Pages 1 to 141, Second half of 'Households in Relation to the Ark' and Other Ministry 1938 - 39 (Volume 209).
Matthew 11:16 - 19, 25; Matthew 18:2, 3; Matthew 21:15, 16
J.T. This gospel is somewhat marked by the prominence given to children. These scriptures I have suggested are illustrative of this and show how the perfection of praise is seen in them. In the last Scripture read, the one thought in the prominence given to children seems to be to set aside traditional religious influence. Anything of the kind, however small, entering into a meeting tends to weaken the service of God and the liberty that belongs to us as sons of God. The idea of children and what marks them characteristically would be set over against a fixed condition already existent in older ones, especially in Matthew, because of the assembly's place and function as developed in that gospel. A condition brought about by traditional teaching and influence must be inimical to the service of God, however orthodox it may be or according to accepted principles. The people had gone out to see John, which of course was so far right, but then the Lord challenges them as to what they went out to see, in order to bring out what John really was, and the condition among the Jews was so apathetic to what was fresh and direct from God at the moment that the Lord has recourse to this parable. He said: "It is like children sitting in the markets, which, calling to their companions, say, We have piped to you, and ye have not danced: we have mourned to you, and ye have not wailed. For John has come neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon. The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man that is eating and wine-drinking, a friend of tax-gatherers, and of sinners -- and wisdom has been
justified by her children". There were those there who were different.
W.F. Is that the thought of another generation, wisdom's children, "To whom shall I liken this generation"?
J.T. Quite so. It is a new beginning. Verse 25 brings it down to babes. It is a new thought being inculcated at the very lowest growth so as to be entirely unsophisticated by traditional influences. Hence the importance of the children being with us in our readings and imbibing the right thoughts, breathing the right atmosphere from the beginning. The Lord gives His own example by calling one such in chapter 18. It is significant as coming in after the assembly is introduced, and as the disciples, seemingly disregarding the wonderful teaching of chapter 17, which shows the status on to which they are brought as sons, have their minds imbued with rivalry or ambition in verse 1, so that the Lord calls a little child to Him and sets it in their midst, saying, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". So that it is brought in there as the exclusive way into the kingdom of heaven. It requires conversion, resulting in this character of little children. Then finally in the temple where the service of God should be prominent, the praises of Israel are only found in the children, and the Lord defends them and points out from the Psalms that it is a divine thought that the praise of God should be perfected in them, a most interesting thought now, because we are getting near the end, and God is perfecting us in this way.
A.H.G. Would what is traditional render them insensible to ministry as indicated in the first scripture read, the piping and mourning?
J.T. That is what I was thinking, that the piping and mourning of children would be real feeling, and
their companions in the parable would point to persons listening to the ministry of John the baptist and the ministry of Christ. It was a real feeling appeal in both persons -- in John the baptist and in Christ -- but there was no response at all, save the worst kind of opposition. John the baptist, they said, had a demon, and the Son of man, because He ate and drank, was a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners.
W.O.H. Have you anything in mind when you speak of what is traditional in connection with our meetings?
J.T. I mean anything that has come down to us that we are clinging to as over against what is fresh and current. Many are hindered by the traditional side from going in for and appropriating what is current by the Spirit and fresh, because the traditional feature cannot be the perfecting of the thing, inasmuch as it is past and gone. It has not perfected anything. The children in chapter 21 are spoken of by the Lord as perfecting praise. God is perfecting the thing in them and if we hold back from that we shall never be perfected.
R.G.C. Making of it none effect through their traditional teaching.
W.F. That brings in man, human thoughts, traditions. It would not be looking for divine communications, would it?
J.T. Not at all. That which had the mark of divine approval even may not have been on the line of perfecting. It may not have been the perfecting side of the matter, and if we cling to that we shall never be perfected. The perfecting must come in at the end.
Ques. Would chapter 11: 15 suggest the line on which we are perfected? "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear". Would we need to maintain that attitude?
J.T. Quite so. "If ye will receive it, this is Elias, who is to come". There was Something there that any Jew or Israelite should recognise, that is Elias. He is past but his ministry has the character of continuance and may be taken on by others. So that John the baptist was that, if they would receive it. If they did not, it would have to be deferred. The little children were there current, not a reincarnation of Elijah or of his ministry, but what is current, the natural growth of the moment. Elijah must go forward and, according to the prophets, will reappear; that is, he presents a full thought, but to take form in another than himself.
A.H.G. It says, "Wisdom has been justified by her children". Is this generation of children the product in that way of wisdom?
J.T. That is the thought, the children; the word in that particular verse carries the thought of dignity, of growth; it is not of little children such as the earlier reference to the little children in the markets. Children of wisdom is a full thought. The thought of children is, of course, in relationship to the father, but it might apply to persons of very advanced years.
W.F. The Lord seems to bring it in in contrast with this generation; they did not take in John's ministry.
Ques. You were speaking about the full thought to be reached in chapter 21 in relation to the praise and service of God. I was wondering if it begins by the getting of wisdom: "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding", so that we might understand what is spoken to us in relation to these things, as over against all this tradition. Is that what is in your mind?
J.T. The last scripture finishes with really the highest note up to that time, the highest note developing out of the work of God. We have the thought of
sonship earlier in the book, but the Son of David was a note developing out of the work of God. In chapter 20, the two blind men did not speak in an orthodox sense, but from their own feelings and spiritual intelligence. The Lord was entering on His own territory at Jericho and without anyone telling them they say, "Lord, Son of David". That was a note for that particular time, and the children carried that note forward. It lasts, it is carried through, and it is perfected in the temple, in the children. So that I think the teaching for us would be that whatever is the note for the moment, whatever phase of the truth is coming out, whether the outcome of the work of God in His people, or whether by the teaching of the Spirit, whatever is the note or theme for the moment, what the Spirit is saying, that is what enters into the perfecting. The word the Lord uses, the perfecting of praise, is in relation to the note that began with the two blind men, who were of no religious status at all, but it came out through them and was carried through into Jerusalem by way of the ass and the colt. These children are taking it up and they are perfecting it; they are carrying it forward; they had to do it, the perfecting must involve that, not what had preceded. That is the point, I think, at the beginning of chapter 18.
W.S.S. Would the truth of sonship as at the end of chapter 17 be the note for the moment? In chapter 18 we read: "In that hour the disciples came to Jesus saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?", as though there was something in them which was hindering them from apprehending just what was being presented at that moment.
J.T. They missed it. It was spoken most clearly, the Lord bringing Himself into the matter to fill out the truth, "Take that and give it to them for me and thee". It is most palpable that though Peter
was brought on to the same ground as Christ (he could not have had any greater honour than to be brought on to that ground) he so soon lost sight of it in wondering who is greatest.
W.S.S. Does the Lord taking the little child indicate the way in which we are brought into the truth of Sonship?
J.T. Yes, whatever the truth be that is in mind. The truth of sonship is in chapter 17 and, of course, that brings in the assembly because chapter 17 is the filling out of chapter 16, to show the personnel, the kind of persons that form the assembly. The subject is really finished in that sense at the end of chapter 17, but chapter 18 shows that the disciples were not up to it and hence the little child shows them that they could only learn as taking that attitude. But chapter 21 stands in another relation. It is not the Son of God but the Son of David. That is the truth for that time because the Lord was entering His capital, Jerusalem, and bringing in the question of His rights to it as the Son of David. The blind men inaugurate that principle and the little children are not behind. The thing comes down and is perfected.
W.F. Was it in your mind to connect the response of praise with the revelation to babes in the verse we had in chapter 11?
J.T. Just so. The Father began at the bottom with the babes. In chapter 21, it is now the Person of the Lord entering into His capital, but the little children are in the temple, and you have this thought in verses 15 and 16, "When the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David ..." they did not go beyond that; the crowds added from Psalm 118, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (verse 9), but the little children kept to what the blind men said in the end of chapter 20. They cried out
saying, "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David". Why did they say that? They are blind men and evidently not men that would have much learning as had the Pharisees and scribes, but they say the words, bringing in just the note according to the position; it is what belonged to that particular position that Christ was in.
W.S.S. You mean He was going to Jerusalem?
W.F. Presenting Himself in that particular sense.
J.T. Yes. So that the word in chapter 21: 5 is a quotation from the prophet Zechariah: "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass". And then the crowds in verse 9, who went before Him and who followed, cried, saying, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord". The scriptures therefore were fulfilled at that time in principle, but the little ones carried what the blind men said, and that is the note the Lord is specially interested in now. What comes out in that way is being perfected, and we want to be in that. We want to be amongst those who are perfecting praise. That is what the Lord is helping in relation to, that His praise might be perfected.
B.S. What would represent, in the assembly service today, these children and the features seen in them?
J.T. It is a state of freshness and readiness to take in what is current. They are wholly free from traditional teaching, and from what would hinder them in fully taking on what is current. This note had come in in chapter 20; the temple feature is earlier and it runs on to chapter 18, but this is the testimony at the moment. The blind men introduced it, and chapter 21 brings in the ass and colt. There are two blind men in Matthew, only one in Mark and Luke;
also the ass and the colt are in Matthew instead of the colt as in Luke and John. So that it is the testimony carried through in a full way, not simply in one but in two, and then eventuating in children; that principle is suggestive of a fresh energetic state in the saints, a readiness to take on what is current by the Spirit, because that is the perfecting of the thing.
A.H.G. Children would not represent then that which is immature or not full grown?
J.T. It may be one or the other. There are several words which are used for children. The one used in Luke is rather the diminutive, but this one would point to a state ready for instruction, the state in the saints ready for taking in things that are current.
W.S.S. Would the fact that it says, "Jesus having called a little child to him" help in this connection? Elsewhere it says He took a little child.
J.T. Yes, he was intelligent, he answered.
J.F.L.S. Does the idea of smallness have to be maintained by us in order that the state might be produced?
J.T. It goes with it. All the senses normally are in action in young people. When we get older our senses become dull, and if we are governed by traditional things we hardly take in current things.
Ques. I would like to get clear what is in your mind in the thought of being perfected. The note that had begun with the blind men by the wayside was, "Lord, Son of David", and what the children said in the temple was more or less the same; in which way was the perfecting seen? In that it was in the temple?
J.T. In that it was spontaneous and as indicated in the Lord's own comment.
W.F. "Hosanna to the Son of David"; it is in that way a response contrasted with the adversaries in Psalm 8.
L.D.M. It is striking, too, that apart from any sense of need in the children as with the blind men, there is a merging connected with what they introduced. It seems to be a fuller thought and more spontaneous in the children in the temple.
J.T. Yes, and it is in keeping with David, the musician, the sweet psalmist, 'Hosanna' is a beautiful touch; the blind men do not say that. They are in the sense of need and they are asking for mercy. They say, "Lord"; they are subject to Him. Instead of that the little ones say, "Hosanna to the Son of David" -- a lovely note. I suppose there would be a little piety when they uttered it.
W.F. It seems to link with Psalm 118:25: "Save, Jehovah".
R.G.C. The children are moved to spontaneous response. The city is moved in regard to questioning who this Person is, but the children are moved to response in surroundings out of which they would be kept in the ordinary way, but they move there in a sphere which is kept open to them in the power of the Son of David. The tradition of the temple would have kept them out.
J.T. And it seems a fixed thing in their minds. They are not questioning, but taking on what is already current. Hosanna is music of instruction, a feeling matter, and fits in perfectly now. God is speaking to us about His service and about the perfecting of it. Paul would say the perfecting is going on, for God has His way. Paul says, "To ... present every man perfect". Perfection is a thought that is very much stressed in Colossians, and the perfection of praise is one of the most interesting things, and that it should be found in these children is very striking.
A.H.G. It says, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise". Why are the babes and sucklings referred to in that connection?
J.T. It is children in the very beginnings. Peter uses the expression "newborn babes". He would stress the thought of keenness of taste, so that "the mouth of babes and sucklings" is suggestive. It is not the modern musical instrument, for musical instruments of old were simply typical of what comes out of the mouths of the sons.
Ques. How would the thought in chapter 18 of being converted and becoming as little children apply to us now?
J.T. It applies to all unconverted christians, a very paradoxical phrase, but there is meaning in it, for we all need conversion from time to time. If we have been held, for instance, in traditional things, we need conversion. If we are rivals one of another, we need conversion. Conversion is going on all the time among the saints, but sometimes we do not admit of it, and hold on to old things. 'Which of us shall be the greatest?', anyone who says that needs conversion.
W.W.S.F. Does 1 Peter present it at all? He speaks of newborn babes and of living stones, and then he speaks of a spiritual house. I was wondering if that was on the line of perfecting that you have in mind.
J.T. Yes, all those remarks in 1 Peter 2 lead on to perfection, for he says, "to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ". That is the perfection of the thought of sacrifice, and the spiritual house is the perfection of the thought of house, and praise is the perfection of the thought of worshippers or offerers. Then Peter himself is the best illustration you can get of a man converted after he was a believer; and he must have needed conversion to some extent when he came under the influence of judaising teachers at Antioch.
A.S. Is there the thought of dependence in the thought of babes and sucklings? The Lord speaks
of praise being perfected in them, but just previously He has referred to the house being a house of prayer. I wondered if the two went together.
J.T. I suppose so. Dependence would mark a babe. The Lord speaks Himself in a most feeling way, "Thou art my God". He said, "I was cast upon thee from the womb; thou art my God from my mother's belly", Psalm 22:10. A suckling is the very expression of dependence on somebody else -- the mother.
L.D.M. Do not tradition and formality effectively shut out the Spirit, and hinder the bringing in of the mind of God? We need dependence in that way on the Spirit and to maintain self-judgment.
J.T. It certainly enters into every item of service and walk in a christian. He is dependent on another, and there can be no doubt that the Lord has that in mind. Children represent that side.
W.S.S. Is this set forth for us in perfection particularly in Christ in this gospel, where He is presented to us as a little Child? Would the apprehension of that in our souls help us to be delivered from what is merely traditional, to overcome that on those lines?
J.T. Yes, we see that in the very beginning He was with His mother; that is where He was found -- meaning that He was where He could draw on another at that time. So that the word to Joseph was, "Take to thee the little child and his mother", because in that state He needed His mother. I suppose that gives you the clue to the great prominence given to children in Matthew, and the introduction of Rachel into Matthew is very suggestive, because it is the tenderness of motherly feeling coming down, that is, Rachel weeping for her children. She is viewed in a metaphorical way in Matthew 2, carried down through the prophet Jeremiah, as representing right motherly feeling as to children.
A.H.G. Would that give a significance to the action of Herod in relation to children, as though the enemy would blot out this line?
J.T. That is the idea exactly. Just as in Pharaoh, the enemy would attempt in Herod to nullify the great work of God that was coming in in children, not simply little children, but the saints taking that ground. That is what the Lord meant, I am sure, when He said to the Father, 'You have taken up the babes'. That was what was going on.
W.S.S. I suppose that every influence around us militates against the maintenance of the spirit of the little child. As has been remarked, when they that sought the life of the little Child were dead, He was to be brought back from Egypt. The deadly influence was all around, but the little child was going to overthrow all that system of things.
J.T. Yes indeed, so the dragon was ready to devour the man child. It was all for the same thing -- to interfere with the work of God.
A.E.M-o. Have you in mind in the perfecting of praise the adjustment necessary with many of us in regard of the service of God?
J.T. That is what I was thinking of in suggesting these scriptures, that we may discern anything that interferes with the perfecting, with what God is going on with. It is a wonderful moment for us: He is perfecting the saints, and perfecting us in praise, so as to have us for ever for His praise, "To him be glory in the assembly". And the moral side is to disallow whatever it may be that hinders one in coming into this, in joining with these little children in the temple in this note: so that the next thing is, it is not that I am there to be alongside these priests and scribes. It says, "When the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonders which he wrought, and the children crying in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were indignant, and
said to him, Hearest thou what these say?". Why did they not call the Lord's attention to the healing of the blind? They would not dare to attempt that, but they were against Christ, and they took the line of least resistance. A lot of people around would say, It is not right that these children should be saying that; but the Lord defends them. We can well afford to accept the ridicule of the priests and scribes if the Lord defends us.
A.E.M-o. It would be very pleasurable to Him to have the note at that moment, would it not?
J.T. It must have been the sweetest note He had heard since He heard the blind men. The crowds spoke the truth, and the Lord no doubt ordered that they should, but these children refer to a state which the word 'crowds' would not in that connection.
A.H.G. Would that be one feature of the perfecting, the intelligence to keep to the note of the moment, and not to introduce another note?
J.T. That is right, though there is great variety in the praise of God, of course. The Lord says, "the praises of Israel". God inhabits those. The great variety in our hymn-book is very good, we have got much that can be used in that way, but the praises to the Lord Jesus, which are always right, overshadow by far the praises to the Father in our book, and that needs balancing. I mean the perfecting will lead to that balance.
R.G.C. I would like to ask, does the perfecting of holiness go along with the perfecting of praise, the Lord clearing the temple in that way, the perfecting of holiness making room for right response in the children? You were saying that there is no true response without feeling being brought in.
J.T. So that He goes out to Bethany. According to verse 17, He went forth to Bethany, and there He passed the night. I think the night there would be in keeping with the note of these children. He had
to go outside the city. The children's praises were not supported: the religious predominating element was not supporting the truth. They ridiculed and persecuted, you may say, those who were perfecting the praises of God. He went out to Bethany, and spent the night, that must have been a very happy retreat for Him. The Lord needed that, and then, as it says, early in the morning we have the cursing of the fig tree and the questioning of the leaders. Earlier He "cast out all that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those that sold the doves. And he says to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer". So that we see the necessity for all that if this praise is to be continued. All refuse, and all that is unsuitable in the service of God, is to be cast out. The cursing of the fig tree is very solemn, because it shows the ultimate end of all this opposition.
L.D.M. Would you think the book of Proverbs would help as to the discernment of what might come in to hinder God's getting His portion? It opens in a striking way, the "Proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: to know wisdom and instruction". I was wondering whether there is much teaching in the first nine chapters as to what would come in to hinder God's getting His service of praise.
J.T. Quite so. Wisdom builds her house.
A.H.G. Would the word 'perfected' indicate a process?
J.T. It is what God is doing. I think the blind men show in what they say that they were subject; that would be the basis of divine operations; unless we are subject God is shut out. They said, "Lord, Son of David". That makes way for the Lord's operations, so He proceeds and the beginning of chapter 21 shows what agencies He would have to
enter into His city, and how He cleansed the temple and then the opposition there in the priests and scribes, but whilst interfering they do not question what He is doing but they question what the children are doing; that is the thing. They would make the Lord condemn the children, if they could, as Balaam would make Jehovah curse Israel. It is that sort of thing, to condemn what God's people are doing that is right.
W.S.S. It is very much like the public profession today, where the outward benefits and effects are taken account of; nobody speaks against that, but what would be suggestive of little children, the instinct which appreciates Christ, is spoken against and comes under reproach.
J.T. Yes, so with Saul's daughter Michal, the point she takes notice of in despising David is the uncovering of himself. Why did she not talk about the mode of his dancing? He knew how to dance spiritually; why did she not talk about that?
W.S.S. What she treated with contempt was the spirit of a little child in David.
A.S. Does it mean it was really the Person they were attacking, the Son of David?
J.T. It was really Christ, as elsewhere they say you ought to bring people to be healed at other times, not on the sabbath. They blame the persons who brought the needy ones; in truth they were blaming Christ.
A.E.M-o. The enemy would be bound to be behind the opposition to what was so pleasurable to God.
W.F. Further on in the chapter they challenge the Lord as to His authority in doing these things. There is opposition there.
J.T. Yes, but they give Him an opportunity to answer; they do not give the children an opportunity
to answer. If we despise or slander a person to another, it is worse than speaking to the people themselves. Why did they not go to the children if they were wrong; why did they not speak to the children and educate them if they needed it? but they really meant to attack the Lord.
B.S. Would gladness be seen in these children normally and enter into what they were saying?
J.T. Yes, what we had this morning. The gladness is a state; if it be not with spiritual gladness we are just singing, "Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord".
B.S. Gladness is essential for the service of God; do we sometimes try to go on without that?
J.T. Yes, I think we just tax the hymn-book and make it do the work. The drinking of the cup, I believe, enters into that. The breaking of the bread brings the Lord in, but the drinking of the cup is the completion of the thought of memorial, the Lord says "As oft as ye drink it", not 'as oft as ye eat the bread', but 'as oft as ye drink the cup'; the real point in the cup is the drinking of it, it is the gladness and satisfaction that it affords and qualifies us to go on with the Lord.
W.F. The thought of the cup of blessing, which we bless? We speak well of it.
J.T. It is worth eulogising, you mean. It sets up a state of spiritual happiness which is essential in the house of God.
W.S.S. I was thinking of the scripture you have often referred to in regard of Aaron going forth to meet Moses; he was glad in his heart. Is that the kind of gladness you are referring to?
