Pages 1 - 96 "The Rights of God in Christ", New York, 1917 (Volume 35).
J.T. The exercise has been that we might see how God comes in to assert His sovereign rights. Elijah, who is introduced abruptly here, represents this thought. The statement he makes in the first verse seems to be the key to his whole history and ministry. It says: "As Jehovah the God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, except by my word". Whatever other authorities or powers may have existed, Ahab or anyone else, dew and rain were made to depend on the word of this man, and I thought that he in that way foreshadows the Lord Jesus. God has introduced a Man whose word is to determine things, and we know that all that has come out in connection with the gospel is on that basis.
F.L. At the end of the previous chapter we read that Ahab did more to provoke the anger of the Lord God than any other king; and then the rebuilding of Jericho was a greater expression of defiance of the rights and authority of God than in any other act. It is significant that Elijah comes abruptly on the scene after the record of those two things.
W.L.P. It is remarkable that Elijah says this seemingly of his own accord. This suggests that he realised that he had a very great place here. You were speaking of him as being a type of Christ.
J.T. There had undoubtedly been serious exercise in his soul preceding this. He is not said to be a man of any special note. He was simply "of the inhabitants of Gilead". He had no special distinction
outwardly, but according to James' reference to him, he had prayed.
P.H.P. The meaning of his name "Jehovah is God" is striking in view of the idolatry that Ahab had set up. He was true to his name in all his ministry.
C.B. The authority referred to here is vested in Christ, and we need to have our attention called to it.
A.F.M. Would this be parallel with Mark's gospel where you have the prophetic word of Christ?
J.T. I think Elijah represents Christ as embodying the prophetic ministry. It is said in Romans that the righteousness of God had been witnessed to by the law and the prophets. Now Christ came in on that line.
F.L. It is remarkable that the introduction of Elijah is as a "man of God"; as you were saying, the man of exercise. It seems to be very significant that there is no genealogy or anything of the sort, but he comes on the scene abruptly and is recognised as a "man of God".
J.T. So he says: "As Jehovah the God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand", That was his attitude, and at the end of the chapter it is said to him by the woman: "I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth". So in that way his word is confirmed.
B.T.F. Would you say Elijah referred more to the ministry of the Lord while here on earth?
J.T. Yes. It has been remarked that the gospel of Mark would correspond with it, in that Mark presents the Lord as the Servant-Prophet. The book opens thus: "Beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, Son of God", Mark 1:1. We have no record of the Lord's previous life. It is simply that He is there and God has Him there. It is not the beginning of His life, but of His ministry. So with Elijah, save
what we hear from James in the New Testament, we know nothing of his previous history; but it is enough to know that he stood before Jehovah, that the signs that mark his ministry brought about the confession: "The word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth". It seems as if Mark's presentation of the ministry of Christ carries special conviction with it.
F.L. It is also significant to see how the Lord at the outset of His ministry takes up this seventeenth chapter of Kings. "There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elias ... to none of them was Elias sent"; and then he continued of Elisha, "there were many lepers in Israel ... and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian", Luke 4:25 - 27.
W.B-w. He comes upon the scene because there was a moral necessity for it.
J.T. The end of the previous chapter, as was remarked, emphasises the necessity, so that in this chapter it seems to me the ministry presented is one of restoration, not the introduction of something new exactly, as under Elisha, but restoration; as the Lord said of John, when he is come he will "restore all things" (Matthew 17:11) so that the child here is brought back.
B.T.F. Elijah is a witness for God here, He came from Gilead, which means 'Hill of witness'.
C.A.M. Would the conditions in which Elijah was sustained in the beginning of the chapter suggest the Lord here upon earth?
J.T. I think so. If we compare the chapter with 2 Kings 4, what we see is that there is no over plus here, no idea of living 'on the rest'. It is simply that "The meal in the barrel shall not waste, neither shall the oil in the cruse fail", There should be enough, but no abundance, no idea of paying "thy debt", nor of living on the rest, nor of a 'great woman' spiritually. It is simply that there should be sufficient and in that way I think it denotes the state of things before the coming of the Spirit.
F.L. "I am come that they might have life, and might have [it] abundantly", John 10:10. I suppose in the days of the Lord on earth it was more the expression of life; in the day of the Spirit it is more abundantly.
