is open history. It does not unfold anything about the mystery of God but it is simply to instruct the prophet as to what he is to deal with, as Jeremiah was instructed. The positive side would be a large book; John would say that "not even the world itself would contain the books" on the positive side of the glory of Christ.

T.K. What are we to learn from the writer to the Hebrews as he finishes his epistle saying, "They from Italy salute you", Hebrew 13:24?

J.T. That fits into what we are remarking. We must remember what kind of people Italians are. Italy at the time; he had just referred to Timothy, and he goes on to say, "They from Italy salute you". Paul is representing what was there. How much the prophets said of such nations as Assyria, Greece, Egypt, Spain! The Spirit of God goes to the trouble of mentioning those nations.

W.R. Paul did not speak very well about the Cretans!

J.T. It is a characteristic trait that they were liars. You have to beware of such.

C.A.M. It is remarkable that Timothy and Italy are connected. That should be a great help to us in the immediate days to come.

J.T. If we follow it up in Revelation 2 and 3 we shall see something of Italy. That is where Satan's throne is; that is where the great persecutions began; it is where Antipas was murdered.

Now in regard to John's position in the book of Revelation, what we are saying is merely introductory

to this matter, as to whether the brethren can take on this thought of John the beloved, the disciple whom Jesus loved. Here he is in the isle of Patmos, and he is speaking of being "in the Spirit on the Lord's day". The Spirit of God is making much of that, keeping that before us; this expression is used only here. The same is true of the expression, "the Lord's supper"; it is the same idea as to the Lord. The apostle has that in mind and surely the Lord has blessed it to us. Then he is "fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus"; this is the brother that we are going to learn from in this book. The Lord tells him in the end of the first chapter the order in which he is to write the book. We are to follow that and to see where chapter 10 belongs and how far we have the idea of it already. But certainly this matter of the sea, to which the Lord asserts His rights, ought to enter into our prayers so that we might again visit our brethren overseas. The sea tends to isolation.

C.A.M. The great opening up of Paul's ministry seems to be connected with navigation out from Troas.

J.T. That is another point that comes into this, and the prominence of the Mediterranean, what his experience was right round to Rome.

R.W.S. The sea is put first in chapter 10.

J.T. It shows the importance of the seas ultimately; but the importance in the meantime is that the brethren live across them, and we want to get to them and they want to get to us, and we can appeal to the Lord about that. Now as regards Timothy, the simple thought is to suggest that he is a younger brother and has been in prison, limited in some way. This is the second letter to him, written when Paul is about to die, to suffer martyrdom; and he is the one who is in mind to carry on after Paul, the great minister, is removed.

Therefore it would seem to be an appropriate suggestion in regard to the ability the Lord is giving to many of middle-age -- but still to be regarded perhaps as young -- in following on to relieve those that are older. How are they to do in assuming the lead? This question of soldiership comes up in verse 3 of chapter 2, which is not without significance, because soldiership is so prominent now among the nations, and it is affecting the saints, tending to damage them. We need therefore to see how Timotheus' soldiership is to be regarded. We are all to be good soldiers, the young men especially, of Jesus Christ; that is, He has a kingdom, and if it were of this world His servants would fight with swords and other weapons like that. But it is not of this world, and Paul is therefore dealing here with the conduct of soldiers of Jesus Christ, of which Timothy was one, and a good one!

A.N.W. Timothy is to take his share in suffering.

J.T. It links on with the tribulation and kingdom and patience, that each is to take his share; it is not now to be one man outstanding, like Paul, but a good many younger men who are to join in and carry on when he is gone. They are to know how to be good soldiers, good ones, and to take their share in suffering. Others are sharing, it is an extensive matter. Each one is to take his share in suffering.

A.E.H. I suppose there would be a difference between the idea of a good soldier and of an athlete in the games. Both ideas are here.

J.T. They are used as figures. First, "And the things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, such as shall be competent to instruct others also". Then, "Take thy share in suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one going as a soldier entangles himself with the affairs of life, that he may please

him who has enlisted him as a soldier". That is a figure, of course, so that the Christian soldier is thinking of pleasing Jesus, the One who has enlisted him. "And if also any one contend in the games, he is not crowned unless he contend lawfully. The husbandman must labour before partaking of the fruits". That is, we have the soldier and the athlete and the farmer; these are the figures used. But it is not a question of my being an athlete or a soldier literally, it is what these things mean in a spiritual sense. In the final thought, that of a husbandman, he is, according to the other rendering, to be "first partaker of the fruits"; he is to keep some for himself. If you are going to be on the platform all the time, you must have some yourself first.

C.A.M. What would you say about the armies in Revelation 19 following the Lord on white horses, clad in white, pure, fine linen? Would they be the saints trained in this way now?

J.T. I would think so. - They are persons who can go forth and do anything. Abraham had three hundred and eighteen trained servants; it does not say soldiers, they would be trained for anything. And I suppose we are being trained now for whatever the Lord has for us to do, now or later. Training is important.

A.S.B. The apostle says at the end of 2 Timothy, "I have combated the good combat" -- the soldier aspect; "I have finished the race" -- the athletic side.

J.T. He uses these figures frequently, showing what a wide knowledge he had of things. This matter of Timothy is, I believe, an urgent one, because the Lord is doing much in providing ability for service both here on this continent and in Australasia and the British Isles. Men are coming forward that are able to serve, and the whole responsibility will be on them shortly, so that the thing is to prepare. These figures that the apostle uses are to be studied; and

then the fact is to be noted that this brother was a prisoner, where and why we are not told. The matter of importance is that he was a prisoner, that he had the experience of imprisonment even though it might be unjustly inflicted; but he had the experience and the time came when he was set at liberty. That is exactly the position now. Many are imprisoned at the present time, but the time will come when they will be set at liberty. They are worthy. The apostle says, "With whom, if he should come soon, I will see you". Paul intended to come with him; he was a worthy young man and the greatest minister would gladly come with him.

C.A.M. Would it be that these great prophetic matters emphasize the Spirit of Jesus? It is not that we are occupied with events, figuring how they are going to result, but the very suffering in prison, etc., stresses the Spirit of Jesus.

J.T. I think so. The greatest servants are ready to join with these younger men, the lesser ones; that is, those who have lesser experience, perhaps. Paul says, "With whom, if he should come soon, I will see you". That is the merging, I think, of the elder servant with the younger man.

A.E.H. Would it work out too in a spiritual way, that as Timothy comes along Paul would be seen? The ministry is one, is it not?

J.T. Yes, it is. This epistle is to bring out how Paul is to be represented in Timotheus; so that if he come, Paul says, I will come. He sent Timothy to Corinth to represent him there before he went himself. They would well understand Paul's spirit by the presence of Timothy.

A.S.B. Do you think the apostle has that in mind in chapter 3?- He says in verse 10, "But thou hast been thoroughly acquainted with my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings", and then localities are

named in which he had suffered. Then he says, "But thou, abide in those things which thou hast learned".

J.T. That is helpful. The very localities in which the experiences were learned are mentioned.

A.A.T. Then it is all right to ask God to stop the war as soon as possible so that the young men may be set at liberty?

J.T. That is one of the most urgent causes you can set forth. There are so many in bondage and meetings are suffering consequently. Then there is the matter of the liberty of the seas, that we should be able to visit the brethren overseas, and they to visit us. These are urgent matters and I believe God would listen to us on these lines.

CALAMITY RESULTING IN FRUITFULNESS

1 Chronicles 7:20 - 27

I wish to speak of a well-known subject, that is, the believer's household, and for this I have selected this scripture in 1 Chronicles, which is largely a book of believer's households. It is rightly named Chronicles, and was undoubtedly written by one who was a householder. At any rate he was used by the Spirit to write about households; not as if he were to take up a directory in a city and pick out the names alphabetically, Scripture never moves on that principle; it takes account of the children of God, and any scriptural chroniclers have them in view. Hence many must be omitted in any such chronicle or census that may be made. God works on the principle of sovereign selection. We are regarded thus as the elect of God, which is not merely that we profess Christianity, but that we belong to the elect of God chosen before the foundation of the world; as if God looked down the ages and picked out the elect and named them, and then writes about them, speaks about their distinctiveness. Chronicles is a book of that kind, a book of families.

It is not written even on the principle of the firstborn; it is written on the principle of election. It is true, indeed, that the first man, Adam, heads the list, which would mean that although he was the first male sinner -- not the first sinner, but the first male sinner -- he is regarded by God as one of us, worthy of mention, worthy of heading the list. And so on the principle of election we have David coming in early. God has a right to select David, to write about him before He does about others who chronologically would come first, and He does so. But He also writes about Joseph, and I have read verses that speak about Joseph's family, that is, that part of it which comes under the head of Ephraim. I

want to make some remarks that I do not think will be wholly new, but I do think they will be practical. If we have not got families we belong to families; and if we do not belong to the divine family, God would desire to put us into it, because the matter is still open, the book is not yet closed.

So I have some remarks to make on the divine selection here of Ephraim, who had calamity in his house. The word "evil" here is "calamity". It says of his son that "he called his name Beriah, for he was born when calamity was in his house", 1 Chronicles 7:23. This was the son Ephraim's wife bore after the others were slain (verse 21). There are very few houses among us that have not experienced calamity, and these verses I hope will show that this matter in each of our houses, whether great or small, as taken to heart and taken up with God is going to result in enlargement. That is what is recorded for us in these verses down to the last son mentioned, namely, Joshua. They show that this house which had calamity in it took the matter up with God and found God and became enlarged, not in the sense of money or of man's learning, but in the sense of families. Race suicide is not according to God; any endeavour toward race suicide is foreign to God. God's thought is, "Be fruitful and multiply: swarm on the earth, and multiply on it", Genesis 9:7. That was said to the first man and wife. And so the increase here is in families.

God is thinking of persons, not of the area of the globe. It is a small planet, a small part of the system, one of the smallest I understand, so that God is not thinking of that. He is not thinking of land or of the seas or the mountains or the lakes, or even of the number of the stars, although they afford great variety which God takes notice of. "Star differs from star in glory"; that is a remarkable thing, God surely has some meaning in that. The stars refer to persons

typically. But He is not thinking of the heavenly bodies, save as part of His creation; they will come to an end really, the heavens and the earth will disappear; that is, those that now are. There will be new heavens and a new earth presently. But these bodies are there evidently to symbolize persons, those persons whom God had in mind before the creation of the stars or the heavens. So that the things that are made are not made of the things that do appear. We cannot tell just what they are made of; scientists cannot succeed in finding out all these things. But we know that God framed the worlds by His word; it does not say in that connection by His power, but by His word, meaning that His mind was in it. He is not telling us everything; indeed we do not need to know everything, especially when we know that they are going to disappear. We are concerned about persons, those that are to remain, those that are eternal. They are to remain in the sense of families, for we read of "every family"; God is the Father of every family.

So I am now speaking of Joseph's family, that is, Ephraim's branch of it. As I said, there is calamity in his house. It is a calamitous time; the world is full of calamities and they are not existent without God; not one of them has happened without God. Not a sparrow falls without Him; that is very comforting. So the calamities, if they fall on a Christian's household, do not happen accidentally at all, they happen by God, or at least by His knowledge. There are very grave ones, very sorrowful ones in houses, and that is why I have taken up Ephraim's house. We are told that he had been specially selected by God; he was put before his brother. Joseph did not wish it, another than Joseph wished it, and God used another, namely his father, to make the preference and to elevate Ephraim above Manasseh. Jacob was the one who did it.

That brings up much as to this family of which Joseph was the immediate head. In this book of Chronicles the families are subdivided, usually with heads. As you go over these names that I have read, you cannot think of them as all the sons of one man; they are his posterity, and in that sense his sons. Joseph had a great family history, a persecuted history; from the time he was seventeen years of age he was persecuted by his brothers. I do not believe any brother or sister, any man or woman who faithfully serves Christ evades persecution from his relatives; and no one experienced it more than Joseph. It continued for a long time too. His story is most interesting and profitable, because he is a type of Christ, the true Joseph. But eventually he was raised to the supreme place in Egypt, next to Pharaoh, so that he had a most exalted history, as well as, for a short time, a most outwardly degraded one. Ultimately he was raised to the position of second in the kingdom, and in that position he got a wife who bore him two children. One of these was Ephraim. He was born in Egypt and brought up there, as also his brother Manasseh, for Joseph remained in Egypt. He died there, and his generations, possibly most of those that I read of here, were also in Egypt. But they were, at least typically, of the family of God in Egypt, preserved there so that not a hair of their heads perished; showing that although we are in the world, we are not of it, and we are preserved in it as Christians. And so immediately Ephraim is born we are told his name, and that it means 'fruitfulness'. It really means 'double fruitfulness'. Of course it was prophetic. It is not like the ordinary names of men; the names given to God's people in Old Testament times were usually prophetic. It is simple to understand that a person who is foreknown of God before the foundation of the world is going to get some

prophetic reference as he is born. God has a name for him, and the name discloses the circumstances of his birth; but then, it is also prophetic. So Ephraim means 'double fruitfulness'. Well, that child must be watched and nurtured; God wills that that boy shall be elevated. And so in due time he was; he was put before Manasseh in spite of his father, showing how God over-rules fathers sometimes. We may claim rights in our children, but God says, I have rights in your children as well. So that we cannot regard them as we wish, we must regard them as God wishes. God put Ephraim before Manasseh, and all this must enter into the future history running down; it runs down to one of the greatest men in the Old Testament: that is Joshua. He is the last one mentioned here, Joshua the son of Nun. These are things of importance about Ephraim, and also about Joseph, although he was not without failure, which God did not allow to pass. He made a great failure in this matter of Ephraim, much greater than the surface would disclose. But though -he lived and died in Egypt, there is no evidence that he ever lost ground there, but rather the opposite; he gained there. He died in Egypt and was put into a coffin there; an ark it was really. He was a family man; he lived one hundred and ten years, and the grandchildren of Manasseh were born on his knees -- a very remarkable thing. He must have been a man of great affections to have time to lend his knees for that purpose. You may say, A grandfather would be likely to have affection; but Joseph had children born on his knees; and it is said in the last chapter of Genesis that he saw Ephraim's children of the third generation. He saw them and valued them, not exactly because of their number but because of their quality. Now Ephraim was elevated by God in this family, but at the time of which we are speaking there was

calamity in his house. As I said, there are a great many such today. Fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters have to be warned that we are in a world that was never so wicked before. The world has never before been so wicked as it is now, though things more wicked have been done in it, because here the Lord was crucified: "Where also their Lord was crucified". That is mentioned in regard of a city. There are other things that might be mentioned, and children are brought into this world in its terribly wicked state at this present time. But despite this there is a warning to fathers and mothers not to diminish their families or defeat God's purposes in regard of them. God could bring the children up in Egypt and preserve them there, and when the time came, save them out of it. Egypt, I apprehend, had become terrible in those days, and the Israelites had doubtless added to its wickedness. They had lived there a good many years, over four hundred, dating from Abraham. Did they not contribute something to the wickedness of Egypt? I am sure they did, and they are contributing to the wickedness of this world at the present time. I am not speaking against them. There is plenty being said against them; but they are not behind in sin, they are old in it, they are clever in it. But they are in purpose God's people, and eventually they are going to be saved out of this world. So it was that in the main Jacob's family was reared in Egypt, Joseph's family particularly; they were born and brought up there. We read of some of them in verse 20: "And the sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elad. And the men of Gath born in the land slew them, because they came down to take their cattle". That

is to say, these young men, or possibly men with families, went down and stole some cattle. They went down. It is not clear where they went from, whether out of Egypt itself or from elsewhere, when they stole some cattle in the land. The expression "the land" would probably allude to Canaan; it is not that land, it is the land. The reference is not that they stole cattle from the Egyptians, but that they left Egypt, or left somewhere, and stole cattle. I am alluding to what young boys and girls, or older ones, even married people are capable of doing. There might be some right attached to it; these cattle belonged to the land, and possibly the land was Canaan; so that it was Israel's potentially. But an ordinary court would not decide it that way. At any rate, the owners of the cattle slew them, that is what happened. There is no need to dwell too much on that, only to warn young people as to stealing.

Someone wrote to me today about a matter of sin, as to what should be done. Sometimes Scripture just says, Give it up. Oh, you say, but you must judge it! The brethren must come together so that the thing can be judged. But Ephesians says, "Let the stealer steal no more". That is all. It is a very good word, because there is so much done in the form of stealing. "Let the stealer steal no more". These men stole the cattle and they were slain for it. What I am saying is very practical, because we are apt to be stealers, takers-away of what does not belong to us, and especially to rob God. "Will a man rob God?" Malachi says. We may do that and God resents it. If we disregard the rights of God or take them away, God resents it. I am dwelling on that because it is so practical that we should be on our guard about stealing or doing things that are not fair, and bringing down calamities on our fathers' houses. Perhaps we get clear of the thing ourselves as young people and say, The results will not come

on me! But they may come on your father's house and he will feel it. Ephraim felt it; he was only a man. It says, "And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him". That shows there was good in Israel in those days. But now I pass on from the sons to the father. He is of Joseph, the grandson of Jacob, running back to Abraham. He is an outstanding man; he is elevated, put even above his brother Manasseh. His name means 'fruitfulness', as I said, and that fruitfulness is to go on; it is not to drop out with these sons that were slain. The family must be kept on, and hence the next verses tell us how it was kept on; the names of the sons are given and of their sister. This prophecy of 'double fruitfulness' must be verified. The word comes from God, and God is going to see to it that there are many of the sons of Israel. Scripture speaks of the myriads of Ephraim; that is a big thought. What I am saying is to enlarge us far beyond our own families; it is what the families are to be to God, the myriads of Ephraim. These are they that Moses was speaking about -- not the boys that would steal cattle and were slain for it. "The myriads of Ephraim" is an allusion to the divine blessing, the blessing of Joseph. So that after these sons were slain we are told that Ephraim's wife conceived and bore a son and he called his name Beriah, "because it went evil with his house". That is to say, life comes in in Beriah in the time of calamity; the calamity is bearing fruit. God is being sought; the brethren are coming to him. How important it is, dear brethren, that when calamities happen, whatever form they take, the brethren should surround us; that we should open the doors to them and let them help us if they can. And they can. The brethren have great ability to help. But let it be known that the calamity is taken to God and that

His rights are recognized in it. So the brethren surround him, "his brethren came to comfort him".

Then there is this other son, the family is replenished. There is a sister too, and a number more are mentioned, because it is to be double fruitfulness. We are to look out for that, for double fruitfulness that is to come to us as we bow to the will of God in calamities. The world is full of them and the brethren are not escaping, but we have to look for what is to come out of them. Do they mean that our families are to die in forgetfulness? No, they are to grow, to bear fruit upwards through the exercise that we go through with God, and the comfort of the brethren. God is the God of all comfort, especially in families, because God is the Head of every family. The family idea is His own and He is determined to have it continue, so that eternity will be marked by families. The prophetic families must come to light. Some of them are slain, but God will raise up fruit as a result of that. In fact the Lord Jesus was slain; not rightly -- He was murdered -- but His death has borne much fruit, as it says, "Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit", John 12:24. That is the principle, much fruit. So it says in verse 24, "And his daughter was Sheerah; and she built Bethhoron the nether, and the upper, and Uzzen-sheerah". That is to say she was a builder, which is a very important matter for sisters. It comes out in the book of Ruth how certain sisters built up the house of Israel. David came out of it. It is God's way that calamitous things, humbling things, become the means in His hand, as the brethren surround us and He is appealed to and owned, of fruitfulness not only in quantity but in quality. Here we have a sister who built two towns, the upper and the lower, which is a good suggestion; because if we build too far up we are apt to be building in our pride, but

the lower would be foundational. If you go in for the heavenly, be sure you build foundationally or you will have a fall. So that let us go on quietly and peaceably and humbly. If you are going to build at all -- I refer to the sisters -- build foundationally, and let the top story come in in its time.

Then we have this list of sons from verse 25: "And his son was Rephah, and Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son, Laadan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son, Nun his son, Joshua his son". Where names are repeated in families it would mean there are two sets of families, or several sets, so that the name is resumed. We have, for instance, Shuthelah in verse 20, and then we have it again in verse 21. That does not mean there were two Shuthelahs in the same actual family; they were descendants. It is to show they were great men in their families; they were leaders or heads, a most important thing, especially in the assembly, to have those who can be trusted for judgment. Finally we come to Joshua, the son of Nun. It is not an accident that he is here, he is an outstanding man. He is here because he descends from a man with a calamity in his house, who got to God about it and whose brethren came to comfort him. So let us disclose these matters to one another, as it says, "Confess therefore your offences to one another, and pray for one another", James 5:16. Let us open our hearts to one another and not hide things too much from the brethren. There are things to be hid, things that would do harm if we advertised them; but there are things to advertise, to be made known so that the brethren can pray for us. At the same time God kept a secret for thousands of years. He did not say anything about the mystery for thousands of years, He kept it in His heart. God conceals things; kings or wise men open them up. That is the way. That is, kings, such as apostles and great men of God, are

able to do things; they are used of God to disclose things when the time comes, the fulness of time. God divides time and gives to each great thing its own time. So we have Joshua just mentioned here; he is the son of Ephraim away down the line. He is first mentioned in Exodus 17, so that evidently he was born in Egypt, and he became a great general in the army of God. He conquered Canaan. His name is just mentioned here in its place in the family, but it opens up wonderful history, not only on earth but in heaven, the fact that this son of Ephraim was the great military man in Israel. He conquered Canaan. He is a type of Christ as the Conqueror who conquers heaven as well as earth. The great Conqueror will come out presently riding on a white horse and the armies of heaven will come out with Him on white horses. But here we have just Joshua the son of Nun, that is all. Elsewhere we have great things about him, looking on to the Lord Jesus, as I have said. I am only speaking of him now that we might see what may accrue even though the worst things happen in our families. One speaks about these things feelingly, that if we are with God about them they will come out so as to glorify Him, and God will enlarge His family through the calamities. That is the thing, there is glory in the families; God is glorified in His families. Every family in heaven and on earth is named of Him. May God bless this word to us!

LIBERTY IN SUFFERING

2 Corinthians 12:7 - 10; Acts 16:19 - 25

I wish to speak about liberty, liberty wherewith Christ sets His people free. We may possess it and yet be hindered in it by external circumstances. If the enemy cannot rob us of the liberty in principle, he may rob us of the enjoyment of it. I wish to speak of the enjoyment of it, continuing even although there may be external pressure that the enemy would use to hinder us in it. It has cost the Lord much that we should have it. He died in order that we should have it. Many were in bondage because of fear of death, and it may be so now. All their lifetime, we read, they were subject to bondage through the fear of death, but Christ abolished death. It cost Him His life to do that, that through death He might destroy him who had the might of death to deliver those who all their lifetime were subject to bondage through fear of death. I just touch on that; doubtless most of us have had the experience of it, but not, surely, through the whole of our lives until now; that would not be characteristic of a Christian. It was characteristic of those who belonged to God before Christ died, but certainly not since; nor should any true believer in Christ have the fear of death nor any bondage connected with that fear.

As I said, it cost the Lord His life to liberate us from the fear of death, and it has cost the Spirit, too, something to liberate us; for our liberty is in the Spirit and we are to stand fast in it. It is only by the Spirit we can do so. We are to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free; He has set us free in freedom, a most precious designation of the great fact of our liberty. But as I was saying, it has cost Christ His life; and it has cost the Spirit

something too to maintain us in liberty. Then it has cost us ourselves something, for there must be some correspondence in us, dear brethren, to what it cost divine Persons to secure any given thing for us; and that correspondence comes about through light as to the thing itself that causes fear, whatever it may be, whether death or bondage to the world or any other matter. Light comes to us and the Spirit operates in us in relation to that light. Without the Spirit light would fade. With the possession of the Spirit, light normally does not fade; it shines brighter and brighter until the day be fully come. That is through the Spirit operating in the believer.