A.H.G. Would you just say a word as to the bearing of chapter 11: 25, "Hast revealed them unto babes"? Has the revealing to babes a bearing on the perfecting of praise?
J.T. It has. The Lord would no doubt include the revelation to Peter in this. He would have that sort of thing in mind. So that we must understand the word 'babes' is more symbolical of persons who are converted to God beginning at the bottom in the exercise of the sense of taste, and capable of receiving divine thoughts, because babes in this way would hardly receive a revelation; so that it is a man, it must be regarded as referring to ourselves. In fact the Lord was referring to the disciples when He said it, and adds, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight". So the Father enters into this matter and has pleasure in it.
L.D.M. Is there the suggestion of sovereignty in the revealing? The truth of the assembly and all that is connected with the service of God seems to imply that the thing is given in the nature of revelation. Is that on the line of sovereignty?
J.T. Yes, and then the question is if you receive a revelation from God, whether you can take care of it. How do you value it? That is the next thing. Those that saw the Lord Jesus go up must have been wonderfully impressed, because stress is laid on the way He went up. It was an impression, and it says they went into the upper room as coming into the city. Luke in the gospel would show that they carry on the thought of going into the temple after the Lord went up, and were there continually praising and blessing God, full of gladness; that was a testimony to Israel. It was because of their state, because they were fit to bear testimony to Israel. But in Acts 1 it is not that side; it is there the impression they receive spiritually in view of the assembly, for it is all in view of the assembly in Acts, that the impressions should be where they can be conserved. They went to the upper room. Going into the temple would not mean they would be conserved there. These impressions would be lost. That is what is
happening with most of our brethren in system, they get an impression of God in the gospel and they are linked up with some human organisation and their impression becomes lost or damaged. There is no such thing as a treasury in any of these organisations.
L.D.M. So their spiritual instincts took them to the upper room where these holy impressions would be conserved.
J.T. And immediately we are told who were in that upper room.
Rem. Every spiritual impression is kept and guarded by the Holy Spirit.
J.T. That is the importance of getting young people into fellowship in the true sense of the word, not adding to another sect, because that is what the enemy would like to make any who are in the truth of God. The fellowship is a safeguard; hence we can see the importance of getting young people into fellowship from that point of view, because they are where any impression will be conserved and developed. But if you go to the Church of England you will get it beclouded, and it will not develop. That is, I think, what is meant by children, maintaining the character of children, that you are ready to receive any divine impression, and the first chapter of Acts shows that they had certainly got a wonderful impression when they saw Him go up, 'You shall see him coming back as you saw Him go up'. They kept looking into the air too long; He had gone out of sight. There is no more to see but to keep to that impression, and so they went to the upper room and then these people are staying there, the eleven. Mary the mother of the Lord, and His brethren, and the other women.
Ques. Is the assembly the sphere where we get one living impression after another of Christ?
J.T. Yes, and you know where to go with your impression. I think it is helpful to let them out, tell the brethren about them. I am not saying that
Paul does not set an example in keeping for fourteen years the impressions he had in heaven; the question is whether he ever really uttered them, because they were not intended to be uttered, but the effect of them was seen in his ministry through all those years, the brethren got the gain of them, but ordinarily I believe it helps us to let the brethren know what you have, and the Lord will become enlarged to us. It speaks in 1 Corinthians 14 of everyone having a psalm, some experience, and it is to be given out to edifying.
L.D.M. So the service of God is enriched in that way by the bringing in of spiritual impressions? The whole assembly is enriched.
Ques. Is there a tendency to leave that kind of meeting too much to spiritual gift instead of the brethren generally feeling encouraged to bring out these impressions?
J.T. That is right, if a man has a psalm it is not primarily the thought of gift; it is what he has experienced with God.
W.S.S. This giving out we are speaking of is the feature of a little child; a child wants to communicate immediately any fresh knowledge it gains.
John 3:35; John 4:10 - 30, 39 - 42
What I have in view is to say something about the divine economy, a word which perhaps some here may not have connected with divine things, but a very good word, as conveying the order or system of things which God has set up and into which He has come. Some may not have thought that God has come into a system of things, many assume that revelation means that the veil has been removed, so that we might look unto God as He ever was, know Him as He ever was; the word 'revelation' indeed means unveiling, but there is another word used also, namely declaration, which means the bringing out. Both words apply in regard of this matter of economy, and in speaking of God coming into what He has ordained creationally, one needs only to refer to the first chapter of Genesis, to show that He did come into something that He had not been in before. He came into time, for instance; He created time. It stands related to the creation, it was one of the first things mentioned after the general statement of the creation. The Spirit we are told, the Spirit of God (that is God Himself in that relation) was brooding over the face of the deep; the divine feelings were active and in the darkness that prevailed "God said, Let there be light. And there was light ... . And God called the light Day", and that became a measure of time into which God entered and worked. He came into that day, such is God in the activities of His love.
Then again as to the earth, we are told that God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. It says the earth was without form and void; it does not say the heavens were, although in the order of things God evidently created the heavens first, for it
is said, as the foundations of the earth were laid, "The morning stars sang together" -- they belonged to heaven, they were there -- "and all the sons of God shouted for joy" (Job 38:7); they were there. A happy state of things came into evidence as this orb on which we are, on which God was operating, began. It became affected obviously by sin, according to Genesis 1, so God had to begin over again, and He began feelingly; He created another heaven called the expanse. He created it in relation to this earth, and He came into all that and operated too, brought everything into the order that He had in mind, which the psalmist describes. Psalm 104 describes the order of things that God had set up on the renewed earth, the recovered earth, streams, valleys, and rivers, and so forth, so that it should be ornamented and furnished for Himself, with growth and sustenance, but not without work, nor was it left to carry on itself. God operated in it and is operating in it at this moment. He has come into it in each of us, I am speaking now as to the creation, for "in him we live, and move, and have our being". God is in it as its Creator, and keeps it going. It will not continue for ever as it is, but He is keeping it going for a purpose. He operated for six days, we are told, and on the seventh day He was refreshed; it is a most touching matter for us how God comes near and is near as the Creator. We are here tonight, as all men are in their places, sustained by God. Not simply a God at a distance, but actually here, actually come in and operating.
Well, having said all that by the way, I come to John 3:35 to show that there is another order of things inside of the physical, dependent on the physical, for, as far as we are externally concerned, the physical serves the spiritual, but the spiritual is within the range of the physical for the moment, and so you have the Father and the Son, which we do
not get in the Old Testament formally, for the Son was yet in the Deity, in absolute Deity; indeed He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, which we should always bear in mind. He is always the operative One. We are told that He made the worlds, and without Him was not one thing made that was made, but then it is also said that God made the worlds by Him, that He acted in that sense in a mediatorial way, yet retaining His place in the Deity; never inferior, neither in person nor in status until He became Man, and even then He is not inferior. He retains His status personally, although He has taken a place in order to effect this great thought, the economy for the moment, the provisional economy, so that God might secure what He has counselled to bring about, and on the other hand that He might be known in the gospel. So John's gospel brings out this strikingly in his own language, especially used and specially fitted of God for such a service as this gospel testifies to. It is a question of love, dear brethren; power, of course, but it is a question of love, active love; power available in the love, but active love. Hence we get in this verse, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand". That is the position. The Father has not retired into absoluteness, out of view, the Father is seen throughout this gospel as active in it, as the Son is, and as the Spirit is, hence the Lord says, "My Father worketh hitherto". He was active all the time, but now as in the economy He is active in relation to the Son, and we are in the thing.
What I wish to show in what I have been saying, is the result, that we are secured through the economy on the principle of faith, we are made immediately part of it. That is the impression I would like to leave with all; many have it already doubtless, but I should like all to have it, that as secured by the economy, by the operation of it, we are made part of
it; what is called popular evangelism is short of the truth; persons are converted and allowed to go as they will and where they will, and link themselves up with religious bodies which in no way represent the economy of God, whereas the true gospel, which this book of John implies, is that we are brought into the thing through which the light of the cross and the power of the deliverance have come to us. We are brought into that, and we are imbued with the spirit of it, so that we seek that others should be brought into it. So the first chapter is marked by an evangelical spirit. John the baptist presents Christ as moving, as active. Spiritual inactivity is abhorrent to the spirit of this gospel. John is active, he sees Jesus active, and as he sees Him coming to him he says, "Behold the Lamb of God", and others move to the Lamb of God. Jesus becomes the centre, and those who come to Him first address Him as Teacher, because what I have been saying requires teaching. The most urgent need, dear brethren, is teaching, divine teaching. So in this book the Lord (quoting the prophet) says, "They shall be all taught of God", and I do not want to be outside of that divine teaching. No true christian would be outside of it, "they shall be all taught of God". They called Him Teacher and asked Him where He abode, and He said, "Come and see". That is the next thing. It is what exists today, that is the point that John has in mind, it is what exists; what is of God is worthy of observation. No one who is of God is ashamed to call attention to what is of God, however little it is, for as of God, it is worth seeing, it is a testimony, "come and see". They came and "abode with him that day. It was about the tenth hour".
So down the chapter you will observe this idea of activity, they have come into a system of things perhaps not yet intelligible to them, but suppose we picture the two disciples in the place where Jesus
abode -- spiritually what did they see? They would see Jesus in it all -- you will understand I am not speaking in any way discreditably -- but anything that is in His surroundings is of Himself, that is the principle, that He surrounds Himself with witnesses to Himself, so Peter says, for instance, to the lame man, "Look on us". He is not diverting the man from Christ, he is attracting the man to what testifies of Christ, to what enhances the glory of Christ, for they were two apostles, Peter and John. So you may say they might have seen much in the surroundings in which the Lord abides that is not disclosed to us. John is writing of the last days, and of course that would bear on the last days. Where does the Lord abide? Where can He find a resting place today? that is the point. If there are a few in this town who love Him, and as loving Him keep His commandments, and have no notions of their own, but determine everything by Scripture; if they love Him they keep His commandments and if you want to see where He abides, that is the place. Of course, He is in the Father's affections above, in the Father's bosom, but as regards the testimony, which is the point now, it is where the Lord has a resting place here, where He can be seen, where He abides: "Come and see". The conditions in any or every locality among those professing to be of the assembly, ought to be such that we may freely invite people to see; it is a question of what Christ has effected or it is nothing at all. It is nothing at all morally if Christ has not effected it, but if there are those who love Him and keep His commandments, they, however few, even one according to John 14, would invite anyone that wants to see where Jesus is; He will be there spiritually, you understand, "Come and see" is one of the leading thoughts in John's gospel.
So that, as I said in that chapter, it is continuous movement. Andrew was one of the two; we are not
told who the other one was, I have no doubt it was John himself, but that is only a conjecture, save that we arrive at it by his way of referring to things that refer to himself. He keeps himself in the background; it is a question of adequate testimony as to where Jesus abides. Andrew went and found his brother Simon; he is potentially of the system that I am speaking of; he and John together according to Acts could say "Come and see", but Andrew found Simon and brought him to Jesus, and the Lord named him in relation to the system; He named him Cephas, and the Spirit of God tells us it means a Stone. The Lord had in His mind a structure, and there it is in Simon. "Thou shalt be called Cephas"; that is, in the testimony people would call him that; he would be known as a stable, reliable man, and there can be no structure without reliability and stability, and that is what the word 'stone' would indicate. The Lord found Philip and Philip found Nathanael, and Philip says to Nathanael, "Come and see". He might say, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?", but Philip would say, 'Well, do not be too sure'. It is a very unsafe thing to judge at a distance either persons or things or places; hence the word is "Come and see". Do not have preconceived thoughts as to what is of God, come and see; Nathanael did come, and the Lord saw him coming. It is now a question, not of what Nathanael is to see, but what the Lord sees in Nathanael. The matter is turned round, because if you are coming with any interest at all, you must come under the eyes of the brethren, under the Lord's eyes, for examination. It is not all one-sided; it is not that you are patronising the Lord if you come to hear the gospel or hear the word of God, there is another side, that you have come under His eye, and He has to carefully look over you. You may think it is an optional thing with you, but it is not, the Lord says, I have to pass My eyes over
you; so He scrutinises Nathanael, but not until he began to move. It is a question of movement, and so when He saw Nathanael coming to Him he said, "Behold an Israelite indeed". That is another testimony: how few there are in whom there is no guile! They are very rare. The Lord saw that. He named Peter and called him Cephas, and He named Nathanael "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile".
That is how the matter stands in John, so that Nathanael is part of the structure, because he is a guileless man, but he is an Israelite indeed; that is a spiritual thought. He is not an unsteady sort of man, he is a real person, and he is recognised by the facts that the Lord knew as to him, for He judged him right through, and His judgment brings out Nathanael's confession that the Lord was the Son of God and the King of Israel. You can see what a delightful man he would be in the system. The Lord is looking for such, for stable people, people that do not waver in their thoughts, not unduly critical in questioning, but submissive, for men like Nathanael; he is an Israelite indeed, a genuine man, a transparent man, there is no guile in him. The Lord says, 'You will see greater things than these'. People who are questioning all the time never see anything, never learn anything, "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". But not so Nathanael for the Lord says, "Thou shalt see greater things than these", and he had said that Christ is the Son of God, the King of Israel.
I have perhaps said too much on that line, but it is in order to make clear what is in view, that there is an economy composed of such persons and that the Son of God is the great central thought. If you read down the first chapter of John you will see the many titles by which He is known, all bearing on His glory, His glorious Person. He is worthy of our attention: He says later, "I, if I be lifted up out of
the earth, will draw all to me". If there is anyone who has not been drawn to Christ then it is evident that God is not allowed to work in you; you are not like Nathanael, he came to Jesus, he came to see. He was asked to come and see, and he came.
Now in verse 35 the position is defined. It is a question of love. The Father loves the Son. Why should this be said, because it is already said that He dwells in the bosom of the Father? Surely He is loved there. It is not that He was in the bosom of the Father; it is the present tense, as we have often noticed, "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father". It is a question of what He is as Man, the delight the Father has in Him, and it is expressed in that unmistakable way, "the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him". It is a position of love, that is what it is. The Son is in the bosom of the Father, and now in order to make that applicable to the economy that God has set up, it says here, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand". It is the singular, to set out the official position, as you might say. Everything is to be in His hand. It is the general position, but it is given over in love; it is a question of the Father loving the Son. The next verse says, "He that believes on the Son has life eternal, and he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him". That is a most solemn word, because it alludes to the Jews, the reprobate Jews, which this gospel contemplates, the Jews suffering; in fact nothing could be more severe than this verse, that the wrath of God abides, not 'will abide', but "abides". Paul confirming this says that "wrath has come upon them to the uttermost", a most pitiable thought, because we see it, dear brethren, all around us at the present time. God has put a mark upon them as He did on Cain, and He will see
to it that anyone who damages them will come under His judgment, but still there it is, and the economy and the administration goes on in the hands of the Son whom the Father loves.
Chapter 4 is to work that out and to show how those brought into the system are brought into it livingly. There is no question here of the forgiveness of sins; that, of course, is implied, but the point in the administration of chapter 4 is that the person who believes is brought into the system in a living way. Many are brought into the system outwardly, merely by baptism, and in that respect I wanted just to say a word as to those who are, or were then, the official servants of Christ, that they are out of this whole chapter 4 as to their work, a most solemn thing. We may have the reputation of holding things and being near the Lord, and yet the real living thing and the result He is securing are outside of us; we are not used at all. The disciples were doing something, but what were they doing? They baptised; we are told that the Lord did not do that Himself; the disciples did it. It is not very much (understand I am not disparaging anything that the people of God may do for the Lord) but it is not very much to be baptising. They were doing that, it says that Jesus Himself baptised not but His disciples. That is they carried on the outward thing. There is no life in that for life is not communicated by baptism, whatever orthodoxy says; it is but an outward thing which admits me outwardly into the profession, but it does not in itself admit me into the spiritual realm. I need the Holy Spirit for that, I need new birth for that, and all that the gospel proposes I need for that; an unconverted man may be baptised; we all know that. We are in the midst of the profession of millions and millions of people who have been baptised. Well, there is no credit to be attached to any baptism in that sense.
Another thing they were doing was that they were providing provisions for the Lord; at least it does not say they were for Him, but why should they all go to buy bread, or whatever they needed. It says, "A woman comes out of Samaria to draw water. Jesus says to her, Give me to drink (for his disciples had gone away into the city that they might buy provisions)". Where the money came from to buy the provisions it does not say; it was there, they simply were buying the provisions, there is not much in that. If it be only baptising and buying provisions then the system is not being built up at all, but the Lord is building up the system, that is the point, a new system of things; He is building it up livingly, that is the word. He would do it Himself; it is remarkable how much He has to do Himself in this gospel: here He talked to the woman. They did not understand it; they wondered why she was there. Why not? She was, as it were, the symbol of the harvest; 'the fields are ripe', He said, but they did not see it. I am speaking thus that we might be on the alert that whatever we are doing must be a living matter or it is nothing, a mere outward official work without the Spirit is nothing. That is what marked these disciples here; I am not saying a word against them otherwise, but the Spirit of God gives us this remarkable picture, they baptised and bought provisions, and they did not understand why the Lord should be speaking to this woman! They were spiritual men, of course, the great founders of the system, but for the moment John is presenting them in this light. In the last chapter he presents seven of them in another light to bring out that the official position is not trustworthy in itself, it must be in the energy of the Spirit; that is why we get the living water here, to bring out the living character of things, otherwise we have nothing.
So the Lord raises the question about drink. He had in mind to bring out this living thing, that the Father loved Him and the Father had given everything to be in His hand. Well, He says, I will bring about something for the Father, for everything must be for God; if there is no result for God, what is there? There is nothing morally. Hence you get sonship in this chapter, statements that you get nowhere else, and they are spoken to a despised Samaritan, a wicked woman. So the Lord goes on to speak about the living water, I cannot say much more, but it says, "If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water". What is needed, that is virtually what He is saying, is that, to work out what is in the mind of the Father; it is a living system and a living system must have a living state of things, and as we come into it we are made part of it. How wonderful it is to have part in this living system! The woman did not understand; she has to be instructed, that is another point, to be led out of the channel of her own natural thoughts, religious thoughts; she had no reputation really, she did not deserve any recommendation religiously, but she had religious thoughts, and she refers back to the father Jacob; such people always refer to the past: I have not anything myself, but my forefathers were something. But it is a question of what I am now; that is the thing in the new system, and so the Lord proceeds to enlighten her, to lead her out of the channel of her thoughts. I can never be in the new system without that, I judge everything, the thoughts I have been engaged with whether morally or religiously; and ultimately the Lord discloses everything to her, exposes her to herself, not to anyone else, and she says, "I see [for that is the word used] that thou art a prophet". I wonder if everyone here
sees that. You say, Of course the scripture says the Lord is a prophet, but she did not quote Scripture, she was speaking from her own soul, from her own discernment. How did she come into it? God worked with her as Jesus spoke to her and she said, "I see that thou art a prophet". Then the question of worship comes up. Many have said, Why did He speak to such a woman about worship? How incongruous it seemed! But it was not so, because she saw He was a prophet; she had come under prophetic ministry. God had come into her soul, and enabled her to see everything; she saw herself, but she saw also that that Man was a prophet; she did not go beyond her measure. I should like to have heard her say that; the Lord loved to hear her say it. It was not a natural thought, it was a spiritual thought; she is coming into the new system and I must learn Christ according to my measure, bit by bit. Well, the conversation goes on and the Lord says wonderful things to her about worship, which we often quote. Probably there is no passage with which we are more familiar in relation to the service of God than the conversation between this woman and Christ, a wonderful thing, "God is a Spirit". It is not said anywhere else as far as I know, and He says it to point out that if we worship Him it must be in spirit and in truth. It is not a question of physical places, mountain or Jerusalem, it is a question of spirituality.
Well now the woman is led on, and she comes to it; and when the disciples come back they are out of the whole matter; it is a very solemn thing for them. It is one of the most interesting episodes in the history of Christ on this earth, and they are out of it. The reason is obvious: they were unduly occupied with their official position. They baptised and they bought provisions. What were they doing in the town? Were they evangelising the town? There is not the slightest evidence of that; the work
was going on by the Lord Himself. He found this woman, and when the disciples came on the scene I believe the conversation had ended, the whole matter was settled before they came. Had it not been they would have interfered undoubtedly, but they did not, they merely marvelled that He talked with the woman, that was all, and that was not any help at all. If I am in a meeting, if I say anything I want to help the brethren, not hinder them; there was not a bit of help in this remark. They marvelled that He talked with the woman. Why did they not say to the Lord, Is this a convert?. Is this woman interested? I am not disparaging the sensibilities of these men, because they were most wonderful men; I am not saying I would have been any better than they, but the picture is at their expense, so that we may not be found in such a case. Why should I not say, if I see a woman like this talking with the Lord Jesus or with a servant of Christ. Is she a convert? is she interested in the truth? No, they did not say that, they wondered why it should be. Why should it not be? And so the Lord says to them, "I have meat to eat that ye know not of". It is a scathing remark, showing that they were out of the thing. Why should I be out of the thing? If I am with God I will be in it. But He says, You do not know this matter.