That point you brought out about recovery is uncommonly interesting; it is said that Elijah took the child to an upper chamber and there he nourished it into life. It suggests the Lord in the upper chamber unfolding all that which nourished the little company of the remnant into life. He took them up into the upper chamber, and it was there the Lord really nourished them.
J.T. You will notice in Elijah's history that the idea of elevation gives character to it. Now what is said of the child here is, that "he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into the upper chamber where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed". That is a great point, I think. Naturally the mother's bosom was the place for the child, but there was no life-giving power there, no hope of recovery or restoration on that line. The great principle of restoration was there in Christ; but, as you said, it was the upper loft or chamber.
C.A.M. What would the barrel of meal and the cruse of oil suggest?
J.T. The woman says: "I have not a cake but a handful of meal ... and a little oil in a cruse". That is her estimation. Then he says, "The meal in the barrel shall not waste, neither shall the oil in the cruse fail until the day that Jehovah sendeth rain upon the face of the earth!" He drops the diminutive words "handful" and "little". That is, I suppose, from the divine side it was not a handful. It was infinite. As John says, "I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written" (John 21:25); but it would continue at any rate, that is the point.
F.L. The outward presentation was what the widow saw.
C.A.M. Here it is what she had. In the first part of the chapter Elijah is standing independent of anybody. That is, the ravens brought him food and he drank of the brook, but I was wondering in this part whether what she had was acquired of Lord.
J.T. Of course it is on the line of sovereignty all the way through here; as was remarked, "to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidonia", Luke 4:26. It was God acting sovereignly, but at the same time there was a certain measure of faith there, although it was feeble and wanting in intelligence. She was going to eat to die, which is really, you might say, a contradiction of terms. You do not eat to die: you eat to live. But at the same time, there was a measure of light, seen in the fact that she had the meal and the oil.
P.H.P. That was a reflection on Israel, because not even as much was found in them.
J.T. That is the point. In Luke 4 they would have the Lord on the line of nature. "Whatsoever we have heard has taken place in Capernaum do here also in thine own country", Luke 4:23. They would be accredited on that line, so He immediately brings in these passages because it was a question of the truth and the sovereign rights of God.
A.A.T. How do you connect it with Romans?
J.T. The righteousness of God is the great point in Romans at the outset.
J.T. Yes, "righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ", Romans 3:22. That is a question of God's rights of course, but rights taken up in such a way as to be effective for man's salvation. His rights in mercy, as has often been pointed out. Elijah does not intimate there is to be no rain, but rain only
according to his word. He does not say how long, but we know it was "three years and six months", James 5:17.
W.L.P. Would you say the righteousness of God is also seen in the judgment that Elijah spoke of -- withholding rain? His rights in mercy are seen in Elijah going to the widow.
J.T. In Luke 4, the Lord says, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21) and that scripture was, as we know, Isaiah 61:1 - 2. It speaks not of judgment, but of God intervening in grace. Romans enlarges on this great theme. The apostle says, "I am not ashamed of the glad tidings; for it is God's power to salvation, to every one that believes ... for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the principle of faith to faith", Romans 1:16 - 17. Now that may be connected with the word "ears" in Luke 4. The scripture was fulfilled in their ears, but if there was not faith it would have gone no further, and we know they had no faith because they "led him up to the brow of the mountain upon which their city was built, so that they might throw him down the precipice", Luke 4:29. The faith was not there. The righteousness of God was there and presented to them; Romans teaches that the righteousness of God is presented to faith; otherwise it is wholly ineffective; so it is on the principle of "faith to faith".
F.L. And it was preached "for obedience of faith among all the nations", Romans 1:5. That is Romans. "The just shall live by faith", Romans 1:17. I was thinking of the difference, comparing Elijah with Christ. The Lord in speaking with His disciples of Elias says: "Ye know not of what spirit ye are", Luke 9:55. The Lord's ministry was about three and a half years and it was needful for Elijah to shut up heaven for three and a half years. I suppose in His own person the Lord brought the rain and dew, and it was there for three and a half years.
C.A.M. The Lord identifies John Baptist with Elijah.
.J.T. "If ye will receive it;" He says "this is Elias who is to come" (Matthew 11:14); but they did not receive it.
J.S. So in Elijah you have divine power introduced.