And so I have undertaken tonight in the scriptures read to speak of liberty, preservation in liberty from any external circumstances; chiefly governmental ones, but also persecutional. The first scripture read, that is, 2 Corinthians 12, treats of governmental circumstances which cause bondage in those who should be in liberty. The apostle Paul serves us well in many respects, but in this respect especially, that he is a model for Christians. He is a model of Christianity in its varied forms. He became affected by governmental circumstances though he was an apostle, and these scriptures show that the circumstances would tend to rob him of his liberty, the liberty which he had in Christ and which he valued, and of which he has taught us much. In speaking of models, the Lord Jesus is, of course, the Model of everything that is of God in the Christian. It is so as to liberty. Thus we read in Matthew 12 that He went on the Sabbath day through the cornfields. We are not told just why He did it, but He did it. We know now why He did it: He wished to set an example to His disciples of liberty from legality, from worthless legality. He wished them to be free to use the creation of God as needed. He created everything; He made the

corn to grow, and there was the field of corn growing; it was usable, and the Lord went into the field and walked through it. He did not eat the corn; He did not pluck it; He intended to liberate the disciples. They were hungry, and they were not to suffer from hunger because it was the Sabbath. The Lord tells us in that connection that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath; therefore it is not intended to deprive those who are of faith; to rob them of the creation, of the blessing, of the fulness of the earth. The earth is the Lord's, we are told, and the fulness thereof. So the Lord walked through the cornfield; He did not pluck the corn, but His disciples did. He did not tell them to do it; He did not tell them to walk through the cornfield, but He intended them to do it. Though He did not tell them to pluck the corn, they took the liberty of doing it and so did more than He did; they plucked the ears of corn and rubbed them in their hands and ate them. That is what the Lord intended. He intended that they should be in liberty to that extent; that is, He intended to indicate that the fruit of the earth may be availed of without legal restriction. There are those that do not eat meat on Friday; that is a legal restriction in which there is no value whatever; it robs a creature of God of what God has provided to support his life. There are many other illustrations of damaging legal bondage, but the Lord illustrates the liberty He would have us to enjoy.

And so Paul enjoyed that liberty, as well as many other Christians. The Lord used Paul to unfold this matter in the epistle to the Galatians. But when we come to this governmental matter that I have read of in 2 Corinthians 12 the apostle is in danger of being inflated. He was, after all, a man like ourselves, as is said of Elijah, "a man of like passions to us", James 5:17. The Lord never was. He never

sinned. "Which of you convinces me of sin?" He says. No one. He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners". That is Jesus, but that was not Paul. Paul was not made higher than the heavens, although he was made as high as the third heaven, and that is the point here. He was caught up into paradise, but caught up as far as the third heaven. What the measurement in literal altitude was, I cannot say. It is not given. The apostle said he could not even tell whether he was in the body or out of the body when he was caught up. Such are creature limitations. But still, he was in that elevation, and he said he heard unutterable things there, things that are not lawful for a man to utter. But he heard them. He does not tell us what he saw, it is what he heard; not that there are not things to be seen up there; of course there are, but the point is what he heard. He makes much of it in relation to his veracity; he says in verse 31 of the previous chapter, "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus knows -- he who is blessed for ever -- that I do not lie". See how important it was to the apostle's mind, so important that he says it as before God, that God knew that he did not lie. He was going to relate the actual truth and he relates it, and that is just what we get in the early verses of the next chapter. He says, "I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I know not, or out of the body I know not, God knows;) such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man, (whether in the body or out of the body I know not, God knows;) that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable things said which it is not allowed to man to utter. Of such a one I will boast, but of myself I will not boast, unless in my weaknesses. For if I shall desire to boast, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth; but I forbear, lest any one should think as to me above what he sees

me to be, or whatever he may hear of me. And that I might not be exalted by the exceeding greatness of the revelations ..." (verses 2 - 7).

That is the point I had in mind in reading this whole section: "And that I might not be exalted". You will notice, as I have already pointed out, the stress he lays on truth. What he said was the truth; he calls God to witness that it was the truth. Let no one quibble or question the verity of the statements here as to Paul's exaltation; it was as high as the third heaven, and it was in paradise. Whether in the body or out of it he did not know, but it was so; personally he was there. So that now I come to my point: "And that I might not be exalted". This is a governmental matter, and it is a most solemn matter, that such a man as Paul -- the great apostle Paul -- should be subject or made subject to governmental suffering: to a thorn for the flesh, a messenger of Satan, he calls it, an emissary of the devil. As one might say, God took this emissary out of Satan's hand to use it against Paul for the moment, so that he might be saved from talking about himself or his exceptionalness in the service of God; about the fact that he, and only he, was caught up so high, caught up to the third heaven and into paradise. There are the two things: one is as far as the third heaven, and the other is into paradise. He was actually in the place called paradise.

Well, he came back. It happened fourteen years before he wrote this; but the thorn for the flesh happened then too. It was not just when he was writing; it was immediately after the exaltation had happened. And so it is, dear brethren, that in our experiences as Christians we come under governmental restrictions and sometimes under governmental sufferings. I mean by that, or rather the Scripture means by it, that a thing happens to you, not because you have sinned, but because you may

do so; you are in danger of it. It is a very precious thought that I am saved from it through a governmental action; as if God were to say, I cannot trust you with those revelations, for you are likely to talk about them and become inflated through them; and I do not want you to be inflated because I lose My servant if you do; I lose you temporarily at least, so I am not going to let you be inflated. To guard against that I am sending an emissary from the devil -- a most terrible thought! David says, "Let me fall, I pray thee, into the hand of Jehovah" (1 Chronicles 21:13); not into the hands of men, and certainly not into the hands of the devil, but into the hand of the Lord; and it was into the hand of the Lord, so to speak, that Paul fell. God took him in hand and He sent this emissary to him. How soon after I cannot just say, but I should say quite near the time of the revelation this emissary of the devil was sent to Paul to limit him so that he should not be inflated, that he should not be exalted above measure; that he should remain a valued servant, an honoured servant, a loved servant; that he should be in liberty, too, in the suffering. I cannot define just what the thorn for the flesh was; I cannot just explain to you physically what it was. Possibly it was something that he suffered from in his eyes, a very tender part. If God is going to afflict us -- and He does not afflict willingly -- but if He does, if He wishes to reach a man quickly, He touches his eyes. In fact He uses this matter as a picture of Himself in relation to His people, that they are the apple of His eye. Let nobody touch them with impunity! Nobody can! Very likely the devil was allowed to touch, indeed sent to touch his eye or eyes; I would say his eyes, going by the epistle to the Galatians; Paul says there, alluding to their regard for him, "that, if possible, plucking out your own eyes ye would have given them to me". It is pretty safe to

say, as others of reliable judgment have said, that this must have been what he is alluding to.

And so for this cause, he says, a messenger of Satan was sent to me. Why was it that a great preacher, a great teacher, a great lover of God and of His people, a most effective servant in every way should be suffering from a thorn? He says, I asked the Lord three times to remove it; a very good example in regard to prayer. If anything acute has happened you ask the Lord three times to remove it, and if He does not remove it you say, Lord, it is Your matter; I will wait for You. How safe you are then! "For this I thrice besought the Lord that it might depart from me". Three times; the measure is set for us. The Lord in the garden prayed to the Father three times: "My Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me". It is a governmental matter. If God has sent it in love, well, pray about it of course; the door is always open to us to pray, but at the same time the spiritual man will know that if the third time is not answered the Lord is going to leave it. He says, in effect, You will need it.

In saying this you will know what I am speaking of. I am just going over well-known ground, although it is often healthful to go over ground already covered and learn the lesson well. And so, as I said, this is governmental, and the apostle's comment is, "For this I thrice besought the Lord that it might depart from me. And he said to me, My grace suffices thee; for my power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may dwell upon me". This is a transaction with the Lord Jesus, some day or some night, between Himself and the apostle. Well, you say, what is your point now? My point is that someone is suffering under the government of God, in some circumstance -- business or family -- whatever it be. It is governmental; and he is likely

to lose his joy if he has not already lost it. He is likely to lose his liberty in prayer if he has not already lost it. He is likely to lose his power in ministry and service to the saints if he has not already lost it. The Lord says to Paul, You have asked Me three times about this: "My grace suffices thee; for my power is perfected in weakness". Paul might have said, It is a hard experience, I have never had the like before; although he had had most severe experiences, as I need not tell you. If you look at the previous chapter to this, what a list he gives us of experiences in suffering! Remarkable! He has gone over the ground in suffering, and then he says, I come to visions and revelations; not now sufferings, but visions and revelations. But then, he would mean he had sufferings in it too -- this thorn! That is what I am speaking of. It is a new experience. Five times he had forty stripes save one, he tells us earlier, yet he did not ask the Lord to reduce them at all. No; he left it and went through. But this time he is smarting from the thorn as he is in danger of being exalted by the greatness of the revelations. That is what I am speaking of. If you are in this case in any sense, suffering under the government of God through circumstances arising from household or personal or business matters, or whatever it be, get to the Lord about it. Do not lose your liberty; do not lose your usefulness. Continue in usefulness; increase in usefulness; and the Lord lays down the way. He says, as it were, It is a bitter experience, I know; it is a bitter experience, but "my grace suffices thee; for my power is perfected in weakness". This is all the Lord says; a short explanation and the matter is settled.

And now, what is Paul saying about it? Is he just saying, as we sometimes say, Well, that is a short or rather curt answer to me in a most serious prayer, in regard to what I have prayed about most seriously

and feelingly? But that is all the Lord says; He says, so to speak, The matter is settled from My point of view. And Paul says, It is settled from mine! That is victory. Let the thorn be severe or otherwise, he says, it is settled for me. "My grace suffices thee", are the Lord's words, "for my power is perfected in weakness". And Paul responds, "Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may dwell upon me". What an issue and what a conclusion! How it points to the reality and power of Christianity and what Christ can be to us; what He is to thousands of the brethren in their present sufferings! How many prayers have gone up for the cessation of these terrible things that are happening! The Lord says to any one of us suffering in such a way, "My grace suffices thee; for my power is perfected in weakness". And I answer, "Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may dwell upon me". One might enlarge on the power of Christ resting on him; surely it is something that is visible. If we had been accustomed to meeting the apostle as he moved about among the saints in these circumstances, we should have seen him suffering. There must have been the evidence of suffering every day and night and at every meeting, doubtless; but then there would be more than that. The power of Christ would be visible. What victory! What a recompense! it is like what Peter says, "For the Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God rests upon you". The idea is that the Spirit of Christ rests on you under certain circumstances; when one suffers as a Christian one is glorified externally in a moral way. So Peter says further, "But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but glorify God in this name". And so here, "Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of the Christ may dwell upon

me". So that if we had seen Paul at any meeting or met him on the road we should have noticed his suffering, but also seen the power of Christ resting there; a victorious man, suffering under the government of God, but the glory of Christ resting upon him in the support he gets from the priestly grace of Christ. "My grace suffices thee".

Well, now, that is the first part of my subject. The next is a matter of persecutional sufferings. Someone may be saying, We do not know anything of these now; but I am not one of those who would say that. They are quite current. Secret persecution, if not open, is quite current in word or phrase or look. There are many ways of expressing persecution toward another, and the persecution carries with it suffering. And so I have read from Paul again. I have read about him in Acts 16 where he had the most intense sufferings, as you will remember. It is the incident of the jailor, well known to many of us. Myriads have found blessing in the gospel from this section, but what I am going to speak about now is the liberty this persecuted man, or these persecuted men, had in spite of their sufferings. The Spirit of God enlarges on the incident. It is said in the chapter which I read, "And her masters, seeing that the hope of their gains was gone, having seized Paul and Silas, dragged them into the market before the magistrates; and having brought them up to the praetors, said, These men utterly trouble our city, being Jews, and announce customs which it is not lawful for us to receive nor practise, being Romans" (verses 19 - 21). I might observe here, dear brethren, that the word "Romans" denotes a class of people who have had to do with the people of God adversely; they have also had to do thus with Christ Himself personally. They have had to do with the people of God for twenty centuries and here is another example of their persecution, that continues

and will continue until the time comes when retribution will come down from heaven for it. There is no other such celebration seen in the book of Revelation as that which arises from the destruction of the harlot, the Roman harlot described in that book whose existence has run on for centuries. I mention it because the word "Roman" comes in here. Philippi was a sort of Roman colony; the inhabitants of such colonies had the distinction of being Roman citizens. There are many who have distinctions of that kind now, religious distinctions, Roman distinctions. No true spiritual man wants any such distinction: "being Romans". That is what they say here. They say, "These men ... being Jews announce customs". Paul is regarded as a Jew here, and so is Silas. They are, of course, Christians and are persecuted by the Romans. Pilate would have spared the Lord, would have released Him, but he did not. He is not therefore immune from penalty because he would have wished to release Him; he put Him to death; he crucified the Lord of glory. Whatever his inward motives were, or feelings, he did that. In his mind the Lord was a Jew.

So that is just the issue today. They say, "These men utterly trouble our city, being Jews, and announce customs which it is not lawful for us to receive nor practise, being Romans". That is the position. As I say, there are those who are dignified in this sense, not because they are Roman citizens, but because they are Roman religionists. There are only a few Roman citizens literally, but religiously there are three hundred millions of them on the earth according to the statistics. This is a most serious matter, dear brethren, as to how things are today. It is said they refused the customs of Paul; they were the customs of heavenly ones, because Paul and Silas, his companion in service, were representatives

of heaven upon earth. And this is what happened to them: "And the crowd rose up too against them; and the praetors, having torn off their clothes, commanded to scourge them"; that is the first thing, that they commanded to scourge them. "And having laid many stripes upon them" (we are not told how many) "they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely; who, having received such a charge, cast them into the inner prison, and secured their feet to the stocks". This is what happened to the two most heavenly men on the earth. Certainly Paul was the most heavenly, the most representative of God and of Christ on the earth, and this is what these Roman citizens, so-called by themselves, did to them. But it says, "And at midnight Paul and Silas, in praying, were praising God with singing, and the prisoners listened to them". Can I say anything more noble or dignified or more glorious of any Christian? They are suffering peculiarly, in the bitterest way, but they are not hindered in their souls. They are not deprived of their liberty. They are not allowing their sufferings to hinder or interfere with their spiritual liberty. They are in suffering, indeed, but they are in liberty. They are heavenly men, they belong to the heavenly choir, whatever their persecution may be. How they have spread abroad in the earth! That is what I wanted just to leave with us all. Whatever we are suffering from governmentally from God, let us not lose our liberty. Let us be out and out. Our liberty cost Christ too much for us to lose it, or to allow it to be lost or damaged, or to allow the service of God to be damaged. And then, if I have been persecuted for the Lord's sake in any sense, let me not lose my liberty from this either. I am likely to be revengeful. If a person persecutes me and I have more power than he, I am likely to

be revengeful. But "Vengeance is mine", God says, Deuteronomy 32:35. Do not attempt vengeance; do not attempt revenge against any act of persecution; you will lose your liberty if you do. "The Spirit of glory and the Spirit of God" rests upon us in the persecution. But then, there is more than that; the position that belongs to God is secured to Him as we are maintained in liberty. And so these two dear men -- one never tires of speaking of them: "At midnight Paul and Silas, in praying, were praising God with singing, and the prisoners listened to them". Wonderful servants! Did any greater strains of music ever pierce heaven than from those two dear men from that prison in Philippi? The Lord Jesus uttered from the cross such words: He says to His Father, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... And thou art holy, thou that dwellest amid the praises of Israel", Psalm 22:1, 3. That is where God dwells. If you want to know where He dwells, that is where He dwells; dwelling too, of course, amid a suffering people, but it is in grace He does that. If you want to know where He dwells, it is in the praises of His people. He was dwelling in the praises of Paul and in the praises of Silas as they sang from the prison in Philippi on that night never to be forgotten.

And so, dear brethren, the Spirit of God would put it on us, whatever it is that is causing the suffering; if I am persecuted in any degree, let me be victorious. Let me sing; let me sing praises. Let us be victorious in feelings. Let the feelings of sufferings be drowned by the songs of praise that issue from the hearts of the lovers of Christ and the lovers of God. So that this is what comes out in this remarkable passage. It is a question of sufferings from persecution, but liberty is there; the liberty of the servants is there in good measure. The prisoners heard, but heaven also heard. That was

the victory. We are not told that the prisoners heard the groans of the sufferers at all, but the praises of the sufferers -- they heard those in the prison.

May God bless His word!

PROSPERITY

1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; 3 John 2:1 - 14

I wish to speak about prosperity. The first feature of what I have to say stands, as you will observe, in connection with "the collection for the saints". None are more worthy of it; but my main thought is prosperity as it stands in this connection. The verse read contains one of the 'concernings' in the epistle, and it is in relation to the collection. The word "concerning" affords a certain heading for subjects in the letter, which is a lengthy epistle subdivided into subjects introduced by this word, as if it were needful either because the saints had written to the apostle about some matter, or because he knew of the conditions requiring to be dealt with. As it is always in the history of the saints, there are things that are distressing from time to time, such as are called a "present necessity" in chapter 7. What the "present necessity" in these parts is I am not undertaking to say, but this epistle furnishes us with an example of how current necessities or consequent ones have to be dealt with in an authoritative sense; because the idea of authority must have place, and we have the authority, not by human appointment, but by the Lord, as He says in the gospel of Mark: "having ... given to his bondmen the authority" (Mark 13:34). That is, there is only one. It came from God through Christ and it extends to the bondmen; not simply to the apostles but to the bondmen, those who are entirely subservient to the will of God. It works out through appointed vessels, for the apostle in this epistle says that if anyone takes the place of being spiritual, or a prophet, "Let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord's commandment" (1 Corinthians 14:37). You could hardily get two words put together more pungent in that sense: the "Lord's commandment"; not

simply Christ's commandment, but the Lord's. So that what comes in the way of authority on this principle is to be observed, and if it be resisted or disregarded in any way it implies penalty. Let us not exclude the idea of penalty in this present dispensation; if it is not executed now it may be deferred. Deferred penalty remains; it is only a matter of time. So that in this epistle we have deferred penalty: "If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha", that is, when the Lord comes. It is deferred.

Well, the verse read in chapter 16 has a "concerning", and it is the heading of a certain subject, namely, the collection for the saints. It is not just "a collection", the object left hanging in the air. Is it for the levites, or for the saints? Is it for the needy? Well, it is for the saints here. There are no more worthy persons, and the thought ought to stimulate us as to the collection. Having the idea of prosperity in mind, I would point out, dear brethren, that the apostle is practical in connecting it with time, and with defined time: the first day of the week. That gives the first day of the week a certain status, though not an official or legal one. The Lord's day has its status too, but it is not the day that the apostle brings into this verse. That day is only mentioned once in the Scriptures. We might have expected that as the apostle was dealing with this matter in a formal sense he would have brought in the Lord's day; but he does not, he brings in the first day of the week. John brings in the Lord's day, and it is a confirmed day because he was characterized by it. Whatever we deal with as representing the mind of God or the mind of heaven needs confirmation, and so the Lord's day needs confirmation, that is to say, in the sense of subjective confirmation. John did not specify what he meant when he said he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. If anyone had

been there he would have had confirmation of it. If anyone had said to him, John, explain to us the Lord's day; can you point it out on the calendar? he would have said, No; there is no almanac that has it; no calendar has it. What authority has it then? How is it to be understood? We have according to Galatians that the assemblies in Galatia -- of which there were more than one -- observed days and months and times and years. If we were to enquire from any assembly in Galatia as to any given day, Why do you keep this day? we should probably have the answer, Well, it is a very recognized matter here, not simply by one of us but generally; and so in regard to the months that are kept, and the times and the years, it is very definite. Yet these designations of time are not confirmed in any spiritual sense at all. Years have rolled by and the days and the months and the times and the years have been added to ecclesiastically, but with no spiritual confirmation. Now it is clear from the epistle to the Galatians that we are, as Christians, to be free of all that. We are to be free of what has no spiritual confirmation or, I might add, scriptural authority. But when John uses the expression "the Lord's day", were I with him I would enquire as to his meaning. He says, "I became in the Spirit on the Lord's day". Suppose I had been with him on that particular day and seen how he acted on it, how he spent it, what occupied him, I should have some impression as to what the day meant. There was a subjective confirmation of it; one man, anyway, was in the Spirit on it. But the Galatians had no such confirmation, and I speak of it in this way, dear brethren, so that we might in a very practical way be free of these days and months and times and years, of which the apostle spoke. They have become so numerous and extensive that they have involved the whole world system, as I might say, with no confirmation from the Lord. If

we are to be taken up with them we shall be engulfed with them. But you may say, Why should the apostle say elsewhere to the Roman Christians that one brother may observe a day and another brother not, but regard every day alike? One brother observes and another does not. Why should the apostle admit of these things at Rome and not in the Galatian assemblies? The simple fact is that the apostle's letter to the Romans is setting up, among other things, individual Christianity. He is telling them that there is such a thing as having faith and having it to yourself; there is such a thing as one brother observing a day and another not. Why should he be allowing that? Well, it is to bring out the flexibility of the truth in certain applications of it, that the persons believing in it are of immense importance to heaven, every one of them. That is to say, each is a Christian; each is a brother; Christ has died for him. He has no personal friends in his special exercises, he has no conferences, he is of no party, he has no following, he is not influencing anyone into his way of thinking. He is in principle in the realm of the Spirit, the realm of faith, which God has inaugurated: "Jesus the leader and completer of faith". The apostle is making much of everyone that has faith, making much of him by himself; he is so valuable, even the weak brother, for whom Christ died. And so we have this first day of the week. Is the apostle telling the Corinthians that they are to mark it on the almanac to be observed as the sun rises on that particular day? No, he is not meaning that at all; he is not speaking of legal observances. He is implying in what he directs them to do as to the collection for the saints that there is such a day as the first day of the week and that they know and recognize it. It is not binding them, it is not a party matter, it is Christianity. It involves Christian sentiment,

if I may stress that expression, for why should we not have sentiment? What would we be without it? The Spirit of God in each of us promotes such a thing as that, He witnesses to each one in himself that he is one of God's children. He is making much of the individuality of the saints. And then He brings in the collection and He says that it is to be on the first day of the week; He does not say on the Lord's day. Why should He not say the Lord's day? He uses in chapter lithe very same type of expression, only instead of the Lord's day it is the Lord's supper. It is the dominical day, a very beautiful thought, that is, the day that is characterized, not by Christ, but by the Lord, by what belongs to Him. This day belongs to the Lord. It is a question of what each individual saint makes of it. It is no matter of a national day nor of a local day, nor of a local position or holiday. It is a day that belongs to the Lord. How does it belong to the Lord? The trains run as usual, thousands of things happen as usual. These things do not afford any suggestion of authority for the day, and they are likely to influence those that do afford such suggestion. I am seeking to bring out the greatness of a Christian, weak though he be -- what he effects by his estimate of the day, that it is the Lord's day; it belongs to the Lord. There is such a thing as that, that heaven is intervening and taking on that day. But how? Not by appointing it officially or legally. It is established in one man, John the prophet. He says it was that to him. Nobody else says so, showing what one Christian may effect as he responds to what is presented to him subjectively. He confirms it, that there is such a thing as that as an actual fact, in a confirmatory way and in an enjoyable way, for what confirms me in heaven is enjoyable. As I said, the apostle Paul uses the same expression without the word 'day' for the dominical supper. These

are precious thoughts and have confirmation in persons. No one person can keep the Lord's supper, it is a collective thought; but the observance of the Lord's day is not necessarily collective, it is an individual matter. John expresses it when in the isle of Patmos as a prisoner. The prison does not express it, no, indeed! but John does.