Now I come back to the woman just to point out that she came into the system. It says "The woman then left her water-pot". The word 'then' is to call attention to a spiritual movement, as over against the attitude of the disciples. There is no spiritual movement with them at the moment, but there is in this person, the Lord has done His work and the effect of it is that she left her water-pot, for that belonged to the old system -- it is a type of it -- and she went away to the city. It means that she understood that the water that He gave her, the
living water, was to be in her, that she was to be a vessel in the divine service, that is the idea, a containing vessel, but a vessel that can be used for the help of others, for later it is said, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water", and this dear believer becomes a containing vessel, a dispensing vessel. That is the idea in John; it is all a living matter, dear brethren. Then she goes after the men and says, "Come, see a man". She is an evangelist. It is again "Come and see", as much as to say, I have discovered who He is, "Is not he the Christ?". It is a question not of doubt, but of certainty, and they came to him. "Then they went out of the city, and came unto him". That means they are leaving their moorings.
Then later it says, "Many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did ... and many more believed because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world". Would she be jealous about that? that they did not believe as much because of her as they did because of Jesus? No, she would say, That is exactly what I expected. What can be more desirable in testimony than that you direct souls to Jesus? "Come, see a man". And they went, they left the city, too, meaning that you leave your natural environments and moorings, to go to Christ, "Come, see a man", and they went. Then afterwards the Spirit of God would comment on this woman, that many of them believed on account of her. He would honour her as in the system; she is now doing the same work as Christ, and yet the disciples are out of it. The Lord is rebuking them in what He is saying after she left, but she is carrying on, and that is the point. As come into this thing through Christ, through
His servants, through the gospel, I become part of it, and I go on in it, and then my body that was once dishonouring is now constituted a vessel, a containing vessel for the greatest thing possible, the living water; it is springing up into everlasting life, God-ward, but it is flowing out to men too, and God honours this woman and the Spirit of God says many believed on Him because of her word. They believed, but they say, 'we believed more after we heard Him', and that would delight any true servant of Christ.
2 Samuel 7:14 - 18; 2 Samuel 12:7 - 9, 24, 25; 1 Kings 1:22 - 37
J.T. What is in mind is to call attention to prophetic ministry as bearing on the servants of God and on the service of God. We are all servants, but those more particularly in mind are those engaged in the divine service. Prophetic ministry is, of course, part of God's service, but in Nathan it assumes a Davidic character. According to the record his ministry has David in mind, and eventuates in Solomon, who is indicated in 2 Samuel 7, although not named. This is the first important service of Nathan, and his message has in mind the limitation of David in his service, and the introduction of a son. The result with David was that he went in and sat before Jehovah, so that the service, whilst limiting him, added to him qualitatively. He sat before the Lord, implying that he had gained through the message and moved in the light of the liberty of sonship. Then the next message, or service of Nathan, eventuates in the actual son, Solomon; but, although it dealt with a most grievous crime, David himself increases in spiritual power and becomes a worshipper again through Nathan's service under God. Then Nathan is employed to give the supreme touch to the event, in that he is said to name Solomon, the son already intimated, Jedidiah, which means that Jehovah loved him, so that we have quality again. Finally, we have, through Nathan's service, Solomon on the throne. It is clear, therefore, that this prophet's service, according to the records, is almost entirely engaged with David and Solomon, and the service eventuates in the worship of God in the greatest quality hitherto seen. He writes of David after his
death, and he writes of Solomon too, and we are told that he had part in the very ordering of the service of God in conjunction with the king. So that it seems to me that this line of thought in connection with Nathan would elevate our thoughts as to prophetic ministry which God is stressing, how that it reaches high, so to say, and produces spiritual quality amongst those who are serving.
C.A.C. Would you say that it implies conditions that are not quite suitable to God to begin with, but which are adjusted?
J.T. That is right. Nathan seems to be honoured in that he is dealing with the remarkable effect of the work of God. We may regard David as outstanding as representing the work of God, but he showed himself in these instances as adjustable. The more the work of God has effect in us the more adjustable we shall be. Nathan showed at the outset that he was thoroughly sympathetic with David; he was not a critic or a complainer; David too had confidence in him. If one is seeking to serve the saints as subjects of the work of God, it is a great matter to ensure their confidence. Normally, if one is sent of God he would inspire confidence in the brethren, and I think David clearly had confidence in Nathan, for he told him what was in his heart. In the earlier verses it says, "And it came to pass when the king dwelt in his house, and Jehovah had given him rest round about from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in a house of cedars, and the ark of God dwells under curtains. And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee". He has no criticism to make, he is with the king, evidently having his confidence, and hence, David would all the more readily receive his message. If we have the confidence of the brethren, we shall have power with them.
G.C.S. Would Saul be a contrast? He never seems to have got the gain of Samuel's ministry.
J.T. Whereas David never resents any criticism or reproof on the part of his prophets, namely Nathan and Gad; he is always amenable to their rebukes. We shall never get any gain from the ministry meetings, as we rightly call them, unless we, especially those who serve, come in this attitude of soul. That those who would serve them should have their confidence is seen here in Nathan. Evidently he had David's confidence, and he shows he was worthy of it, for he had no criticism of his thought to build a house, and so David is all the more ready to listen to the message. But what is particularly in mind is to show the exalted results of this ministry of Nathan. It is, I believe, set down in the scripture for this purpose, all else left out but what bears on David and Solomon.
Ques. What was the difference between the three seers -- Nathan, Gad and Heman? I wondered why the three were mentioned.
J.T. It seems to me that David must have encouraged the prophetic ministry. Samuel occupied a different position from either of those three, he was never regarded as one of David's prophets, but we see how David valued him. I think those three allude to the spirit of encouragement which David accorded to the prophets and the liberty with him that he clearly afforded them. The influence of the king was so great that it was of all importance he should be kept right, and so today it is of all importance that those who are serving in a prominent way should be kept right. Their influence is necessarily great. The bearing of such a ministry is qualitative; it results in quality such as is needed in the service of God. Hence the Lord is helping us to steer away from Philistine methods, such as the saints suffered from
earlier, and get us on to the Davidic line of things, making for quality in the service of God.
Ques. Do you think we should be concerned that the underlying circumstances of such a meeting would warrant the Lord giving a definite word and some definite result for the increase of the service of God?
J.T. Exactly; that is what I was thinking, and if there is mutual confidence in the prophets the bearing of the message will be to increase spirituality. There is a beautiful confidence between David and Nathan. I suppose his thought was that David was on the right line. His judgment was right that there should be a house, "Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee". There was no doubt about the thought being right, and that Jehovah was with him, for it was a fact that Jehovah was with him. Nathan's name means a gift, and at a time like this David would value such a man, especially after this message. David would feel himself a greater man after he received Nathan's message than he was before, for we never read of his going in and sitting before Jehovah before, and we have to attribute it to Nathan's message. So, Nathan would be more lovable to David henceforth.
J.S. Would you say that the more the work of God goes on in a man's soul the more he will appreciate one like Nathan, what God gives, however humbling it may be?
J.T. And not only so, but a gift, as we were saying. The Lord having gone on high has given gifts to men, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers and the like, but Nathan is more than that. The man, I think, is peculiarly so. Attention is drawn, not only to the gift the man has, but to the man himself. His name means a gift, and he is mentioned here for the first time, so as to express what David's mind would be, how a man's service in the ministry is endeared to us and the man himself, because of his
manner and ways. He is with you as far as he can go, not on a critical line, but with you as far as he can go. He is with God too, and that is the principal thing. He is available to God, and so we get him here, as it says, "And it came to pass that night that the word of Jehovah came to Nathan". It would look as if he was a man God could act upon when he was by himself.
Rem. So if I am one who serves, I should expect God to speak to me in the ministry meeting, as well as to any.
J.T. Jehovah spoke to him at night. It would indicate that God would have him by himself. The Lord speaks of how His reins instructed Him in the night seasons. The night seasons should enable us to be available to God to speak to us, not only in the meetings, but alone -- in our quiet moments.
G.C.S. The Lord was all day in the temple, but at night on the mountain, in His own sphere with God.
J.T. That is what is stated: "Jesus went to the mount of Olives". I suppose if we could have seen the Lord in the night seasons on the mount of Olives we would have been impressed with His attitude. On one occasion He went out to Bethany to spend the night, which would indicate what one finds amongst the brethren, but generally, whilst He was in Jerusalem, His resort was in the mount of Olives; the others went to their own homes.
F.W.W. Why does Nathan trace David's history back to the time when he was taken from following the sheep?
J.T. I suppose that would bring home to David what God had done for him. It is well to go over our histories in that way. It says, "I took thee from the pasture-grounds, from following the sheep, to be prince over my people, over Israel; and I have been with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee, and have
made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are on the earth". It would remind him of what God had done for him.
F.W.W. Would it suggest also a good place to start in the service of God, looking after the sheep?
J.T. Yes. The facts relative to him in his youth would honour God viewed from that point of view. He had a spiritual ancestry too. Joseph had instructed his five brethren as to what Pharaoh would ask them as to their occupation; they were to say that they were shepherds and their fathers were too, and yet that was a reproach in Egypt. But here it would be to show that God had taken him from such lowly occupation, and, as it says, "made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are on the earth". The Lord had said in regard of the disciples, "I will make you ..."; He took them from their fishing boats, and made them fishers of men.
E.E.B. Does it show in any way how we need to continue in the thought of mercy? This great servant has a sense of what God had done entirely. It was nothing of himself, but what God had made him.
J.T. That is what we must keep steadily in mind, that whatever one is is what he is made. God loves to make us something too, but He makes us for Himself.
Ques. Is your thought that the prophetic ministry would maintain David in that position?
J.T. It comes in here at a time of needed regulation, which we all need, especially those who serve, even although we may be getting on to the end. A prophetic word conveys to us the mind of God as to us, and the mind of God is to limit me. It was to limit David here, and yet to enlarge him in another sense, for he is perfectly satisfied with the adjustment. He went in and sat before the Lord, the message beautifully couched in grace indicating what a beloved
man Nathan was. So it says, "According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak to David". It is the kind of thing, what ministry really is. You get a word from the Lord as you wait upon Him for the brethren, and then He is well able to clothe it properly according to His mind. So, in the visit of Moses to the mount, the communications were "after the tenor of these words", meaning that God had confidence in Moses that he would convey things after the tenor of what Jehovah had said.
Ques. So, would it stir up the very best that the work of God is capable of bringing about in the persons to whom it appeals?
J.T. If God is sending a message to you He has the whole field of service in mind, and as David says, He speaks "for a great while to come", and the limitations He may impose upon us indicate that He has somebody else in mind to do the work better, for God understands each vessel and has them for a certain purpose. The truth is, the message is to make way for sonship. Solomon is not yet mentioned by name, but as the son; and that shows what God is doing. He is stressing sonship, so that each one of us takes his place restfully before God, instead of being too much aglow with his service and talking about it. As with the disciples, they came back and told the Lord how much they had done, cast out demons and healed the sick, but the Lord said, Do not rejoice in that, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven. Really, it is sonship being impressed upon us, that each one is greater than his service.
A.J.G. Is that in order that the servant may exemplify what his service is intended to produce?
J.T. The servant ought to be personally greater. In truth, in the divine mind, he is greater than his service, and sonship is the thought.
Rem. Nathan does not resent the word; he is perfectly sympathetic with it.
J.T. Yes, and he speaks well of him, and gives him a great place, and the Lord said He would establish his kingdom. The thought is that one becomes restful as to the future; matters are all settled, and this message is from God, and is adjusting upon me, limiting my service. God being infinite in wisdom; but He is speaking well of me all the time and showing me as to His will in the future, speaking "for a great while to come". So we are restful, and nothing can be better than God's ordering for us; even limitation does not interfere with that.
C.A.C. And He brings in a great thought that had not been in David's mind, bringing in the thought of the son, and enlargement.
J.T. That is what I thought. It was really an extension of David, so to speak. It was what would come from him, and it seems as if David's soul was enlarged by the thought, and it is indicated by the fact that he goes in and sits before the Lord. The mind of God was concerning things to come, greater than He had said before.
Now in the next passage, David is a great sinner, reminding us of what the most prominent is liable to, a very humbling thing. Again, it is Nathan, and, although he is directed by Jehovah, it does not seem as if Jehovah told him to speak the parable. It just says, "And Jehovah sent Nathan to David", but he spoke the parable himself. It would look as if he would break the matter to David in a gracious way, so that he condemns himself before he knows it. Great ministers are liable to excuse themselves, but David is condemning himself before he knows it. That shows the skill of Nathan. Then we are told in verse 7, "And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man!", and then it says what Jehovah said.
F.W.W. What is the bearing of this second incident in regard to Nathan?
J.T. I think it is to bring out what we were saying at the beginning in the way of positive results. After all, what is ministry if there are no results? But it seems as if God is honouring prophetic ministry in a supreme way in showing results in Nathan. It brings about worship in David, and then Nathan is sent to name the son he had already spoken about. David called him Solomon, which was right, but the name given by Nathan is Jedidiah. He is used in it and has part in the actual result. He sent and named him Jedidiah, as if a brother is able to see the most refined result of his service and able to name it. It is what God loves, a result for God.
L.D.M. It is a beautiful touch, "for Jehovah's sake".
J.T. Showing Jehovah's part in the thing. He has part in these meetings, and we may be sure He will get the best. He knows how to single out what there is for Him, and here it is Jedidiah, what Jehovah loves. Surely every true servant would have that in mind, what Jehovah loves.
A.J.G. Does it show that prophetic ministry will necessarily take account of moral conditions among the people of God, and always has in view the end that God is working for?
J.T. I think that is right. The Scriptures afford us, even if in an abstract way, what the divine intent is. Ephesians is that; it is generally an abstract view, that we are raised up together and made to sit down together in heavenly places. It is anticipative, but it is the mind of God. It is what He has in mind and what He loves. The epistle begins with what is before Him, that we are to be before Him in love. So the minister has that in mind; he aims high, having in mind something for God.
Ques. Does prophetic ministry bring us into the presence of God?
J.T. That is what we see here supremely. David is brought into the presence of God in each case, and in this particular instance he writes a psalm which must have been extremely pleasing to God. Nathan's name is brought into it, showing that he is carried on into the result, for the psalm must be for God.
Ques. Would David represent the real character of the saints here, as well as being a servant?
J.T. Quite so. There are excellent qualities in him, as was remarked at the beginning. He stands out as representing the work of God, and I believe this is the explanation of the great place given him, God viewing His work abstractly. Aside from all his terrible failures, the work was there.
Rem. So Jedidiah would be the extension of David, David meaning 'beloved', and Jedidiah 'beloved of Jehovah'.
J.T. So it is the continuation of David really, for it is stressed earlier that he was to be David's son.
Ques. Would you say why the name Jedidiah is not referred to again, but Solomon is?
J.T. That name is for God, you know, God, I suppose, acting on this name and what it means. Solomon, corresponding with it, pleased God. What Solomon said after the appearance to him in the vision pleased God, showing he was lovable to God. When he prayed too, the house was filled with the glory, showing how delightful he was to God in those circumstances. You may be sure Jedidiah will not fade away; it is God's part in Solomon really. God said of Jacob that He loved him, but it was at the end (Malachi 1:3). But here it is clearly a type of Jesus, what God has in Christ as Man; "for Jehovah's sake". How that would be in the mind of the Lord Jesus in His life here!
C.A.C. And the thought of God extending to the many sons.
J.T. Quite so. Then the final word brings out the vigilance of the prophet, still bearing on David and Solomon. He is not occupied with the antichristian element, but with those God is using. Prophecy, of course, deals with men, as we see in 1 Corinthians 14a man comes in and falls down and judges himself as the effect of prophecy; but Nathan's service bears on those actively in the service of God, to promote better conditions among the people of God as a whole, to improve God's inheritance.
A.J.G. Nathan's first movement in this chapter is towards Bathsheba. Would she represent those cherishing the peculiar light God has given at any moment?
J.T. Just so. She was, however, a little remiss. You are struck with the apathy that existed at the beginning of this book. Why should it be so in the leading persons? What would have happened? But Nathan goes to Bathsheba, for she had a promise, and it is a good thing to remind people who are apathetic of promise. She was the one to go to, for she was the mother of Solomon.
Ques. When David speaks, he speaks in regard to three persons, Nathan, Zadok and Benaiah. Would Nathan represent the prophetic word, Zadok the priestly service, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the power of the Spirit?
J.T. What was in mind was to bring out how Nathan's ministry has to do with David. Bathsheba is essential to this matter, because she had the promise. Those three men are brought in, but we are speaking particularly of Nathan. He had to do, first of all, with calling attention to sonship, and then with the son himself coming into the scene, and now with the son on the throne. We are coming to the acme of the matter, for it is a question of sonship being enthroned.
If you can enthrone the idea in the hearts of the brethren, you will secure great results. That is what Nathan is aiming at, and in his actual part in the enthroning of Solomon you see the vigilance that attached to him, going to the right person, the mother of Solomon, who had the promise. Nathan puts the suggestion in her mind in verse 11: "And Nathan spoke to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith is king, and David our lord does not know it? And now, come, let me, I pray thee, give thee counsel, that thou mayest save thine own life, and the life of thy son Solomon. Go and get thee in to king David", and so forth, which she did, and David listened to her. Then Nathan comes in, "And behold, while she yet talked with the king, Nathan the prophet also came in. And they told the king saying, Behold, Nathan the prophet. And when he was come in before the king, he bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground". We do not get this before. "And Nathan said, My lord, O king, hast thou said, Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne?". He gives him the facts, and then the king said, "Call me Bathsheba". So the order is perfect; it is a question of his promise. She is the mother, and Nathan understands thoroughly how to bring Bathsheba into the matter. The promise was hers; he was her son, but the authority was vested in David, and so Nathan puts it in that way, and the king says, "Call me Bathsheba", and he fulfils his word to her. "And the king swore, and said, As Jehovah liveth, who has redeemed my soul out of all distress, even as I swore to thee by Jehovah the God of Israel, saying, Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit on my throne in my stead; even so will I certainly do this day". So the matter is settled from David's point of view, and then the king said, "Call me Zadok the priest, and
Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada". It is now the priest; he is perfectly in keeping with Nathan's mind; it is the king; it is Solomon; it is the will of God.
Rem. It seems as if this enthronement of sonship among the saints depends on prophetic ministry.
J.T. It is very striking, and illustrates the actual facts of the present time.
C.A.C. It does not merely rebuke what needs to be corrected, but brings in the supreme thought of God.
Rem. At one time we were content with reading meetings, but now the prophetic ministry is coming more to the front.
J.T. That is right, and now we should be concerned as to the quality of the prophetic ministry, what it is aiming at and what the result is to be in me.
Ques. What if we did not have a prophetic ministry?
J.T. There would be no Nathans. That is the thing to look for now, not only a prophet, but a Nathan. What we should aim at is the quality of the prophet himself, not only the word heard in the meeting, but what kind of man it is who gives it.
Ques. We read that "Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse, and strengthened them", Acts 15:32. Would strengthening the brethren be the result of prophetic ministry being carried on?
J.T. That was a most critical time.
C.A.C. You would look for something very positive in the ministry on those occasions.
J.T. It is important, I am sure, that those who are more distinguished in those meetings should make room for the younger men. One has considerable experience, for one moves about so much, but I think the Lord is helping. Indeed, it is in keeping with David and Solomon, that is, the old and the
young together. David made Solomon king before he died himself, and he spoke of him as young and tender before God, and in Chronicles it goes on to say that the people made him king the second time. David had made him king, but the people said, We like that young man, and they made him king the second time; he has proved himself. The apostle said to Timothy, "Let no man despise thy youth", and if the young men are doing that, they will not be despised. And David himself is evidently so pleased with the co-operation of Solomon that he reduces the age of the Levites from twenty-five to twenty, to increase their number. So there is no ban on the younger brethren today, but they must not let their youth be despised, and I think Solomon is an example of that, that the saints like him and accord him a greater place.
Ques. Is the cause of possible weakness with us a lack of waiting? One sees the meetings are quickly taken up, whereas we might get a more definite word if there were a little more waiting.
J.T. I believe another thing to be said is that there is too much preparation before the meetings. The instructions given as to these meetings imply that a revelation is made to one sitting by. Well, I would like to be that one, not simply that I follow on what a brother has said, which is not always acceptable. Something revealed to another sitting by is not what another has been saying, but something distinctive.