J.T. And it is sufficient to restore. The Lord said: "Elias indeed comes first and will restore all things", Matthew 17:11. In his ministry it is a question of restoration.
P.H.P. Is restoration individual here, or is it collective?
J.T. I think that in this chapter it is a testimony, a remarkable testimony, that in a man, there was the life of Israel. This, of course, refers to Christ, who had life in Himself. The woman's son was taken from her bosom and laid in Elijah's bed in the "upper chamber where he abode". There was no power in nature (the woman's bosom) for restoration.
F.L. If that is to become effective collectively it is first demonstrated in the individual. I think we see it in Lazarus. The fact that one man was raised from corruption is taken by the Spirit of God as proof for the whole nation, and not the whole nation only but goes beyond that. God demonstrates the thing in one person but if demonstrated in one it is good for all.
J.T. Exactly. "The Son also quickens whom he will", John 5:21.
W.B-w. The idea of restoration implies that something was lost, does it not?
J.T. In the gospels the Lord's ministry assumed that certain things still remained. For instance, they had the loaves and the fishes. Now they do not refer to what He brought, but to what they had, and what He could take up and enlarge as a witness; and so in regard to the child here, although the soul
had gone out of the child yet the impression left on the mind is that it is simply brought back. It is not resurrection from the dead exactly, but rather restoration.
F.L. I think the language supports that. It does not say his spirit was gone but that "there was no breath left in him". I think there is a distinction. Paul said, "Be not troubled, for his life is in him", Acts 20:10.
J.T. That is what I had in mind, but by the embrace of Paul he is restored.
B.T.F. Would you say a word as to the difference between the oil here and in 2 Kings?
J.T. There is no idea of filling vessels here, no idea of a superabundance. It simply was enough for current need.
B.T.F. So it would set forth the Holy Spirit only as He came on men before Christ ascended.
J.T. I think what we learn from it, the moral side, is that the flesh profits nothing. If you have introduced such wonderful remedies, indeed the power of God in a man, and yet things are not restored, all is hopeless on that line. I think that is the moral lesson in it. The Lord had said in spirit, "I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain", Isaiah 49:4.
A.F.M. Would you say a little about the exercise through which Elijah passed? There were certain exercises in his chamber; are they significant?
J.T. It is very interesting to compare them with the exercises of Elisha in a similar case. What is said here is, that he "carried him up into the upper chamber where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I
pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again". Now that is more restoration. In the next book it is resurrection; 2 Kings 4:32 - 35. Notice in this latter chapter the child had already been laid on Elisha's bed by his mother.
J.T. That is important as a distinction. "And when Elisha came into the house, behold, the child was dead, [and] laid upon his bed. And he went in and shut the door upon them both, and prayed to Jehovah. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and bent over him; and the flesh of the child grew warm", 2 Kings 4:32 - 34. Now what I would suggest is, that this is Christianity. In this chapter are the eyes, and the mouth, and the hands. All is to correspond with what is presented objectively, whereas in 1 Kings 17 it is simply the restoration of the child. There is nothing about the mouth, eyes or hands, whereas in Christianity you have the idea of correspondence in perception and intelligence, in speaking. I suppose Romans answers to this as to the Christian.
F.L. The child sneezed seven times. This seems to indicate the evidences of life in Christianity.
W.H.F. In Elisha's case in 2 Kings it is not a question of restoration. How would you look at recovery: man as he is cannot be recovered?
J.T. Not as he is so Romans brings out and develops that. First of all, things are brought in through Jesus Christ and then if I reckon myself alive it is in Christ Jesus. So 2 Kings is Christianity typically, not restoration to what I was before. It is in another Man.
G.W.H. Where do you make the distinction in Romans between 'in' and 'through?'
J.T. I think 'through' refers to what Elijah
would typify, the vessel through which the thing has come to us. That is what we might call strictly the objective, whereas the subjective begins, I think, in this, that I reckon myself alive unto God in Christ Jesus. That is another Man. Elisha identifying himself with the child suggests, I think, that there is to be correspondence with him in the one made alive. I am alive in a Man that did the will of God here. That is Romans. Christ is in that way presented to us and I am alive in Him; alive in One that does the will of God, and I get the Spirit to enable me to conform to that Man.