But here in 1 Corinthians 16 it is not the dominical day, it is "the first day of the week", and I wish to enlarge on that for a moment, dear brethren, because of its bearing as over against the Lord's day. The Lord's day is in time, and obviously it will have no place eternally. There will be the day of the Lord, but that will be introductory, involving judgment. There will be the day of God too, and the day of eternity. But the Lord's day is a term that is not applied save as to an individual Christian, a very remarkable fact, and I want to be one of those Christians in confirming that there is such a day. It is a special day to me; if it cannot be carried out externally, it is a real thing to me in my soul, as it was to John. He was not causing that the prison where he was should keep it; he made no suggestion of such a thing. It was in himself. But the first day of the week is brought in here, in 1 Corinthians 16, as to how it is to be carried out in the affections of each individual saint. The point is not that he is going to break bread on that day, it is something else that he is going to do, and it refers to temporal matters, to money. It refers to money that he has been prospered with, not to a legacy. Understand, I am using words designedly to make the thing clear. It is not exactly what is 'left' to a man, although that might be included; it is a question of his prosperity, that in which he is prospered in the ordering of God. It does not say in the original that God has prospered him, the idea is that he is a prospered person; and his prosperity has to do with the collection,

and it is to be affected by the first day of the week. That is to say, he is a brother who has spiritual sentiment. He is looking on into eternal things. The steward that the Lord brings forward in Luke 16 had in mind eternal habitations; he knew that his money or whatever material wealth he had would have no value in eternal habitations; but he used what came to him by his own cleverness in view of a latter day. "Eternal tabernacles" is the expression the Lord uses, and He wants us to become familiar with Scriptural expressions. "Eternal tabernacles" -- what a thought that is! What an incentive as outlook! What greatness we are coming into! We are going to be received there. You do not want to have to knock at the door or present your credentials; the idea is that we shall be "received" into eternal habitations. The Lord Jesus was received up in glory, and so are we to be received. The poor man Lazarus was received: he was carried by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. What a thought that is! What a reception it suggests! Carried into Abraham's bosom: may we not dwell on it as indicating how we are to be received? The idea of the bosom of the Father -- the Lord Jesus is said to be there, in the bosom of the Father, that is His place; but what a thought that we are loved as the Son is loved! What a prospect! How it should affect us as regards what we are earning, and what we are doing with what we are earning in a material sense.

Now "collection" is the word used here, and it is used twice. The apostle says there is to be none "when I come", no collection, meaning that it was no authoritative matter. It was not the Lord's day as such he had in his mind, it was the first day of the week. He is assuming that the saints are going to be affected by what he is writing. And so the question is as to the prosperity and what is accruing

from it, what use is being made of that with which each is prospered? It is not said that God prospers us, but right Christian sentiment and understanding would say, It is God's prosperity; it is material blessing that God affords us. Perhaps you say, I applied for a position and I got it and I lost it. Why should you lose it? But perhaps you say, I got a position through prayer. A Christian who has the first day of the week in mind, who enters into the spirit of the first day of the week and is thinking of eternal habitations, such a man is having to do with God about his matters and he prays. Such a man would say, I made a sale through prayer; I made a purchase through prayer; I am accustomed to doing things that way and I am prospered. Can I leave God out of that? I do not leave God out, I am in the strongest way bringing Him in. I am not thinking of losing the position, I am thinking of what I am going to do with the proceeds, with the prosperity; I am with God. I am not going to reckon on the basis of Monday morning, or of rent day, or tax day; I am going to reckon on the basis of the first day of the week.

I think you understand me, dear brethren. I am not seeking to interest the natural mind; but that in this matter God is thinking about local conditions and general conditions, and about persons and the whole assembly; and He is thinking of how the proceeds are to be used. Is the enquiry on our side: Will it mean an increased number of dresses or cars, or increased importance in business circles or in acquiring neighbours? No, that will not do. It is a question of the first day of the week, and of being surrounded, as Hebrews 12 says, with a great "cloud of witnesses". That is on this first day of the week; John and Paul and Peter and all the saints come into the cloud of witnesses; not that they are looking on, but they are witnesses to this great

matter, and we are going to be caught up together with them to be with the Lord. I am thinking of that, of being like Christ forever, of being amongst the sons of God and He in the midst of us. There is a great cloud of witnesses and I want to be with them, to add to the cloud, because everybody that is affected by any particular testimony adds to the witnesses. "For in the power of this the elders have obtained testimony" (Hebrews 11:2): that is the idea, the elders. And so I am affected in this way and so are all the brethren. It is the first day of the week we are thinking of, it is that particular day, and I have sentiment about it. I have a long outlook, I am looking on to eternity, to the eternal day. So if I am requested to work on the Lord's day, and I should get twice as much for it as for Thursday or Friday, what am I going to do about that? I am speaking practically; we are tested by these things, as to whether we are selfish, whether we are denying the Lord in this matter of days or time for the sake of what we are getting, and thus losing ground among the saints and losing ground in heaven, losing status.

So in the third epistle of John we have this same word, "prosper". It is written to the special brother, Gaius, "whom", says the apostle, "I love in truth". You can see how authoritative persons such as I have been speaking of single out persons who are lovable, lovable as in the truth. The apostle goes on to say immediately about this brother, that he desires his prosperity in all things. The Darby Translation says, "Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers". Now here it is not simply a matter of making money, making a bigger salary, but that in all things I may prosper and be in health as my soul prospers. So that we have another point of view, as to a brother who loves the truth and is

known universally. John has a good deal to say about him. When you can speak freely to a brother about himself, and the things in him that are worthy and commendable and honourable, that brother is worth loving. He is trustworthy. That is what this brother was, known to the apostle John. He says to him, "Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers". Notice the individuality of it. He is not building up any partisan views, or building a brother up in his own mind in relation to others who admire him -- one of the most baneful things -- a circle of admirers. That is not in mind at all. It is an individual matter here, and I am aiming at that, dear brethren, that we might be built up individually and then go on to the collective side; and first as regards love of the truth. Gaius is looked at as loved in the truth, he is lovable in that connection.

And then the apostle says, "I desire that in all things" -- whatever it be: my business matters, family matters, including marital matters, assembly matters, and if I have gift or ability or if I am an elder, these matters too -- "that in all things thou shouldest prosper". It is to accredit the man. You say, Is he accrediting the man to himself? Yes; to strengthen him in his soul as regards what he is going on with. In everything I am handling I am to be prospering. If I am not handling anything I am not prospering much. The Scriptures contemplate men of affairs and particularly spiritual men of affairs. Some have too much, perhaps, but nevertheless it is an honourable thing to have affairs, a lot of things to do. Someone has said, If you want anything done, ask a busy man to do it; he is a likely man to do it. People who have nothing to do are inclined to be indolent. Persons who are accustomed to doing things get commissions, and such commissions

as are valuable. Even a cup of cold water given in the name of a disciple shall not lose its reward. But I am speaking now of "all things". Joseph in Egypt was a man of affairs; he came into his house at lunch time, and you can imagine that he could have spent the whole afternoon there; his long-lost brothers were there, and he loved them. And yet he gave to them only a small portion of his time on that day. Who knows what he had to do with Pharaoh that day? But he was able to take up things as they came and he prospered in them. I am often rebuked because I turn down something that I am asked to do. I may think, Why did not someone else do that? Why did the person who made the request not do it himself? But if it comes to me, let me be ready to do it. And so the apostle says here, "Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospers". A mountain of things are there in the morning to be done, and he gets them done. If you have to leap over a wall -- David says, "By my God have I leaped over a wall" -- you do it by God. It is a matter of prosperity. In everything you do you are conscious, in that sense, that you are well paid for it. This very apostle speaks in the previous epistle of receiving "full wages". How do you get the full wages? Not by cheques, no; he got the wages largely in the doing -- full wages -- although, of course, there are rewards at the end.

But here, dear brethren, we are to prosper and be in health, even as our souls prosper; so that the saints of God are to be fat and flourishing. The Scriptures abound with these thoughts. As one is speaking there are many things that come up that we could speak of, and it is well God has apportioned a short time for such a season as this, because people cannot take in very much at one time. The

hours are well named. An 'hour' is often a critical time; it is a time, however, in which things can be done. One thing can be done or a number of things, but the point is that I am prospered in what I do. I am never overcome with the sense that time is getting ahead of me, that business is getting ahead of me, that work is getting ahead of me. If I am overcome I am not prospered; I am depressed by the fact that there is a pile of work to be done. It is a question of what I can do by God's help. I thus learn to work methodically; to do it as to God; and to do it well, as it says of the Lord, "He does all things well". So that the apostle John would look at his brother in fatherly affection. He addresses himself to him as "The elder"; he does not call himself by name. Gaius might say, He is well worthy of that title; his very words mean that to me, he is thinking of my prosperity. I often think of the prosperity of the brethren; and this elder, this brother, is thinking of the prosperity of Gaius. It is not only in one thing he is to prosper but, as I said, in his family, his business, his ministry, in all things. Gaius is a prosperous man and his soul is prospered; that would mean that inwardly he is becoming as great as he is outwardly. Even John could not know, perhaps, all that was going on in that man's soul. God knows. The apostle Paul says as to one of the most wonderful things that happened to him, "God knows". Whether Paul was in the body or out of it when caught up to the third heaven, God knew. And so John could not know everything that this dear brother enjoyed inwardly, for each of us has an inward history with God; it is a most precious thing to have an inward history with God; and that in that history my soul is prospered. Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour". If I am divinely prospered, that is my own inward matter. I commend

the word, dear brethren, in the sense of prosperity; individual prosperity, and correspondingly, of course, collective, that the assembly is prospered.

May God bless the word.

LET US GO FORTH

Hebrews 11:22; Hebrews 13:12 - 14

These verses contain the thought of "going forth" in keeping with the teaching of the epistle to the Hebrews, from which I have read, in which Christians are largely regarded as having settled down in earthly circumstances -- in general, religious ones, but still earthly; that is, settling down short of the heavenly calling. The Lord is said to be seated in heaven, although at the same time ready to serve; Stephen saw Him as "the Son of man standing at the right hand of God", Acts 7:56. The heavens were opened to him, and according to this epistle they were opened to the Jewish believers of that time. Hebrews has been called 'The book of the opened heavens', so that the writer tells us in chapter 2: 9 that "we see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honour". The Jewish believers at that time had the greatest opportunities in such ministry as the twelve afforded, men with apostolic authority and apostolic ability, the Spirit coming in and leading them on, so that they ministered in such power that even the Spirit Himself depicts the result, not only in Acts 2 but later. The ministry was maintained, and these Hebrew believers are enjoined to remember their leaders who had at that time spoken to them the word of God. Then there were others still continuing the same holy service, whom they were to obey. So we have these significant words in chapter 11 as to Joseph: "By faith Joseph when dying called to mind the going forth of the sons of Israel". "The going forth" -- the phrase is to be noted as characteristic of Hebrews, which is spiritual enlargement, illustrated in many phrases such as, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" (chapter 3: 1). So that faith is addressed in this book,

and we are directed back to Joseph, who was one of the sons of Israel, specifically called that. He was one of the children too -- a wider expression numerically; "the children of Israel" is a phrase or designation that is very common in the Scriptures, alluding to the generations; to the family, too. But the sons are distinctive.

I am speaking thus to make an application, the application being directly to ourselves. The Spirit is constantly pressing upon us the importance of spiritual dignity, and the dignity I am speaking of belongs to us. Peter says of the prophets, "To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves but to you they ministered those things ... by the Holy Spirit, sent from heaven, which angels desire to look into", 1 Peter 1:12. So the coming into Egypt mentions the sons of Israel: "And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came into Egypt", Genesis 46:8. We get their distinctive names, that is, the names of the tribes. They had become very numerous; the land was full of them, we are told, and in their great increase they would somewhat lose the distinctive character that marked them in their incoming, although Jehovah would maintain them in it and He would have the king of Egypt know of their dignity. He said to Moses, "And thou shalt say to Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah: Israel is my son, my firstborn", Exodus 4:22. There are none like them -- Jehovah's son, Jehovah's firstborn. And, He said, if you do not let him go, I will kill your son, your firstborn. So the matter is put on a very high level in that address to Pharaoh, they are regarded collectively as God's son, God's firstborn. This would be cumulative, adding to the earlier statement, "sons of Israel", which they were as coming into Pharaoh's kingdom. By the average Egyptian they would be looked at very differently, abominated by some of them because of their very calling; what they were

accustomed to do made them abominable. They were shepherds, and all shepherds were an abomination to the Egyptians; yet these shepherds were coming in as the sons of Israel. They had twelve names, tribal names, family names; but they were also sons of Israel. And Jehovah would make them stand although they had spread abroad and filled the land, as Pharaoh said, so that he had to take measures to restrain them and to reduce them, most drastic measures. It is being done now too, but they will stand, they will come out: the sons of Israel.

Well now, you can see how Joseph would have all this in his mind. He "called to mind the going forth of the sons of Israel". It came to his mind. We are to have with us a means of reminding ourselves; indeed Joseph himself inaugurated that idea; he said to Pharaoh's butler, "Only bear a remembrance with thee of me when it goes well with thee", Genesis 40:14. We must never forget the Jews, but it is a question of Christ, not of Joseph himself. Joseph did not forget them, he did not forget his brethren, in his greatest glory they were in his heart. So it is with the true Joseph; His brethren are in His heart tonight, and woe be to them who deal with them adversely! They have a place in the heart of Christ, in the heart of the Messiah; He is watching over them. So it is with Joseph; he called to mind the going forth of his brethren, that is, of the sons of Israel. He was one of them, his name is given as one of them; the Lord Himself was one of them too, made in the likeness of men as one of them. He carried on a conversation with a Samaritan woman and she intimated that He was a Jew, which He did not deny. "Ye worship ye know not what", He says; "we worship what we know". He says "we"; He was one of them outwardly and really. Real value was there, infinite value in a Person

known as a Jew and accepting that position. Presently ten men shall "take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you", Zechariah 8:23. That time has not come yet, God is not with them today; He is with them governmentally, watching over them, but presently the Lord will be apprehended among them, coming back to them, as it says, "Whom heaven indeed must receive till the times of the restoring of all things", Acts 3:21. And again, "This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall thus come in the manner in which ye have beheld him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11); and still again, "Thus the Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear to those that look for him the second time without sin for salvation", Hebrews 9:28. So that there is a great time ahead for them, and as the apostle Paul says in Romans 11:26; "And so all Israel shall be saved". That does not mean every Jew that is alive today, far from it. "All Israel shall be saved", says the apostle, but that is the real Israel in all its tribal heads; all its tribes. Paul says, "To which our whole twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night hope to arrive", Acts 26:7. James, as we have often remarked, writes to them, so that they are in some sense existing. Maybe some of them are here tonight, real Jews, that is, converted to God: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly ... but he is a Jew who is so inwardly ... in spirit, not in letter", Romans 2:28, 29. There are such, the apostle Paul brings himself forward as one; he is represented in that, "one born out of due time", he says. They are "a remnant according to election of grace", Romans 11:5. It is a question of sovereign selection; they will all be on that footing.

I have digressed a little as to that, but it is an important matter to have before us, because what

is in the heart of Christ should be in our hearts. If you look at the epistle to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11, you will see how Paul reflects the heart of Christ in what he talks about: "My brethren", he says. Now you can see how Joseph would have all this in his mind when he called to mind the departure of the sons of Israel. That is to say, they went out gloriously. They came in gloriously too, though it says, "A perishing Aramaean was my father" (Deuteronomy 26:5), and it is well to take that into account. But they are not to be in an eternity of blessing on that line, they are to be there on the line of divine purpose and formation so that Christ will not be ashamed of them. Joseph was not ashamed of them when they came into Egypt; he took five of them and presented them to Pharaoh, and his father blessed Pharaoh. It was a great day for Israel in Egypt when these things happened. We want to get the spirit of Israel and of the sons of Israel and of the Israel of God, and to see how we are immutably established as part of the divine purpose. And so I referred to this, that Joseph "called to mind the going forth of the sons of Israel". We have a very brief record in Exodus 13 and 14 of how things were as they went out; Moses himself recorded it afterwards, and with great accuracy. You wonder how he had time to do so much in the wilderness; to write Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; and to write a song as he was about to die. He wrote a wonderful song in Deuteronomy 32 ere he went up to die. He was entirely in God's hands, he lived in the divine realm; he lived, we may say, with God; he had access all the time to God. It was not so with Aaron. Again and again we have, "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying ..."; all that refers to his entering into the holiest to hear the divine communications. What times he had! Forty days with Jehovah on the mountain,

too. How Jehovah would press upon him what His people were to Him, to God! And as I said, he depicts the facts.

So the people drew near to the Red Sea; the time had come for them to go forth. It is a question of how they went forth and of how Joseph called to mind that they should do so; what details entered into it and how the Spirit of God tells us about Joseph's bones in the midst of all those details. They were pursued by Pharaoh and his host, but the cloud appeared before them and then came behind them; Jehovah was in the cloud and there they were under His protection. In Jehovah's mind they were the sons of Israel, and they were going forth. And so, dear brethren, Hebrews 13:12 - 14 which I read brings that phrase into our circumstances in a peculiar way. It calls attention to the glory that attaches to the people of God in their going forth. Our presence here tonight would indicate that we have come forth. We have been elsewhere; hardly anyone here would not admit that he has been elsewhere in his history, in different surroundings from these, unhallowed ones. There is much ado made about today, this very day, the date, so-called, of the birth of the Messiah. He was certainly born, but it is a poor foundation people are on; all that is being done to celebrate this day is not in keeping with the sons of Israel. There is nothing hallowed in it. One is only thankful for the day because by governmental authority we have it free. But all of us who are here have doubtless been saved from something. Had we remained in our houses, in our families, the natural would certainly have had much more scope than it has here at this present time. In a certain way we are in a divine sphere, where Christ's birth has, of course, its place, but where His death and His resurrection have their place too. We are sons, not literally of Israel, but of the resurrection.

Let us take these things in, dear young people; we are sons of the resurrection, and accordingly we are sons of God, sons of God because we are sons of the resurrection. That is how we emerge from the lesser into the greater. So through the idea of being sons of Israel we emerge into the thought of sonship to God. We are sons of God! It is a great emersion; why not avail ourselves of it? The heavens are opened to us, it is a question of going there. We are welcome, it is our place, it is our calling, -- "the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus", Philippians 3:14. So that, as I said, the idea of the sons of Israel develops into that of the sons of God, Jehovah's sons. That is a collective thought; God sent the message to Pharaoh on collective grounds: "Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn". That was the message, most solemn, and of course every word of it absolute truth. But then they are also called sons of God in the Pentateuch. I am speaking of all these things for ourselves, because it is ourselves that is in mind in the Scriptures, in their application. When it comes to fellowship, what is said of the lower creatures applies to us; there are clean ones and unclean ones and we are not to eat unclean ones. The Israelites were not to eat unclean ones. Why? Because they were sons of Jehovah, not only sons of Israel. And so it challenges us as to the associations we have, because in the types the idea of eating is fellowship, and we may eat creatures clean or unclean. That is, you may be appropriating the society of some young person because you like him or her naturally; you are dropping down to the level of an unconverted young man or young woman. The types show you are dropping below the proper

level, to say the least. There are more severe things to be said than that, but that at least is true. If the Israelites were to avoid eating certain creatures because they were sons of Jehovah, for the same reason we are to select the right companions. This is one of the most vital matters we have to deal with in the assembly, the selection of companions for the young. The antitype is, "Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you; and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty", 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18. These are very solemn words as to the company we keep and how the dignity of the saints is to be maintained. Instead of dropping down to the level of the natural, taking on of its character, we are to keep ourselves clear of it.

And so this passage in Hebrews 13 says, "Let us go forth to him without the camp". The Israelites were not directed to go out of Egypt to somebody, but we are; we are going out to Someone -- there is Someone outside. We are going to heaven, to be sure, but more than that, we are going to be with Christ. We are going to Christ, we have a Person before us. They had not; the type of Christ was in Moses, and in Aaron too, but they were with them. There was no one in Canaan to be looked for; there was no one set before them, no object for their affections. It was a question of the land. The "going forth" was in view of that. God brought them out in order to bring them in, but the "going forth" does not imply the going in, it was a question of leaving Egypt; that is the primary thought in chapter 11, dear brethren, whether you have left Egypt or not. But chapter 13 contemplates a Person. It is not only heaven; Hebrews is the book of the opened heavens, and we are partakers of the heavenly calling; but it

contemplates a Person, it is full of that thought. It presents us with a Person. "God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" (chapter 1: 1, 2). The first chapter is just full of the glories of Christ. He is worthy of your heart's affections, that you should go forth to Him bearing His reproach. "For we have not here an abiding city", it says (chapter 13: 14). We must be very guarded as to anything that refers to our national position, but these are scriptural facts. We have no continuing city; there is no one in this whole country with all its millions who can deny this fact. They may say, We have a city and a capital, But is it a continuing city? Far otherwise! There is no such city except the city which has foundations, "of which God is the artificer and constructor", Hebrew 11:10. This is the city the Christian looks for and of which he is part. He seeks it; "the coming one", chapter 13: 14. He has gone forth to Christ without the camp, having the heavenly city in view.

"Therefore let us go forth"! The writer accompanies this injunction, this exhortation, with the most touching references to the Person of Christ, the circumstances He has been in. He says the bodies of those beasts whose blood was carried into the holiest by the high priest were burned without the camp. It refers to the great day of atonement when Aaron offered up the sacrifices for the sins of the company, those who form the assembly, or who then formed Israel; that is what the apostle is alluding to here. The bodies of those beasts whose blood was carried into the sanctuary on the day of atonement were burned without the camp. That refers to Jesus. Think of that! How it should touch our hearts! "Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his

own blood, suffered without the gate". He suffered. Let us not modify that word. He suffered without the gate. He was an outcast. As noted, the world is glorifying Him today, but He was an outcast; that is just what He was. He suffered without the gate. They carried Him without the gate, He was crucified outside Jerusalem, hung up on a gibbet there. And now what is the logic or deduction for us? "Let us". That is one of the "Let us" expressions in Hebrews. We are going to heaven together, so do not lag behind. There was no collective idea attached to it when Jesus went forth, He suffered alone. It is intended to touch our hearts and soften them. Our hearts naturally are just as hard as the stones on which the law was written; but God says, "I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh", Ezekiel 36:26. That means impressionableness, that we are impressed by the sufferings of Christ. He was hung up by wicked hands; Peter says that by wicked hands He was crucified and slain. That happened without the camp. Then the appeal is, "Let us go forth to him without the camp". You say, What is the camp? It is what Jerusalem was then, the centre of man's religion. Judaism had become just a human belief, and there in Jerusalem they crucified the Son of God. That is what Christendom has become; it has the word 'Christ' written over it, but what is underneath? Then let us go to Him "without the camp", not, of course, in a literal sense, because we cannot leave the physical world, but the point is to be outside the religious organizations of men, having a judgment about them.