F.W.W. Nathan seemed to know the right moment to come in. Do you think that is important in these meetings, if you have got a word, to know the right moment to come in?
J.T. That is very good, I think a study of Nathan would greatly help us on the high side of prophetic ministry, the skill with which he acts and the results he reaches on each occasion, all bearing on quality.
Rem. So Solomon as a young man asks for wisdom.
J.T. That is why God said He liked what he said and gave him abundantly what he needed. As it says in Chronicles, David made him king, and the people made him king the second time, and then he sat on the throne of Jehovah, showing the progress of the idea, that one occupies the throne of Jehovah.
Ques. Do you think that Paul bringing Timothy forward would have in mind the extension of the prophetic operations, so he says in the second epistle; "Remember Jesus Christ raised from among the dead, of the seed of David, according to my glad tidings"?
J.T. Just so. He must have had peculiar pleasure in Timothy, and yet he was not without his discrepancies. I suppose Paul's service to him would be very much like that of Nathan. In fact, he tells him in the first epistle, that his gift was through prophecy, an important matter, but confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the elderhood. That is, God puts a man forward through prophecy, and the elderhood, referring to the brethren in responsibility, lay their hands on the young man.
F.I. Would Nathan represent one who comes forward with a definite exercise as to what he sees in the conditions?
J.T. He sees the situation, and says, What will happen if I do not do something?
F.I. You said you would like to sit by and receive a revelation: is there not the side of having that which is the outcome of considerable exercise in regard of conditions?
J.T. That is quite right: "Each of you has a psalm", or whatever it may be. It is quite right that we should come with things, not simply something made up. A psalm would be experience, but what
follows is that someone receives something by revelation. Revelation is in the meeting, which is a very great and exalted thought, that we are in such a state that there can be such a thing as that in our day.
E.E.B. What would the counsel that Nathan gives Bathsheba to save her life and that of the king, represent? Would that come in in any way in connection with prophetic ministry?
J.T. It is all the elements that are essential to the movement. She had a right according to the promise, and of course, today that refers to all of us.
G.C.S. The man in 1 Corinthians 14 says that God is amongst you, that is, in the company.
J.T. How great it is that there is such a thing in our day, that God can make a revelation on the spot. It is available and within our reach.
John 4:28 - 30; John 12:1 - 3; Luke 24:30 - 33; Mark 14:26; Acts 1:10 - 13
I hope to show that there is a link between all these scriptures. They show the effect of the teaching and influence of Christ upon those who, as the subjects of the work of God, receive that teaching and come under that influence; that there is a favourable or positive reaction to our listening to and coming under the influence of Christ. Such a meeting as this, in itself, may not result in anything that is intended in some of us; indeed, there may be a reaction in a negative sense. Persons listening to the truth and coming under the influence of such an occasion, in which Christ has His part, after returning to their several abodes, definitely allow personal feelings or prejudice, or worldly influences to cause reaction in a negative way. It often happens. It is the work of the devil, and as a rule the influence spreads. What I have in mind is reaction in a positive sense, that the truth and divine influence, if allowed, and they will be allowed in those in whom normally God acts, will act and react in keeping with the truth and influence brought to bear upon us.
It may be in an evangelical sense. The Spirit of God in such meetings as this often presents Christ according to what is needed in a general way, and in specific cases in a personal way with evangelical feeling, as it were, for God would have the gospel continued. He is governing the world with that in mind, holding His hand on everything. He has His creation, seen in the race of mankind in His mind, and the world being still in reconciliation, He is ordering things in it with a view to the gospel being continued, as the apostle Paul said, that the elect "may obtain
the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory", 2 Timothy 2:10. That is a very fine thought, and God would have it nurtured, and not that only, but that the testimony of Christ and His work should continue to be proclaimed; as it is said, "For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be rendered in its own times" (1 Timothy 2:5, 6), and that is the present time. That time has not disappeared or come to an end, it still exists; "the testimony to be rendered in its own times".
Now I make a few remarks in regard to this woman in John 4. It is one of the chapters that perhaps yields the most, certainly evangelically, in John's gospel. And coming to the reaction with her, a blessed reaction, what is to be pointed out is that the Lord dealt with her by herself. There were those who had the distinction of being His servants, namely the apostles. They are not mentioned as apostles here, but are called disciples. Sometimes the term is used as denoting disciples who were distinctive, as it is said in chapter 2: "His disciples believed on him". They are distinctive as having part in the service, and what comes out is that they are said to be baptisers; they were baptising, a matter that does not require much spirituality. It is a necessary service, something that should be done by a brother in the locality, which is scriptural as I understand it. Others make much of a distinguished brother, that he should do it, but in either case it is not a matter requiring spiritual intelligence or spirituality. But they were accredited as doing it, and they are also said to be buying provisions at this particular juncture, another service that requires but little spirituality, so they are evidently out of this matter, one of the finest bits of spiritual work recorded in this gospel.
I speak, no doubt, to those who serve especially, for we do not want to be in any sense out of what is going on spiritually. Local matters, of course, in each gathering, include material affairs, necessary things, but let no one confine himself to those things. Even the deacons appointed to ordinary service of this kind soon graduated, and two of them, Stephen and Philip, "purchased to themselves a good degree". Of course, there is the hewing of wood and drawing of water for the congregation of the Lord, but then there is promotion in the realm of God, and promotion implies what is spiritual. The disciples in this chapter seem to be missing; indeed they were missing; they were out of the current of the spiritual activities of Christ in their relation to the living water. Hewing of wood and drawing of water is hardly up to this. This woman had come to draw water, but she had connected it with an ordinary vessel, a water-pot, and rightly too, but the Lord's instruction led on to living water.
I can only say very little on the subject, because of the other scriptures, but she listened. She was very natural in her thoughts at the beginning, extremely so, and pretentious too, but the skilled hand of the Master brought her on to the spiritual line. That is what everyone who serves Christ would seek to do, to bring the saints on to a spiritual line, and one of the surest evidences of this is that one says, as this woman did, "I see that thou art a prophet". He did not say He was; He told her He was the Christ later on, which was a very remarkable thing, but she began to exercise spiritual faculties. The subjective work of God, of course, is required for this to come into action, and chapter 3 lays that basis. The basis may be laid, and yet worldliness coming in often hinders its normal operation, but in this case she reacted very quickly to what the Lord was saying to her, and she said, "I see that thou art a
prophet". Sometimes we remark that we marvel that the Lord should have spoken to her about worship; but the reason was that she began to see things, and she was being drawn out of her own life. She was seeing things, and the conversation proceeds until the disciples came on the scene again. Now, you say, there will be a good meeting, but where are those disciples? They are quite out of the current of things. As is often the case, those reputed to be such are doing something else, whether it be baptising or buying provisions, or something else of that kind; they are out of the current of the spiritual work of Christ, and they do not add at all to this position. What a fine opportunity it was for a good time. The Lord would not be averse to it; He is never averse to spiritual additions. But can John add anything to this matter, or Peter? There is no evidence that they did. The Lord and the woman were going on with something, and the disciples came on the scene but they did not link on with it. I do not want to be like that, I want to be able to link on at once with what God is doing, not seeming to be foreign to it. In fact, there were certain aspersions in their minds as to the thing; they wondered that He should speak with the woman; they were utterly out of it.
But then, what about her? Was she damaged by them? Thank God, no, but she rightly withdrew. We do well to withdraw from unspiritual conditions, for they will soon dampen the ardour that the blessed ministry of Christ has produced. We do well to take notice of these things, and of our companionships. Very often in meetings, unspiritual links with persons invited for fellowship become leaven. We are to withdraw from unspiritual conditions, especially if discipline is involved. The Lord would not bring in the natural state; He rebuked it. They said, "Master, eat"; they were occupied with the material, but He
said, "I have food to eat which ye do not know". How solemn that was, and how humbling! He knew all about their buying provisions, and no doubt if they were buying fish they would know how to buy it to the best advantage. But here was something they knew nothing about. We do not want to be outside of what is current in this way.
So she left her water-pot. We have often spoken of it, but I only mention it to show how the truth reacted upon her. She said, in effect, This water-pot is not the idea. The disciples in their state at that time were ready to speak about that sort of thing, but the Lord had been speaking to her in a spiritual sense and she appropriated the significance of His ministry, and she "left her water-pot and went away into the city, and says to the men, Come, see a man who told me all things I had ever done: is not he the Christ?" -- and they came. It was not, Go, see a man; the Man is, as it were, in her heart; He was not at a distance from her; Jesus was in her heart, "If Christ be in you, the body is dead" (Romans 8:10), and that was exactly the case with her. That vessel is left; what she is naturally is discarded for what she is spiritually. The Lord had introduced the thought of a spiritual containing vessel, and she says, I am going to be that. That is reaction, and how useful anyone is who reacts like that to the truth of the gospel. If I react in that sense, the Lord can take me on and use me in the gospel, as in her case. The point is that the reaction has constituted her a vessel for living water.
Now this gospel is full of this thought, really involving sons of light. She became a son of light. In chapter 12, the Lord said, "While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light" (verse 36). That is what is presented: believe in the thing. This woman believed in what was presented to her, and it was developed in her soul,
and she became a son of light. It is not children of light, but sons, developed persons, and so, in the next scripture I read, we have a class of nobles, a veritable galaxy of nobles, sons of light. They have reacted to the light; they have believed in it. It is not simply something to be admired and spoken about, but believed in: "Believe in the light", and then you become sons of light.
So that the reaction in chapter 12 is of a group of sons of light; the whole scene is radiant with light. Jesus came to the town; that was the reaction in Him, so to say, speaking reverently. He had ministered to them and raised Lazarus, and He had in mind to come back. That is a lovely thought in Jesus. If He causes something to take effect in my soul He will come back as regards it. It was a question of what was effected in Lazarus -- "Where Lazarus was", as it says, and the reaction with them was that "they made him a supper". But it is not that He is going to have it alone. It is what He is looking for. The wonderful light had been shining; they had believed in it, and now they are sons of it. See how nobly they acted. They acted like grown persons; there is no longer any bitter complaint on the part of Martha, everything is in perfect order; they are governed by the light; they are sons of light, and they made Him a supper.
Now this matter becomes progressive if an event of this kind takes place as we are together. The table was laid, Martha was there serving, and Lazarus was sitting at table with Him. It is a glorious scene. The matter is His, but Lazarus is there. Lazarus never shone better than now; Martha never shone better than now, and Mary never shone better than now, and conversely Judas never shone worse. Evil is also exposed, but this beautiful scene brings out Mary. She is the one the Spirit of God has in mind, and the very scene produces reaction in her. She
has got something, an accumulation of wealth, and she has it for the great occasion.
That is all I should say there, and I go on to Luke. John shows spiritual energy at work in Christ, outside of the official class, and that there is positive result, but Luke, being a priest, would show us how reaction takes place where restoration is necessary. It may be there are those in this audience who have wandered from Christ. They may be attending the meetings as yet, but in heart they have wandered. Luke, being priestly, would show the reactive effect of the kind of grace needed for restoration, the Lord intimating that when He said to Peter, "When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren". I suppose Peter was more useful after his restoration than before. The divine intent with us, however serious the defection may be, is that the will of God may be accomplished through it, that we are to be made better through it, and Luke would depict the reaction of restorative grace.
So it is that the Lord had gone after these two and walked along with them without letting them know it was Himself. It is a wonderful priestly touch that we get in this chapter. And presently He expounds to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Think of the wonderful patience and tender care of the Lord, unfolding the scriptures about Himself, about Christ. If one is to be restored it must be a question of Christ, not to turn now to prophetic or other subjects. No, those are not the things for restoration. I believe John's gospel is the great gospel for that. He begins with Christ and persons who were alienated, from religious influence and the like. If they are christians at all they will listen to a word about Christ. So the Lord, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself". What glories He brought before them, one
after another, "the things concerning himself". Yet it only caused their hearts to burn. That is the progress of restoring grace. If I have not a heart to burn at the unfolding of Christ, at His own touch, His own service, well, there is no hope for me at all. How can I resist it? People get away, and come under ministry, and yet their hearts are like stones, and we begin to give up hope for them. Sometimes one is compelled to say, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant"; it is the governmental judgment of God. But not so these two. There was hope for them, and the Lord knew it, and He went into the house, "He made as though he would go farther". He is aiming at them, as at somebody here tonight, and they constrained Him, and He sits down and takes the place of the house-father.
Think of how far the Lord will go to restore. Mark tells us that "he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country". Why should the Lord put Himself to the necessity of taking another form to restore two persons? They were going to the country, another thing to be noted, dear brethren. Beware of going into the country in the days of christianity. But they constrained Him, and He went in and sat down -- what a lovely scene that was -- and took the house-father's place. He had that; not that He wanted to shine in any way, but to get at them, and He broke the bread and vanished.
Well, the reaction is that they returned the same hour to Jerusalem. There was immediate reaction, and what a blessed one it was; and the Lord knew it, as He anticipated the effect of restorative grace. If God is working in the recovery of souls in this hour, John would give the prophetic or spiritual side of the position, but Luke would show that the reaction to the ministry of Christ in restoring grace is that you come to the public position, that there is something
public for God. Surely there is. Let us never give that up, however small and despicable it may appear to be. If God is working, it is that you might give lustre to the public position. You identify yourself with others who are gathered wherever the authority of Christ is owned. That is the point here; they came and found the eleven, those who maintained the authority of Christ. That is the action of restorative grace which is going on every day, that you come to the public position, wherever the authority of Christ is. You say, I never heard of those who have gone forth without the camp. Why did you not hear? The thing is of God. Let us not consider for ignorance. Ignorance is ignorance, and if you have not heard, let people know, for you should have heard. So they came back and found the eleven, and it is for you to find where the eleven are. You understand I am speaking of the authority of Christ, these men represent the authority of Christ, and as they came in amongst them they were talking about restoration; they said that the Lord Jesus was risen. If you go into any ordinary company of people in the world, you will never hear them say that; you will hear them talking about the politics of the day. But here they were talking about the resurrection of Christ, and saying He had appeared to Simon, a man who had sinned grievously. The Lord selected him to appear to. That is what Luke is setting before us, and if there is anyone here needing restoration, this is the truth for you, and the Lord is looking for reaction to this truth in a positive way, that you come in and recognise the authority of Christ. If you have sinned, acknowledge it. Peter did, and the Lord came in, and these two were able to add that He was known to them in the breaking of bread.
I just go on to the last two scriptures. I refer to Mark, and then later again to Luke, in regard of the assembly, where the authority of Christ is publicly
owned. Now I want just to say a word about the effect of the Lord's supper itself. What happened at Emmaus was not the Lord's supper, but the Lord suggested it in the way He broke the bread and vanished; He did not stay there. He does not vanish out of the assembly after the breaking of bread; it brings Him in, and He loves to stay, as I hope to show. But Mark gives a peculiar touch in regard of the Lord's supper; he makes much of the way to it. Being the levitical gospel, he makes much of how you reach the place, not on the principle of recovery but on the principle of ministry, a man with a pitcher of water. It is not that you have sinned or strayed, but you follow the ministry and you find the place. Other things happened during the passover, for the passover is not so much separated from the Lord's supper here as in Luke. What I want to show is that the way to the assembly proper is by glory; it is "from glory to glory". That is the principle. Believers today, who are assembly persons, who belong to the assembly characteristically, leave their dwelling places in glory. They have read the Scriptures and had prayer, and they move on to the room in glory, and sit down in glory. It must be glorious in some sense to answer to divine rights, for the assembly is divine property; it is the assembly of God. It is not a common thing. I am afraid many of us treat it as if it were common, but it is a glorious thing. So we sit down and proceed, and there is the incoming of Christ in the bread to shine in glory. That is what it is, "from glory to glory". The cup comes too, and has its own glory, and the box is not without its glory, if you will understand. Its proper setting is there; it is public; it is glorious. The more I see that, the more I put into it, as much as I can afford, I do not want to detract from the idea. The Lord shows the glory of it when He says of a poor widow that she cast in more than they all.
It was glorious, and the Lord implied immediately that the temple was not great enough for that. Another temple must come in; of the old, not a stone should be left upon a stone.
So everything is glorious as we proceed; and not only glorious, but we begin to move in our affections. It says that they sung a hymn. Was that merely because it was customary at the passover? I do not think so at all. It was not customary to the Lord's supper either, for there never had been a Lord's supper before. They sung after the Lord had spoken about the cup. He had spoken about the bread too, but what I want to bring out is this, that assembly service is progressive, deeper and deeper into glory. Why did they not sing when they came in? It does not say they did, nor does it say they sung after the passover. Mark would show there was glory in what the Lord said and did. Their hearts were aglow; they were moved by the light that shone, and the reaction was that they sang a hymn; they did it. The Lord is content, if I may say so reverently, to drop out; He is not mentioned here. Mark would show us the effect of the light that shone in the institution of the Lord's supper. It was progressive; it must have been so. It says that "they all drank out of it", and then the Lord told them about it: "This is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many". He brought that in. It could not have been but increasing glory, and they are moved. That is really the order, dear brethren, of the reaction, as I may call it, in a positive sense, reaction in assembly to the light of the glory that shines, one glory after another. So they went to the mount of Olives. The sons of the prophets said to Elisha that the place was too narrow. That was right, and it was right to go to the Jordan. The place was too narrow in Jerusalem. When you come to the spiritual side, when the brethren are aglow and the glory is shining,
we need to move out spiritually. Jerusalem is the place for the Lord's supper which is a public testimony, but the mount of Olives is another matter, and as we are drawn together in mutual affection and are touched by the glory shining in the Lord's supper, we want more room, and we ought to give plenty of room to Christ and to His affections. Do not dismiss Him in His relation with the assembly. The assembly is His glory; it is His fulness. I do not say that we get that as we move out to the mount of Olives, but we are on the platform of it. It is all spiritual. It is reaction, as I have said before, and the Lord looks for continual enlargement as in assembly.
Well now to close, in the Acts the Spirit is concerned about the public position, and He records the ascension of Christ, not from Bethany, but from the mount of Olives. The link is with what I have been saying. I suppose that Luke touches Mark, for in Matthew and Mark it is a question of going out of Jerusalem, that is, of spiritual deliverance from Jerusalem. Jerusalem is reprobate in that sense, so that Matthew and Mark would take us out of it, whereas Luke would bring us into it again. What I mean to convey is this, that in the testimony Luke would show we do not need a back door, that is, taking up children and teaching them by themselves. The idea in the gospel is the front door; it is a question of humanity. The testimony is to humanity, not to the children first, but the men and women, the responsible element, and Luke would show that what is coming in by the presence of the Holy Spirit here in a public way is greater than the greatest religious centre in the world. That is the idea, but in order to make that clear, you remember that Luke, in the end of his gospel, says that the Lord led out the disciples as far as Bethany, and "They, having done him homage, returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God". But that does not give us moral elevation. In approaching the sphere from the standpoint that He now has in mind, which is the assembly. He brings in the upper room, and that is what many of us need as reaction to the heavenly testimony. If we understand Paul's ministry that comes to us, we see that it is greater than any cathedral or any religious system in the world, and the point now is not to be afraid of it. Luke would show that the Holy Spirit having come down from heaven, what Christ left behind Him here is greater than the temple, greater than Jerusalem. If I go to Jerusalem it is not to abide there, but to be a testimony to it, and I cannot be that unless I am greater than Jerusalem. That is what a christian is. The reaction to the heavenly light is that, and the two men in white that Luke speaks of tell the story, "Why do ye stand looking into heaven? 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". It is not a period of sight any more; it is a period of faith; the dispensation of God is in faith. "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". That is the position. In the interim there is this principle of manner. What is christianity? It is according to that manner, the light of ascension and the heavenly position, as it were, shining upon us.
And so they go back to the city, but they go to the upper room. The spiritual reaction to the light presented leads them there. And who are there in the upper room? The representatives of Christ in the eleven, their very names are given. They are abiding there. What an influence! What authority vested in each one! Then there was Mary, "These gave themselves all with one accord to continual prayer,
with several women", we are told, "and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren". What a sphere that was! I only refer to it as showing how superiority to the greatest religious system is built up in our souls as we react to the heavenly light, and that is the need today. In Ephesians 1, in the first place, God has called us in this sense. It is the heavenly position that makes us superior, and it is as superior morally in the upper room that we can be a testimony to what is down here. The very religious system is not to be ignored, but we have to go into the very midst of it and be superior to it. May the Lord use these thoughts to us at this time.