F.L. The turning point in Romans is at the eleventh verse of the fifth chapter.
G.W.H. So really what begins the second part of Romans is headship.
J.T. It lays the basis for it. "As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men", Romans 5:12. That is Adam; and then in the one Man (Christ) you have life and righteousness in contrast to that. Now that is still objective, however, but it is an element introduced into our souls that prepares us for headship. So the next chapter is that I am alive in that Man, in Christ Jesus. Then I have eternal life in Christ Jesus. Everything is in that One.
G.W.H. In chapter 6 we begin to say, "What then shall we say?", Romans 6:1.
J.T. That is right. I like the idea of the mouth, and eyes, and hands, because they denote certain things, and then the sneezing shows the power that he has got, and then it goes on to say: "and the lad opened his eyes. And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. And he called her; and she came to him. And he said, Take up thy son", 2 Kings 4:35 - 36. Now I think that is what we often call recovery. That is permanent.
C.A.M. As to the eyes and other members of
the body, do you make the thought apply to the physical character of things in Romans.
J.T. Our members are to be yielded as instruments of righteousness to God. In Romans it is correspondence with the Man in whom things are brought to you, because Elisha's eyes are put to the child's eyes. There is to be correspondence.
C.A.M. In Colossians it refers to the new man "renewed into full knowledge according to [the] image of him that has created him", Colossians 3:10.
J.T. That is a further development of this truth.
B.T.F. Why do you call it recovery? I thought it went beyond recovery.
J.T. The mother leaves the child on Elisha's bed dead, and she takes him back alive.
F.L. I would like to suggest that with the one we have the idea of restoration in connection with Israel, and it will really be made good after we are gone, while in the other, the case of the Shunammite woman's son we have recovery in connection with the day of the Spirit. So that recovery really comes in in both, only that in connection with the Spirit in the present day, it has a very peculiar character that goes far beyond the other.
J.T. As to Christianity the important feature is that the things presented in the gospel are said to be "in Christ". Redemption and eternal life are in Christ Jesus; and then we have, "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death.", Romans 8:2.
F.L. So it brings in the Spirit too, the Spirit of that Man.
F.J.D. I suppose it is there you change your man; one is caused to pass off the scene and another is brought in.
C.A.M. In Hosea 6:2 we read: "After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us
up, and we shall live before his face"; The living seems to be a further thought than reviving?
J.T. Revival is after "two days", which I think refer to the Lord's ministry, but the third day is really more like Elisha's ministry. It is the result of death and resurrection.
P.H.P. I suppose there is such a thing as recovery from something and to something, as might be illustrated in these two cases.
B.T.F. Is it recovery to what God has found in Christ?
J.T. Our brother was remarking that we are recovered to something; and really it is that men are taken up afresh in Christ. We are not recovered as men in the flesh. We are justified by faith through the death and resurrection of Christ; and then we are to reckon ourselves alive unto God in Him.
J.S. Here there is power as a testimony in the man of God for recovery.
J.T. That is the idea, and so in Christ as become Man all was present for the re-establishment of everything for God.
F.L. I think that what comes out through Elijah in this respect is the prefiguring of what comes out in Revelation 11; that is, the testimony of the "two witnesses". It is for the recovery of Israel. It is the character of the testimony of Elijah and it extends over the period of three and a half years.
J.T. There is a very remarkable correspondence with Elijah's ministry there. They go up in the sight of their enemies.
W.B-w. "Art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance". Is that the conscience affected as in Romans?
J.T. The widow's exercise corresponds, no doubt; but she arrives at the point of the truth. What a great point to reach. "The word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth!"
C.A.M. The last part of the chapter brings in spiritual things. In the first part (verse 15) she, Elijah, and her house ate many days. They lived in that way for a certain length of time and then the further thought of a spiritual condition comes in. Eating many days accorded with Christ's pathway here, and then a spiritual order of things brought in after that.
J.T. I am sure that is so. The ultimate result in the woman is no doubt recovery. At Pentecost in a certain sense Israel, or at least a representation there, arrived at the truth. At Pentecost the coming of the Spirit sealed everything. There could be no further question as to the mission of Christ. The coming of the Spirit was the seal that His word was truth. It was a great point reached; "The word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth". The truth is the adjustment of everything. I can understand a godly person in Israel listening to Peter in Acts 2 and seeing the evidence of the Spirit there, becoming very restful. There are no longer any puzzles. If you have truth it is the solution of things in your soul.