So Joseph "called to mind" the going forth of the sons of Israel; and the Lord's supper is a "calling to mind". "This do in remembrance of me", or for the "calling" Me "to mind" (see note, 1 Corinthians 11:24). We have no word as regards the date of the actual

birth of Christ; we are told where it happened, but the date is not stressed at all. A supposed day is now taken on and made something of; it is a convenient name for men and their religious pretensions, that is all. It is most solemn to have to say that. But "without the camp" is all outside of that; that is simply Jerusalem as the centre of religion, human religion. Christendom has dropped down to the level of human religion, beside heathendom, Mohammedanism and Judaism. This is a most solemn thing, but it is a fact; God would say things to us about that too. But the apostle says, "Let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach: for we have not here an abiding city, but we seek the coming one". This book makes a good deal of the city, the writer is telling us to look for it; not only that, but he says, We seek it. He will not admit that the thing is not true abstractly, however weak we may be about it. "We seek one to come", he says, and I want to be amongst those who do so, one who is known to have here no continuing city. In your inward feelings and outlook it is not yours at all; you are not claiming it, but "we seek one to come". And it is coming; it is not that it is likely to come, it is really coming, in fact it exists now. I may go further and say it is composed of people. The most marvellous thing in the whole universe outside of divine Persons is that great cube of persons called "the assembly". Its height and depth and breadth and length are equal -- it is a cube (see Revelation 21:16). It is solid, it is substantial in holiness as Christ was substantial in holiness. There never was a babe before that was substantial in holiness, nor a man; but Christ was such, and the assembly is composed of persons that are substantially holy. These are great facts for us.

So it says, "Let us go forth to him without the camp". It is a Person to Whom we are called to go

by the Spirit of God in this wonderful epistle. The name of the writer is left out, but we can discern him to be Paul; there can be no question but that it is Paul. He speaks of his brother Timothy; it is undoubtedly Paul, our apostle. He wrote to the Jewish believers who were in danger of going back and he says, "If he draw back, my soul does not take pleasure in him", chapter 10: 38. It is the expression of the feelings of the heart of Christ. How can Christ have pleasure in one who goes back from Him? He said in the days of His flesh, "Will ye also go away?" John 6:67. It is "also". What a challenge! Alas! for those who turn away from the truth. Do not leave the saints out; if you turn away from them you are turning away from Christ; as the Lord said to Saul, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" So that you not only turn away from the truth, but you turn away from Christ and the saints. But the word now is, "Let us go forth". There is no continuing city here; we seek one to come. We have a long outlook, we see it in the distance as Abraham did, and he saw the glory of Christ too. That is a beautiful touch in John 8 where the Lord is in close quarters with the devil and is triumphant in conflict. John 8 is full of that, it is like the mighty man of David who went down and slew a lion in a pit on a snowy day. The Jews bring in Abraham, they say, "Abraham is our father"; but the Lord says in effect, Do not claim Abraham! The natural cannot lay claim to the spiritual; do not you claim Abraham! He says, in effect, Abraham is not your father, the devil is your father -- a terrible thing! They had descended so low. They are reprobate Jews. He says, "But now ye seek to kill me this did not Abraham". Abraham is a great model for us negatively in that statement; "this did not Abraham". There are millions of Jews who have been slain by wicked hands, but these Jews were

ready to slay Christ. He says, "This did not Abraham". No, he did not do that! That is a negative thought about Abraham, but his generation after the flesh were seeking to do it then. In a little they crucified Christ by wicked hands. But they insist still, "We have one father, God". The Lord says, You have not God as your Father; He is My Father. It is a hand-to-hand matter between the Lord in lowliness and holiness and the devil, who is surrounding Him with his instruments. God is His Father, God was not their Father; the devil was their father, an awful thing! They had come down so low. The proof of it was that they would murder Christ, and that was really the devil; murder of that kind is from the devil, he is the destroyer. It is remarkable that the name given to him in Revelation 9 has the sense of Destroyer. In that chapter there are two words used for him, one from Greek and one from Hebrew, Apollyon and Abaddon, meaning Destroyer and Destruction. These children of his crucified Christ, but He says, Abraham did not do that. Then they claimed that God was their Father, but the Lord says, No, you cannot say that either; "Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced".

In truth the real Abraham is our father, the father of us all; you have to understand in the context what is meant. God is our Father, of course, but then Abraham is our father. It is wonderful how he is spoken of in the Scriptures, and of course it is because he reflects God. The Lord says of him, "Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced". He was able to see the glory of Jesus, the day of Christ, he rejoiced to see it; he saw it and was glad. You can picture the patriarch -- and the Lord spoke exactly the truth about him -- he was glad when he saw the day of Christ. You say, What did he see? That is a good question.

What did he see? He saw someone delighting in Isaac as he was weaned; it was a great time in Abraham's house when Isaac was weaned, that was when Christ got His true place in Abraham's house. Has He His true place in my circumstances, my house, and all my affairs? Isaac had his place in the house when he was weaned; Abraham made a great feast. Is it not evident that he saw Christ in some sense? He saw and was glad; he rejoiced in Isaac. "In Isaac shall a seed be called to thee", Genesis 21:12. Abraham rejoiced in that, it was Christ. And so the Lord goes further, because He must have the last word in conflict with the devil; He goes the full length as to His Person, and that is, "Before Abraham was, I am". Wonderful! Whatever is said about Abraham is only to reflect what God is and what Christ is. There are three divine Persons and only three. So the Lord says, "Before Abraham was, I am". The verb is changed to the present; it is "was" in regard of Abraham; but "I am" is present, eternal existence. Let us bow our hearts before the Lord Jesus. He is worthy of our worship. "Before Abraham was, I am". What a triumph in close quarters with the devil! The Lord did not have to say, "Get thee hence"; no, not there. In the presence of the I AM there is no room for Satan. If we make room for the I AM, there will not be room for the devil. He must go. The matter is settled there in what He said: "Before Abraham was, I am". Would Abraham reason? Would he not bow and say, Amen? He would say that in the presence of Jesus. He is a saint of God, as we all are, I trust, and it is for us to say that from the depths of our hearts. Jesus is the I AM, as He is said to be "Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen".

DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (1)

Exodus 2:1 - 14; Exodus 3:1 - 10; Exodus 4:27 - 31

J.T. I have in mind on this occasion the system which appears in the early chapters of Exodus, intended to be used by the Spirit to lead the saints out of the world. The world is a system represented in Egypt. God has come in system-wise as seen in that book; it is typical of the truth of the gospel. We shall hope to cover roughly chapters 2 to 15 particularly, but inclusive of later chapters as to what occurred at Sinai and Horeb.

It was thought that we should first see the character of the persons employed in this divine system. In developing the thought we shall see the place it now has and that the divine family is involved, also how worship appears. The last verse read says, "And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped". This is a feature that may be seen running through as well as the brotherly or love feature. Inasmuch as the divine way is to add to this system -- the church system -- each one who accepts it in faith, it can be readily seen that love is required in each of us, and to be cultivated, so that the system is characterised by it. The woman of Samaria is a good example of how persons who believe through the testimony are added to the faith system and become in themselves gatherers of others. At a time of great weakness among the brethren in regard to gatherings, God may look upon our afflictions in different countries and give deliverance and give additions, gather others besides those that are gathered.

A.E.H. In Peter's remarks in connection with adding other qualities or graces, he ends up by saying,

"in brotherly love love", 2 Peter 1:7. Does he have in mind that this constitutes the last fusion point as we come into the system on our side?

J.T. That is a good suggestion. It is Peter's last recorded, written contribution to the testimony of God, and he shows in it that the last should be the best. As we come into the closing moments, it should not be a fag end, a worn out or tired condition, but an increase of liberty, of adding to what is there. So that "an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ", 2 Peter 1:11. Peter shows that he certainly is contributing to it in the way he refers to the transfiguration; and particularly the way in which he brings in the truth of the Son of God, which he never did bring into his ministry formally until then. Speaking in connection with the excellent glory of the Voice which was to be heard he says, "This voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain" (2 Peter 1:18). And added to that we have his allusion to the leading minister of this dispensation, Paul, in 2 Peter 3:15. How thoroughly Peter introduced whatever was best!

A.E.H. In the end of the first epistle Peter refers to Silvanus, who had been associated with Paul as a "faithful brother", suggesting the linking of Moses and Aaron together. It is before the allusion to Paul that Silvanus is called "the faithful brother": "By Silvanus, the faithful brother, as I suppose, I have written to you briefly; exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which ye stand".

J.T. The beautiful link between Paul and Peter stressed in that final epistle should, I think, have a voice to us. That is how brethren should be linked, especially those who are ministering.

Ques. Where did Peter get the word "beloved" that he uses in 2 Peter 3:15? He speaks about "our

beloved brother Paul"; and in speaking about the Son of God the same word is used: "my beloved Son", Matthew 3:17. Where do we get this word that we use about one another?

J.T. It is a word the early ministers made much use of, not in any formal or perfunctory way. We use it much now in our letters to the brethren, but the question is how much fervour enters into our use of it to one another, and how much sense have we that we are beloved? David stands for quality in the types in the Scriptures, and his name means "beloved". It is introduced not simply as a name but as expressive of the person. David is expressed by the word "beloved" and he was anointed in that connection; so that quality expressed in "beloved" is a fixed matter in the divine system.

J.R.H. In this matter of the affections, is this account of Moses in regard to his birth and being taken out of the water calculated to touch and engage our affections?

J.T. Yes. It is said of his mother, "And she saw him that he was fair, and hid him three months", Exodus 2:2. His father joined in that according to other scriptures. Moses was "fair" and was hidden in that connection. Then we are told, "And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river; and her maids went along by the river's side. And she saw the ark in the midst of the sedge, and sent her handmaid and fetched it. And she opened it, and saw the child, and behold, the boy wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children". It seems clear that she was affected. She was in the enemy's camp outwardly but evidently moved in it; in principle she was taken out of it by this sight; evidently she was touched.

H.G.H. Do we see love in activity in the inauguration of this system? The passage says, "And a

man of the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi".

J.T. It is very apropos that we should get such facts stated in view of marital relations and all that develops out of them. We shall perhaps notice this again in chapter 6, how that it involves "wholly a right seed", Jeremiah 2:21. Peter contemplates this in the fact that we are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God", 1 Peter 1:23. I think that thought will open up to us in the way it is worked out in "Aaron and Moses" and in "Moses and Aaron" -- the outstanding products of this union -- and in Phinehas, the last of the genealogy in the priestly line in chapter 6, who obtained the priesthood for ever according to Numbers 25:13. All that will enter into what we have in mind. The fact that the daughter of Pharaoh is affected is noticeable. Although outwardly she did not join in with the people of God she is evidently touched, and impressed too. We should, as those under reproach, impress those of distinction in this world so that they might be loosened, perhaps released, out of the camp of the enemy. The child touched her clearly, so that she saved him.

A.A.T. Should we pray for the authorities in connection with matters affecting the brethren, that they might be touched?

J.T. It is a young man's time in testimony, and a young woman's time, too, especially in certain other countries. It is a question of what is presented to those in authority, where there are any touchable. Evidently this princess was such. The facts related link with the previous chapter where the male children were sought out to be destroyed. But Pharaoh's daughter did not join in with this destruction, nor did the midwives of chapter 1; they feared God and God took account of that, giving them fixity in building

houses for them. The world is being invaded in this way and ultimately Egypt is "spoiled" as Israel goes out.

H.G.H. Would the movements of Pharaoh's daughter be God moving sovereignly in relation to this system?

J.T. Yes.

A.E.H. "The boy wept"; is that a feature of manhood? Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus.

J.T. Yes, weeping is a feature of manhood. The Lord, as you say, wept. It is a feature of manhood, not simply of childhood. Any babe might weep, but here it expressed the situation in which the child was found. That is what meets the eye of Pharaoh's daughter.

L.E.S. Do you think Isaiah would have this seed in mind in chapter 59: 19 - 21? "When the adversary shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of Jehovah will lift up a banner against him. And the redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah. And as for me, this is my covenant with them, saith Jehovah: My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith Jehovah, from henceforth and for ever".

J.T. That is good, the use of the word 'seed' runs through; "wholly a right" one, which is found in Jeremiah 2:21. I think it is in mind here. The idea enters into the Psalms. It comes out in Genesis, running through in Abraham, and we find it in Psalm 22:30, "A seed shall serve him". Again in Psalm 24:6, "This is the generation of them that seek unto him, that seek thy face, O Jacob". It is the generation that is affected by where God is, that is, those with whom God is identified. In Psalm 24 we have the generation of them that seek God's

face in Jacob; but then the king himself adds increase and dignity and glory; the "king of glory" appears at the end of the psalm joining in with those that seek God's face in His people.

A.S.B. Does Hebrews 11:23 help? "By faith Moses, being born, was hid three months by his parents, because they saw the child beautiful; and they did not fear the injunction of the king". It was the potential divine system over against what the king represented.

J.T. Just so. These parents had an eye for the beautiful. Their names are not given here, but they are given in chapter 6; that is where the dignity of the people comes out. In chapter 5 they are under great reproach but chapter 6 opens up the greatness that attaches to the people. The generation that is outlined in that chapter culminates in Moses and Aaron; they are the ones to keep our eyes on.

H.B. Does chapter 2 suggest that there should be the maternal element among us, so that we should seek to protect the young brothers in having to do with the authorities?

J.T. Yes; so that chapter 1 should be kept in mind although we did not read it. There it is a question of Jacob; there is far more about Jacob in the Psalms than about Abraham because it is a question of experience and of what the people go through in sufferings. "And these are the names of the sons of Israel who had come into Egypt; with Jacob had they come, each with his household: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher", chapter 1: 1 - 4. They are linked up in certain groups but they are all the tribes. "And all the souls that had come out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls; and Joseph was in Egypt". That is the general preface to the book, and our minds are attracted to these persons. Ultimately they come into captivity

and sufferings, but the first chapter is to bring out how they were increasing: "And the children of Israel were fruitful, and swarmed and multiplied, and became exceeding strong; and the land was full of them". So that God as King is preparing His way in this. Then the devil's attempt appears in the new king that did not know Joseph; he is an instrument of the devil; "And there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we". That is the thing to notice, this increase is of God. So he counsels: "Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass that, if war occur, they take side with our enemies and fight against us, and go up out of the land". The devil is planning through Pharaoh, but God is also planning; it is God against the devil working in Pharaoh. So we find dissent over the work the enemy has to do: "And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives -- of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other was Puah", their names pointing to distinction in this profession. They are incorporated into this system on the principle that whatever is of God is incorporated; it implies that these persons are useful in the system for the preservation of what is of God. It is the generation of God over against the devil's effort to destroy, and so these two persons run through the remaining part of the chapter. "And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses". The system is taking form for the preservation of what the devil would try to damage and destroy. I believe his effort now is to damage the younger brothers who are diverted from their homes and local meetings and fellowship. The enemy's attempt is to damage them morally; and hence the spirit of the midwives is needed.

H.B. "Let us deal wisely", Pharaoh says. Is this counsel what the Lord calls Hades' gates?

J.T. Yes, and over against that are the gates of Zion, where wisdom is.

S.McC. Would that greatly expand our outlook in regard to present afflictions in isolated circumstances in different localities, that they all stand related to this system operating in view of our deliverance from this world?

J.T. Yes. Moses' name is not mentioned at first, nor his father's or mother's; but the names of these two women are mentioned because they are preserving life. It is official service incorporated into this new system.

S.J.H. Does the system start with the homes here? The Lord has raised this issue with us that the seed may be right. "A man of the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi"; so the system is brought into play.

J.T. Yes; that is very noticeable. And these two women are mentioned by name as of the official class, noted by the king but incorporated and used by God for the preservation of what the devil wants to destroy. The first chapter should be kept clearly in mind as to trained persons. Abraham had trained servants in his house; they were labourers. These women are trained persons, not anybodies, neighbours, or the like. They may have had others under them, but they are clearly professional. We find in the captivity in Jeremiah 29:2 that "the smiths, had departed from Jerusalem"; the trained and skilled workmen were captivated. The devil does that, but they belong to the Lord. In the divine system we should look for skilled persons, persons who can do the needed work rightly in the fear of God.

A.A.T. What kind of work is in mind?

J.T. Any divine work we take on should be done well; "to each one his work", it says in Mark 13:34. That is the principle with the Lord. We are to know what to do and how to do it. It is characteristic of Mark that he says of the Lord, "He does all things well".

W.L. These women seem to have a universal setting, not peculiar to any tribe.

J.T. Their importance lies in their skill and fidelity.

J.R.H. As a result of their services the people multiply and become very strong. They evidently were used to maintain the strength of the people.

J.T. That runs through chapter 1. "Then Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, but every daughter ye shall save alive". He thought he was very wise in that, but the devil is always amiss; what he would save alive here, God is taking on. Five women have taken on a service.

S.McC. Phoebe "has been a helper of many", Romans 16:2. She does things well. It was something like that.

J.T. Yes, that is important, to do things well. As already said, it is said of the Lord that "He does all things well". If we are allotted anything to do, let it be done well.

L.E.S. Timothy and Titus teach much as to elder-hood and care generally.

J.T. Those epistles, 1 Timothy and Titus, have skilled workmanship in mind, that is, in the care of the saints.

A.A.T. A sister can entertain the saints with skill.

J.T. Yes, that is what is said about Phoebe; she knew how to do things and did them well, in a dignified way.

L.K. Chapter 1:5 says, "And all the souls that had come ..." -- soul enters into it.

J.T. Peter uses the word "soul" eight times in his two epistles. That is what is needed, persons who have affection, not soulless but soulful, who can yearn, who have bowels of compassions.

Ques. Is it not interesting to note that "the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt had said to them, but saved the male children alive"?

J.T. Moses himself, when grown, was not afraid of the king's commandment: "By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he persevered, as seeing him who is invisible", Hebrews 11:27. We may have to face a command which implies disregard of the will of God, but in such a case we must not be afraid to disobey. Of course we have to fear God all the time, like the midwives. We must brace ourselves not to cower before man's commandment; if God's will is involved we can do no other than what is right, stand for what is right.

A.E.H. Sometimes being obedient in regard of the king's commandment is incompatible with that. There is a difference between obedience and subjection to the powers that be.

J.T. Yes. Moses is not afraid of the king's command but is facing all the consequences whatever they may be.

R.H. What is involved in the midwives' answer to Pharaoh?

J.T. They had a good deal to say about the vigorous qualities of the Hebrew women, which spiritually ought to mark all of us.

A.S.B. That they "saved the male children alive" is an excellent feature.

J.R.H. In regard of the king's commandment, do you not think there is a continual call for spiritual discernment and intelligence as to what we should do and what we should not do? I do not see why you cannot do this, they say; and you often hear the same remark made by those amongst us.

J.T. "But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt had said to them, but saved the male children alive". We want to be sure any advice we give in the presence of emergency does not endanger the young brothers, because if they are in a false position their spiritual life is in danger. Many have been damaged because they have taken wrong advice. The mothers are said to have vigour, the male children are saved alive. If they are placed in a false position through advice or through any selfish considerations, the environment will damage them and spiritual life may ebb out.

F.K.C. The attack against the male children is one of the devil's efforts against what would assert the fights of God. The family side is there for the protection of those who would care for God's interests and stand militantly for them.

J.T. Yes; you get that throughout. Take Rebecca: she said, "On me be thy curse, my son!", Genesis 27:13. She stood in the breach. That is the principle here in verse 17; these women are fit for the testimony and the service of God and for use in the divine system.

F.K.C. Is the attack made on the male children when the Lord Himself was born a similar action?

J.T. That is where you get the wail of Rachel. Her sepulchre has a place in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament it is her weeping, her right feelings about her children.

A.A.T. The midwives get not only approval, but houses.

J.T. You can see how worthy they are of occupying houses of which God was the Architect. These women are honoured in that they come into houses built by God. What kind of architecture would enter into these houses? Would they not condemn the houses of Egypt? It says Noah "condemned the world" (Hebrews 11:7); he did that by building the

ark. What are we aiming at in our houses? We do not know whether Noah had blue prints, or what kind of men he would employ; but for the pattern God gave him specifications, verbal specifications of the ark. The passage referred to says that "Noah, oracularly warned concerning things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house". If I go in for Egyptian patterns it is certain my house will damage my family. If I go in for God's architecture, what He would indicate in living features in the houses of the saints, I am not endangering the family. Noah prepared the ark for the saving of his house, not simply the preserving, but the saving of it. The house has something to do with the saving of the family. So these women would have houses to which they could at any time invite the young brothers, the boys they had saved, and entertain them. There would be nothing to damage them.

A.S.B. There would be no radios in those houses.

J.R.H. The household is the way of approach either to the assembly or to the world.

J.T. Quite so. If it is an Egyptian model it leads in the direction of Egypt; but God Himself built the midwives' houses.

L.K. Perhaps the authorities are not rightly affected because there is lack of this weeping that was seen in Moses, a right representation of the testimony.

J.T. It is not put here for nothing. That is what met the eye of Pharaoh's daughter when the cover was removed from the ark. The babe was weeping. There was of course good cause for weeping at that time. What was in the heart of his mother that she put him there? There could be no doubt that faith in her was assured of the salvation of the child. "And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him an ark of reeds, and plastered it with resin

and with pitch, and put the child in it, and laid it in the sedge on the bank of the river ... And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river; and her maids went along by the river's side. And she saw the ark in the midst of the sedge, and sent her handmaid and fetched it. And she opened it". What was in her mind? What was she going to find? What treasure was there? She would open it herself, and she "saw the child, and behold, the boy wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children". Her mind and affections were brought into action, and actually she is linking on with what Moses' mother did in providing that ark. It is the same word as 'ark' in Genesis 6; it is connected with Noah's ark. It is a question of the salvation of what is in it. How does this happen? It is a question of a woman's affections, not only in putting the babe there, but in finding him.

A.P. Pharaoh's daughter was apparently more affected by the weeping child than by Pharaoh's command.

A.E.H. In Luke 10 where the seventy are chosen, wolves are mentioned; but over against them there is the thought of lambs, and representatively they are the sons of peace.

J.T. The missionaries, the seventy, were, as sons of peace, to enquire for a son of peace and go in there.

A.E.H. I was wondering if Pharaoh's daughter would suggest a son of peace?

J.T. Yes, I think so; there is something there of God.

R.H. Nehemiah's sorrowful face affected the king.

J.T. Yes. He was really endangering himself by the sorrowful face in the presence of the monarch, but we must not forget it says, "the queen also sitting by him" (Nehemiah 2:6); that is the feminine side

coming in, giving lustre and softness and compassion to the position. He acquiesces in what Nehemiah sought. The queen was sitting by, where she should be.

F.M. The Lord grew "in favour with God and men"; up to a certain point it was "with men". The world has received Christianity nominally, but when it comes to making a definite stand for what is right and holy then the whole thing comes to an end as far as the world is concerned.

S.McC. It is remarkable how the feminine side comes in in all these matters: Pharaoh's daughter here, the queen in Nehemiah, Pilate's wife in Matthew and in Daniel the queen mother.

J.T. Quite so; a woman is generally essential to the governmental position. It begins in Genesis 1:26, 27: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion ... male and female created he them". That runs through. The queen represents dominion; it is a question of sisterhood, womanhood, in the system, rising to a queenly thought. That is what is in God's mind, a king and a queen.

A.P. Esther stood by Mordecai in suffering times.

J.T. That is where you get the truth worked out in womanhood amongst the gentiles.

L.E.S. Abram is referred to as a Hebrew. The word Hebrew enters into this chapter a great deal.

J.T. It is a term of reproach. When Abram came from Ur he was called "the Hebrew".

L.E.S. "One who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew", Genesis 14:13.

J.T. He does not belong there, he is a stranger; but he is equipped. He is not throwing down his hands or letting them hang down; he is ready for what comes, as we say. He has three hundred and eighteen trained servants in his house; they know what to do, they are fighters.