1 Samuel 13:13, 14; 1 Samuel 14:47, 48; 1 Samuel 15:1 - 23
J.T. The thought has been before one all day that, as anointed of God and set up in light and privilege, we are all under trial. We are greatly favoured, as Saul was, peculiarly favoured, with the mind of God set before him as to one who would supersede him, according to the verses read in chapter 13. And then, according to the verses read at the end of chapter 14, he was generally successful, that is, as the natural eye would see things. He "took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies round about, against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; and whithersoever he turned himself, he discomfited them. And he did valiantly, and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of their spoilers". Then we are told of his sons and daughters, and his ministers, we might say. The chapter is the history of a ministry that is finished. But chapter 15 is particularly in mind as the final test; this final commission becomes the supreme test. It seems to me as if at the present time it is wholesome to face such scriptures, for we are all on trial in this sense; it is he that continues to the end that shall be saved. Constantly the mind of God is being brought to us, as it was to Saul, and at times it seems as if we are moving in it, and yet the final test may bring out serious conditions, for the tests go on to the last moment of our position down here. Chapter 15 begins with, "Samuel said to Saul, Jehovah sent me to anoint thee". Samuel is having to do from the very outset with this remarkable man; he stresses that it is so, that Jehovah sent him to anoint Saul, and he is
going through with the matter. So that our beginnings are in mind and how we are to finish. This last service seemed to be the best of all, and yet it was the worst of all, so that we have to be on the alert to be sure that we are doing the will of God. Chapter 16 is the positive terminus to this subject, that is, the appearance of David. Chapter 15 is what is in mind as the final test.
Ques. Paul said he had fought the good fight and kept the faith. Would he be an example of one who did continue, as over against Saul?
J.T. Quite so. Samuel himself is a testimony to this same thing, but he stresses here that he had to do with the beginning of this movement involving Saul, and now he is having to do with it at the end.
Ques. Do you suggest that we are tested as to where we are inwardly in our secret history with God?
J.T. That is the idea. Samuel is, as it were, overseeing the matter, it is he who is speaking to Saul in all these cases. Now he is reminding him that he had to do with him at the beginning and was sent of Jehovah to anoint him, and he says, What is going to happen? He is giving him a work, and is he doing the will of God in it, or is he assured of the will of God and not doing it?
Ques. Is the failure in obedience through not hearkening sufficiently attentively to the word of the Lord?
J.T. Yes, and not waiting for issues. The servant and the saint too is to be on that principle of dependent waiting. Whatever little I may do, what is the result of it? Am I confirmed that I am doing the will of God? So that the first scripture read is a pronouncement on Saul as having failed in not waiting. In verse 8 it says, "He waited seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him" (that is, from Saul). "And
Saul said, Bring hither to me the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings. And he offered up the burnt-offering. And it came to pass, as soon as he had ended offering up the burnt-offering, behold, Samuel came". He did not wait long enough, and hence we have this pronouncement. He explains and excuses himself to Samuel. He says, "The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication to Jehovah; and I forced myself, and offered up the burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly, thou hast not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God which he commanded thee". That is, each move in our position in the testimony is to be tested out. Does it bear the test? It may not, and yet we go on. The light of God is brought in, and we go on again and again, and finally it looks as though the general service of Saul is successful. Had we nothing beyond chapter 14 it might have been thought that the Spirit of God thought it successful. But chapter 15 brings out the whole matter. The will of God was not in his heart, the word of God was not in his heart.
Rem. It is a great contrast to the Lord in Isaiah 8. At a crisis in the testimony He says, "I will wait for Jehovah, who hideth his face from the house of Jacob; and I will look for him".
J.T. I was thinking of that. Jacob says, "I wait for thy salvation, O Jehovah". Patience is set before us in the man of faith. It calls for examination at every stage of our service and history.
L.E.S. Does Samuel himself exemplify the true spirit of waiting in chapter 16 when he says, "We will not sit down till he come hither"?
J.T. Well, he had come to that. It is an excellent example of what we are seeking to show. He was quickly recovered. It is an example of how readily a truly obedient man becomes restored if in any way he is deflected; but where the word is not readily
received, digested and acted on, God will not let us off. We may seem to be doing well, but God will bring in a test, and we are exposed.
Ques. Was the first test not only in regard to the commandment, but in regard to patience as far as the word was concerned? He waited the set time. Was the extra time on Samuel's part to test the thought of patience?
J.T. That is the idea. It was in mind that this man should be always on trial, he represents us all in the testimony, in responsibility, we are always on trial. God loves to see His own work show itself in the sense of dependence and patience, but otherwise the test will expose us. We may as well make up our minds to this.
Rem. We can never exactly be sure of ourselves.
J.T. No, you cannot. Paul said he had a good conscience, but he was not thereby justified, "He that examines me is the Lord", he says.
Ques. So that is it that if there is exposure, what comes to light is that there has been in some way or other the retention of the man that God has rejected?
J.T. That is what I thought; that comes out here. Samuel is faithful with Saul in chapter 13, as we have observed, reminding him that God had rejected him, but still he is allowed to continue, and chapter 14 brings out the kind of man that was to replace him, only not fully so. That is, Jonathan is very like David and acted wonderfully in chapter 14, so that Saul has under his very eyes what God has in His mind in His service, a man who works with God. Jonathan represents the spirit of Christ as working with God. But chapter 14 only brings out the obdurate condition of Saul, because he would have slain Jonathan on merely legal grounds, on no righteous grounds whatever. That is, it is positive unrighteousness. "Thou shalt certainly die, Jonathan", he said, for a merely legal cause, whereas in truth
Jonathan was representing and working with God, bringing out the wealth of the land. The land was flowing with milk and honey, and Jonathan saw that it was flowing with honey and he partook of the honey, he partook of the land of Canaan in a truly spiritual way, and he must die for that, because of a legal enactment of his father, an unrighteous enactment. So that in these chapters we have the man under trial, tested at every moment, as it were. We are tested every moment in these meetings, weekly meetings and special meetings, tested every moment with the light of God, and what are we doing, what is the effect of it?
Ques. Had you in mind that the 14th verse of the 13th chapter constituted an appeal to Saul, that is, the presentation of the man after God's own heart?
J.T. That was what I thought, a man after God's own heart. He existed. We do not get his name, there is no indication as to who he is, "Jehovah has sought him a man after his own heart, and Jehovah has appointed him ruler over his people; for thou hast not kept what Jehovah commanded thee". Yet Saul is going on, allowed to go on, not deposed. Then Jonathan comes in and tests him again, working with God, and he does not tell his father. Why am I left out of things, why am I not taken into the counsel of the spiritual? Well, there is something wrong with me. He did not tell his father. Why did he not tell his father? Jonathan was acting spiritually, I mean to say that the position today is most critical, because God is greatly favouring us. Week after week brings its quota of light and blessing amongst us, and we are all on trial in that way. Are we looking in and saying, What is the situation with me? Why am I not in the counsels of the brethren, for instance? Why am I not in the confidence of the brethren? The spiritual are with
God. However few, they are with God. Jonathan was with God, he was working with God, but what he undertook to do he kept silent as to his father. His father is out of it; that is to say, unless I am walking in the light as God is in the light, I am simply out of the thing, though professedly in it.
Ques. Does the apostle refer to that when he says, "We labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him"?
J.T. Just so. The apostle had kept his conscience right with God, yet he was not justifying himself, he says, 'It is the Lord who examines me'. The mind of heaven is usually reflected in the spiritual. Jonathan represents the spiritual here. There are such, however few, and they keep their counsels to themselves in regard of unspiritual people. So that I am out of it unless I am judging myself. It says, "He did not tell his father".
W.J.D. Are you applying this to the general development of the truth amongst us?
J.T. Yes, everywhere. There is that amongst us that is unnamed, very much that is a weight, unjudged sin. The spiritual are exercised, but, generally speaking, there is a great deal that is not dealt with. God is going on with us, and the spiritual are with God, and they have to keep their counsels. Many are out of these things. Why are they out of them? Why is Saul out of this matter? He is quite ignorant as to what Jonathan is doing, and yet Jonathan is with God. He has an armour-bearer who is ready to follow him. In verse 6 Jonathan says, "Come, and let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised" -- see the spiritual terms he uses, whereas Saul was using natural terms, calling the Israelites Hebrews -- "perhaps Jehovah will work for us; for there is no restraint to Jehovah to save by many or by few. And his armour-bearer said to him, Do all that is in thy heart". So that we have two anyway,
as we have in the New Testament, "two of you". They are with God about matters and God is with them. They are working with God, so that the testimony goes on. Am I in it or out of it? Although nominally in fellowship, am I out of it? Why should I be out of it?
Rem. Jonathan and his armour-bearer represent a spiritual understanding amongst the saints who are with God in the development of the matter.
J.T. That is right. They are not a party, they are working with God. But he did not tell his father; his father was out of the thing, he was unspiritual, and he was not keeping the commandments of God.
W.C. Does the position under the pomegranate tree suggest a kind of orthodox position? There were a good many with him, six hundred. The real work of God is unknown, going on without their knowledge.
J.T. And he has got the ark too, apparently. The ark was with Israel in those days, and Saul would have had it and used it, but he gets no answer. In verse 18 of chapter 14 it says, "Saul said to Ahijah, Bring hither the ark of God. For the ark of God was at that time with the children of Israel. And it came to pass while Saul talked to the priest, that the noise which was in the camp of the Philistines went on and increased; and Saul said to the priest, Withdraw thy hand. And Saul and all the people that were with him were called together, and they came to the battle". But he is getting no answer. It is the noise of what God is doing that draws him, and then he comes into the thing, and he does harm. He is worse than useless, and he would have slain Jonathan, the man who is working with God. There is no effort to depose Saul, no effort by anybody to set him aside. He is doing it himself; he is being exposed.
Rem. Jonathan wished to have all the people in this; how much more if the people had partaken.
So that the spiritual move is not a party one, as you say.
J.T. Not at all, I think what Jonathan represents here is a man who is increasing, as working with God, coming into the good of Canaan. The word as to the honey in verse 26 is, "The people had come into the wood, and behold, the honey flowed". It was Canaan. What God had promised was there, and he was availing himself of it. But Saul would put him to death for this, for laying hold of the heavenly privileges, the fruit of the land flowing with honey.
Ques. Do you get an example of this in Simon Magus in Acts 8?
J.T. Well, Saul represents persons who are more distinguished, really distinguished in the testimony, because he is distinguished in the testimony. The account we get is, "He took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies round about" and so forth. Of course Simon Magus was never distinguished in the testimony, but this man is, and he is the leader ostensibly, and yet he is not with God, and he is out of everything that is spiritual.
A.J.G. Do we get principles set out in these persons more than just persons themselves? I wondered whether Paul discerned something of this sorrowful feature in Peter in the Acts when he withstood him to the face. Peter was happily recovered.
J.T. Quite, so far as it went.
Ques. Would the word in Corinthians as to reigning as kings without us be significant in this regard?
J.T. Yes, they were out of it, that is right. Paul was going on spiritually with God; the Corinthians were out of it.
Ques. Is it not so that if there is disobedience and lawlessness the service may be carried on, but it will be in the self-confidence of the flesh rather than being with God in the matter?
J.T. Exactly. And then I may be against the spiritual. God is not stopping; if the leading man is not with Him, God is going on; He will go on with the spiritual, however few, and give the victory too, and presently the leading people run counter to the spiritual. Saul would have slain Jonathan here, and it was because he was appropriating the land of Canaan, the very best thing that God had promised; that was what he was appropriating, and he must die for this. It shows how serious it is if I am not with God, how I may come right up against those who are spiritual and quarrel with them and persecute them.
Ques. What is the significance of the eyes becoming bright in Jonathan's case?
J.T. That is the heavenly food. The Messiah was to eat butter and honey. Jonathan came into the good of the heavenly land. Others might have come into it, but they were restrained by the legality of the unspiritual. Many are hindered because of that, they have respect for the consciences of others, and they are hindered from the very best things that God has.
Rem. "All who are in Asia ... have turned away from me" furnishes the spirit of it.
J.T. Just so. There may have been some leading influence there. It was a personal attack on Paul, as in Jonathan's case here.
F.W.W. What is the difference between butter and honey, and milk and honey?
J.T. Butter is a higher thought. Isaiah 7 says that "a man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep" so that he might have the butter. Butter is a product of milk. There are so many things current that are weighing us down, that are unnamed, and these chapters are to show that we are on trial. If things are let go by the board, God is thinking of them; He is not forgetting anything. Things must come to trial. Saul is doing fairly well according to
the end of chapter 14, but the last chapter exposes the root of the whole matter. Samuel said to Saul, "Jehovah sent me to anoint thee king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken to the voice of the words of Jehovah" (chapter 15: 1). It is a new matter altogether, the whole history is wound up in the end of the chapter. Is he going to get off free? He gets this important commission, against an ancient enemy of God's people; it was an excellent opportunity for him to show that, after all he has been through, he can now serve God and do what he is told to do, keep the word of God. So Samuel says, "Now go and smite Amalek, and destroy utterly all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling". It is a remarkable thing -- you might say, an infant would cover both, but the point is to show that he is going to be tested, "Ox and sheep, camel and ass". Then we are told how the battle went and how successful he was, and he goes up to Carmel and sets up a monument; that is, he is thinking of himself. It is a great matter, and he is successful, and he is setting up a monument, and we are told in verse 10, "The word of Jehovah came to Samuel saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned away from following me, and hath not fulfilled my words". He had already intimated that to him, but this chapter shows that He is giving him full opportunity to prove himself.
Ques. What is the import of the second verse, remembering what Amalek did to Israel?
J.T. "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have considered what Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up from Egypt". I think that Jehovah is putting the matter into Saul's hands, that is, spiritually it is an extended matter, it is a matter that attaches to the whole history of God's people. He is making much of
him, to give him such a charge as this. It involves great spirituality and ought to appeal to any true Israelite as to the history of God's people. So he is setting him up again; he is on trial, but this new opportunity brings out that there is no change, that the root of the matter was never judged. Every vicissitude brought out that, though Saul had done pretty well, though he "took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies round about ...", the root of the matter was there; it had never been judged.
C.T.L. Does Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 set out this point in dealing with the flesh rightly when he says, "We henceforth know no one according to flesh"?
J.T. Just so. That is where he judged rightly. He says, "Having judged this: that one died for all, then all have died". Saul never came to that, with all these opportunities he had, forty years in God's service. He never came to that at all.
Ques. Is the root of the matter in personal, private exercises?
J.T. It ought to be; a daily check-up on our history would bring it to light. We allow things to go on and never attend to them. Short accounts are the idea in relation to God.
A.J.G. Do you think the leaders at Corinth were tested as to this very matter, and over against that the apostle says, "For we do not, as the many, make a trade of the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ"?
J.T. Quite so. Then again, "Let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven ... but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth". The feast is a continual thing spiritually. Saul had forty years in this great position, leading God's people ostensibly. With all these opportunities, with Samuel there all the time always ready to speak to him, the root of the matter is never dealt with.
L.E.S. The Spirit who dwells in us is spoken of as "the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead". Would that involve that His testimony to us would constantly bring before us God's selection of Christ as the Man whom He approves, and His rejection of every other?
J.T. Very good, that goes on to the change of our bodies. How well pleased the Spirit of God is with us, and really Samuel represents that side; he is representative of God, there all the time, and Saul had the advantage of the presence of Samuel and yet never judged the root of the matter.
Ques. Would the expression in the first verse, "The voice of the words of Jehovah", indicate going to the root of matters?
J.T. Yes, it is the words, not a general thought, it is detail, checking up in our histories, the constant appeals of God to us by the Spirit.
Ques. So that the voice would suggest something living?
J.T. Quite so, it is "the voice of the words of Jehovah". How many there were, how constantly God speaks to us.
Rem. I am thinking that Saul was a man for words, was he not? But the voice of the words would go beneath the legal exterior.
J.T. Quite so -- what the words carried, the voice of God.
Ques. Would this reference back to Exodus 17 constitute an appeal as to the sufferings of Christ, as the only way in which we can receive the Spirit in power to overcome Amalek? Is there a danger of our losing sight of that and going on without feeling what it cost Christ to deal with the flesh in order that we might have the Spirit continually, the power of it?
J.T. If Saul were a spiritual man he would understand this commission. In chapter 10: 1 it says, "Samuel ... kissed him" and told him of different
things that he would come in contact with as he moved according to the instructions, amongst them Rachel's sepulchre, the hill of God, and prophets prophesying, so that these are suggestions that would draw out spiritual instincts, but Saul did not have them. It is remarkable that for forty years God allowed this man a prominent or distinctive place in the testimony, and he has never been right all the time. All these spiritual suggestions as to Rachel's sepulchre, the hill of God, and the prophets of God, all these ought to have set him up spiritually at the outset, but he was wrong from the beginning. He never judged himself.
Rem. No one would have detected that but God. Even Samuel does not seem to have seen it.
J.T. The end of chapter 14 would rather indicate that, after all, he has done fairly well. Many a time one has heard that about brothers one knew, who were not right. Only recently such a person went astray and got lawless. There it is, however; it is never named. There are many such cases amongst us.
C.T.L. It says in chapter 14 that Saul built an altar to Jehovah. This was the first altar he built to Jehovah. Would the setting up of the monument in chapter 15 be a solemn departure from that position?
J.T. He was making a religious show when he built the altar in chapter 14. He is more or less exposed, for the battle is being won by someone else, he is trying to get into it and have the glory of it, he is sending for the ark, setting up an altar, sending for the priest, but he is exposed. Jonathan, the spiritual man, is there, and he is carrying on, the testimony of God is going on, only two knowing it. But Saul is being exposed. It is the spiritual activity that exposes such a man as this, but the difficulty that I observe in the meetings is the inability to name, the indisposition to name, evils, and the tendency to leave them not dealt with.
Ques. I suppose it cannot be named until it becomes open?
J.T. Well, the spiritual can name it. I think Jonathan was naming the real condition in his father when he did not tell him what he was going on with. He had a secret understanding, in fact, he says so; when the matter comes to light he says that his father had troubled the land (verse 29). That is naming the thing. The people are to come to that.
Ques. Is it not all the more serious that even after that, it says Saul "did valiantly, and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of their spoilers", that ostensibly things went on even after that?
J.T. That is the test, I think. Such a man is allowed to go on and do things, do valiantly, too. People say, After all, he has been a good brother, and the matter is not named. He is a real troubler, that is the truth.
J.T. Well, there is the principle of investigation. Our so-called care meetings ought to be that; it is a question of a spiritual investigation. They are not final. The assembly alone can administer judgment, but the investigations ought to bring to light the conditions in the gathering, and there ought to be a naming of any troubler. He has troubled the land.
Rem. They would be named in the care meeting before they are named in the assembly.
Ques. Do you think the apostle in 2 Timothy is on this line? He names the matter of Demas, and then he names the matter of Alexander the coppersmith. He goes on to say, "Against whom be thou also on thy guard, for he has greatly withstood our words".
J.T. A very good example. He names things to Timothy as if he had confidence in him.
Ques. Is it a question of the testimony being at stake, that things must be named when that is the case, not personal matters, but the testimony at stake?
J.T. We ought to see that here. Although this man is a leader, he is a troubler really. Although there seems to be a good report, he has done fairly well. God is showing in chapter 15 that he is not to get off. That is a solemn matter. The government of God goes on, and no one will escape, God will see to that; something will happen to show the root of the matter.
Ques. There would be certain indications, do you think, to the spiritual of the way things were going?
J.T. That is what comes out here. What you notice is that Samuel is really friendly to Saul, he is no enemy at all. He is friendly from the beginning to the end. He mourned for him after he was finally rejected. Nevertheless he is a spiritual man and his word is faithful. In chapter 15 Saul tells his story. God had told Samuel in verses 10 and 11 that Saul had not fulfilled His words. "Samuel was much grieved; and he cried to Jehovah all night". He was a true friend, a spiritually true friend, and why should not a spiritual man be truly a friend to any offender, because the more spiritual I am the more I am truly a friend to any offender. Samuel is faithful, and that is what is so much needed, a faithful naming of the thing that exists. So Saul said to him, in verse 13, "Blessed art thou of Jehovah: I have fulfilled the word of Jehovah. And Samuel said, What means then this bleating of sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of oxen which I hear? And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites, because the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice to Jehovah thy God". How plausible all this is, and most (alas, we have to say, most) will accept such a plausible story as this. We
see what Saul has done: he has gained a great victory, in fact, we are told in chapter 14 that he had done this, for I suppose the allusion is to this battle. You will observe here in chapter 15: 17 - 19, that Samuel does not say a word about the people. He tells the truth, that Saul is responsible for all the others. He has neglected to hear the word of God and to act upon it, so that no son of trouble, like Saul, need make much of what the generality of the saints think. It is a question of the judgment of the spiritual, of the mind of God. So Samuel says, it is very plain, "Why then didst thou not hearken to the voice of Jehovah? ... Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king". So the matter is settled.
C.H. It is made very clear in that verse, "Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and self-will is as iniquity and idolatry". Self-will, generally speaking, is one of our greatest sorrows.
J.T. Yes. It is inability to face things that needed to be judged.