F.L. All this seems to me to open very beautifully in a line. That is, the Lord takes this product of Israel, as it were, His disciples that had followed Him. He takes them up into the upper chamber; He endows them with all the light of life and the love of God, and then He comes down as it were and gives them to Israel. He gives them to the"mother". Now their testimony is the testimony of those that live and they live through His touch and association, so that covers the period from His death to Pentecost.
J.T. There are two thoughts especially in view in this chapter. One is God taking up His rights in raising up Elijah, as we had it this morning; raising him up amongst His people as one whose word should determine certain things; and then in this chapter setting him in heaven: "The Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind". These were the two thoughts that were especially in my mind, and I suggested this chapter on that account; not that I wish to overlook that which comes in between, but only to seek to bring out the great principles which mark the introduction of Christianity. God would have a Man by whom everything should be regulated, and then He would have that Man where He would; namely, in heaven.
F.L. So that this chapter involves more than resurrection: there is the thought of exaltation in it. Resurrection does not go beyond being brought out from amongst the dead: this is another thought.
J.T. It would suggest a good deal as to translation, as to the setting in which it is found in the Word, and I think that one feature is prominent here; namely, that God would take Elijah up into the heavens and how He would do it, by a whirlwind. We know that the thought of translation appeared earlier, in Enoch. In Enoch it is not exactly that He would take him into the heavens, but that He would take him. "He was not, for God took him", Genesis 5:24. That was not a question of God's sovereign rights exactly, His creatorial rights to the heavens and earth, but that He would have such an one as that. He would have him, for he pleased Him.
A.F.M. Would this have the Lord's administration in view?
J.T. That is what I thought. God would take Him into the heavens; the heavens having their own significance.
C.B. In order to fill all things?
J T. That is the result according to the New Testament.
F.L. And for the reason that administration was henceforth to be from the heavens. I suppose in that way constituting the kingdom of the heavens.
J.S. On what ground is Elijah taken up? Enoch was translated on the ground that "he pleased God".
J.T. Here I think it is more God's sovereign rights. It is not a question of Elijah's personal character so much, but that God would do that. No one can question His rights to do that. That is how it reads indeed. "And it came to pass when Jehovah would take up Elijah into the heavens by a whirlwind". The first verse clearly states the mind of God and then the chapter proceeds to narrate for us the facts leading up to this, so that the chapter shows us the death and resurrection of Christ, and then His ascension. The first verse is simply God's rights. He would do this. Then we have outlined how it was done.
Ques. Would you say Elisha was a figure of the Spirit?
J.T. A figure of that instrumentality used by the Spirit. I think he represents that more -- he received a double portion of Elijah's spirit here.
A.F.M. To shed forth the Spirit was the first thing the Lord did, we may say. So when Elijah goes up, a double portion of his spirit falls on Elisha, according to his request.
J.T. In the beginning of John 13 we have that which was in view stated; "[Jesus,] knowing that the Father had given him all things into his hands, and that he came out from God and was going to God" (John 13:3); then certain things flow from that, certain things
happen which lead up to that, and so it is here, only here it is not that he should depart out of the world to Jehovah, but that Jehovah should take him into the heavens by a whirlwind, so that henceforth there should be a man there who had already been here in administration; but now he should be there.
F.L. This is suggestive of the second of Acts. That is, Jesus is exalted by the right hand of God, and then He pours forth the Holy Spirit. It is that point of view when it comes to be applied to Christ Himself.
J.S. Is there any significance in the means by which he is taken up, the whirlwind?
J.T. I think it is to show the character of the power.
J.T. Yes, that nothing could resist the power of God. We know when we come to Christ it is different from this, but with all that it is "the working of the might of his strength, [in] which he wrought in the Christ, [in] raising him from among [the] dead, and he set him down at his right hand in the heavenlies, above every principality and authority, and power, and dominion", Ephesians 1:19 - 21. It is the one stroke of God's power.
A.F.M. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is somewhat of this kind.
J.T. "Parted tongues, as of fire", Acts 2:3.
A.N.W. And the sound "as of a violent impetuous blowing" (Acts 2:2) which filled the house where they were.