S.McC. Speaking of the feminine side again, it says in Daniel 5"Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his nobles were confounded. -- The queen, by reason of the words of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet-house. The queen spoke and said, O king, live for ever! let not thy thoughts trouble thee, neither let thy countenance be changed. There is a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father, light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods was found in him; and the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, [even] the king thy father, made him master of the scribes, magicians, Chaldeans, [and] astrologers" (verses 9 - 11). Is that not wonderful as bearing on our circumstances today?

J.T. It is. I think the queen mother has the position in hand. Belshazzar's queen was not worthy; it is the other queen. It was what God had. She was out of date but she was a real queen; "There is a man in thy kingdom", she says. She knew. She is one in whom womanhood comes in in the times of the gentiles: it works out in relation to Israel too. Vashti was a gentile queen and Esther became a gentile queen, the queen of a gentile monarch.

S.McC. In present day circumstances as we have to do with the authorities there may seem to be a certain amount of hardness, but we can rely on the system you have alluded to, the elements operating on our behalf.

J.T. Yes. "There is a man in thy kingdom", and there is a man's handwriting on the wall; the suggestion comes up as a kingly thought in the testimony, and the queen mother is womanhood in the testimony standing in relation to the man. She fills out the position.

L.E.S. Lydia's house would stand in relation to the work of God in Philippi. She was marked by the

fear of God and the recognition of all that was coming into evidence in Paul's ministry.

J.T. That is the way it would stand at Philippi. Lydia had her household baptized and the jailer had his, so the protective, Noah idea runs into that.

W.R. Pharaoh's daughter brought Moses up to be her son but he broke away from that influence.

J.T. That shows how the thing may wear out. We see how Christendom is petering out, though persons are used often to protect what is of God in the systems. With Moses the real thought had been there in sonship at the beginning, and in time God took him on. He had a good deal to unlearn, as every Christian has today as taken out of system; though he may have been a real son before. There are many real sons there.

J.R.H. Will you say something about verses 11 to 14, as to the way Moses moved?

J.T. They show that the work of God had taken effect in him -- notwithstanding his violent action against the Egyptian. The influence of Pharaoh's court did not overcome God's work. In His inscrutable government God sometimes allows His children to be in positions that are in themselves damaging, but they prove the superiority of His work; in result it overcomes, answering to His rights. At forty years of age according to Acts 7:23, Moses "refused to be called son of Pharaoh's daughter", Hebrews 11:24. The development of the work of God in him progressed in Midian; in our times that would imply sonship. It is said, "He sat by the well"; that is where he, in principle, developed sonship. "God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts", Galatians 4:6. We must have the Spirit for sonship, that is what is involved. As our young brothers are found in defiling circumstances today, instruction in the truth of sonship, involving holiness, is most urgent for them.

Ques. Do we confess to the authorities that we are not part of Christendom in that sense?

J.T. Moses had to do that. It says that Pharaoh's daughter gave him his name, "she called his name Moses". He never lost that name, he was drawn out under these circumstances; she is a saviour you might say, she helps up to a point. And then it says, "It came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren". It is really a mark of growth; he has in his heart that formation, his brethren -- not the brethren -- but his own. He is going out of the system that he has been in.

W.R. He never grew up as an Egyptian at all.

J.T. No; but here he is giving up whatever Egyptian links he had. The idea of sonship attaches to him in principle and he is coming under another influence. To go on with the passage, it says, "he sat by the well"; we should notice it is said, "the well", as if there is only one. It is a question of the Spirit. We must recognize the Spirit for our brethren in the systems, we should make it clear that the only hope for them is to recognize the Spirit of God. Then "the priest of Midian had seven daughters". We are not to overlook these seven daughters; they all apply to elements in the formation of a vessel for God's system. It is the father-in-law that is leading in all this, which is a safe position. "And he said to his daughters, And where is he? why then have ye left the man behind? Call him, that he may eat bread". They ought not to have left that question to their father; if they had been governed by ordinary and right feelings they would have known, they would have been very interested; but they are not. "And Moses consented to remain with the man; and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter". He is out of Egypt now, not seeking

for worldly glory as a prince of Egypt, and he consented to dwell with the man.

J.R.H. It is the spirit of the well.

J.T. Yes, a quiet, simple, humble man; once an Egyptian prince, he is now consenting to dwell with this man, obviously against his natural feelings. "And he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter". The whole position is indicative of manliness in a man who might have been otherwise just an out-and-out worldling. It is a question of how the young men are going to be affected as the idea of the Spirit of God grows in them. Jethro here must be viewed as having some authority from God; he was a provision from God as much as Pharaoh's daughter was. He must be looked at in this way as a provision of God in these circumstances.

Rem. The position is changing from the feminine to the masculine.

J.T. Seven daughters would show that there was plenty of femininity there, but not active, not dominating. It is the father that is active, that is a mercy. Jethro is a provision of God for this young brother, it saves him.

A.E.H. Often in forming the links that lead to marriage and the establishing of households there is merely physical attraction and infatuation. The suggestion here is that the brother should have features of the Spirit, as indicated in the well, dominating in him and then there would not be so much in evidence on the physical side to attract the wrong kind of sisterly element. God has provided this setting for Moses and he is taken out of all the glamour of Egypt and is consenting to what Jethro suggested, and goes through it humbly as according to the will of God.

L.E.S. So the fruit would correspond to the position of the testimony itself.

J.T. Something comes out of it for the testimony.

DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (2)

Exodus 5:1 - 23; Exodus 6:1, 14; Exodus 7:1 - 7

J.T. For the benefit of those absent this morning it may be stated that we are engaged in these readings with the earlier chapters of the book of Exodus which disclose a system, a divine system designed of God to deliver souls out of Egypt, that is, out of the world. We read this morning out of chapters 2, 3 and 4, touching only on chapters 1 and 2. We were engaged almost entirely with Moses as representing the elements of the divine system, having Aaron in view. Chapter 3 was not touched on, but it was read to bring out how the material in the system was affected by God in the appearing to Moses in 'the burning bush', as it is commonly called. Chapter 4 was read to bring out the brotherly relations that evidently must enter into the divine operative system, that is, love entering into it. Love between brothers involves family relations, love entering into family relationships. It is evident that love is basic in the divine operative system; indeed the formula for it is "faith working through love". So we have at first a brother and a sister of the tribe of Levi, and then two brothers, their sons, these two men Moses and Aaron. They are seen in the end of chapter 4 as linked together in the operative service; it is said, "And Jehovah said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him on the mountain of God, and kissed him". It was remarked that worship is necessarily in mind; it runs throughout, out the divine operations, but associated with love, brotherly love. Peter's second epistle was quoted this morning, that we are to add to "brotherly love love"; brotherly love, and love added to it. Such love is essential to divine operations whether locally or generally.

Now at this time it is thought that we should see in chapter 5 the actual state and condition of the people that were to be delivered, and how a systematised thought is carried through into chapters 6 and 7. Chapter 5 shows a degraded condition, the state of the people is one of bondage and degradation and cruelty. Chapter 6, involving the system, shows the people as dignified, they have their dignity tribally. Then there is the priestly family; so that chapter 6 is over against chapter 5. Chapter 5 is degradation and cruelty and bondage: chapter 6 is tribal national greatness, that is, the saints of God viewed in their dignity, necessarily entering into their deliverance. Then the system is carried through in chapter 7 where we are told that Jehovah said to Moses, "See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land". Then we are told in verse 6, "And Moses and Aaron did as Jehovah had commanded them: so did they". And verse 7 goes on to say, "And Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron was eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh".

A.E.H. To refer back to the end of chapter 4, your suggestion in regard to faith working by love: is this scene suggestive of Paul calling the elders of Ephesus and speaking to them of what had marked him at Ephesus, pointing to what characterised his ministry -- that the work of faith and labour of love entered into all the localities which he visited?

J.T. Yes; adding to what we had this morning as to the final relations between Peter and Paul, representative servants of the dispensation. What reciprocal, mutual relations existed, especially seen in Peter speaking of Paul as "our beloved brother Paul"; not, "our beloved apostle", but "our beloved

brother"! Also he refers to Silvanus as "the faithful brother", Silvanus evidently being Silas, the same one that worked with Paul; "the faithful brother", Peter says, "as I suppose". So that brotherly relations were good between Peter and Paul, although there had been friction, at least on Peter's side; but now they are blessedly and happily in the relations of brotherly love which are so essential to the operation of the system that God has set up.

A.E.H. The sovereignty of God seems to come into the plan at a particular juncture, when there was a change-over from Barnabas to Silvanus. There is some indication in all Peter's writings to make way for the shaking conditions that may come in. I wonder if that might make way for the changes that may come in among the saints?

J.T. No doubt. Good brotherly relations are essential to the operation of the system we are speaking of. They are founded on sonship. Peter never ministered sonship, according to the records of Scripture. Doubtless he had the revelation of the Son; he knew who the Lord was, the Son of the living God, but it did not enter into his ministry. Not that he deliberately shut it out, but he ministered what the Spirit gave him. But he brings it in his last letter in a most beautiful and touching way, in reference to the Voice that was heard on the mount, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight; and this voice we heard uttered from heaven, being with him on the holy mountain", 2 Peter 1:17, 18. The idea of sonship enters into that, the idea of excellence. Paul preached the Son of God; indeed it is characteristic of the first preaching we have of his. He announced and preached in the synagogue that Jesus is the Son of God. He began that way. He tells us later that God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him

as glad tidings among the nations", Galatians 1:16. And he tells them in the second letter to the Corinthians that the Son of God has been preached "by me and Silvanus and Timotheus". He is the Yea and Amen of everything: "For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus), did not become yea and nay, but yea is in him. For whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us", 2 Corinthians 1:19, 20. It especially brings out this essential point for divine operations and those who are active in them, that brotherly love should be there. Let brotherly love continue; it is essential to the system, and so it is that sonship is the leading thought in Paul's ministry in the gospel.

J.R.H. Would these thoughts of sonship and brotherly love issue in the doxology at the end of Peter's second epistle? "To him be glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen".

J.T. It is a state of things that is fit for eternity, where the Son Himself is subject, as we are told, that God may be all in all. So that is the position, that we are filled to the fulness of God and have an understanding of the spirit of sonship.

Ques. Does that spirit operating in the system shut out rivalry?

J.T. Yes; that is one of the exclusive thoughts of it. We are not rivals of each other; in sonship each esteems the other better than himself. So that in the letter to the Corinthians, to brethren who are not happily united, we are told that love never fails.

A.S.B. Has Peter to learn that in John 21, in relation to love shepherding the sheep? Might there be rivalry there? "When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?"

J.T. Yes. He was, we might say, a bit egotistical in saying he loved the Lord more than the others, and that he would not deny the Lord, and that is what the Lord had in mind. Does that hold good yet, Peter, -- the Lord would say in effect -- or have you changed? He had changed. So that the operation of the system was made to hinge on the Lord's remarks to him: "Lovest thou me more than these? ... Feed my lambs". It is a question of love, not love in rivalry, but love in esteeming others better than ourselves. The Lord is teaching Peter to fit in; but even after this lesson he said to the Lord, "And what of this man?" That is Peter again. The Lord never had popery in mind; the pope would tell everyone what to do, but the Lord is saying that that is not going to prevail at all in this system. Peter was not over John. "If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?" The Lord is telling us that such things are not our business; there is plenty to do, but it is not our work to regulate the brethren in the service. So the Lord says, "Follow thou me".

L.E.S. Would the prophetic word in Hosea 11 bear on this? "When Israel was a child, then I loved him ... I drew them with bands of a man, with cords of love" (verses 1, 4).

J.T. "I it was that taught Ephraim to walk" (verse 3). Well, that is the point. Peter says, "What shall this man do?" It is a question of walk: "Follow thou me" is a question of walking, following in His steps. John had to do that too. The Lord teaches us how to walk; that is the book of Numbers, how He taught Ephraim to walk. The brethren are set in relation to God in the tabernacle and then in relation to one another; four groups of three each around the tabernacle, each has to find his place. That is how we are taught to walk.

Ques. Subsequently Peter seems to have been greatly helped, according to his writing. He tells the elders how to act, "not as lording it over your possessions", 1 Peter 5:3. Would he see how it is worked out himself?

J.T. Quite so. It is remarkable the instructions that are found in Peter's ministry, the very one popery is professedly founded on.

A.P. Would the happening on the mount of God when Aaron met Moses and kissed him, be essential before there could be practical deliverance of the saints out of Egypt?

J.T. It is to show that love is operative among the brethren generally and how it culminates in worship, the very opposite to rivalry.

H.B. God says that Aaron will be glad in his heart when he meets Moses. Would that be a challenge to us as to greeting one another?

J.T. Yes, quite so.

A.A.T. I noticed that you said at the beginning that the divine system is designed to deliver our souls out of Egypt, and yet this worship all takes place in Egypt.

J.T. Yes; it is before they go out to the wilderness. The worship is not to be deferred. The primary thought is that they are to go out to the wilderness to serve Jehovah, but they are able to do it now, as is indicated here: "And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped" (chapter 4: 31). It is the kind of worship that flows from what God does for us. It is not exactly worshipping "in spirit and truth", like John 4:24; that is because of what He is to us, but this is because of what He does.

A.A.T. It is not very far on, but God has something in it. It is like a believers' meeting.

J.T. But the underlying thought is love.

A.S.B. Is there something in the fact that Jehovah spoke to Aaron in this section? He was speaking to Moses earlier, but now it is to Aaron in verse 27.

J.T. You get that continued later on; Aaron is often addressed directly, but so far the position in general is, "Moses and Aaron"; and chapter 7 says, "Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh", so that the communications so far are properly from Jehovah to Moses, and Aaron is the spokesman. Chapter 7 is especially in mind in regard to the system because in these two brothers it is a system representative of God.

J.R.H. Would it be right to say that Moses and Aaron in their approach to Pharaoh are greatly strengthened in moving, not merely as individuals, but with all the faith and worship of the people behind them?

J.T. The instruction is cumulative. Moses is the prime thought of God and it is he who gets the signs from Jehovah. Aaron comes in incidentally, as you might say. There was a vacancy, a lack in the system and he is added, but he is added by a link of love; not just as appointed, but added in love. He is thy brother, God says; we must keep that in mind. It is a question of your brother, and he is going out to meet you and when he sees you he will be glad in his heart. Aaron kissed Moses. The love is evidently at first on Aaron's side and therefore it would be a balance, because Moses was younger than Aaron. Moses had the light, the gift, ability and commission, but Aaron had the love, and love never fails. Even if a brother is younger than you, and has more ability, love will save you from rivalry. Later history would show that Moses led in love as in all else.

A.E.H. This morning in referring to Jacob as mentioned earlier in the book, you connected it with the Psalms; and in the beginning of chapter 5,

Moses in addressing Pharaoh says, "Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel". These Levites, even though approaching Pharaoh in connection with the sufferings of the people, are acting in the light and power of God's purpose as they bring in that name of God, "the God of Israel".

J.T. I think the Psalms help us on that point. In the service of God we need not only the light of God's counsel as in Genesis, but we need the experience that enters into it. So that whilst Abraham is the great father, "who is father of us all", yet Israel, or Jacob, is mentioned far more frequently in the book of Psalms than Abraham. So in Psalm 24:6, it is said, "This is the generation of them that seek unto him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah".

A.E.H. Is that the thought that enters into the book of The Revelation? Worshipping companies come to light there. They remember God, and not only as He is revealed in Christ but His ways on the earth in regard to matters of His judgment; it seems to add tone and quality to their worship.

J.T. Yes. The four and twenty elders in Revelation 4 represent experience with God. The living creatures are not representative of experience with God, but are representative of life; so that in the elders and the living creatures we have the combination of life and experience. In verse 8 it is said, "And the four living creatures, each one of them having respectively six wings; round and within they are full of eyes; and they cease not day and night saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come". That is what they are doing; and verses 9 to 11 tell us why they are worshipping: "And when the living creatures shall give glory and honour and thanksgiving to him that sits upon the throne, who lives to the ages of ages, the twenty-four elders shall fall before him that sits upon the throne, and do homage to him

that lives to the ages of ages; and shall cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou are worthy, O our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honour and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy will they were, and they have been created". It is important as to experience involved in eldership, that we not only set examples to the flock, we not only do right things, but we tell why we do them; we point out what God is.

H.G.H. Is that the reason Aaron is brought in? Moses would appear to lack that experience in chapter 4.

J.T. Yes; the chapter brings out certain defects in Moses. Where defects of great servants are called attention to, it is not that God would cast a shade on any of them. Moses is great enough to stand it, and there is value for us in the narration. Moses lacks wisdom in calling the people rebellious, and God records it that we in our little service should not belittle the saints. Indeed Paul himself when belittled says, All things are yours -- even the servants are yours -- whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, all are yours. So the servant keeps the saints in mind in their dignity.

L.E.S. In the book of Deuteronomy Moses says, "The Lord was angry with me for your sakes".

J.T. Deuteronomy enables us to understand what the three preceding books set out. It is what Moses sees himself, as it were. And we learn in that book that he suffered for the sake of the saints.

S.McC. Zipporah's spirit and language seem to be beneath the dignity of the system that is operating in the way she addresses Moses in verses 25 and 26.

J.T. Quite so. The position really is broken. It is a humbling chapter as regards Moses, and his wife is not helping him. So it is a broken picture, but it ends beautifully, and it is the unfailingness of love that gains the victory. In verse 26 she says, "A

bloody husband -- because of the circumcision". God Himself had been about to deal most drastically with Moses. But then verse 27 is love, and we ought to look for a change if there are any broken conditions, because love is a sure remedy, it never fails. So that Aaron kissed his brother Moses, and Moses told Aaron all the words of Jehovah who had sent him and all the signs that He had commanded him. "And Moses and Aaron went and gathered all the elders of the children of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words that Jehovah had spoken to Moses, and did the signs before the eyes of the people". I think there you get relief coming in from the disorderly condition in the earlier part of the chapter. Love can undo wrong. The two brothers had a good time on the mountain. As to this beautiful result, Aaron is not adding something and saying, I can say that better, but he says what Moses says; he is Moses' spokesman, and the result is that the people believed; and when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. Faith is developed in them because of this happy, lovable condition between the two brothers. It is a dispensation of faith that we are in, and here we see how it is promoted by the happy state of love existing between these two great servants, brothers.

S.McC. So where the picture may be broken, as you were suggesting, but love becomes victorious, all the saints may be affected as we have in the verse referred to where they bowed their heads and worshipped.

J.T. We have to be on our guard so that we may not hinder that. Love brings the change.

A.E.H. It is faith working by love here.

A.P. Is the spirit of independence removed in 1 Corinthians 13, making room for the ministry meeting to go forward happily in chapter 14?

J.T. A brother may be giving a good word, but someone sitting by may have a revelation, and that supersedes what he is doing and he sits down. Love is essential to the operations in the assembly.

A.S.B. What would you say about the mountain of God, the place mentioned in relation to the meeting of the two brothers?

J.T. We could link that with Genesis 22, "On the mount of Jehovah will be provided". The mountain of Jehovah symbolizes divine resources. We know how much came out there afterwards.

A.S.B. In chapter 3 it says Moses went "to Horeb". It is not yet said to be Sinai, it is Horeb.

J.T. The position there is made very clear. It says, "he led the flock behind the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God -- to Horeb". Horeb is the covenant mount; it is in the same range as Sinai, but the two words are used in the way of classification. Horeb is the covenant mount, and Sinai the mount of the law. Moses led the flock to the mountain of God, to the right spot, and the angel appeared to him there. Aaron also went there, it is put that way; Jehovah said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses". There is no preamble at all. We do not know when they saw each other last; there might have been a long time of separation; but Aaron went and met Moses on the mountain of God and kissed him. It is not very remarkable that two brothers should kiss each other, but the Spirit of God considers it necessary to tell us that Aaron kissed Moses. It is important to know how to kiss divinely, to know what a holy kiss is.

W.R. Do you think the state of the people affected Aaron in Numbers 12 when he and Miriam murmured against Moses? Recovery was quick on the part of Aaron.

J.T. Yes, and he interceded for his erring sister. How often a sister comes in to cause dissension amongst the brethren! Now in saying all that, I think it is important for us to follow the result of cumulative circumstances, that faith is coming in; then the people worshipped, believing. Then chapter 5 tells us of the great sufferings of the people, of the degraded conditions they are in because of their bondage to Pharaoh. It is certainly a very different scene from the end of chapter 4, and we have to see now how the degradation and suffering and reproach relate to chapter 6, where Moses and Aaron come in again. In verse 26 of that chapter it says, "This is that Aaron and Moses"; and then in verse 27, "this is that Moses and Aaron". Then in the next chapter we are told how old Moses was; he was eighty and Aaron was eighty-three. The Spirit of God pursues the history of these two brothers, so they should be in our minds. What we have to see now is the practical lesson for us in the vicious opposition of Satan in Pharaoh. How unreasonable he is, and how pretentious! He says in chapter 5: 2, "Who is Jehovah, to whose voice I am to hearken to let Israel go? I do not know Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go". He continues his arrogant attitude in verses 3, 4 and 5. I think we may see how this chapter in a practical way contemplates the everyday employment of the saints, young saints especially. Satan attacks us in these circumstances; we are perhaps looked down upon, belittled, brow-beaten. And in our chapter things are becoming worse and worse, no relief in sight in spite of the word from Jehovah; even Moses and Aaron come under the power of Satan in the way he attacks the saints.

A.E.H. Have you any idea why this one time, in verse 4, it is "the king of Egypt" instead of

"Pharaoh"? Is it fully identifying the position, so that there is no mistaking the opposition?

J.T. It is, I think, to stress the power against the people; to show the advantageous position of persons in this world, employers, men of money; what power they have in their hands, and how Satan uses it to oppress the saints, to cause unbelief and complaint. It is a warning to us in view of our coming out of the world. Such persons are pictured in the king of Egypt and the taskmasters: "And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying, Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore let them go and gather straw for themselves. And the number of the bricks they have made heretofore shall ye lay upon them: ye shall not diminish any of it, for they are idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God. Let them put heavier labour on the men, that they may be taken up with it, and not regard vain words. And the taskmasters of the people and their officers went out and spoke to the people, saying, Thus says Pharaoh: I will not give you straw: go ye, get yourselves straw where ye may find it; but none of your work shall be diminished. And the people were scattered abroad throughout the land of Egypt to gather stubble for straw. And the taskmasters urged them, saying, Fulfil your labours, the daily work, as when there was straw. And the officers of the children of Israel, whom Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and it was said, Why have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick, both yesterday and today, as heretofore?" Let us notice that it is the king of Egypt and the taskmasters against the children of Israel and their officers; the position is turned against the people. It is of great importance to see this, because young people whom God has

delivered out of Egypt are often caught in this way and become complainers.

S.McC. Often turning against the ministry, I suppose, the operation of the system through Moses and Aaron, blaming the ministry in a complaining spirit.

J.T. They are blaming Moses and Aaron: "And the officers of the children of Israel saw that it stood ill with them, because it was said, Ye shall not diminish anything from your bricks, the daily work. And they met Moses and Aaron, who stood there to meet them, as they came out from Pharaoh. And they said to them, Jehovah look upon you and judge". We have to be on our guard how our spirits are on Monday after the Lord's day. Our employer is harsh, maybe, and we get overwhelmed and bitter and complaining and come home in a bad spirit. Satan is in that.

B.P. Does the need of righteousness enter into that, the idea of doing what we are commanded by our masters in a right spirit as those taken out of the world morally?