Rem. Is it right to suggest that in the questions that Samuel asked Saul -- it was all done by questions -- he was giving him an opportunity, but it only brought out the fact that he was excusing himself all the time? Had he judged himself at that late hour God would have come in for him.
J.T. This is really what meets all these matters that are allowed of God amongst us. What has happened? There is nothing very concrete you can speak of, but verses 22 and 23 are the spiritual exposure of the whole matter, that will is at work, want of self judgment, instead of God's will, my will, covered over with what is my will all the time. That is the point, I suppose it is put poetically to pierce our consciences, to get in.
C.T.L. Is the final test as to the thoroughness of doing things?
J.T. Yes. Take Agag here, he is the king. What does he represent? He represents Amalek. In his own person he represents the whole thought, the whole thing that God would have destroyed, and Saul is so far away from God that he justifies saving this man. So Samuel hews him to pieces. It says of him in verse 32, "And Samuel said, Bring ye near to me Agag the king of Amalek". According to this version he came gaily; I suppose it would mean he was a gentleman, he was fully refined after the flesh so as to produce a good impression. I suppose that is the idea; he would produce a good impression on an unspiritual person. But he did not on Samuel. Samuel said, "As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless above women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal".
Ques. What about Saul's confession in verse 24?
J.T. It is wrung out of him. We go to a brother like this, not judging himself really but doing the best he can to cover himself. But God will not let us off. It is faithfulness to God that comes out in this chapter. It is a sort of appendix to Saul's life, but it brings out the real state that was there all the time; God would have it so.
C.H. Would the Lord's parable as to the foundations in Luke 6 bear on this? One built on the sand and the other on the rock. Would Saul represent the building on the sand and David the building on the rock?
J.T. Quite so. David judged himself thoroughly, he is over against Saul in that sense. David was always recoverable and always listened to his prophets, to Nathan and to Gad.
Rem. Saul seems to have listened to the people. That is a poor thing for a king, "I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice". It is not the language of a king.
J.T. Quite so. Besides that he blames the people for his own sin.
A.J.G. The Spirit of God makes that clear in verse 9, "And Saul and the people spared Agag", both of them: Saul was in it.
Ques. Does Samuel himself set forth the secret of power? He hews Agag in pieces and returns to Ramah where he has his house and his altar. He returns to Ramah after anointing David. He always keeps up his links with Ramah.
J.T. He maintains his spiritual elevation before God.
Ques. Why did Saul go to Gilgal?
J.T. A man like him will go the full limit of religious appearances.
C.H. Does Samuel show the balance of right feelings? Whilst he could hew Agag in pieces -- there was no excess in that, it was right -- he mourned over Saul, not taking advantage of him in any way.
J.T. I think he shows how thoroughly he regarded Saul; he would have saved him; a spiritual man will always take that attitude in seeking to recover a brother.
Ques. Is it not wrong to mourn over Saul in this sense?
J.T. He kept it on too long. "How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?". In raising this question I suppose it is right that we should be thoroughly with God in our feelings. It says, "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king". Whilst we do not want to give any place to the flesh at all, we should be devoid of what is spiritual if we lacked feeling in the matter. These words ought to be kept in mind, how the root of the matter was reached in them; they are in poetic form. Samuel committed himself in them. They stand out as dealing with these cases, that you
have not got very much concrete evidence of what you might call serious crime, but it is the underlying state extending over the whole period of one's service. Things were never really judged at bottom. These two verses are in poetic form to pierce through and get to that side, so that it is exposed. Saul is the responsible leader; there is no effort outwardly to depose him. God has expressed His mind, but Saul goes on and on until he falls on mount Gilboa.
Ques. While what you say can be taken up by us all, have you leaders particularly in mind?
J.T. No, not specifically. It is the general thought of a state continuing and the service seemingly to a certain extent quite commendable, the state owned in the fellowship, and yet God will not let it pass, it must be exposed.
Ques. Is it what we say that exposes us?
J.T. Agag represents the flesh in its worst form against the people of God, it came to light when the Spirit was recognised. It is Satan in the flesh, that is what it is. Think of Satan in it! He is self-cultivated, self-cultured, he will produce a good impression on the natural mind. This man Agag came gaily, as much as to say, I am quite acceptable. He would have produced that impression if he could on Samuel.
Ques. Do you think we need to have a clear vision in these matters of what is delightful to Jehovah? Samuel brings that in here, "Has Jehovah delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah?"
J.T. That is very good. These two verses are to be noted, I think they are put down so as to stand in our mind. Poetic form is to impress our minds, we can always recall poetic form.
F.W.W. Is the contrast seen in Isaiah 42? "Behold my servant whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth".
J.T. Quite so. Matthew brings that in, does he not?
Ques. Why does Saul always refer to "thy God" and not 'my God'?
J.T. He was pretending to honour Samuel, I suppose. I think he represents in all this the cleverness of such a man covering over the real thing that God is exposing, and excusing it, making much of Samuel, of course, making much of the spiritual man, but never really judging the root. He fails to do that, skilfully hiding that if he can.
Rem. So that it says, "Not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth".
J.T. Quite so. This chapter 15 is, I believe, what we all have to face. We are on trial. However we may seem to be getting on well. God will not let us off unless there is this habitual judging of ourselves, keeping short accounts with God. The voice of the words of Jehovah is constantly coming before us, meeting after meeting, and yet we turn a deaf ear to it.
Rem. Jehovah having war with Amalek from generation to generation gives Him the opportunity to bring us into the matter.
Ques. I suppose we shall be disqualified from coming into the spiritual development under David if this is not really faced?
J.T. I think so. Even Samuel himself came under the power of the thing to some extent, thinking of Eliab instead of David.
1 John 5:14, 15; Daniel 9:20 - 24; 2 Kings 6:17; Isaiah 38:2 - 5
My subject this evening is heard and answered prayers. I have selected three out of many Scriptures bearing on this, believing that they are characteristic of all and serve to bring out the subject. Never was there a time when prayer was more necessary, and of course answered prayers; answered prayers are the ones that are effective. The verses in John's epistle are intended to instruct us as to prayer, especially if we are urgent as to answers. All that is desired in our prayers is not granted, although they may be heard and even pleasing to God, for in everything we are to make our requests known to God by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving (Philippians 4:6). God answers from His own point of view, although He loves to intimate to us that He answers because we pray.
The Lord, according to Matthew 18:19, says, "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven". He gives us to understand it is done for us, and John's remarks which I have read support this; he would encourage us as to consciousness of God. A person must believe that He is, but that in itself is not consciousness, consciousness of God. "By faith we apprehend that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that that which is seen should not take its origin from things which appear", Hebrews 11:3. That is all objective, but God would have us to be conscious of Himself. Indeed John goes so far as to say, "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him", 1 John 4:16. We cannot but see that consciousness is there, that there is such a thing as being 'God-conscious',
if I may use that expression. Paul says that men "Should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us", Acts 17:27. John would make it nearer than that, bringing Him into our hearts that He might dwell there. Dwelling in love is not simply that I have love, but that love is active and is linking on with others. Thus God is pleased with us, and dwells in us, and we in Him.
Jacob made up his mind, after dreaming of the ladder extended down from heaven to him, that he was in the house of God: "This is none other but the house of God", Genesis 28:17. But he called it a dreadful place. You can understand there was not much in his consciousness of pleasure, whereas, in his more calculated moments very soon after, he named the place the house of God and determined it should be that, and it was that. And the next time he visited Bethel there was nothing of the dreadfulness about it. God came down to where Jacob was and stood beside him. God, as it were, was dwelling there; it was not an abstract thought, but God was there in Bethel, and with Jacob in it. We are the house of God, but it is as dwelling in love we are the house of God in the true sense. Still Jacob enjoyed the place and the pillar was erected and he poured a drink offering on it, meaning that God was pleased with him, and desired to be near him and talk with him, and to hear Jacob talk to Him, too (Genesis 35:14).
John's epistle would impress us with all this. He says: "If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things" (chapter 3: 20), but then he continues: "If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight". God would quiet any troubled heart, for Satan would trouble our hearts
that they might be diverted from God, but God would show us that He is greater than our hearts. We must keep this in mind and never lose heart whatever happens, and then, if my heart does not condemn me, anything I ask I receive from Him, because I keep His commandments. That is the general position as to prayer, the sense that God hears us and that, if He hears us, we have the petitions we desire of Him. It is important to keep in mind an untroubled heart, an uncondemning heart; that is, that everything that ruffles is dealt with. So that there is restfulness in the presence of God, and consciousness that He hears us. Evidently it is not with sight, but, as sensitive, we act. The Holy Spirit enables us to grasp that, not only has He heard, but we are conscious that He hears. There is great nearness in that; then we are to wait for the answers, for in truth a great part of the believer's life should be made up of waiting for the answers.
I have brought in Daniel because I regard him as a model for us in this matter. I could speak much of the Lord Himself, but I selected persons like ourselves, Daniel, Elisha, and Hezekiah. I might speak of Solomon, and of course many others. Indeed it is a most stimulating study in the Scriptures to follow up the heard and answered prayers. One might say the whole testimony is made to fit in with heard and answered prayers. The Lord, on the cross, was heard from the horns of the unicorns (Psalm 22:21), "He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever", Psalm 21:4. There are other prayers in the Old Testament, such as Solomon's, that come down the whole history of Israel. God says, "I have heard thy prayer", and He fills the temple on account of it, showing what He thinks of this kind of prayer.
Now Daniel is peculiarly one with whom God is pleased. The times of prayer are occasions for God;
the meetings for prayer that we have are occasions for God. He honours every one of them. He speaks of "my house of prayer"; that alludes to the temple, but to the assembly too. Although we come burdened on Monday evenings, not only with the burden of the testimony, but maybe with the cares of this life. God would intimate to us that He would make us glad in His house of prayer. Now Daniel represents a kind of praying man that stirs heaven; he prayed at length, for he represents spiritual brethren who are concerned about the testimony of God, and the history of it, and those who are responsible for it. They take account of the history of professing christendom and judge it before God. That is what Daniel was doing here. It begins in verse 3 of our chapter, "I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: and I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments". How pleased God was with that! Remember, it is Daniel who represents the principle of prayer more strikingly than most. When he heard the decree that exposed him to the judgment of the king to be cast into the lions' den, "he kneeled upon his knees". You may say, What is the use of saying he kneeled on his knees? God is stressing that it was real kneeling, real exercise. He prayed three times a day with his window opened towards Jerusalem. He is a known man to heaven on this line, a fearless man, a martyr in his prayers, for martyrdom is a suitable accompaniment to prayer.
Now he is praying and Gabriel comes swiftly to him and tells him he is greatly beloved. He is ministering to heaven in his prayer, he is delightful to heaven, and all such praying saints are likewise pleasing to heaven. So our prayers and meetings for
prayer, dear brethren, are part of the divine service, and occasions of pleasure to God, and He makes it known to us, for we become conscious of His nearness in prayer. God looks for it, for our consciousness, and thus He is pleased with us. The point that Gabriel stressed is that Daniel is beloved. He can pray so that God is pleased with him. God is looking for His part in all our service, and in no case should God's part be omitted, in our reading of the Scriptures, in our meetings for prayer, as well as on all other such occasions. Daniel desired to know the mind of God as to his people and city, he was concerned as to the completion of things; and surely, dear brethren, finality is to be in our mind in our prayers. Our sojourn here is near its end. Daniel had in mind the finality of all that God had introduced in relation to Israel. Jerusalem was in ruins. What was to be the culmination of all this? Daniel knew God, and with God there is to be a finish, a finish to everything. What is to be the finish of our times? John says we know that antichrist comes. We do not need further revelation about that; it is a settled matter. What is to be understood is that he is kept back; the apostle tells us there is that which now hinders and also He who hinders until He be taken away (2 Thessalonians 2:7). That is a matter of exercise. And another thing, we are to count the number of the beast. "He that has understanding let him count the number of the beast", Revelation 13:18. The Scriptures give us that number, and it is important we should know how to count it.
Daniel has in mind the finality of things and is asking about it, and Gabriel is sent to him and he says in verse 24, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision
and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy". That is finality, for the time is to come. The Lord told His disciples, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power", Acts 1:7. But still there is spiritual finality. What is in mind in our meetings for prayer? Things are not to go on indefinitely as they are now. There is finality, and the spiritual will gather up in the presence of God what the finality is to be. There are the public things we have alluded to, but there is spiritual finality, and if I get a grasp of that in my soul, I keep on praying, for I want to be in that finality. In that way Daniel is a trustworthy man. God can trust him. But even with Daniel it is, "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days" (chapter 12: 12). There are forty-five days added here, and we are to watch lest we miss the forty-five days, for the blessing is attached to the waiting and coming to that number of days.
Daniel was a man greatly beloved according to the thoughts of heaven, and as such he was spoken to by Gabriel, the priestly angel. Praying is a priestly matter, and pleases God peculiarly, "Let thy priests be clothed with righteousness, and let thy saints shout for joy", Psalm 132:9. God is pleased with this, for He looks for spiritual happiness as we turn our faces towards Him.
Now I want to come to Elisha, another most practical servant of God, a man who can take a second place in the service of God, like John in the New Testament. In referring to this passage I desire to speak to young men. We need our eyes open at the present time. Young men are apt to be discouraged, and young people naturally aspire to things that perhaps are not in faith at all. We have to watch ourselves as to our desires, for young people are apt to have mixed motives. We are to watch, to
discern that, "I myself with the mind serve God's law", Romans 7:25. We need to discern inwardly by habitually checking up our motives. Let the word of God have full play on the conscience. As the offerings of old were slain the inwards were all divided and presented to God and burned on the altar. The word of God is living and operative, it divides between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Therefore I enter into my closet and shut the door, and I pray to my Father in secret, and my Father who sees in secret shall reward me openly. God is looking into my heart. What is my motive? What am I asking these things for?
The young man says to Elisha, "Alas, my master! how shall we do?". He was occupied with the number of the Syrian army. It should be, What will God do? God is looking at the motives as young people pray. They need our sympathy today, young men of a certain age, we need to be feeling for them, for it may be the hour of their defeat or their triumph. Let it be the latter, but it will only be through prayer. So as searching my heart, what are my motives? The Father sees the secrets: "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do", Hebrews 4:13. The young men need to have their eyes opened to these things and to look around. The first time the Lord touched the eyes of the blind man in Mark 8 that man saw men as trees walking. Things were cloudy at first; his prayer would be uncertain at that time. We need to see things clearly. The Lord gave him a second touch and he saw all things clearly, not only persons but things. The whole position was clear. Thus I pray.
Elisha prayed, and God opened this young man's eyes. God has great sympathy with the young men, as we read in Zechariah 2:4, "Run, speak to this
young man, saying. Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein". Then we are told, "The mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha", 2 Kings 6:17. God is watching, and there is divine protection all round him. That is Elisha's prayer. He makes a great deal of the sons of the prophets. It is a ministry that takes account of the young men at the present time. This young man is in his mind; he is his servant and he asks Jehovah about him, and God opened his eyes. It is not that the army is sent, but God opened his eyes to see it, because the testimony is the most interesting thing in the universe to God. Elisha represents that. Let this young man see it, he says, and God answers his prayer. We may indeed be encouraged to pray for the younger men and younger women. Nature may sway them, hence the need for their eyes to be opened.
Hezekiah is the next example. In Isaiah 38 we read: "Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the Lord". He was sick unto death, and it was by divine appointment. It is a solemn matter that one should be made sick prophetically. The word is, "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live". It is a judicial matter, and a prophetic matter. This brings up the whole question of our bodies. The Lord is for the body and the body for the Lord; our bodies are greatly valued. "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" 1 Corinthians 6:19. So if sickness occur, and sickness unto death, how solemn! It was divinely prophesied that Hezekiah should die and not live. That is a matter of appeal to us all. There are sects that make the body a hobby, and make much of
faith-healing, because they abuse the truth and darken it by words without knowledge. We should not let the truth slip away or become dormant. Hezekiah was an important man, and God told him he was to die and not live, and he "turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the Lord". He was a praying king and a greatly valued man.
In chapter 37 we read of his entering the house of God himself and laying the whole matter of the attack of the Assyrian before God. God listened, and said, "He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor cast a bank against it", Isaiah 37:33. That is a comfort. This is an answer to what I may call a political prayer. God would have us understand things and leave nothing out of our prayers that should be in them. This matter was very urgent. The attack was serious and might mean the ruin of the testimony. These political matters may enter into the testimony, for Satan is active, and it matters little what he uses to interfere with what God is doing at the present time. So Hezekiah's first prayer is in relation to that, and God covers His people. We know what things are coming to; the Scriptures are plain about that. We know what the nations are coming to; this is no time for national feelings, for they are all drifting in one direction, but in the midst of all this there is the apple of God's eye, as in the days of the Acts, when Saul breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. It was with the Lord that Saul had to do. He has all power in heaven and earth, and Saul was broken down and the assemblies had rest. If we are to be protected, the question is, Are we pleasing to God? Are we worth it? We are to think of God's side. Am I worth protecting under the eyes of God? It is a question of what is pleasing to God. God assures Hezekiah, saying, He will not come here; he may elsewhere, but God was answering
prayer. Not only that, but Sennacherib is slain himself and his army destroyed, all because of prayer.
In Isaiah 38 it is Hezekiah himself, not the people of God, or the temple of Jehovah, or Jerusalem, but the praying man himself, and God says, "Thou shalt die, and not live". When we come to the banks of the Jordan, what are our resources? What I have professed to be, am I now? Hezekiah is a praying man; his face is turned to the wall and he prays to God. He can do nothing, but then God can still do something, and so he prays and says, "Remember now, O Lord, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight". He was worth something; it was no mere profession. What value am I to God? God is constantly looking for values, something of worth. Hezekiah was of worth towards Jehovah, there is no question of it; Jehovah does not deny it, "Hezekiah wept sore. Then came the word of the Lord to Isaiah saying, Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years". It is in answer to prayer; it is what we must expect. Fifteen years is a considerable time in the testimony of God. Many of us would have prayed for certain of our dear brethren that are gone, if only we could have them fifteen years more. But the point is, Am I worth being allowed to remain here? This is a challenge to our hearts. Would any man in Israel be heard like this? Not at all. This was a man who prayed. What he had been, God had made him. Think of his father, think of the kings before him. His father refused to take a sign from Jehovah. In chapter 7: 12 he says, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord". He would not ask for a sign, he would not pray, nor even be benefited by that sign. But here is a man who prays and God answers his
prayers: He is worth keeping on earth. Hence the fifteen years are added, for he is needed here.
I am urging that we look abroad on the field and think of the need of the testimony, the need of leadership, the need of ability to care for the people of God. Think of Hezekiah; is there anyone like him? Jehovah says, "I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years". So, dear brethren, we should be encouraged to go on, submitting to the will of God, of course. God sends Isaiah to tell Hezekiah he is to die, and not live, but God is God, and can we not ask God to modify? Yes, God will listen to us. Let us urge the necessity for it, for surely if I ask anything of God there should be some explanation of it. Am I worth being preserved? Let me give my reasons and God will listen. He is a God who will hear prayer, and we may leave it with Him. If it is wisdom, He will add fifteen years or more. God loves to see this exercise with us, as we look abroad on the field and pray, and feel the necessity for ministering to the brethren. God will restore, and add whatever it pleases Him to add for the sake of His people and for the sake of His testimony.
John 1:4, 5; Matthew 4:12 - 17; Isaiah 37:30 - 32; John 12:1 - 3, 9 - 11
J.T. What is in mind is to show from these scriptures how life, whether in Christ, or in any one of us, or in a company of saints in any locality, is the source of light. The verses in John 1 were read to show that life in Christ was light, but light in a circumscribed sense as referring only to men. The ordinary physical light of the sun, the moon and the stars, serves a wider area; for spiritual life as light has men only in view. So it is thought that the passage in Matthew 4 illustrates how light appears in a locality in this sense: it sprang up. The Lord, as we are told in the passage, left Nazareth and dwelt in Capernaum; it was not simply that He visited the place, but that He dwelt there; so that He represents that of which we are speaking, light in a locality, for it sprang up, we are told. Then the passage in Isaiah helps as to the development of life in christians; it is a vegetable figure, but used not only here but elsewhere to set out life, first the yield of the earth without cultivation, and then with cultivation. Finally, in John 12, life is seen in persons, but as a group characterised by Lazarus whom Christ raised from the dead. It is thought that the passage represents the point in question in the most intelligent and intelligible form as in persons who had had a comparatively long history with Christ, and came under His influence and culture.
B.W. Would you say a word as to that expression, "In him was life"?
J.T. The allusion is not to Christ as in absolute Deity, but to Him as become Man; but it refers to His ministry here. It is the past tense: "In him
was life, and the life was the light of men". The earlier verses contemplate Him in Deity, but operating; so that these verses bring down the history of Christ, in that sense, to the incarnation. Hence what is substantial is seen as producing light, but light of a peculiar kind, such as had men only in mind; it was restricted to them.