A.F.M. This whirlwind was connected with chariots of fire and horses of fire.
J.T. Taken as a general figure, it refers to the means by which God can carry out His will. His will is to put a man in heaven; but fire refers not to what is in heaven, but to what is on earth, to what has to be overcome; and there was much, as the previous chapters show, that had to be overcome. The power was there in the way of testimony, just
as at the grave of Christ the angel's face shone like lightning, the testimony to the power by which God would dispose of evil here. Nevertheless, the ministry connected with Christianity is one of grace. That is to say, in the lightning the idea is that judgment is deferred, but the testimony to it is there.
F.L. I was going to suggest that Elisha was hardly a type of the Holy Spirit, but rather of that vessel which the Holy Spirit takes up as formed by Christ, and through which He effects things.
J.T. Yes, quite, and what you notice is that, whilst it was Elijah's translation, it says; "Elijah went with Elisha" showing the Spirit had in mind what was to be brought about in Elisha through this. That is, his presence there was not an incident simply. It was a main thought, and so the disciples' presence with Christ in the upper chamber, as you were saying this morning, was not an incident. It was a prime feature of the situation, so that Christ is with them. He says: "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you", Luke 22:15. It is not simply "you with me" but "I ... with you". There was much for them to learn on this great occasion. It says: "Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal".
F.L. So it was a prime thought that "he led them out as far as Bethany" (Luke 24:50) because they should be with Him when He was taken up.
J.T. Exactly. It was not an incident merely, it was an intention. And so it is that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. Elijah said unto Elisha, "Abide here, I pray thee; for Jehovah has sent me to Bethel". That is, it was a question of the will of God, as the Lord clearly intimates at the Supper and Gethsemane, but they would be tested. It was a testing of the heart as to how they can conform themselves to this, because the testimony was to be in their hands and it was of great importance that
they should go through all this experience from the Supper to Gethsemane and the cross.
J.S. The way indicated here would be the way down to death.
J.T. That is the point, but first of all these points had to be traversed, as much as to say that under the old order of things the mind of God had not been reached, and Elisha was to understand that. There is not one iota of God's mind expressed to us that is to be let go; all is to be taken up again and every thought is to be maintained in the energy of the Spirit.
F.L. It is very wonderful, and we could not reverse the order of these things. I mean, Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho and Jordan. When it is taken up in connection with Christ and His disciples it is very obvious that He went that way. Each of these places had an answer in the Lord's path.
J.T. It was a wonderful experience for a man like Elisha, because he was really exercised. The sons of the prophets were not. They were there and knew what was happening but they were not in it. Elisha says: "I will not leave thee". That is the secret.
A.F.M. Then you regard these four points as being fulfilled in Christ personally?
J.T. I think that is right, as our brother has been saying.
A.F.M. And then it is taken up afterwards in the power of the Spirit by the saints. It is testimony here.
F.L. But first of all the early chapters of the Acts lead them back over this course. That is where they get their side, like Elisha ministering.
A.A.T. Does not Elisha take the steps backward? He goes through Jordan and then Jericho to Bethel.
J.T. Yes, the order is reversed. Elisha went back over the Jordan to Jericho, and thence to Bethel,
and from thence to Carmel, and from thence to Samaria.
B.T.F. Have you been speaking of the journey at the beginning of the chapter as representing what came out in the last hours of the Lord's history on earth?
J.T. Yes, beginning with the Supper. He had desired to eat the passover with them. The experience that they had from that point onward must have had a permanent effect upon them; it would remain with them. Their souls must have been ploughed up, and it seems that in the statement here, "Jehovah hath sent me" the moral thought is that we are to be brought into conformity with the will of God. At Gethsemane the Lord said: "not my will, but thine, be done", Luke 22:42. The synoptic gospels do not give so much of the intercourse between the Lord and the disciples during those hours, as John does. They give us more the outward, historical facts, whereas John opens up more, and records more, of the private intercourse with Christ, during these hours. The whole section from chapters 13 to 17 is taken up, you might say, with what transpires during those solemn hours.
B.T.F. Then is the thought that the believer in the power of the Spirit, should be able to take the reverse journey?