J.T. Peter helps us on this part of our subject. He instructs us to be entirely subject and non-complaining as a matter of actual righteousness in what we are told to do. Employers may be very unreasonable, but we ought to learn to overcome in such circumstances.

A.S.B. Is there something in the idea of the great brick system being carried forward from Genesis 11? There "they had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar".

J.T. Bricks are a human product -- not so durable as stone. The position here was almost impossible; what was demanded of them was almost impossible to fulfil, and when such a thing arises we had better stand still and see what God will do for us. It is better to be quiet and suffer -- Peter tells

us that. They do not suffer quietly here, their spirits are irritated and they turn against the servants. They blame the brethren.

A.E.H. "For what glory is it, if sinning and being buffeted ye shall bear it? but if, doing good and suffering, ye shall bear it, this is acceptable with God", 1 Peter 2:20. Mr. Darby has added a footnote to "good", that it means "beneficent".

J.T. That is the passage I was thinking of. I am sure the Mondays are a real test for young people because of the character of the employers. No doubt unionism is the product of it in the world, but unionism is the very opposite to the way of God and to the Spirit of Christ.

H.G.H. The activities of God are on behalf of His people in the officers interceding for the children of Israel: "Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried to Pharaoh, saying, Why dost thou deal thus with thy bondmen?"

J.T. They are the Israelites' own officers, their own people. The taskmasters are higher up, responsible directly to Pharaoh; he is the king and more powerful. So that the thing is to meet it in the Spirit of Christ. It says of the Lord, that He "gave himself over into the hands of him who judges righteously", 1 Peter 2:23.

Rem. If my spirit is affected on Monday, it will affect the system on Monday night.

J.T. Yes; the prayer meeting is the right outlet, and relief comes in there.

L.E.S. Do you think the position is like that in Acts 4? "And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word, in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that sighs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus".

J.T. Quite so. That is the right spirit in servants, those who work the work of the Lord. But this, I

think, refers to our own everyday work, such as on Mondays, and I do not think any one of us will deny it is a very real test; the devil is using our employers, the taskmasters, those high up too. Our spirits become irritated and deified and there is no testimony.

F.K.C. It says, "Christ, then, having suffered for us in the flesh, do ye also arm yourselves with the same mind", 1 Peter 4:1. It is a question of our arming ourselves to meet this.

J.T. That is the idea. There are different armours: there is the armour of the mind, the armour of God and the armour of light; here it is the mind that is to be armed. It is the attitude of my mind, and I am not to be overcome but wait for God to come in. We are to wait to see what God will do after the prayer meeting. At the end chapter 5 Moses himself is distressed; so it says in chapter 6, "And Jehovah said to Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh; for by a strong hand shall he let them go, and by a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land". That may be looked for after the prayer meeting, what God will do.

Rem. In verses 6, 7 and 8 God says, "I will", "I will", "I will".

J.T. Yes; first, in verse 2, "God spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am Jehovah. And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as the Almighty God; but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them". He brings Himself before Moses as the Almighty God. He is telling Moses about Himself, and a revelation is made to him. "And I established also my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were sojourners. And I have heard also the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians have forced to serve, and I have remembered my covenant. Therefore say

unto the children of Israel, I am Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their service, and I will redeem you with a stretched-out arm, and with great judgments. And I will take you to me for a people, and will be your God; and ye shall know that I, Jehovah your God, am he who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians". That is what you had in mind, God's "I will". The meeting for prayer is really the victory meeting. In a general way the prayer meeting begins in New Zealand while it is still the Lord's day in this country and moves around finishing up in America on the Pacific coast. It is a long period and God is hearing and we shall get the answers. Those will be in these expressions, "I will".

H.B. In chapter 6 God reverts to the thought of the land.

J.T. Yes; and not only to these great thoughts including the land, but He brings in the genealogy of the tribes, first Reuben, then Simeon and then Levi. But Levi opens up a new page, a chapter of glory, the greatness attaching to the priestly family to which we all belong. The prayer meeting is linked with that.

S.McC. So no more is said as to the generations after Levi is introduced, as if the end is reached.

J.T. Levi, as it were, has all the tribes incorporated in the tribe of glory, and would link up this idea with Deuteronomy 33 where we shall see what a tribe it is, the priestly family. Well, when are we going to enter into all this? The chapter opens up an eternal state of things to us, full of personal glory that culminates in Eleazar and Phinehas: "And Eleazar Aaron's son took one of the daughters of Putiel as wife; and she bore him Phinehas: these are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according

to their families". Phinehas has the everlasting priesthood.

A.A.T. You spoke about how we are tested by our jobs and our employers; as living in abnormal times and doing war work, meetings are likely to be missed; is that in line with what you were speaking about?

J.T. The extra work hinders development in the saints, and also the extra hours worked bring relatively larger incomes, and our cupidity is aroused by the possibility of great earnings. It is really against the priesthood. It is what God is doing that is the point. This system that we want to understand is a liberating system and God is setting it over against the system of oppression.

Rem. If I am suffering I would recall the fact that God delivered Jacob from Laban.

J.T. Yes; Jacob does not say his wages increased ten times, but they changed ten times. That was a complaint, it was really a hardship to his mind, a good cause for unionism, but we do not want to live in that; Jacob was on low ground when he talked about his wages being changed. Christ is our great Priest above; Melchisedec is the very acme of priestly greatness and dignity.

S.McC. In 2 Corinthians 6, among the sufferings and afflictions narrated Paul injects this word: "in the Holy Spirit". Would that have a bearing on chapter 6 over against chapter 5?

J.T. Yes; that is the power of the thing. The word in very often means 'in the power of'. "In the Holy Spirit" means it is in that power; it is victory over against what he has been speaking about. I think this chapter ought to be in our minds over against chapter 5, as indicating the system of love, the system that God is setting up. We shall see from chapter 7 onwards that Moses is not only representative to man but he is made God to Pharaoh, and

Aaron is his prophet. The servant is made representative of God. I mention that so that we shall have it before us.

J.R.H. Another of Peter's words would link on with this, that "the Spirit of God rests upon you".

J.T. Quite so.

DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (3)

Exodus 7:14 - 25; Exodus 8:16 - 24

J.T. No doubt the brethren will bear in mind the remarks made in our previous reading with regard to chapters 5 and 6, and how the idea of a system is confirmed and seen operating effectively. We finished yesterday by reading chapter 7, verse 1, "And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet". This passage is a striking confirmation of what has been said about the system that God had inaugurated in type in Egypt, the antitype being His present operations through the gospel for the deliverance of His people out of the world. He keeps Himself before us representatively here in the type. He said to Moses, "I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet". Moses would thus be representative of God, not made 'a god', but made "God to Pharaoh". Thus God can be represented. The evidence of this in the antitype refers to Christ being God, being a divine Person, being Deity in Himself, not merely by appointment (Moses' place is by appointment), but in actual fact; He is a divine Person who has part in the Godhead, but is known as Man down here. In Colossians it is said, "For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell" (Colossians 1:19). Then in chapter 2 it says, "For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). So that what was in type in Egypt gives a complete representation of God, and this is seen operatively in the verses read: "And Jehovah said to Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened: he refuseth to let the people go. Go unto Pharaoh in the morning -- behold, he will go out unto the water -- and take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him; and take in thy hand the staff

that was turned into a serpent. And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; but behold, hitherto thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Jehovah: In this shalt thou know that I am Jehovah -- behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river, and it shall be turned into blood". The staff which Jehovah says is in His hand is the staff that had been turned into a serpent; it is seen here in Jehovah's hand, though actually in Moses', showing how perfectly the idea of representation is there. It was seen in effect in Moses' hand, in Jehovah's hand, and in Aaron's hand.

L.E.S. Would chapter 7 be a further thought than chapter 4 in regard to Moses being God to Pharaoh? In chapter 4 it refers to Moses being God to Aaron.

J.T. Well, I suppose Moses' position in chapter 4 is typical, being representative of Jehovah. "And he shall speak for thee unto the people; and it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God". There it would be 'instead of' or 'for', more qualifying the God set out in Moses; but in chapter 7 it is, "I have made thee God", not simply 'for' or 'instead of', but God Himself. The full thought would be there, and what Moses would do would be, as it were, final. It would be God operating. The former is somewhat modified and yet the same idea runs through both. Colossians is the antitype, the full idea that Christ is God. He said, "He that has seen me has seen the Father", John 14:9. That did not mean that the Father was there, save as one divine Person seen representatively in Another, and therefore the Son's position would be mediatorial. But in Colossians it is "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"; that is not mediatorial, it is really Deity in Christ. In the first chapter it is "the fulness" without saying

what fulness it is, as if the word "fulness" carried the thought of Deity. But in Colossians 2 it is more definite and personal to Christ as Man down here when the word "bodily" is added. I think that here in chapter 7 Moses is a type of Christ as having part in Deity, not simply having a mediatorial position, but God being there. "I have made thee God", not 'a god', or 'for God', or 'instead of' God, but 'God'. God is verily there; Pharaoh is made to feel that.

W.L. Does that mean that God would do nothing in regard of Pharaoh or the Egyptians apart from Moses?

J.T. That is the way it worked out. The very rod that Moses held, according to verse 17, was God's, indeed the very hand of Moses was God's hand. "In this shalt thou know that I am Jehovah -- behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river"; such is the completeness of the representation that God is there.

A.E.H. Would you connect this in any way with what is current in the last few years -- that the matter of the Person of Christ has been clarified for us so that we know His part in the Deity as we did not know it before? So that we may look at what transpires on the earth now in that light as connected with the judgment here upon Egypt.

J.T. Well, hymn 181 became a sort of crucial part of the hymn book on the point. Hymn 1 [in the 1932 edition] was intended to represent the deity of Christ in Fatherhood, but it has since been shown by analysis to be somewhat defective, whereas hymn 181 [in the 1932 edition] is more accurate, conveying what is now in mind. It says in verse one: 'Wonderful the Godhead glory Shining, Saviour, in Thy face!'

Then in the last verse we have: 'Thou art greater, glorious Saviour, Than the glory Thou hast won; Thee -- the great "I AM" -- we worship, Mighty God, Eternal One!' (Hymn 181).

It is not 'Eternal Son', but 'Eternal One', that is the change made. 'Eternal Son' did not represent rightly the deity of Christ, but carried with it, as in the creed, the thought of inferiority in the term 'Son', whereas in truth He is in the Deity. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", John 1:1. That is how the Scripture presents the truth. I think that it is, at least in figure, seen here in the word "I have made thee God to Pharaoh", not 'a god', but God Himself provisionally. "I have made thee God to Pharaoh"; so that the very rod that Moses held in his hand, (verse 17) was in the hand of Jehovah.

A.E.H. I was wondering if this statement coming just where it does in chapter 7, preceding the divine dealings with Egypt and the extricating of the people, might suggest that we might look at what is going on in the earth now in a different light. God would not take one step until this matter was cleared up. Now that it has been clarified, we may see something of what transpires in the judgment of Egypt.

J.T. I think it has explained the difference between chapter 4 and chapter 7. Moses was to be "for God" to Aaron in chapter 4, but in chapter 7 he is made God to Pharaoh.

S.McC. Would there be a link with Luke's gospel? In Luke 9 the Lord healed the child and handed it back to the father, and it says, "And all were astonished at the glorious greatness of God". Do you think there is something similar there?

J.T. Yes, God is there. God has visited His people, so that Matthew says, "They shall call his

name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, 'God with us'". It was nothing less than "God with us".

H.G.H. Do the operations of Moses in chapter 7 suggest authority in connection with this system?

J.T. That should be impressed upon us, that God had come into Egypt. He reveals His name to Moses according to chapter 3: "And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you". Now there is a plain statement of who was there. Moses would have it brought out. It is not now a mediatorial thought, it is not God in someone, it is He, Himself. It is not simply "I AM", but "God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM", that is what He calls Himself. The phrase, "THAT I AM", would bring out what was happening, what Moses might see or would see, but the "I AM" by itself is, we might say, like the title of Jah, it is abstract, the essential idea of Deity.

S.McC. What is the difference between the idea of "the Word" as in John 1 and God speaking "in ... Son" in Hebrews 1?

J.T. That latter statement alludes to Christ incarnate. John 1:1 - 3 does not allude to Christ incarnate, it is Christ in Deity before incarnation. In verse 14 He is seen as become flesh, and verse 4 touches on that when it says, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men". That involves that Christ had become Man amongst men. Verses 1 to 3 involve what He was before incarnation; whereas Hebrews 1:1 alludes to Him in incarnation. It is a question of God speaking: "God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these

days has spoken to us in (the person of the) Son". It is not 'by' the Son, but 'in Son'. The truth is conveyed in the best way that translation can convey it; we must look at the Darby Translation to get the sense. In the original it is, "God ... at the end of these days has spoken to us in Son". That alludes to Christ in incarnation, but "the person of the" is inserted in brackets to give the full sense; it alludes to Him as Man, and that God is speaking in Him (the Son being a divine Person); the speaker is God Himself. (See notes in Darby Translation).

J.B. Would the beginning in John 1 be the same as the beginning in Genesis 1?

J.T. Well, it is the same beginning; John 1 might be somewhat greater.

Ques. Does this enhance the system?

J.T. It does. That is why I thought we might begin with the first verse of Exodus 7, transferring our thoughts to the antitype, where the New Testament brings in a divine Person actually here, not only in a mediatorial sense, but actually here.

J.R.H. Why does God bring forward the deity of Christ in this great appeal to the world's system to free His people?

J.T. I think it is to carry weight into the gospel. It is a wonderful thing that God should take the position of appeal in the gospel.

F.C. In John 8 the Lord says, "Before Abraham was, I am"; and then in the end of the gospel, when they seek to take Him, He says, "I am he", and they went away backward and fell to the ground. Would they rightly understand that God was there?

J.T. We can hardly say they understood it, but we can understand that what affected them was the presence of God. He was there.

A.H.P. The same thought is in 2 Corinthians 4, "Because it is the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our

hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ".

J.T. Quite so. God shines in our hearts.

L.K. Would what follows in Exodus 7, "and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet", enhance the divine speaking?

J.T. I think so. Of course, what is seen here is largely typical, although, as we said, God was there. The mediatorial position is seen more in Aaron, especially if you refer back to chapter 4. Aaron is able to do the same things as Moses did; he is able to use the rod of Moses, but nevertheless Jehovah, alluding to Moses' staff, said, "The staff that is in my hand". It was really God operating and Moses was to understand that; so that when we come to the "gnats" the magicians said, "This is the finger of God!" (Exodus 8:19). Truly it was, the literal action was God's. He had said to Moses, "Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy staff, and smite the dust of the earth, and it shall become gnats throughout the land of Egypt". It came from God, through Moses to Aaron. The mediatorial position was very definite there, but it was nevertheless the finger of God that was operating.

A.E.H. Your suggestion of bringing the deity of Christ into the gospel, giving weight to it, is interesting. I wonder if Peter had that in mind in chapter 4 of his first epistle: "For the time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come; but if first from us, what shall be the end of those who obey not the glad tidings of God?" I suppose that is the idea there, that it is God, or the finger of God, and it must be weighty if that is so.

J.T. Well, it is important for any of us who are qualified to represent God in ministry to keep before us the ground on which we are.

L.E.S. All this would be basic in regard to the complete overthrow of the world's system. In Luke 11:20

the Lord brings it in, "But if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you".

J.T. I think that is right. It is the index finger that is in mind in such an operation; to use a commonplace phrase, He put His finger on the real issue. The mind is involved in the index finger. God is operating to show He is taking account of the thing; He is dealing with a particular thing just as it is.

S.McC. In regard to the two lines of thought you have been stressing concerning the Person of Christ, this matter of representation and then the thought of Deity in Him, do you view in the Person m the gospels these two lines of thought going together, or do you view them at distinct times?

J.T. I think chapter 4 is more mediatorial, that is, Aaron acting. Moses acts for God to him and Aaron understands, and the end of the chapter shows that the position was very effective because the people believed. I believe the mediatorial thought runs through the Acts in Paul's ministry, "how that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself", 2 Corinthians 5:19. It is not simply that God was reconciling the world to Himself, but was in Christ doing it. That is mediatorial, bringing the Person of Christ into evidence, so that He is representative of grace in the system.

Rem. The apostle continues in that scripture, "We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God".

J.T. It is not stated so strongly as to infer that God is doing it directly through us. The mediator-ship is in Christ. It is more manifest in Him than it is in any servant, even Paul. When the thought comes down to the actual servant, Paul is a servant of Christ, but he is still the minister of reconciliation.

As the statement in Exodus 4 is somewhat modified as compared with that in chapter 7, so we come to this, that it is God Himself we are dealing with, only in "Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever". It is Christ, God Himself, with whom we are dealing, "He is the true God and eternal life".

M.O. Is that the thought in 1 Corinthians 14 where an unbeliever is brought to say, "God is indeed amongst you"?

J.T. Just so; "and thus, falling upon his face, he will do homage to God".

J.R.H. Would you liken the staff to the prophetic word bringing God in?

J.T. Yes. The staff is a symbol. This specific one that had been turned into a serpent is the very one that was in God's hand, and the very one that was in Moses' hand, and the very one that was in Aaron's hand, too, suggesting the Trinity you may say. Each One of the Deity is God; They are not gods, but God may be represented in any of Them. Aaron used his own staff also.

A.H.P. Do you regard Pharaoh here as suggesting the god of this world, and Moses standing before him as the thought of God operating to liberate His people from him?

J.T. Just so. Satan is an imitator, that is what the magicians represent here. Paul takes them up and names them in 2 Timothy, though they are not named here; indeed they are not mentioned by name anywhere except by Paul, to bring out that they were just imitators; he says, "Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses" (chapter 3: 8). Satan is an imitator, he observes what God does and imitates it, but adds his own foul character to what he does.

S.McC. Are you viewing the thought of the mediatorial service in chapter 4 as something in which we might have part; but the thought of "I

have made thee God to Pharaoh" in chapter 7 as exclusive to Christ in the antitype?

J.T. Yes; "whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming", 2 Thessalonians 2:8. That is God, God Himself.

S.McC. Peter says, "If any one speak -- as oracles of God". Would that be more in line with chapter 4?

J.T. It would be. I am glad you brought that out. Chapter 4 says, "And he shall speak for thee unto the people; and it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God". That lay between Moses and Aaron; Aaron would speak to the people. But in chapter 7 it is, "I have made thee God to Pharaoh", so that Pharaoh is having to do with God Himself, and Aaron is the spokesman or prophet.

W.L. Is that why we do not see any failure in Moses' dealings with Pharaoh?

J.T. Just so. All that goes through here in regard to the plagues and dealings with Egypt is remarkably accurate; it is God's operation for the deliverance of His people, so that He ultimately says, "I have borne you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself" (chapter 19: 4). Moses and Aaron were used in all that.

Ques. David says in 2 Samuel 7:23, "And who is like thy people, like Israel, the one nation in the earth that God went to redeem to be a people to himself?". The word "went" there is plural. Would that be in connection with the mediatorial side?

J.T. We have the plural in a similar sense m Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man in our image". We might put the Trinity into it. The plural, however, is a matter of emphasis in some instances. Clearly we are entitled to put Deity into Genesis 1:26,

because we know the truth, God being now revealed.

A.S.B. Is all this to bring out the superiority of God's system as over against Pharaoh and his system?

J.T. Quite so. "Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world", 1 John 4:4. It is the Spirit of God in detail, but it is God, and it is greater than he that is in the world, so that we are victorious from the start.

Rem. It says in chapter 11 that Moses was very great.

J.T. It actually reads, "the man Moses". I refer to that because God would keep the man before us; and so in Numbers 12 where he is rivalled by his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam. "But the man Moses was very meek", it says. God would bring in these thoughts to keep our eyes on the real Man whom He is using.

H.G.H. In chapter 7: 16 God is referred to as "Jehovah the God of the Hebrews"; whereas in verse 1 it is, "I have made thee God to Pharaoh". Would you say a word about that?

J.T. It does not seem that God wished to convey that Moses was God in any general sense; he was God to Pharaoh, but there is no suggestion that he was God to the Hebrews. He was for God to Aaron, which is a more limited thought, to make the thing effective; but God Himself in the absolute sense is the God of His people. So He says, "I am ... the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (chapter 3: 6) In verse 16 it says, "Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness". God is now putting Himself forward in regard of His people, they are precious in His sight. He had previously been telling Moses what

He thinks of them, how He is coming down to deliver them, and how He intends to be worshipped by them, and hence He had sent to Pharaoh saying, "Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn" (Exodus 4:23). That is, God keeping Himself before Pharaoh, He is telling Pharaoh in the strongest terms that He has before Him an object in the relationship of son. All this is very precious, but you could not apply that to Moses. The application of the thought of God to Moses is very limited, just for a provisional purpose. In the abstract it is God Himself. "The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4) and again, "In that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one", Zechariah 14:9. That is kept before Israel always; so that it is the service of God by His son that is in mind, and the crucial point was to get Israel out of Egypt in view of this. God is saying, so to speak, to make the position as effective as possible, I will make the mediator God; I will invest him with divine prerogatives so as to express power.

A.E.H. In our contact with the authorities in these days, do you think the full position requires that there should be conveyed to them in some sense that they are having to do with God as well as with us? In addition to our being able to say, He is our God, they should have the sense in their own consciences that they are having to do with God.

J.T. That is so. God is brought to them in the saints, in the young men who go before the Boards. On the other hand, the Boards represent God, but that keeps you humble and lowly, for they are God's ministers for good. So the position is remarkable, how God presents Himself in the person of the young brother who is before the Board; and on the other hand, in that tribunal he has himself to do with God in his conscience as a believer in Jesus.

That gives him a moral greatness the Board could not have.

Ques. What about "the God of the Hebrews"?

J.T. That means that the people are under reproach, yet God is there and is Himself their Leader.

F.M. They are not looked at as Moses' people, but as God's people.

J.T. Moses was an Israelite, and they were Israelites. But this matter of clothing persons with authority is important in Scripture. In Acts 10:38 it speaks of "Jesus who was of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went through all quarters doing good". He went about doing good, for God was with Him; the anointing represents the authority of God. It was not simply God Himself doing good, but God was with Him as He was doing good; that is another matter, a mediatorial matter.

F.C. Why is Moses' attitude, the stand that he is to take, emphasized here? "Go unto Pharaoh in the morning -- behold, he will go out unto the water -- and take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him".

J.T. "Go unto Pharaoh in the morning". There are a good many mornings spoken of in Exodus. "Behold, he will go out unto the water". He has just risen on this morning in the sense of his own greatness; the river is his, he is the big man in Egypt. The river is the support of Egypt and, according to his thought, it is his river. The prophets tell us that that would be the language of his heart, that the river is his, whereas truly it is God's. Egypt represents the resources of this world, man having them under his hand, and Pharaoh is seen here in his own greatness. God is telling Moses to make due allowance for that. "And take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him": 'Moses, you are not to be servile now; you are not a god,

but God. I am qualifying you with that, I am making you all-powerful. You stand with that in your mind, and if you do you will be victorious. What can he do against you?' "And take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him; and take in thy hand the staff that was turned into a serpent". That is the weapon he carried, that staff of Moses', which in another sense, represented his experience. He was not just any Israelite chosen to do this work; his staff represents his experience. It has been turned into a serpent and turned back into a staff. God has secured a Man in Christ; He has secured a Man in this way and He is all-powerful.

A.E.H. Does it work out in my experience that I learn what it is to come under the control of God, and thus know something of the features of manhood as seen in Christ, man taken up in Christ?