H.E.F. Why do you say it is in the past tense?
J.T. Those verses, down to the end of verse 13, are introductory, prefatory remarks to bring down the history of Christ to His position here alone in testimony. The epistle of John carries this forward in connection with the new commandment: "which thing is true", not 'was', "in him and in you"; that is, John's epistle traces the thought into Christianity, Christ in heaven, and the Spirit here.
H.E.F. Do you mean that in the first it is in Christ personally, and then afterwards in Christ and the saints?
J.T. Quite: "Which thing is true in him and in you". Life is now in us through redemption and through the Spirit. That is the ground on which the epistle goes.
Eu.R. That verse ends. "Because the darkness is passing and the true light already shines". Does that support what you have in mind as to "Which thing is true in him and in you", being the same principle of life shining as light?
J.T. Yes. Ordinary light would dispel darkness; but here the light appeared in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not. It is the true light, because it lightens, or sheds its light on, every man.
What is in mind in these remarks is not so much what is doctrinal, but to apply the thought of substance in the way of life as essential to light for testimony at the present time. In Genesis 1, light was introduced by the command of God; He commanded that out of darkness light should shine. It
is not said whence the light came, what it was that caused it, or what substance it was that was behind it. It comes in by the command of God, as alluded to in 2 Corinthians 4"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" (verse 6), a most exalted thought of light. So the intention is to see that our testimony towards men is not simply in word, but in what we are, whether individually or collectively.
H.E.F. Is that confined to the apostles only, or continued in the saints?
J.T. I think it is the principle of testimony; it is preceded by our occupation with the glory of the Lord: "We all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18); that stands related to the new covenant, but in the next chapter it is expanded in relation to the full position of the gospel: the light shines, and the glory of God is seen in the face of Jesus; the light has shone into our hearts for the shining forth of that, so that we become the medium of it. No doubt it has a special reference to ministers, for they, indeed, are what the apostle is speaking of: "Ourselves your bondmen for Jesus' sake" (verse 5). Still, the principle is there of the saints being the medium of the light, the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
W.B.H. Would the Thessalonians represent what you are saying?
J.T. I think they do. They are addressed as "the assembly of Thessalonians"; that is, it is a local thought. It alludes to their local position, to the fact that they grew up there; but they are "in God the Father", and the sound of the glad tidings
went out from them, and correspondingly the shining. They took on collectively from Paul as model, and also from the assemblies in Judaea, showing that they were not unduly local; they were universal as well, and drew from all legitimate sources for the enhancement of what they were. That is a very important matter today, for we are apt to be unduly local; and yet we must be local. They were "the assembly of Thessalonians in God the Father", showing they were delightful to God the Father, and obviously because they corresponded with Christ in this sense of life and light.
Ques. You spoke of substance as being behind the light: does that substance consist in the knowledge of divine Persons as they are to be known in the economy of grace?
J.T. I should say that. This gospel shows us the features of life developed in Christ so that we might take them on. I think the idea of development is the thing, seen perfectly in Christ; and we take it on on the principle of appreciation and appropriation. I appreciate a thing, and then I appropriate it. So the great elements of life are developed in this gospel, and in resurrection, ascension into heaven, the Spirit coming -- all these elements take form subjectively, so that the thing is true in Him and in us; the life which shone in Christ becomes true in us, and thus it becomes light.
A.W.G.T. Does Ephesians 5 help in this enquiry as to "the fruit of the light", and "children of light"?
J.T. It does indeed, "Among whom ye appear as lights in the world", Philippians 2:15. We may see in this gospel how the "sons of light" took form in taking on what they appreciated in Christ. For instance, the woman in chapter 4 appreciated the Lord's remarks about herself, about the water springing up in her
unto everlasting life, in the person; that is one thought, that the body of the believer is a vessel. She left her water-pot, and in that act proved that she was herself in the understanding of what the Lord said to her about her body being a vessel. So in other instances: Peter, at the end of chapter 6, speaks of the Lord as having words of eternal life: "Thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God". They had been making progress in chapter 6, and it took the form of knowledge as well as believing. They saw He had the words of eternal life; they had believed and known that He was the holy one of God. That is, Peter came into that light, and took it on in that sense, he appropriated what he valued in the Lord. Others were going away from the Lord; it was a regular apostasy, turning back from Him; and the Lord said to the twelve, "Will ye also go away?". This is Peter's answer; so he is taking on the thought of life, and not only that, but the words of it, believing and knowing Christ was the holy one of God, laying the basis for the service of God. And so throughout: you get instances in chapters 9 and 12; first, the thought of "sons of light" alluding to a galaxy of persons, or stars, shining, but shining in perfect order, all in relation to one another; that is what is in mind. That sort of thing is to be in evidence, and where it is, there is light for men.
W.E.T. Is that what Paul has in mind in Philippians 2, where he says, "Ye appear as lights in the world" -- light as the result of substance appearing?
J.T. That is what I was thinking. The first chapter of John's gospel brings out a cluster of shining lights, but they are shining in relation to one another. I suppose the firmament discloses many illustrations of what we are saying; many stars in relation one to another, but in every case they are shining.
C.E.W.B. I suppose the man in chapter 9 had a good deal of substance which resulted in light shining in the darkness?
J.T. That is one of the best illustrations you can get of what we are saying, for the truth was worked out in him. Another great feature of the idea of light is in chapter 12, where the Lord says that the Father's commandment is life eternal; so it bears upon us as obedient. Paul said that he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, and what strikes one in relation to this man in chapter 9 is his unswerving obedience to the word of Christ, not only to His actual word, but as pursuing it in its moral bearing, showing the idea of life developing in him on moral lines, leading to his being cast out of the synagogue; he never shone more brilliantly than at that moment. The Lord heard of it, and found him, and said to him, to complete the thought, "Thou, dost thou believe on the Son of God?". He said, "And who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him, Thou hast both seen him, and he that speaks with thee is he. And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage". It is a luminary, developed on moral lines. Then chapters 10 and 11 develop what is seen in chapter 12, not only the affection for one another, or simply the thought of the Lord loving the three, Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus, but the wonderful order and intelligence that marked them in preparing for Him in their locality.
B.W. Is the ointment being poured out in chapter 12 an expression of the fact that living conditions are there?
J.T. The scene was suited to the service; it took on the character of the sanctuary. But Matthew 4 should not be passed over, how this thought is seen in Christ as leaving Nazareth, and going to Capernaum, and dwelling there; and light sprang up.
Eu.R. What does the springing up convey to you?
J.T. The Lord was the source of it. It is a remarkable thing that it speaks of light springing up: light usually comes down. I think it is to stress what we are saying, the substantial thought of life; and, of course, it enters strongly into our local positions, raising the question of how we are moving about before our neighbours, how we are doing our business. The Lord dwelt in Capernaum, as any other would, though, of course, "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26); but He took His place "in the likeness of men" -- not simply 'man' as a race, but "men", in their average appearance -- making no effort to be other. Anyone might have met Him in the town at that time, or have lived next door to Him; but this light was shining there for all who had eyes to see.
J.A.P. Is it significant that the preaching began there: "From that time began Jesus to preach"?
J.T. I had that in mind in having it read, because what we are speaking of now is essential to the outgoing of the testimony in our localities; that is what is in mind. It is in relation to that shining that the Lord began to preach. So in John 1"The light appears in darkness": it was there.
Ques. Have you in mind particularly in Matthew 4 the thought of the local setting, and that there must be spiritual substance if there is to be the setting forth of evangelical testimony?
J.T. That is what I was thinking in relation to the allusion to Philippians 2:7. It says, "Taking his place in the likeness of men". It is worth looking at, because it bears so on our subject. It is not simply that He was "found in figure as a man", but He was "in the likeness of men", always unique and distinct; but the thought is that He was at Capernaum, or wherever He dwelt, as we see Him in His
ordinary circumstances, making no effort to be other than a man, but fulfilling all that is becoming to men. The word 'men' would allude to the variety of circumstances and appearances that we see amongst men. Whether I be highborn or lowborn, uneducated or educated, good-looking or ill-looking, the point is I am in the likeness of men. It is what is current. But in His case, light sprang up: there was no effort about it, no attempt to make a show. It is what was there. In Him was life, and it shone as light for men, as it says in John 1; but here in Matthew it sprang up.
W.E.B. Would the departure into Galilee be anything like the exodus from Egypt, going out with substance? I was thinking of the Lord's departure into Galilee, mentioned in Matthew 4:12, a path of reproach, as moving out into the world?
J.T. I see what you mean: He had been at the Jordan, and had been tempted of the devil. The allusion would be to His being governed by levitical principles. John the baptist had his own place, and he is delivered up; the Lord is guided by that circumstance, taking a lowly place in service. The circumstance of the apprehension of John meant something to Him, showing that He was to occupy ground in testimony; but that is peculiar to Matthew. Galilee is a place of reproach, as you say. Then, following upon that, He was at Nazareth, and He left Nazareth, and went to Capernaum.
H.M.S. Why does the Lord say of Capernaum that it had been exalted to heaven? It is also called "his own city".
J.T. It was exalted to heaven by His living there, and on account of the wonderful works done there by Him; hence the judgment that would be meted out to it in the day of judgment as it says (Matthew 11). I suppose that is the case with any country, or town, or city, that is honoured in that way. Of course, it
had peculiar force before the Lord's death, because it was then one of the cities of Israel. But that place is responsible as being honoured by the presence of the testimony of God. What one would like to make clear is that at Capernaum the Lord was moving about as others. Of course He was entirely out in the service of God, no longer working with His hands; but He was in that town, and dwelling in that town, as many are in this town; and the moral force of it would be for ourselves: what is shining from us as in this town? Is there anything springing up in the way of light? The springing up would mean that it is there. You look at a man, you look at him again, and you see this springing up.
W.B.H. Is that thought again seen in Philippians 2, where it says: "That ye may be harmless and simple, irreproachable children of God in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation; among whom ye appear as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life"?
J.T. It is a very striking passage. First, "in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation": your ordinary, everyday movements are involved in that: "among whom ye appear as lights", but there is an additional thought now, "holding forth the word of life": that is what you are able to say. The shining is what you are; that is in your everyday experiences and circumstances. Therefore it becomes a test to us as to whether we are depending on what we hold and speak of in our meetings, and overlooking the fact that as taking His place in the likeness of men, the Lord was light in every circumstance among men.
S.B.F. Is His preaching, "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn nigh", calculated to produce in us the same kind of spirit?
J.T. It is a question of what you should say, you know. Our brother has just remarked on Philippians 2;
we are in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation, to appear among them as lights. That is what the Philippians were in relation to one another, and in relation to Christ, too; they were shining. Take Lydia who lived there: she is specially mentioned at the beginning of the work there. You will find that her deportment in her house in relation to her neighbours, and as a woman of affairs, "a seller of purple", in relation to her customers, all would be shining; it is a question of our ordinary circumstances. But if she had opportunity, she would speak about the Lord, she would speak the truth to souls; that is, "holding forth the word of life". So with the jailor, another brother there: he would be shining; even if he continued his position as jailor, he would do it in a way that conveyed the truth of what he was. You would see it in his house; we are told that he laid the table for Paul and Silas; that would be shining; that would be light, not just an ordinary occurrence. What a change in the man! And then he rejoiced with all his house, we are told; he was shining.
Eu.R. Would it be like the children of Israel having light in their dwellings in Egypt?
J.T. Quite so. The passage in Isaiah would show how that even in an uncultivated state, there is the working of life. It is given as a sign in a day of small things: "This shall be the sign unto thee: there shall be eaten this year such as groweth of itself; and in the second year that which springeth of the same; but in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards and eat the fruit thereof. And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward"; and then there is the movement out of Jerusalem: "For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of mount Zion they that escape; the zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall do this". So that
the work of God in the young amongst us, and persons recently converted, or even persons not committed to the fellowship, will show itself; it will always show itself. But what is specially in mind is the third year: first, "sow ye", and then, "reap", and then, "plant vineyards and eat the fruit thereof"; that is, we see the working of life; as the Lord says elsewhere, "The earth bears fruit of itself" (Mark 4:28); there is latent life there. As soon as the seed is sown, life becomes operative, and shows itself. That is the thing to look for. However dark a soul may be through bad teaching or wrong associations, if God is working there will be something showing itself. But the thought is, if that is so, cultivation is to begin immediately; the soul is brought under cultivation; so fruit is expected. You know what you are doing; you are cultivating in view of fruit. I refer to this passage because it helps as to our subject, showing how the work of God becomes apparent wherever it is, sometimes crudely, but the spiritual eye discerns it, and cultivates it. The third year suggests the fulness of the thought; life under cultivation.
C.E.W.B. Would the cultivation be by the word of God? I was thinking of the Lord's words in Matthew 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which goes out through God's mouth".
J.T. That is part of the thing. There is the thought of cultivation, involving ploughing, sowing, harrowing, and the like. Then there is the eating, too; that is the result: "in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards and eat the fruit thereof".
H.P.W. Would you say a word as to the principle of taking root downward and bearing fruit upward? Does that apply to us all in a way in connection with
soul history with God, productive of life coming out in light and testimony?
J.T. Taking root downward would mean that one learns to judge himself. "Rooted and grounded in love" is the expression we have in Ephesians 3:17. Rooting would mean the disallowance of all the selfishness which is natural to us. Young people are prone to be selfish, and to make themselves the centre of everything. The rooting would mean the judging of all that to make room for unselfishness and sacrifice. It is a figure of speech here: the taking root downwards is an agricultural allusion: you must get the roots down to where the nourishment and moisture are for them in the soil. So that rooting would be in a practical way the disallowance of the selfish elements to make room for love. The rooting is to be where one can draw sap and nourishment. So long as we retain selfishness, and fail to judge all the features of the flesh, there is not the grounding. The grounding would mean that I am steady in that position: I am not susceptible to damage by every wind that blows. Taking root downwards means that a person judges himself unsparingly, the more we do it, the deeper the work goes; and the fruit is upward. Bearing fruit upward would mean that cultivation is implied; because it is in an intelligent setting here. "Out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of mount Zion they that escape": it is a question of the purpose of God. The work is showing itself from the standpoint of cultivation in relation to Jerusalem and mount Zion; and that is what I think is implied, that one is ready for the assembly, ready for what we see in figure in John 12.
H.P.W. I think a good many of us are exercised as to the fruit side, but, as you say, the root raises the question of what we take in; all the sap is absorbed through the roots. The fruit is dependent upon what we take in.
J.T. That is what I thought. So that ministry is important under those circumstances; because I think cultivation is in mind in view of Jerusalem and mount Zion. These are great thoughts of God: "Out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of mount Zion they that escape: the zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall do this". There is a result in what is of remnant character; it is in relation to Jerusalem and mount Zion.
H.M.S. Would not these promises be a very great encouragement in a very dark time when the enemy apparently is in possession of the land?
J.T. That is striking, because it is in the midst of the answer to Hezekiah's prayer. This is the sign for Hezekiah -- for any of us who are exercised before God about current conditions -- in the midst of these attacks. It is not simply that we meet them by the word of God, but in life. The sign is in life, in an irregular way, but culminating in a regular way, a cultivated way; and then issuing in a very great result.
F.W.W. Would you distinguish for us between Jerusalem and mount Zion?
J.T. The two terms are very often found together. In a most spiritual way we see them in Hebrews 12 in relation to what we have come to: "Ye have come to mount Zion", which is the underlying thought in the system to which we have come; and then, "to the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem". Jerusalem is the administrative thought, that out of which light and rule issue. Zion is the basic thought, referring to the sovereignty of God: "Here will I dwell", God says, "for I have desired it", Psalm 132:14. It is a question of His own selection. A city, of course, is a structural thought, developing the thought of Zion; they are linked together. The sovereignty of God, set forth in Zion, was earlier than what Jerusalem represents. In
Ezekiel 16 we have Jerusalem viewed in a marital sense. Jehovah regarding Jerusalem in this way, and referring to how He had found her. Ezekiel 20 is more the general thought of Israel; but in chapter 16 it is Jerusalem. It really develops under Paul's ministry; it is the organised, structural thought, whence all the light, administration and rule issue. So they are great thoughts, and apply to the present moment.
F.W.W. I was wondering whether on similar lines the sun and moon in Genesis 1 are set in their position in relation to light and rule?
J.T. Maybe. Zion is a sort of basic thought, a foundational thought; Jerusalem comes in upon it as an organised protection for the working out of administration; indeed, for the working out of all the divine thoughts that lie in Zion, what God is, the counsels of His love.
Ques. Is this passage in Isaiah particularly comforting as showing the work of God is to go on in a normal way in the production of life in spite of all the opposition around -- the normal development of life?
J.T. In spite of the opposition so burdening Hezekiah at the time. This would be a sign to him. If God is working, we must be encouraged. "Let thy work appear unto thy servants", Moses said (Psalm 90:16); however little it may be, even if it be irregular, and of a mixed kind, yet it is there, and calls forth energy so that it should be there more fully, and in a developed way.
John 12 shows how far the development of life, as seen in Christ, had gone; how great were the results of the Lord's work; how the principle of life was there in unselfish regard for Christ. One selfish element was there in Judas; but in the main what was there was the product of life in light. Lazarus is characteristic of it. Each one is in his or her place,
functioning as the Lord intended them to function. So it is a local position, as the outcome of life; for Lazarus was raised from the dead, and he was there at table, and persons were believing on Christ because of him, and yet he is not saying anything. So we should have this before us as to the thought of life shining as light. The persons are really sons of light. Not a word is uttered by any of them but Judas, yet the light is shining, so much so that people are coming and believing on Christ because of Lazarus, and Lazarus is saying nothing!
Ques. Would you say that this incident is presented in a family setting?
J.T. It is the best setting in which to see the working out of the truth. We are set together in a family way. It is the very best setting for the work of God to shine, for the light to shine. It is really leading up to the assembly, only it does not go beyond Bethany. The further chapters in John are to perfect us in relation to the assembly. The saints are to be together, not now in employment though Martha was serving, but in the family setting. What brought about this situation? Love to Christ, unselfish consideration for Christ. "They made him a supper", and Mary has the wherewithal to complete the matter, to fill the house with odour. What a scene it is as the product of the work of Christ! for that is what it is. It is a finished matter, so to say.
H.M.S. Is not this passage all the more beautiful because of being preceded and followed by the spirit of murder? In chapter 11: 53 it says "From that day therefore they took counsel that they might kill him", and in chapter 12: 10, "But the chief priests took counsel that they might kill Lazarus also".
J.T. Very good; indeed, this scene is the outcome of the situation in chapter 10, where the Jews surrounded Christ, as if they would circumvent Him,
and prevent Him proceeding. An awkward situation like that often arises in a locality; brethren feel they can go no further; but the Lord departed "beyond the Jordan to the place where John was baptising at the first", that is, He goes back to first principles; and I believe that chapters 11 and 12 are to show what comes out of first principles. Brethren do not give up because they seem to be circumvented. When they surrounded the Lord, He did not give up; He went beyond the Jordan where John baptised at the first, and, it says, "many believed on him there". So chapter 11 is to bring out what He can do, what can be done. So we should never lose heart, or give up the work. You get the most remarkable result here from the work of Christ. He is not in a hurry; He is patient. The sisters would have had Him there earlier, but He remains away till the opportune time to get the best result; and the best result is what the saints are, conformity to what Christ is. Life is there in chapter 12, and shining; people are believing because of Lazarus, a man who is not saying anything.
Ques. Does he not in that way set forth a man who is risen with Christ?
J.T. Exactly; it is what the man is, not what he is saying or doing; it says, "Where was the dead man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead".
H.P.W. What strikes people who see such brethren together is the genuine character of everything. It is pure nard; everything is genuine; the atmosphere is genuine, as the saints are together in love.
J.T. Very good; and the ointment was "kept"; the alabaster is not mentioned at all, meaning, what has already come out in this gospel, that the believer himself is a trustworthy vessel; what he has is not corrupted. We are to "love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption", Ephesians 6:24. The alabaster box would mean an artificial means of keeping out corruption;
but there is no alabaster here. Mary is the alabaster box herself, she keeps out corruption; she is a lover of Christ.
H.B. There could not be corruption where there is life.
J.T. Quite so; life is the greatest preservative. Life is here in every one of them except Judas; he is the only one that breaks the silence. But what a silence it was! Mary represents not only incorruptibility: those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption; many profess to love Him, but in corruption; but it is to be in incorruption; Mary not only represents that, but she represents one who had thought beforehand about Christ, and had an instinct that He was going to die. She was not deceived; she had the truth. So she kept this ointment for His burial, a mark of spiritual intelligence which involved the seizing of an opportunity to express it, so that the house is filled with the odour of the ointment.
A.W.G.T. Would she be an illustration of one in whom the word of Christ dwelt richly, gathering up all He had said?