J.T. I think that is the thought. Of course this goes on in figure to the covering of the whole forty days after His resurrection, which you will observe is given after they cross Jordan. It says in verse 11, "it came to pass, as they went on and talked", That was a wonderful moment, suggesting, I suppose, what there was in the way of intercourse between the Lord and His disciples after His resurrection.
F.L. I suppose much of what we have in these chapters in the gospel of John is morally after His death. I mean His death is contemplated.
P.H.P. You get a great deal about grief in those chapters in John. Elisha had a sorrowful experience here.
J.T. It must have been a very great grief to his heart to think, that the one whom he had followed, and to whom he had become so attached, he was about to lose, as the sons of the prophets seemed to know. They said: "Dost thou know that Jehovah will take away thy master from over thy head today?" Every time they said that it must have been a pang to him, but he says: "I also know it". There must have been a ploughing up of his soul. He began with ploughing, you know. He was taken from the plough twice. There has to be the ploughing and sowing in order to be impressed. You need that. The soul has to be ploughed. As was said of Mary: "(and even a sword shall go through thy own soul;) so that [the] thoughts may be revealed from many hearts", Luke 2:35. I believe the last hours of the Lord's life brought to light the thoughts of many hearts; what was in the hearts of those that loved Him, and the heart of Judas, the heart of Pilate, the hearts of the priests. Where there was reality, as in a man like this, the effect would be lasting.
F.L. The Lord does not minimise that, because He said: "Because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart", John 16:6. He gives full place to it, and makes provision for it. He turns them to the side of the joy that would come from the place to which He was going. I was thinking about these questions of the sons of the prophets: they seem to suggest some of the unintelligent exercises of the disciples themselves. But then running current with that is the intelligent reply as to what was going to happen.
C.A.M. The Supper would bring before them the meaning of the Lord's pathway and that they were
going to lose Him. Elisha knew Elijah was going to be taken.
J.T. Just so, but it would not mitigate the sorrow. I am sure the sorrow is a necessity morally. "Your grief shall be turned to joy", John 16:20. It is right in its place.
A.F.M. If these sons of the prophets were unintelligent they should at least have had sympathy.
J.T. They seem to be simply onlookers, having intelligence about things in a sort of orthodox way, without any heart. They did not follow with Elijah and Elisha.
B.T.F. Would you say they represent Christians in a way?
J.T. I think they represent a class we are familiar with now; those who are the lineal descendants of men who have had light from God, but who are wanting in heart. They are orthodox. They have knowledge, but what you sorrow about regarding them is that in result they would disregard the ascension of Christ.
Ques. The sons of the prophets bear witness that "The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha". Has that anything to do with what we get in Romans 8, "If any one has not [the] Spirit of Christ?", Romans 8:9.
J.T. The spirit of Elijah resting on Elisha surely would.
P.H.P. As to the sorrow of Elisha here, I notice in John's gospel, as the Lord proceeds with the disciples, the sorrow seems to increase. He more frequently referred to that side and He desired that their hearts should be touched with it.
A.A.T. In Colossians you get the thought of being with Christ in resurrection. There is no sorrow connected with that.
J.T. You see the chapter here is mainly taken up with what took place before Elijah and Elisha crossed the Jordan. That is, it corresponds in that
way more with the experience at the Supper and in the hours that followed; and as our brother remarked, a great deal is said about sorrow in those communications the Lord makes to them as recorded in John 14 to 16.
A.A.T. Then after they crossed Jordan you have a different thought in mind. Christ had been through death then.
J.T. Yes, there is nothing about sorrow then. He joins them again. He says: "I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one takes from you", John 16:22. I suppose they had that experience after He arose, and it would correspond I think with the walking and talking after Elijah and Elisha crossed the Jordan.
B.T.F. Where does Jericho come in on the journey to Jordan?
J.T. It is the place of the enemy's power, the place of the curse too. The city had been cursed; it was rebuilt just before Elijah appeared, so it represented the expression of man's will, and in that way the enemy's power. And so the fact that he visited it would show that that was to be terminated. It says, in verse 19, "And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold now, the situation of the city is good, as my lord sees: but the water is bad, and the land is barren". And he asks for a new cruse and goes to the source of the waters and heals them. I suppose it refers to Jerusalem, as our brother was saying; the situation was pleasant.