J.T. Just so. You are full of the thought when preaching the gospel. So that Romans begins: "Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to God's glad tidings, (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings) concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:1 - 4). Your mind is immediately directed to Christ in the gospel, it is the gospel of God concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

A.A.T. It says (verse 16), "And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness". May we think of that service as the service of God eventually?

J.T. Certainly; it enhances all that He had been saying to Moses. Aaron coming into it represents the humanity of Christ more in His compassion and grace in the system thus set up, but what God has in mind is to have sons. At the Jordan He announced

from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son" (Luke 3:22), and then again, "This is my beloved Son", Matthew 3:17. He is God's beloved Son, known to Himself, but known to others also. God is going to carry on in Him, and in carrying on in Him He is going to have sons, the service of sons; and that enters into God's delight in Christ. God is taking up humanity in sons. He has delivered them out of Egypt to serve Him.

Rem. These sons must be brought into liberty.

J.T. That is the idea. He is going to take them out of the world, He is going to deliver them out of Egypt.

R.A. You mentioned that Pharaoh had just risen. What had you in mind?

J.T. A man would be at his best in vigour after his night's rest. "My river is mine", he would say, according to Ezekiel. What a man he was! How inflated he would be! He had already said to Moses, according to chapter 5: 2, "Who is Jehovah, to whose voice I am to hearken to let Israel go? I do not know Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go". That is the inflated character of the man, the god of this world. Satan is not only called the god of this world, he is called the prince of it. I suppose Pharaoh would be like a prince here; Egypt is his kingdom, the Nile is his river. He cared nothing for God, that is the position. Moses had to meet that, and this is how he is to do it. He is to stand in front of him with the staff in his hand that had been turned into a serpent, and the word is again, "And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee". Moses is not calling attention to himself as God, he is calling attention to God, but he has it in his soul that he is made God to Pharaoh, and that he is for God to Aaron. "Let my people go", the word is, "that they may serve me in the wilderness; but behold, hitherto thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Jehovah: In this shalt thou

know that I am Jehovah -- behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river, and it shall be turned into blood". That is to say, the real power is going out through Moses' hand, but it is God's hand.

Rem. God says to Moses, "Say unto Aaron, Take thy staff, and stretch out thy hand upon the waters of the Egyptians"; it is Aaron who used the staff.

J.T. That is what we have been talking about. There are three ideas: God Himself is using the staff, but Moses' hand is the actual hand, that is the second thing; the third thing is that Aaron is the immediate vessel or instrument for the use of the staff. He is the priest, as if God is modifying things. This is not the final judgment, it is not like the book of Revelation, it is grace. Christianity is grace towards men -- kings, or whatever they may be. It is Aaron that is lifting up the staff: "and Moses and Aaron did so, as Jehovah had commanded; and he lifted up the staff". That is Aaron. The point is that in figure the Trinity is in the operation. The "he" you have to follow; who is the "he"? Well, abstractly it is God, but concretely it is Aaron, because the actual vessel is to be gracious, and Aaron represents that side. He is a modifier; so the word of God comes through Moses in chapter 4, but it comes out in grace through Aaron. Grace comes through the priest, which thought would attach to Aaron in principle, and of course that is of great importance in our service. The more we come into contact with men, the more we realize the skill that is needed. We are to carry the sense of God's authority, but you consider the character of the man you have to deal with. The gospels and the epistles show how the service is to be carried oh. Take a man like Cornelius, see how graciously he was dealt with; while Simon Magus was dealt with harshly, no grace at all. "Thy money go with thee to destruction",

Peter said. So with Bar-jesus -- he was dealt with in the harshest possible way: "O full of all deceit and all craft: son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness; wilt thou not cease perverting the right paths of the Lord?". So that we are to learn how to deal with men. That is why we have Moses and Aaron; sometimes Aaron is mentioned first, sometimes God speaks directly to him. It is a question of levitical understanding, how we are to deal with men, to know what is there, to know what to say to them, how to speak to them.

R.A. This would be man in his bigness. You were speaking of Pharaoh in his full vigour rising up in his full power. I was thinking how the Lord overcame the Pharisees, the strength of the enemy in the religious man directed against the strength of God.

J.T. What has been said should be borne in mind. We are now here in the last days seeking to serve men; it is the gospel period yet, and we are to carry on the gospel service, however feebly. We are to bring into it the original principles that were inaugurated. Things come out in a modified way in a priest. Luke is the great priestly gospel and also the great evangelical gospel.

W.L. Would you say that God's dealings in Egypt are governmental rather than judicial, in view of what He has before Him in the extrication of the people?

J.T. Well, it is mingled with grace, as already remarked. The gospel is the approach by God to men; He approaches men in priestly grace. As I was saying, we get many examples in the New Testament of how men are met in grace.

L.E.S. Will you say a word as to Isaiah 19:25? "Whom Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance!" That chapter seems to deal with Egypt in the future.

J.T. Well, that would be a matter of understanding the passage. According to the quotation you made, God then had Egypt in mind as in favour. He was not going to destroy it then, and earlier He warned His people not to be ungracious to the Egyptians; they had been bondmen there. He had a gracious bearing towards them. So you find here that as the plagues proceeded the Egyptians themselves began to fear, showing that the plagues are accompanied by the administration of grace as well as of judgment.

L.E.S. I was wondering whether that would not work out in relation to the preaching of the gospel?

J.T. I believe it does. We must be historical in considering levitical principles; so that whilst the commission was to "Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation", we must observe principles that came in subsequently as governing the service. The East was not much in mind, and yet it was part of the creation, but we have no record that the twelve journeyed towards the East. They laboured amongst the Jews and proselytes that came from there, but Paul went directly to the West; so that other principles came in and the gospel has been, we may say, entirely restricted to the western nations and their outgoings. But God has not forgotten the eastern nations; presently there will be a gospel to them, as we may see in Revelation 14.

W.R. Stephen had history in mind in Acts 7.

J.T. He had indeed, he proceeded on this line. He says, "The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham". What a fine start in a spiritual historical account!

A.E.H. It is in God's mind that the knowledge of Himself should become general in the world; God is taking these people out of Egypt in view of that. Do

we in a historical sense get light on these plagues as linking on with the book of Revelation?

J.T. There is no doubt that the book of Revelation helps in the illustration of the signs, because they were effective. The Egyptians, that is, their leaders, were destroyed. The book of Revelation contemplates finality in judgment. The earlier plagues are more modified, applying to the present time. So that we have the plague of lice or gnats, representing life; they are not withdrawn. The flies and the frogs and the others are, but not the plague of lice, the plague that is called by the scribes of Egypt "the finger of God". They are living, they are not withdrawn, I believe they run right on to the end. It is a gracious thing that God has put a living people, only under reproach, right in the midst of the people of the world at the present time. I believe the rulers are all modified in their conduct by the presence of the gnats, who are not only despised but also very uncomfortable people to have around; yet their influence is good.

A.A.T. A brother who has a conscience, you mean, is a gnat?

J.T. I think so; we are very uncomfortable people for worldlings to deal with, but they would not be without us. I do not believe the leaders would be without the brethren though they may make them uncomfortable.

J.R.H. What does this turning of the water into blood indicate?

J.T. We cannot go into all the plagues, we have not time. But as seen here blood is a gruesome thing, a terrible thing; it is death as God allows it to come among men in this way. The book of Revelation alludes to it in this sense in chapter 16: 3.

S.McC. Would these plagues carry a certain form of teaching in regard to the truth and the operation

of the system, teaching that bears upon us, God's people, and our deliverance from Egypt?

J.T. They would. The waters are seen turned into blood. Water is refreshing in itself; Christianity is refreshing, but it is turned into blood according to the book of Revelation. The refreshing power of water is taken away from men and turned into a foul thing. I believe it alludes to apostasy. The Lord says, "Her children will I kill with death", Revelation 2:23. That is not physical death, it is moral death.

Ques. "And has insulted the Spirit of grace", (Hebrews 10:29), would that be this idea? The blood instead of expressing vitality in men is turned into death.

J.T. It is something like that. What is refreshing and preservative and satisfying is changed. Possibly you might apply it to Christianity, refreshing to the whole earth, as it is now in measure, but to be turned into a state of moral death. It would be an apostate condition. The question of life is most interesting; God is continuing the idea of life throughout this whole dispensation, be it a gnat, or whatever it may be; but people are made to feel it as disquieting. It is not the finger of the devil; it is "the finger of God". People do not care about us; they do not care for the Christians, they are ashamed to be identified with them and yet at times they cannot help speaking well about them, in some cases very well.

R.H. Would Pilate's wife be representative of this? She suffered many things on account of Christ. She said, "Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered today many things in a dream because of him".

J.T. Quite so. She was in accord with the Holy Sufferer; He was suffering, and she suffered many things on account of Him. I do not think people

today are suffering for that same reason, they are suffering because the gnats make them suffer. They are suffering from what the gnats do. They are on the people; the preposition is "on". "All the dust of the land became gnats" (chapter 8: 17). Think how many there were!

V.H.C. Is there any sequence in these judgments? First of all the staff is turned into a serpent, and then there is blood, which, as you say, is moral death; and then live frogs and gnats. Is there any connection?

J.T. The staff was turned into a serpent before Moses; that gave it its character. It did not remain a serpent. Moses took it back by the tail under divine direction and it became a staff again in his hand, and that is what it is now. It is man recovered, and Moses is operating on that principle with the Egyptians, that man is to be recovered. The Egyptians as a whole were not recovered, but some of them were, and many of them will be in a later day, as the passage read in Isaiah 19 shows. The rod Moses and Aaron are using represents man taken out of Satan's power. The Egyptians are not yet taken out of Satan's power, but some of them will be. That is the principle of our dispensation. What I am saying is in chapter 4. The rod was turned into a serpent on the ground before Moses; it is that which is in his hand now and he smites the waters with it and turns them to blood.

V.H.C. What is in mind in chapter 7: 10, "And Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and did so, as Jehovah had commanded; and Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh, and before his bondmen, and it became a serpent"?

J.T. That was for a sign, but it had previously been turned into a serpent and turned back into a staff. It was a recovered man God was using, who

was His instrument. This sign here, the staff being turned into a serpent, was for Pharaoh's eyes. That is not a plague. The first plague was the blood.

V.H.C. That is what I want made clear: the blood comes in as moral death, and then come in the frogs and gnats -- life.

J.T. Frogs are repulsive things. It is suggestive of the condition in which man is. See how they go into their very rooms, into their ovens, how God could bring home to them what sin effects in a man. The rod had been a serpent, but as Moses carried it, it was representative of man recovered. So the frogs are number two of the plagues, the gnats are number three. Gnats represent life in the midst of the Egyptians, that is, the Israelites were really living, abstractly anyway; so in chapter 8, that plague is said to be "the finger of God". There is no preamble before the introduction of that plague. "And Jehovah said to Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy staff, and smite the dust of the earth, and it shall become gnats throughout the land of Egypt. And they did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff, and smote the dust of the earth, and there arose gnats on man and on beast: all the dust of the land became gnats throughout the land of Egypt. And the scribes did so with their sorceries, to bring forth gnats; but they could not. And the gnats were on man and on beast" (chapter 8: 16 - 18). It is a very big idea, as if God would say, I will keep life before men's eyes. These are men, they are living people, not only physically living -- in a sense the frogs were that -- but gnats represent life in a moral and spiritual sense, they are called "the finger of God". There is no suggestion of the finger of God in the frogs.

J.R.H. Anything on the side of moral death and uncleanness, as seen in the water turned into blood, and the frogs, could be imitated by the scribes; but

when it comes to life it was beyond them, they could not do anything.

J.T. They told Pharaoh that. And there is no removal of this plague, the gnats are left; that is grace. In the antitype God leaves living people among dead people, among apostates, or at least people who do not believe. Then in the next paragraph -- "And Jehovah said to Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh -- behold, he will go out to the water -- and say to him, Thus saith Jehovah, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For, if thou do not let my people go, behold, I will send dog-flies upon thee, and upon thy bondmen, and upon thy people, and into thy houses; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of dog-flies, and also the ground on which they are. And I will distinguish in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no dog-flies shall be there; that thou mayest know that I Jehovah am in the midst of the land". He does not say, There shall be no lice there -- that plague is living, and the Egyptians know it; they called it "the finger of God". It is really a mercy that there are such people as this type suggests at the present time.

It is a testimony that there are living people moving about amongst those who are not believers, or only half-believers. We have real people in the gnats, so God says, I am making a difference, "And I will put a separation between my people and thy people; to-morrow shall this sign be". Notice that word "separation", as if to say, The gnats are not to be withdrawn. Why should they not be separate? And why should we not be so? Why should we not have fellowship meetings among ourselves? We want to be separate, we are not of them. "Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord", 2 Corinthians 6:17. God says, I am putting a distinction upon them by redemption;

He is identifying Himself with a living people.

L.E.S. There is constant testimony from God's people over against the world.

J.T. That is most important. They are not literally removed from the world, but God is identifying Himself with them.

L.E.S. So that the young men themselves, as having stood, maintaining a good conscience, become a constant source of concern to the authorities.

Rem. A young brother kneels down in prayer in the camp and others are disturbed.

J.T. Yet someone might get light and help through that. I am sure that is the actual position.

F.M. It is something like the wheat and tares growing together?

J.T. Well, yes, as being together in the world, only that here God's people are separated in Goshen; there is no death there, the plagues did not touch them.

Rem. Stephen's testimony to the Israelites made Saul uncomfortable. It was hard for him to kick against the pricks.

J.T. Just so.

DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (4)

Exodus 12:1 - 6, 2: 1 - 28; Exodus 13:17 - 22

J.T. Our subject is the divine system as set out typically in the book of Exodus, operating there for the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and operating today for the deliverance of God's people out of the world. We noted particularly in our previous readings the component parts of the system -- Moses and Aaron in chapter 4, and in chapter 6 the personnel or elements enlarged on in the increase in the priestly family. Love was noted as entering into the system, seen in Moses and Aaron being brothers, and particularly in Aaron as being a man of affection. Aaron had the second place although he was older than Moses by three years; he was therefore at a certain disadvantage, which love would enable him to overcome; and in general it did overcome, although there was a certain rivalry seen later, not only between him and Moses but between him and Miriam and Moses. That is to say, Aaron and Miriam took issue with Moses in the spirit of rivalry, but love prevailed so that the service proceeded. We noted how the combined services of Moses and Aaron led to worship in the people in chapter 4. We see it here again in verse 27 of chapter 12, as Moses outlined the passover: "Ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses. And the people bowed their heads and worshipped".

Then in chapter 7 we saw how the system was augmented in Jehovah making Moses God to Pharaoh, and Aaron his prophet. The plagues are clearly introduced to bring out the power that was there in the system. God Himself is there, using through Moses' hand the very rod that had been

turned into a serpent and restored. This is the staff which Moses was to use, and Aaron too. God Himself also used it for the deliverance of His people. The deliverance of the people is kept in view throughout chapter 4; Israel is called God's son, to be released by Pharaoh to serve God. That is kept in view throughout, but Pharaoh is seen in chapter 5 as in opposition and in a defiant, rebellious attitude. He says, "Who is Jehovah?", utterly ignoring the God of whom Moses was speaking, the One who said, "I AM", God Himself. The light of God Himself is in Moses' heart and in Aaron's heart, and they are set up in that light in the power of God who is with them. The plagues are seen as signs but as conveying light too. They are not to destroy Egypt but to break it down, and at the same time to enlighten the people that they may get the benefit of the light in the plagues. They were intended to break Egypt down, weakening but not destroying it; at the same time there was an evidence of God's grace in that He allowed Moses to intercede for Pharaoh. There was thus a gracious side to the position, God having in mind that any who were at all affected by it might recognise Him and obey Him.

Ultimately the plagues reached their end and chapter 12 shows that end. It is the beginning of time for Israel, but not for Egypt; God is not beginning times and seasons for Egypt. He makes them for His people. He divides time for His people, especially in relation to service, not only into days but into years. These years are to be filled up in His service. So that what we have come to now in this chapter is constitutional. There are elements to build up His people, not only in food but in clothing. Their going out was not to be in poverty, they were to be set up in wealth. "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the

first month of the year to you" (verse 2). So that we are entering not only on deliverance from Egypt but on a new era, an era belonging to God and His people.

S.R.McC. Has this year in mind the festive year rather than the solar year?

J.T. Yes. It is a festive time and the year is to be full of feasts, governed by that idea, characterised by feasts that are governed by heaven. There is also the solar and lunar idea; and it is an agricultural year, governed by earth in the sense of vegetable life and fruitfulness. It makes way for the work of God in things.

A.E.H. John the baptist recognised the need of decrease on his side and increase on the side of what was coming in in lamb character.

J.T. From God's standpoint there must be increase in His people. John the baptist tells who must increase: "He must increase, but I must decrease", John 3:30. There is the increase of Christ in His people, and the increase of the body. That is an element that we must keep before us too, and it goes with the subjective or vegetable idea -- what comes from the earth. It is suggestive of what is subjective. The sun, moon and stars are objective. The earth sometimes has the mother character, the productive character. Our chapter begins with the beginning of months, the month Abib, which alludes to fruitfulness. The corn has just come up. That is in itself a guide for time, because certain cereals come at different times; and while the heavenly bodies are objective the earth is dependent on the heat and light of the sun for its functioning.

H.G.H. Does this chapter suggest that there should be a definite beginning to our spiritual history? "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months".

J.T. Yes, that is what I was thinking, leading up not only to relief through the Lord Jesus in the gospel but also to the work of the Spirit, which is collateral with it. It must be, or life would soon die out.

Rem. God says, "Israel is my son, my firstborn ... Let my son go, that he may serve me".

J.T. People may multiply rapidly, but God's thought is the personal idea -- a whole nation viewed from the standpoint of family relations, implying sons and hence names. The purpose of God culminates in this; He has predestinated us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself. That is in mind in chapter 4 and should never be lost sight of.

R.H. Does the "head" of months, according to the footnote in verse 2 (see the Darby Translation note in Exodus 12:2) have any bearing on this?

J.T. This month has a leading or first place, therefore it is the dominating month of the year. The sun does in a sense determine it, but rather the name "Abib", given to it later, which signifies, "The month the corn ripens" (see the Darby Translation note in Exodus 13:4). The name denotes vegetable life, especially at a time when the earth is functioning. Seedtime is when the earth functions in fruitfulness.

L.E.S. The collective position is in view here, denoted by the words "assembly" and "congregation".

J.T. The word "assembly" is to be noted. It has a great place here; it represents the unity of the congregation viewed as one whole.

L.E.S. There is a distinction between the two thoughts. 'Assembly' is the congregation looked at as a moral whole, a corporate person before God (see footnote, Exodus 12:3).

J.T. That is very expressive -- so many persons together to be viewed as a corporate person. It is common in political matters. The word "congregation"

is so many persons each having responsibility of his own. So that the assembly of God at Corinth is the idea of a moral whole; the assembly is taken account of by itself: "we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf", 1 Corinthians 10:17.

J.R.H. Would 2 Timothy lead up to the thought of congregation? Our individual responsibility leads to the taking up of the position. The Corinthian position is the idea of the assembly.

J.T. It would, in a time like this. Where there is breakdown we must go back to the beginning and begin with a remnant, but the original divine thought remains. 2 Timothy enables us to reach it, so that we do not remain individuals but come back to a greater idea, or we could never have the breaking of bread or meetings like these.

W.L. Is it significant that Moses was able to talk to all the assembly of Israel? None are left out of this matter.

J.T. God has always all His people in mind. In the addresses to the assemblies, especially Philadelphia, God has all the saints in mind and always uses assembly terms. It is that they may "know that I have loved thee".

Ques. Why is the ministry here for a household?

J.T. It is to work out the local position. 1 Corinthians contemplates the local and the general positions. The local position is in the opening word, "to the assembly of God ... in Corinth". That is the local position and it has to be reached in Corinth. The Lord said He had much people in that city. The household thought is hardly touched on in Corinthians in either epistle, but it is found elsewhere. Baptism enters into the matter, it is in mind in a universal way in chapter 10 where they are all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Household baptism is to take place in view of the

local position. Corinthians contemplates not only the local but the general position; the local comes first, but how are the saints at Corinth to reach the universal idea? Paul says, "Christ has not sent me to baptise, but to preach glad tidings"; but, he says, I did baptise some. This means that Christians do baptise, but they are not baptists.

A.E.H. Would there be a weakness in the local position if there is not a united front in connection with baptism?

J.T. Yes. The household involves baptism, and so in Acts the first to introduce the household idea is Paul. It leads up to his doctrine. He was not sent to baptise, like John, but he used baptism. It was generally households he baptised. In the second scripture we read there is the explanation that is to be passed down to the children. They are to ask about this feast: "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses", Exodus 12:26, 27. Paul brings that into his ministry at Corinth, not allowing baptism to cast a shade over his ministry; he was greater than a baptist. There is no such thing as a baptist in Christianity. John was the only one who was a baptist in his ministry, and baptism had its place; Paul recognized that, but like all Old Testament matters it was not perfect. There had been only the baptism of John hitherto, and that was not perfect, so Paul incorporated it into his own service in a limited way. The Lord did not send him to do it. However, he did baptize certain ones: "I baptised also the house of Stephanas; for the rest I know not if I have baptised any other. For Christ has not sent me to baptise", 1 Corinthians 1:16, 17. The thought of worthy brethren is carried through in

the house of this man Stephanas; his name means 'crown'.

S.McC. Is this word in verse 3 as to the assembly of Israel to be viewed as abstract in the mind of God regarding them, or rather in connection with the work of God in them?

J.T. Both things are true. God has in mind that He would have a son. The word would be figurative, but it would mean they were not only to be delivered out of Egypt but set up in liberty inwardly by His own work in them. Deuteronomy brings out the thought in the statement, "ye are sons of Jehovah your God". Moses said they were going into the land as sons; it was to be the corporate idea.

J.A.T. Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians, "that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion", would bear on this point.

J.T. Quite so. He introduced the matter of unity immediately. The worst thing he had to deal with in Corinth was in the first chapter; it was disunity, broken conditions amongst the brethren. So that through the ninth verse what is presented is the objective side. You have the position set before them. It says in verse 4, "I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus"; -- that is objective only, abstract truth -- "that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge, (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you,)" -- not 'to you' -- "so that ye come short in no gift". All this is abstract truth; it is a question of the Spirit bringing gift in. Paul goes on, "Awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you to the end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord".

Now that is an introduction to the epistle from

the divine side. Verse 10 begins an exhortation. Paul comes down to actual facts involving division among them, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions" Where all the members have each its own place they make a whole, and those who have broken away are to be restored to the one complete whole by his word. And so the apostle proceeds, "But that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been shown to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. But I speak of this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is the Christ divided? has Paul been crucified for you? or have ye been baptised unto the name of Paul? I thank God that I have baptised none of you, unless Crispus and Gaius, that no one may say that I have baptised unto my own name. Yes, I baptised also the house of Stephanas; for the rest I know not if I have baptised any other. For Christ has not sent me to baptise, but to preach glad tidings". Now this passage confirms what we have said, that divisions existed in the meeting and Paul brings in the matter of baptism. In relation to that, he says that he has baptised certain brethren and also the house of Stephanas. In his ministry baptism had a place, but in it Paul had the assembly in mind; the households of the saints are intended to contribute to the assembly; and this typical chapter that we have before us in Exodus is constitutional, to build them up in the truth and last throughout the dispensation in view of the children.

A.E.H. These two households mentioned -- those of Chloe and Stephanas -- would definitely link on with chapter 12 of Exodus. Both are on the line of bringing in the lamb. I was thinking of the moral

elements of the system that you are suggesting to us, as seen in the apostle himself, and the divine lamb-like characteristics that mark him in his relations with the saints. The households of Chloe and Stephanas would stand together in bringing Paul in to Corinth on this line.