J.T. Quite so. She is presented as beginning in that way. The origin of Mary's history lies in what was said on the mount of transfiguration -- not that she heard it there: the word was, "Hear him", that is, Hear Christ. She was in keeping with that. If we are subjects of the work of God we shall be instinctively in keeping with the light for the moment. She had sat at His feet, and had listened to what He was saying, not asking questions -- there was not time for that, for so much was coming out in His word.
Eu.R. Does all this come out in Acts as bearing on the testimony? Peter refers to the Lord as "the originator of life", and then we have the expression, "the words of this life", as seen among the saints.
J.T. Very good. That word translated 'originator' is used four times in the New Testament; it means one who expresses a thing, and sets it on, giving a lead to what is meant. So "the originator of life" is One who sets it on that we might see it and follow it.
A.H. Is that why Lazarus is so important here as being a continuation of life?
J.T. Just so; he is peculiarly that, because the Lord had him in mind in coming; He had others in mind, too, of course; but the Spirit of God puts it that way: "Jesus ... came to Bethany, where was the dead man Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from among the dead", meaning he is dead as regards Bethany, no longer a man of the town; he belongs to another world. He is not making a show; it is what he is; there is no effort about it. His testimony is effective, even though the Lord is there. Lazarus is a testimony in himself.
Luke 24:29 - 43; John 20:11 - 21
J.T. It is thought that, by comparing these scriptures, often read amongst us, we may see in Luke the assembly in its public aspect and in John the assembly viewed in its more spiritual unseen relations, particularly suggesting the assembly as coming out of Christ, coming out of His side, that is, in the Eve character, speaking typically, Mary Magdalene having her part leading into this position, the feminine side bearing on it. John 20 undoubtedly may be linked up with Psalm 22, the heading of which is the hind of the morning, the feminine thought, pointing to the spiritual agility that is seen in this chapter as evidently in the mind of the Lord as He entered into death, that He would have such a result. The feminine thought runs through this chapter in Mary Magdalene, she carrying the message to the disciples; it says, "Mary of Magdala comes bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her". The Lord comes in following the message, and following not only the message but the one who bore it, who represented an element in herself which will develop into the assembly in its more spiritual aspect. In the Canticles we have, "I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse" -- the Lord would have her in mind coming in, whether she was present or otherwise the element was there in the message carried by her and would be in His mind in relation to His side; it says, "He shewed to them his hands and his side"; in Luke it was the feet. The side would mean love and therefore the highest feature of the assembly as come out of Him.
Luke is the public position, the two came there before the Lord came in. It seems as if we should regard them as special; He had them in His mind that they would be there. They do not represent such an exalted thought as Mary Magdalene, for they had been straying; they are viewed as restored. It would be a man and his wife, the public side, for the assembly publicly is composed of such, but corresponding somewhat to Zipporah, the assembly viewed in a somewhat unlovable or unlovely aspect. In a way the conditions do not draw out the Lord's affections as do those recorded in John; He said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself"; it would be the wilderness position more, but if we follow the feminine thought as in the types, Zipporah represents the public side as to the assembly in an outward sense; and Eve is a more exalted thought as representing the assembly before sin came in. These are the general thoughts I had in mind to be considered, hoping the brethren will be quite free about it.
Rem. I think what you have said greatly helps us in seeing what might be called the scope of the feminine or marital side of things. One feels you have the first thought in many of the types, in Zipporah, and maybe in Asnath too; whereas Ruth and Eve would bring out perhaps the more exalted side of it.
J.T. Yes. Abigail too is strikingly typical of the assembly, not only as lovable -- she is of a beautiful countenance -- but also of a good understanding; she takes the place of carrying out affairs, the young man who heard Nabal's remarks about David went to her about the matter and she took it on. Eve would be the most exalted thought, I think, representing the divine thought as to the assembly before sin came in. Mary Magdalene seems to represent the agility of love, only needing adjustment; she is
running with the tidings, and finally the Lord calls her by name (we do not get that in Luke, or anything near it), and she calls Him Rabboni, which is a thought that enters into the assembly in its Ephesian character -- taught of Christ; Paul stressed his knowledge of the mystery.
P.H. Is it your thought that we should approach the John 20 side in a practical way via Luke, or are they two separate thoughts you are presenting?
J.T. I suppose they should be taken as one thought; I mean two sides of the same position outwardly. John giving the spiritual and Luke the public side connected with the Lord's supper. John does not mention the breaking of bread, Luke does, therefore the position in Luke is connected with the breaking of bread, it is mentioned in the gathering; whereas John does not make mention of any conversation or remark at all by the disciples, in keeping with his line of presenting the truth on the formative side, what we are, not simply what we say but what we are: "where the disciples were", the persons. But I was thinking particularly of Mary's part in the thing as an element, the idea of the sister and the spouse. She is characteristically a sister because she is at liberty with the brothers in telling them about the truth, and the Lord calls her by name and she calls Him Rabboni, implying she is taught of Him.
E.R. With regard to the side, I had rather linked this up with the previous chapter, where it says, out of His side came there forth blood and water.
J.T. Just so, it is a testimony to love; the reference to the side, I think, refers to the type in Genesis; I mean we are to understand things spiritually. The assembly is out of Christ, she is of Him.
Ques. I would like a little more help as to Luke 24. You are connecting that with the normal wilderness position, a touch from the Lord in our souls, and
that would lead us to the assembly. Is that the thought?
J.T. Yes, just so. Why should we have this first? It is not merely a question of restoring two wanderers, there is a culmination in mind, an assembly thought in mind. Do they not represent the material of the public body, able to speak about what happened in their houses, what relates to Christ, connecting their remarks with the breaking of bread? that is, they have, you might say, the highest spiritual thoughts as to what was in their house, and they make these thoughts contributory to the public assembly; there is a link between the household and the public assembly. Why should there be this history? It is not simply that these two are restored, but there is a culmination, there is a link between them in their house and the assembly; it is not only their persons as coming from their house but what they say, and yet the general state in the assembly was not what it might have been. It occurred to me there is a link with the wilderness. There is not much said as to Zipporah's personal attractiveness, nor of any reciprocated affection between herself and her husband; of course that would be there, but it is what is mentioned we have to note. We are challenged as to our public position, what we are as seen publicly; although the bond exists between us and Christ, does He find things as He would as coming in? What the Spirit forms in us is perfect; the Lord can look at us abstractly and bring out the most precious thoughts notwithstanding these ugly features. So the two sides of the assembly are in mind, but we are challenged as to the public side and whether we can correct ourselves at once and take the attitude depicted in John 20 where the Lord is pleased.
H.B. Would the sense of blessing in the household contribute to prosperity in the assembly? The Lord blessed the house of Obed-Edom and from that David
gets the light as to the movements of the ark, leading to general prosperity.
J.T. That is a good thought, for there are three houses in Samuel, the house of Abinadab on the hill, which would suggest a place of elevation as distinctive because the ark was there, but then there is no evidence that his household gained by the presence of the ark; like many of us who go on with the truth, have morning reading and the like, but are we taking on thoughts governing the ark, governing the testimony? When the time came for the movement of the ark, they put it on a cart; that would show they had not gained by the presence of the ark in the house. Then the next house is that of Obed-Edom. He had the ark only three months and it was a makeshift on the part of David, not pre-arranged -- the ark was turned aside into this house. It seems as if Obed-Edom represents a person who valued the presence of the ark, whatever his name may mean; if it means a foreigner it makes it all the more notable that here is a man who is taking things on quickly and God is blessing him quickly; there is a change, it is a different house. And finally David brings the ark to Zion, the city of David, to the place he had prepared for it, and he blesses his house. Obed-Edom is blessed; David is able to bless; although he is despised by his wife, by Michal, he makes everything of the ark now and is able to bless his house. But Abinadab and his family are not learning at all. So what has been suggested fits into Luke 24, what we are in our houses, whether the ark, that is, the testimony today by the Spirit, is in our houses; nominally we may have it and yet not be learning, whereas someone comes in suddenly and gets blessing and light and takes his place amongst us, and he is blessed because of the ark, evidently valuing the ark in his house. He is making no show of it; it is just put in there by David, but God is blessing him. There
is some secret in that surely. If God is blessing a man the man is right with God. No doubt these two at Emmaus represent this somewhat and come into the assembly; they represent the house side, so necessary for prosperity in the assembly, whether we are able to carry anything from our houses into the assembly, or whether we just hope others will; whether we are just there to receive and enjoy, but bring nothing with us.
Rem. It is rather remarkable that Zipporah takes up the question of circumcision as if driven to it.
J.T. Quite so, there is an altercation between her and her husband. But when she is brought to Moses by her father there is no expression of affection at all by Moses; he makes more of her father than of her, as if to bring out the public side, that is, it is questionable, and the Lord would have us to pay attention to it. If we are to reach John's side we must pay attention to the public side.
Ques. Why are her two sons mentioned in Exodus 18?
J.T. Because of what their names denote -- strangership. Their names are given indicating Moses' sufferings, that is, the sufferings of Christ. The marital thought is there as much as in Eve or Abigail, or anywhere, the bond is there. Their names are mentioned and the meaning of them. Much is made of Jethro, but Zipporah is just mentioned as Moses' wife. She is his wife as much as she could be as to the bond, but as to the side of reciprocated affection there is nothing said.
Rem. I suppose there is hope for hearts that burn.
J.T. Yes, that is to bring out the reality underneath, which implies that we are amenable to correction, correction by spiritual ministration, not by rebuke but by a spiritual presentation of the Lord; it shows how genuine they were at bottom. That is the great thought with all of us; if there is this genuineness of
affection we are amenable to spiritual impressions, and contribute to the assembly accordingly.
A.J.G. Does this chapter show that the Lord is here to serve us, both in our homes and in the assembly, with a view to our reaching the true thought of God in the assembly?
J.T. Just so. We were thinking this morning that, according to Matthew, the Lord is with us always as if to protect us, to watch over us; He helps us in every circumstance; but John would say He comes to us conditionally in relation to our state.
C.H. The note they finish up with seems to have significance assembly-wise. In Luke they speak of what happened in the way and how He was known of them in the breaking of bread.
J.T. I think they represent an element in the assembly that the Lord can follow; He came in in relation to what they were saying, "as they were saying these things". John would give Mary that place, the wholly spiritual side, because the Lord had spoken to her about ascending and she calls Him Rabboni; she came carrying the message. There must be something the Lord can link Himself with positively in the assembly.
Ques. Had they been disappointed in the public setting up of Israel. "We had hoped that he was the one who is about to redeem Israel"; whereas the Lord had to open up the whole range of truth connected with Himself, beginning from the beginning?
J.T. Yes. You feel how the Old Testament is essential to the public assembly, because there is so much there in relation to Christ that has to do with the public service of God; but the Old Testament is not in mind in Mary Magdalene, it is an ascended Christ, which is not the theme in the Old Testament; it is the purpose of God in mind in John.
Ques. Is it of interest that in Luke they are moving away as disappointed, but in John we have
Mary staying at the tomb as if everything is to begin there?
J.T. She is held by genuineness of affection for Christ as if to her He is everything. She had Old Testament thoughts, which were just replaced by the heavenly position. The Lord said, "Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father", meaning that the time would come when she could touch Him and have part with Him in a heavenly order of things.
P.H. You referred just now to the reference to the sister, the spouse, in the Song of Solomon; am I right in suggesting that the spouse, while mentioned first by Himself, has to be approached along the basic line of sister?
J.T. Yes, in chapter 4, you mean. Verse 9 Says, "My sister, my spouse"; then verse 12, "A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse"; then chapter 5: 1, "I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse".
A.J.G. Also chapter 4: 10 -- the peculiar value of the love of the sister, the spouse.
J.T. Well, the thought of the spouse being mentioned first in verse 8 would mean, I suppose, that is the ultimate thought, the marital, which the word 'spouse' would imply; but the sister, I suppose, would be in Mary, she might be regarded as a characteristic sister in relation to Christ. He calls her by name, Mary, and then she takes the Lord's message; surely He would have her in mind, that there is a spouse thought there.
A.J.G. Would you mind saying a word as to the connection between the Eve view of the assembly and this heavenly position, "My Father and your Father, and ... my God and your God"?
J.T. It would seem as if both thoughts contemplate us as entirely outside the range of sin and death -- Eve is taken out of Adam before sin appears; the relation indicated here in the Lord's message through Mary would mean that we are entering now
on a history altogether free of any charge of ever having had sin attached to it. We cannot really be in the assembly in its heavenly side apart from the understanding of that.
Rem. You are connecting that with the spouse. Would you open up a little more the thought of the sister in contradistinction to that?
J.T. Eve was never Adam's sister, yet, with all the thoughts we have as to assembly features. She was his sister, being the feminine feature; she was of God as he was: "male and female created he them", two beings under the heading of Man. She would have a peculiar place, there would be some link in the sense of sister in her, but she immediately became wife, for Jehovah brought her to the man.
C.H. Would the sisterly side come out later in their history, in the working out of moral questions between them and Jehovah?
J.T. No doubt it would. The sisterly side is more pronounced in Rebecca, because in that family we have the sisterhood, that is the relationship of sister, before the marital thought. It seems to have been in the mind of God that this family should be marked by the sisterhood, that is, Terah's family. They are all related to the man of faith. Sarah is related to Abraham and Rebecca is related to Isaac, and Rachel is related to Jacob on that line, coming down from the sisterhood of Terah's family.
Rem. You mean the sister involves history, whereas the spouse is more the thought of God reached according to purpose.
J.T. Yes. Eve would represent the spouse, and I think, as I was remarking, we could see the sister there too; but it seems as if the divine thought is that Rebecca is brought in on that line; she is the wife of the heavenly man, for Isaac is not said to have come down from the mountain where he was
offered up typically. Abraham went down to Beersheba with his young men, but Isaac is not said to come down; he is the Christ typically of John 20, he belongs to heaven, and the sisterhood is immediately mentioned in the end of Genesis 22, that is, Rebecca is brought in immediately as the one related to him.
A.J.G. Is the sister brought in to show the spouse is of the right lineage?
J.T. Yes, and the side of Christ being shown by Himself in John 20 points to the origin of Eve.
Ques. Are both sides to be in our minds in the Supper, or is it principally the spiritual side?
J.T. I think it is both sides. Zipporah comes into view before the covenant is introduced. It would seem the wife idea is in view as we sit down in the assembly; the assembly must be related to Christ, for we are to be to Another, according to Romans, but it is just in the bare thought of the bond; we come into it later, according to the fulness of the affection entering into it. It is there; the assembly is just as much the spouse of Christ at the beginning of the meeting as she is at the end, only we are on more spiritual lines after the breaking of bread.
Ques. Is the marital relation essentially one of love, and do we need divine teaching to come into it, as Mary did?
J.T. I think she is on the higher line. Zipporah implies the bond is there; we recognise it is there as we come together, but then we wait for the time of love. It is the time of love in a general way from the outset, but the time of reciprocated affection awaits the Spirit's operations and the Lord in the midst. He comes near to us and supports us, as we get in the Canticles. We find there too that she who comes up from the wilderness is presented first as coming up by herself; it is the Spirit of God supporting us in the early part of the meeting; but, when
the Lord comes in, the thought of leaning on her Beloved is in mind, so He supports us in the more spiritual part of the service.
Ques. Would Miriam be the counterpart of Zipporah as watching over the vessel of testimony?
J.T. It is the sister there, anyway.
Ques. In regard to the expression 'sister', do I understand it to find expression or give rise to any particular feature at the Supper, or is it what precedes as we gather?
J.T. It is, I think, what the Lord finds amongst us as coming in, "I am come into my garden, my sister ..."; it is as having come in He addresses her in that way, and proceeds to say, "I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk". He is in liberty and enjoyment Himself in the garden, but addressing His sister and then His Spouse, which would lead on to the higher relation indicated in Eve and Rebecca.
Ques. So would the sister represent kindred morally?
J.T. It has been remarked that Moses had a sister who cared for him, and Rebecca is distinctively the sister as of the same family; she is not presented as caring for Isaac, but she is mentioned, in the end of chapter 22, as of his family, of the family of his father; she is mentioned specifically by name.
Ques. Is there any significance in the fact that Zipporah and Abigail come in in relation to the service of God under Moses and David, while Rebecca and Eve do not seem to come in exactly in that way?
J.T. Yes, I think Rebecca and Eve present the most exalted side of the assembly; Eve as out of Christ typically, apart altogether from the sin question, Rebecca coming in as descended from the same family as Isaac, and loved only as she is in the sphere
of testimony. She is brought into Sarah's tent and it is there she is loved. It is the assembly viewed as in the position of testimony here that is lovable; and Zipporah had that place too, only there is nothing mentioned as to lovableness in her. Now Mary Magdalene comes in on the line of lovableness spiritually; she is adjustable and comes thoroughly round to the Lord's position, and He calls her Mary, which would indicate a certain familiarity that belongs to a sister. It seems to me that the thought is there; she is characterised in the chapter by free communication with brothers, with Peter and John, telling them what she saw, and they move on her testimony. She remained long at the sepulchre, and the Lord comes on the scene; she converses with the angels at the sepulchre, and now she converses with the Lord, all on a high sisterly level entirely becoming in every way. Ultimately she is called by name by the Lord and that moves her. She calls Him Rabboni, and then there is the message she carries. All that carries the thought of the sister.
Rem. So the thought of the sister is connected with being teachable and serviceable, but the marital relation is the thought of bringing out the position with Christ in privilege.
J.T. It is a question first of what is there spiritually. Well, He entrusts her with the greatest possible message; she is reliable. I believe the Lamb's wife means reliability; He can trust her. That element, I believe, is there as He comes in, and everything, as He comes in, takes form. He brings out the thought of His side; there is light in that. It is written, of course, for our instruction; as having the Holy Spirit now and understanding what the assembly's relation to Christ is, we can see what enters into this moment. There is no discrepancy at all in the disciples; they do not say anything, it is all a question now of what He is saying.
Ques. Do you bring the spouse thought into John 20?
Rem. You were speaking of it being a matter of persons rather.
J.T. Well, it is a matter of persons; but persons viewed abstractly as formed by the work of God compose the spouse. We can see all that now. The gospels are confirmatory of the truth as in the epistles, and it seems to me that John confirms Ephesians.
Rem. "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God" -- is not that a statement that covers the whole dispensation? It is not only connected with what we may arrive at in the morning meeting, is it?
J.T. It covers the whole dispensation, but it also presents thoughts that should be in our minds at the morning meeting.
Rem. But you are presenting it now rather as we should enter into it in the assembly.
J.T. That is what I had in mind, that we might understand the assembly composition. We take these two coming from Emmaus, it is supposed a man and his wife, they have a household. Luke would show that is what enters into the public assembly, man and woman, but the thought in mind is the fact that they carry out of their house something for the assembly, that their house is in accord with the assembly; what they were saying was entirely in accord with the assembly, they were saying that the Lord was risen indeed and had appeared to Simon. Is it not right to assume that that was in the Lord's mind in the whole proceedings. He had the assembly in His mind? These two were there before He came, they represent suitability in a public way: as they were saying these things He came in. But evidently the whole assembly was not
equal to those two. I do not suppose they would have part in the perturbation and amazement that followed, I have no doubt they had already experienced the appearing of Christ; it was not extraordinary to them. Others were affected and therefore they held the ground, that is, that element holds the ground in the public position. It is a question of what we are in our houses and whether we can absorb impressions the Lord is ready to convey to us in our houses and carry those impressions into the public position. There is no dignity in perturbation and amazement when the Lord comes in. Luke helps us, I think, on this line of the public position, and John shows us that, in that manner, we have a sister, not a husband and wife, not two, for it is Mary that is in mind in the main, and she comes in for the greatest honour. They went on their own volition and what they were saying was their own thought and impression, but Mary came in with a message, although recognised as a sister as called by name in a familiarity that is proper in a sister. But in assembly the Lord had the marital thought in mind as amongst them. He showed them His hands and His side, I think it would be a service of love He had in mind; the fact that she came out of Adam's side.
Rem. They were glad when they saw the Lord in John.
P.H. Would this mean, amongst other things, that in the marital side the Lord raises the saints, so to speak, to His own level? Is that right?
J.T. That is just; Mary is raised to His level in what is said to her and in the message.
P.H. So that He says, "My Father and your Father, and to my God and your God"; is the marital thought, in a sense, included in that, although not prominent?THE BELIEVER MADE PART OF THE DIVINE SYSTEM
PROPHETIC MINISTRY BEARING ON SERVANTS AND SERVICE
REACTION TO THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST
DIVINE TRIAL AND EXPOSURE
HEARD AND ANSWERED PRAYERS
LIFE THE SOURCE OF LIGHT
THE ASSEMBLY IN ITS PUBLIC ASPECT AND SPIRITUAL RELATIONS