J.T. That helps, showing how he persisted in his efforts to have local conditions right in Corinth. In this he was assisted by Chloe; and then we are told in the last chapter of the first epistle that the house of Stephanas is the first-fruits of Achaia: "(ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the saints for service), that ye should also be subject to such, and to every one joined in the work and labouring. But I rejoice in the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus; because they have supplied what was lacking on your part" (verses 15 - 17). Both households are supporting Paul in his efforts at Corinth.

F.M. Baptised households would produce a suitable atmosphere for the reception of Paul's ministry.

J.T. Quite so. These households were contributing to his efforts in bringing about right local conditions. This question of the local and general has already been raised amongst us and that is what we are dealing with now, how the one enters into the other. Chapter 12 of Exodus contemplates the need of constitution. You get food here.

S.R.McC. Would you link up the two households of the midwives (Exodus 1:21) with the households at Corinth?

J.T. Yes, they are on the same line; and there are others too. Even some of the Egyptians were affected, as we have already noted, and supported Moses. It is said that Jehovah directed Pharaoh to look after his cattle before the plague of hail. That is mercy. "And now send, and secure thy cattle,

and all that thou hast in the field: all the men and the cattle that are found in the field, and are not brought home -- on them the hail shall come down, and they shall die. He that feared the word of Jehovah among the bondmen of Pharaoh made his bondmen and his cattle flee into the houses", Exodus 9:19, 20. That is very beautiful; the plague is not altogether punitive. The plagues are typical of the present time in which God is seeking to deliver people out of the world -- those viewed as ready for conversion. God has that in mind.

L.E.S. In Acts 16 the jailer and his house would be contributory to the whole idea.

J.T. Quite so; in a marked way he was taken out of the enemy camp. Paul preached in a most effective way, not simply to save the household but as contributory to the assembly.

Rem. The third verse of our chapter says, "Speak unto all the assembly of Israel, saying, On the tenth of this month let them take themselves each a lamb, for a father's house, a lamb for a house". The words "assembly" and "house" are both in the same verse there.

J.T. Exactly. Follow that through to verses 26 and 27 already alluded to: "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt". The answer is that God passed over the houses in Egypt; but when they came to the Red Sea the great thought of baptism, the universal thought, is seen. They are all baptised in the cloud and in the sea; so that we may see how the local character of the teaching became enlarged when they went into the land. Fruitfulness would have part in the matter of time. Time has not the same force in the wilderness as in the land, there is no objective in the

wilderness. It is a land not sown. There is no help toward meditation, no help toward life in a subjective sense. As soon as we get into the land the Spirit is contemplated -- something is going on and we can say, Something is happening here; we have better times than we used to have.

H.B. In Deuteronomy 16:9 it says, "From the beginning of putting the sickle into the corn shalt thou begin to count seven weeks". They could not count on that basis in the wilderness.

J.T. There was no sickle and no corn in the wilderness; there we have to count on the sun, but in the land we count on the subjective condition in the meeting.

S.McC. It was in abeyance in the wilderness.

J.T. Well, they had the passover; but there was little but death in the wilderness. Six hundred thousand people died in the space of forty years, and yet God never lost sight of His own thoughts for His people in view of their service to Him.

S.McC. In the antitype does that suggest that in the circumstances in which we are placed in the wilderness there is not much except as we lay hold of the purpose of God and His thoughts for us? That is the way life is rightly entered upon.

J.T. There was not much time for contemplation in the wilderness -- only eleven days if they had gone straight through -- not much time. Time is the most valuable thing we have and should be utilized. The extent of the journeying was lengthened to forty years, but it was a wandering time. They had no end in view, but God was with them nevertheless. There was no seed time and harvest. We get seed time and harvest in Genesis and this was never lost sight of. But what we are at now is a basic constitution, we have to begin building up a constitution as soon as we move out of Egypt. It was unleavened bread they ate; they were enjoined

to keep the feast of unleavened bread and by force of circumstances they did. That was their food. My constitution is not built up on the world. Unleavened means there was no sin in the food; that is the idea in this chapter.

A.P. The fact that "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" should help anyone having difficulty as to household baptism.

J.T. The year of the passover is the beginning of time for the believer's constitution, and what good is time without constitution in men? So that the children are in mind particularly in this chapter, especially in the antitype; even literally they are in mind here. Unleavened bread means that they are not fed on novels or anything of that character. They are to be kept from such food assiduously -- by force of circumstances here; but subsequently by the command governing the feast of unleavened bread, enforcing it by authority. It is one thing to be held by force of circumstances and another to be held by the will of God directly.

Ques. The question the children ask is on positive lines; not, Why cannot I do this or that? but, What mean ye by this service? Is that the way we should bring up our children?

J.T. That is so; the children are built up. The same type of questioning comes out in Canaan to show the scope of the truth.

L.E.S. Do you think that where faith operates in our households there would be the recognition of something there for God? It was "each according to the measure of his eating".

J.T. The manna contemplates constitution, not simply that we are kept alive. Being kept alive does not mean building up the constitution, but this is constitutional.

L.E.S. "And if the household be too small for a lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house

take it according to the number of the souls; each according to the measure of his eating shall ye count for the lamb".

J.T. That is remarkable. The word "neighbour" there is to help as to the local assembly; it does not suggest the universal character of the assembly. It is the local character that is in mind here. You go to your neighbour and ask him to share your lamb, that is, it is a question of the will of God, the mind of God. The neighbourly spirit is promoted in this. That would build us up constitutionally. The children are in what they are eating.

J.R.H. It might well be said, "Our passover, Christ".

J.T. Exactly, that is in mind here: "For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed", 1 Corinthians 5:7.

A.E.H. It is noticed in the social contacts of the brethren in their houses when there are no meetings going on, that it is very difficult to keep conversation and intercourse on right lines. Is that lack of constitution? Could it be traced to deficiency in connection with the passover?

J.T. That is perhaps how we reach the truth here. What does go on in our houses? Ultimately the children have to stand by themselves, and then it is a question of constitution. Things happening amongst the children are terrible; hardly a family is immune, and I think it is the want of the passover and the feast of unleavened bread. That kind of food is to become common, to be used all the time; it was seven days of unleavened bread.

Ques. How do we partake of the passover in our households?

J.T. It is a question of where the children begin, they begin where the parents have been. One generation passes away and another comes. God is working something out and the parental and childhood idea is constantly in mind. The many terrible things

that are happening can all be traced back to the early youth of the persons and to the household conditions.

L.E.S. We need to hold our children right from the outset. It was "according to the number of the souls; each according to the measure of his eating". Right from the outset the children are to be held. Sometimes we make allowances because they are very young.

J.T. We need to account for the very youngest. In the use of the manna the very youngest were included; they are included today in the rationing.

R.H. When it says, "When your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service?" does it imply that as we move on this line our children will say it?

J.T. Exactly. They will want to know as being built up constitutionally. Every parent knows you must build up the children by the food they eat.

F.K.C. The people bow their heads and worship as the children are brought into the matter -- the fact that the households are safe; God has passed over them.

J.T. That is how the matter stands. The elements of the system are outstanding in the ministers, and they are seen in this section as recognised and revered by the people. Their ministry is such as to affect the people. The ministry might be to blame on occasion, but it is not to blame here; God had given plenty of matter to Moses, and ability to Aaron, so both were supplied in the ministry, and in chapter 4 it is said the effect of the ministry through Moses and Aaron was that the people bowed their heads and worshipped. From verse 21 of chapter 12 it is not Aaron speaking but Moses, and the effect of Moses' speaking is that the people bowed their heads and worshipped. Notice that Aaron is not here as a minister, he is not mentioned in the

speaking. From verses 21 to 28 it is Moses' account of the setting out of the principles governing the passover and the feast of unleavened bread, but particularly the passover. It is what he says about it. This chapter from verse 1 down to the end of verse 20 is taken up with what God says, and verses 21 to 28 are what the minister says. He is viewed now as the minister. How well he can shorten what he has to say, so as not to make it too long! Prolonged discourses are not as a rule helpful, and Moses used only from verse 21 to verse 28 to state the matter; and it is said that the effect of his words was that the people bowed their heads and worshipped.

L.E.S. Would you say a word as to why Moses introduces the hyssop here?

J.T. It is not part of what Jehovah says, according to the record. It shows how a minister may vary what the Scripture says. He may paraphrase, or omit something, or add something, and yet be right in what he says. It is a question of levitical skill and understanding. It involves that these men could not only say things, but say them to affect the people, and yet not say too much.

L.K. Why does it say, "Each a lamb, for a father's house"? Is it that the idea of the fatherly element would be brought in in relation to the passover?

J.T. That helps in what we are remarking; it is a father's house. The father is sometimes shut out -- there is too much mother. We need more fathers amongst us.

S.McC. This bunch of hyssop should have a bearing upon us in relation to our houses and families because the love of what is big is prevalent in children, whereas ministry would emphasize what is small and perhaps obscure.

J.T. It is remarkable how they get the big ideas. So with young married people with means; perhaps

they inherit too much -- it is damaging. If they have earned it, it is another matter.

W.L. So Moses says in verse 21, "Seize and take yourselves lambs for your families, and kill the passover. And take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason". It goes with the family thought.

J.T. Quite so. It does not appear as though Moses excelled in his own house. He excelled as a minister, as an apostle, so to speak, but his sons never came to much. They were Levites, but I think the mother side was weak in Moses' house and that is probably the explanation of much.

M.B. Esther 1:22 says that "every man should bear rule in his own house, and should speak according to the language of his people". We bring much trouble upon ourselves in not taking on this place in our households.

J.T. We were reading the book of Esther recently. I hope the Lord will use what was brought out as to the development of the feminine side amongst the gentiles. Vashti, the gentile queen, failed in obedience. In the millennium God brings in the female side in its subjective character, typically seen in Esther, the Jewish queen. Paul makes a great deal of the house and practical instruction as to marriage, while at the same time the female side of the truth has failed in Christianity.

S.McC. It is interesting that the question of holiness is raised in Leviticus 19:2, 3: "Speak unto all the assembly of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Holy shall ye be, for I Jehovah your God am holy. Ye shall reverence every man his mother, and his father". The mother is put first.

J.R.H. How do you account for the female side being so much emphasised in Moses' preservation and upbringing, and then the weakness in his own marriage and household?

J.T. Zipporah did not contribute much. A great deal might be said about that. Moses' own mother was an excellent person, and his father was a good brother, and so was he himself; but so far as his own children were concerned, they were not a success, evidently due to the mother.

A.E.H. Could the failure of the gentile queen be attributed to the particular form that the world's system takes during the assembly's period here, and that the feminine side is more attracted by the world's system than the masculine side is?

J.T. I think so. Vashti would show that she had a coterie of women with her in the royal house which belonged to the king. Scripture says, "Also the queen Vashti made a feast for the women of the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus". They carried on by themselves, and the king sent his servants to ask her to come out, and she would not. There was absolute refusal. Many women would say she was doing right; but Ahasuerus, however bad, represents authority in the gentile monarchy as much, in a sense, as David does in his kingdom, and she is flouting it. She will not obey and so she is deposed and another comes -- a Jewess. In the beginning God made them male and female and said, "Let them have dominion" together, and that means that headship is acknowledged in the one.

A.E.H. Often in the subverting of the principle of headship we hear remarks such as, Well, if my husband was a different kind of a person ... . But the idea is of God establishing certain principles, and our blessing is in acknowledging them.

J.T. The divine principle is set out in the first of the four monarchies in Daniel 2:38: "Thou art this head of gold". The authority is of God and the female side has failed in it. That is the history.

W.R. Verses 8 and 9 deal with the preparation of the lamb: "And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs shall they eat it. Ye shall eat none of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire". Roasting with fire seems to be insisted upon. I suppose both the father and the mother would be in the matter: the mother would prepare the lamb and it would be the responsibility of the father to see that all was rightly carried out.

J.T. That is so. The fire has direct action on the meat. Boiling is indirect, but roasting is direct; even a pan is not direct. The fire here comes in direct touch with the food. That would mean that our constitutions have appropriated the death of Christ; we appropriate what He endured. I may be indulging what cost Him so much.

S.McC. What difference do you see in the food Noah was instructed to take into the ark? It says, "And take thou of all food that is eaten", Genesis 6:21. There was nothing definite named as food there. The ark refers to our houses too, and salvation in relation to them, yet the food is not defined. Any kind is to be eaten, whereas here it is specifically defined.

J.T. Quite so, but there were no children in the ark. We are there supposed to be full-grown, and that would mean there would be understanding of the deluge, which was a terrible thing. Enjoyment in the ark would be of full-grown character. Our houses should always include children and they are in mind here. We say we can trust the brothers in the care meeting, and we can trust the brothers and sisters sitting down in assembly, but their children may not be behaving on the back seats and we cannot trust them. We are in mixed conditions in this chapter; there is the necessity of the fire, the evidence of the Lord Jesus dying on account of sin. What

the children are indulging in at the back of the room cost the death of the Lord Jesus.

S.McC. That is very helpful regarding mixed conditions in this chapter.

J.T. There must be some feature of the work of God in His people before they are reliable and you can trust them. John 20 supports that: "Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you: as the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (verses 21 - 23). The Lord regards them as trustworthy. We must have that or we cannot have the assembly. We cannot trust young children, and even young grown-ups; it is one of the features of the flesh in youth -- untrustworthiness.

L.P. What are the bitter herbs for?

J.T. They have the same effect as the burning. It is bitterness. We should learn to taste bitter things that cause weeping in us. It says of Moses as a little child that he wept: he was no stranger to suffering.

L.E.S. In the word addressed to fathers in Ephesians 6:4 it says, "And ye fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord". Would that imply the action of the fire?

J.T. As a father you know the severity of the Lord's discipline. "I rebuke and discipline as many as I love", Revelation 3:19. The father and mother have learned that by experience and they pass it on to their children.

Ques. Is the passover the burnt-offering aspect of the death of Christ?

J.T. It is really a sin-offering in character according to the burning. It is the death of Christ in its severity. In verse 21 it says, "And Moses called all the

elders of Israel, and said to them, Seize and take yourselves lambs for your families, and kill the passover". These are very severe thoughts. "And take a bunch of hyssop" -- that refers to what is small; we do not get any flattery from the levitical instincts of Moses, it is what is deflationary, humbling and small -- "and dip it in the blood that is in the bason" -- notice the word "bason" -- "and smear the lintel and the two door-posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning". All this is the delineation of the truth, and it is most solemnising. All is judicial outside and we are protected inside. The lamb was to be in the household four days before it was killed; the children should be affected by that.

The paragraph read from chapter 13 alludes to the continuance of the system in the light of these things. "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, That the people may not repent when they see conflict, and return to Egypt". We do not want a Lot's wife, looking back. "And God led the people about, the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went arrayed out of the land of Egypt". That is, the exodus was systematic, they went out in order, in rank. That is very important in this subject. "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for he had made the children of Israel swear an oath, saying, God will be sure to visit you; then ye shall carry my bones with you hence. And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, at the end of the wilderness. And Jehovah went before their face by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them in the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; so that they could go day and night. The

pillar of the cloud did not remove from before the people by day, nor the pillar of fire by night". So that we have a definite order of march, and perfect guidance, God in the cloud guiding us. And then we have something historic. Children love history; they love to hear about their ancestors. The point here is faith, Joseph's long outlook into the land, so that he would have his bones go there.

A.E.H. This would help us in speaking to our children. Eve was built. Do the bones suggest the framework of the system, which in itself might be a cold idea, but they are to be adorned and set out by the wealth of what is connected with it?

J.T. The framework idea entered into Eve. She was built: "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", Adam said. The bone is the framework but the flesh is the filling out.

A.P.T. Would chapter 12 be the filling out of the framework, the constitution built up in a living body?

J.T. We are directed back to our fathers. And so as to the bones of Joseph, what were they like? What was Joseph like? The children would say, He is my great-great-grandfather. The children of Manasseh were born on Joseph's knees. That is, the bones are the framework, but there are not bones only, there is flesh. According to Ezekiel flesh came on to the bones, bringing in affections and warmth and beautification.

J.R.H. They were not led through the way of the land of the Philistines although that was near.

J.T. That would be God's provision for them, knowing how they would be in constant dread of the Philistines. Presently they would need powerful armies, but not yet. It is to bring out the consideration of God for us when we are young persons in the family.

H.B. I suppose the result of the constitutional thought would be seen in Psalm 105:37: "And he brought them forth with silver and gold; and there was not one feeble among their tribes".

F.C. Does the pillar idea -- the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud -- enter into the system also? It is a formed idea.

J.T. Yes, it is a formed idea. The cloud is formed by some action of the air literally, but the pillar is what God forms because He is in it. God is there. We are told He worked out from that point and discomfited the Egyptians. He is before them by day and by night; they can go by day and night.

H.G.H. It was the cloud by day and the fire by night. Would that suggest His consideration for us in the circumstances in which we are?

J.T. I think so; we do not need to loiter. Moses had trouble at the inn; Zipporah made complaints and Jehovah was minded to slay him, a remarkable thing; but here they are to go day and night. God is there, and there is perfect safety; there is no danger of damage in the journey. They are now beginning to walk: "I it was that taught Ephraim to walk", God says. They do not go out like an unordered multitude, they go out in fives; each has his place. It is the early idea of being taught how to walk by God, and being taught how to follow a lead too. God Himself is the Leader.

S.McC. Five would suggest what is basic in manhood: five senses, five fingers, in contrast to six. They are in fives.

J.T. Quite so. It is man's constitution physically.

R.A. It says, "To give them light; so that they could go day and night". They are governed by light from heaven. Day and night are governed from heaven.

J.T. The light was in the fire. It said, "And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped

in Etham, at the end of the wilderness. And Jehovah went before their face by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them in the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; so that they could go day and night". And then it is touching, the consideration of Jehovah in that position; it is said that "The pillar of the cloud did not remove from before the people by day, nor the pillar of fire by night". It was trustworthy; you could reckon on it.

So that in summing up the position; the households are in mind, and the history of Joseph and the carrying up of his bones; also the number of years of Israel's captivity. It terminated at the very day of the predicted four hundred and thirty years. Everything was in order, moving by clock-work, as we say, carrying out the divine mind; and the little ones are reminded of that. If they show any interest in the testimony of God, then they will find there is history attached to it. Israel had entered into the four hundred and thirty years, it had been said they should be afflicted all those years; it is the history of our affliction; but now they are coming out, and the very day is mentioned. They are coming out with great property, and they are coming out in order by fives, and God is leading them.

L.E.S. It says in Psalm 105, "Egypt rejoiced at their departure; for the fear of them had fallen upon them. He spread a cloud for a covering, and fire to give light in the night" (verses 38, 39). And verse 42 says, "For he remembered his holy word, and Abraham his servant; And he brought forth his people with gladness, his chosen with rejoicing".

J.T. So that if the children are not ready for the truth immediately, God will make it very delightful by putting it into poetry. That psalm is the history in poetry, an attractive way of recording historical things. The Psalms are poetic and touch the affections and you can remember them too; they are

sometimes written in acrostic form so that the mind is aided. You do not get the same assistance for the mind in these historical books. The book of Psalms gives you great assistance, so that you can carry the historical facts of what God has done with His people in your mind.

J.R.H. The next chapter seems to be the covering idea, the cloud coming in between the people and the Egyptians, the baptism of the cloud.

J.T. I should think baptism in the cloud would be the Spirit in principle as over against baptism by water. They were baptised in the cloud before they were baptised by water, so that properly the Spirit comes into our baptism, at least with adults.

DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (5)

Exodus 19:1 - 6; Exodus 20:1 - 6; Exodus 24:9 - 11

J.T. So far in our subject we have reached the household, and the thought of the household in Israel entering into the passover, which involved "the beginning of months". Israel had entered on what we might call another era of things referring directly to themselves, in which they were regarded by God in their households, and were basically set up by means of a constitution suited to their new place. We saw them in chapter 13 on their way out of Egypt in a systematic way, as it says in Numbers 33:3: "The children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians". They went out in order, "arrayed", as the note says -- "five in a rank". They were militarily arranged, and were guided by God, too, in the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire; so that they were actually on their way, being taught how to walk. Much followed -- the crossing of the Red Sea and all that it involved -- and now we see them in chapter 19 before the mountain of God where they take their place as a nation. It is now a question of a nation. The mind of God is unfolding itself and they have their national status. The next passage read, in chapter 20, contemplates the national order of things under legislation, or law, to govern them. Then at the end of that chapter there is a system of drawing near to God in an altar -- an altar of earth and an altar of stone -- and following immediately on that, laws of wisdom entering into their national existence, into their neighbourly and social relations. Every exigency is taken account of in the details of instruction or law such as no other nation ever had.

The last passage read shows how they have been elevated into relations with God above in His own sphere. The system in its elements has increased, for

added to Moses and Aaron we have Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel. God is calling them up and they go up and see the God of Israel; that is, they are there in holy liberty. It is thought that in these three verses in chapter 24 we have reached the end we had in mind -- the divine system is operating and God has secured His end in it in having His people with Himself. They are not only brought to Him in the wilderness, but above in His own sphere, where He is seen in His glory and where they have, you might say, social liberty before Him, the liberty of love, eating and drinking. They are called nobles. It is thought that this final setting would leave with us the impression of what God is in His love; taking us out of this world and setting us up in liberty with Himself and with one another, and yet provided for in His system. They see Him, it says: "and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were work of transparent sapphire, and as it were the form of heaven for clearness. And on the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: they saw God, and ate and drank", Exodus 24:10, 11.

A.E.H. Have you any thought as to why such a glorious climax should be reached before the instruction or the pattern is given in regard to the tent and the tabernacle, and before the establishing of the tribes in their settings around it?

J.T. I think the suggestion is that God has now brought them to Himself, not under legal bondage, or what would provoke resentment of the flesh, as we see later. He has them in liberty and dignity. They are elders, a good many of them, and there is the priestly family; but before it is regulated and ordered, He has them just as He would wish to have them in themselves. What follows would point to what He could do with them and could make out of them for Himself, according to His own counsels.

J.R.H. Would it be right to say that in chapter 24 they are, in spirit, brought in and planted in the mountain of His inheritance?

J.T. In spirit, yes. God had said in chapter 15 that He would bring them in. While they are not in the land literally, they are with God in His own sphere; that is, it is a spiritual situation. And now from chapter 25 to the end of Exodus, and in Leviticus and Numbers too, God is intimating what He can make out of them; what the material is capable of, and how it fits in with His own counsels of love.

L.E.S. Would there be some correspondence to Ephesians 1:4, "that we should be holy and blameless before him in love"?

J.T. I think so. Ephesians is what answers to this because it is elevation -- not, as you might say, the literal heavenly position. In verse 12 there is not a word said about what took place in the mountain, it is just that they, Moses and Joshua, went up: "And Jehovah said to Moses, Come up to me into the mountain, and be there". But as to the people, the position is a spiritual one; the physical thought is left out. It is a question of what is reachable in the Spirit, "in spirit", as was said. They have already reached finality, they were with God and they saw Him. He had already said, "I have ... brought you to myself"; but now you have the thought of elevation, of His own place, His abode or sphere. Then these chapters which follow, from 25 to the end, and Leviticus and Numbers, all involve what God can make out of them so as to reach His own counsels of love, beyond anything that might be conceived.

A.E.H. Do you think that as we come under the power of the gospel and come to know God, He would encourage our hearts by bringing us in spirit to the climax of His greatest thoughts? Then that would help us to enter into the more onerous work