W.H.F. Figuratively the Jordan is death and resurrection with Christ. Colossians answers to the period spent by Christ with His disciples on earth after His resurrection, and His intercourse with them during that period.
J.T. I think it would correspond with the walking and talking between Elijah and Elisha.
W.H.F. The ministry in connection with the disciples before He left this scene for glory.
W.B-w. Is it necessary for believers now to come into the sorrowing side in Christianity?
A.A.T. There used to be a hymn in our old hymn book about joy and sorrow mingling. There is no thought of sorrow at the Supper, is there?
J.T. I do not see that there should be any since the Spirit has come. As regards the world outside you bear that attitude. You are not with them; you cannot go with them; you hang your harp on the willow; you cannot sing with them nor have mirth with them. I do not see that there should be any sorrow of heart in the Christian now because he has the Spirit.
P.H.P. And the Man has been born: the Man has been brought into the world.
J.T. Exactly, the Man has come in, and is before your soul, and you see Him, so that it is not the time of sorrow in that way. I think that is past.
Ques. Is the point of the Supper that you miss the absent One?
J.T. You miss Him as regards your position in the wilderness. He is not there, and all is desolate here, but in your soul you are in the light of the Man. The Man, so to speak, is born, and He remains.
F.L. I presume the thought would have a place in what lies preparatory to the Supper. The passover and the feast of unleavened bread was to be taken with bitter herbs, but when it comes to the Supper itself, as given from Christ in heaven, the thought of sorrow hardly comes into it now.
J.T. I think not. There may be occasion for it in the vicissitudes of the wilderness path or conditions you meet with. As the Lord said: "These things have I spoken to you that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye have tribulation", John 16:33. That remains.
F.L. We have the bitter herbs individually, do we not?
J.T. Oh, quite, that is essential on account of what the flesh is, and what it occasions.
C.A.M. That means self-judgment before you are there: "Let a man prove himself", 1 Corinthians 11:28.
J.T. Any sorrow we have now is not on account of Christ's position, whereas the disciples' sorrow was on account of His position. He was to be taken from them by murderous hands and put to death. It was a terrible thing.
F.L. So one would say perhaps that that condition of things was met with on the first day of the week: "The doors shut ... through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and says to them, Peace [be] to you and ... he showed to them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced therefore", John 20:19 - 20. I think that gives the atmosphere, the light in which we are in connection with the Supper.
J.T. And that remains. There is no blot on your soul from that onward. Whatever position you may be in in regard to the wilderness your soul is always in that light. You do not lose that. So our position can never correspond with theirs. Their position between the time of the Lord's apprehension and resurrection is unique. There can never be really a repetition of that, but it was an experience that was necessary for them as the chosen vessels to represent Christ here after He left them, and explains the wonderful power and intelligence that marked them according to the Acts.
F.L. It is worth noting in passing, that the apprehension of Christ in Christendom at large is in the main part taken up with His sufferings from the time of His apprehension to His death; but we are to go beyond that. We join Him on the other side.
J.T. I think we ought to see clearly here, that these
points which embrace the testimony are to be re-visited. That is, the mind of God is to be fulfilled from heaven. The Lord had come as recognising what had existed. John had come and the Lord had come on that line, and He took up, as you remarked, each feature of the testimony, but then nothing was accomplished, you might say. Of course, it is not that the ministry of Christ was imperfect, but the material it applied to was useless. Even in the ministry of Christ there was much that was provisional, which is a very important thing to see, so Elijah visits all these points with Elisha, as much as to imply that it is from heaven now that these things are to be taken up. John the Baptist said "I must decrease". "He who comes from above", he says "is above all"; "He must increase, but I must decrease", John 3:30 - 31. And then the evangelist goes on to say that, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things [to be] in his hand", John 3:35. That is the heavenly Man, so that the fulfilment of the mind of God here is from heaven.
J.S. And the first thing Elisha does is to rend his clothes. He would now take on the character of the heavenly man.
J.T. Yes, the man he saw going up.
A.F.M. Will you speak of the double portion of the spirit, in that connection?
J.T. I think it refers to Christianity. That is what one would like to make clear, that Christianity represents a double portion; it is the firstborn's portion.
J.T. Because of the importance of exercise and watchfulness. Heavenly and spiritual things are made to depend on that. The sons of the prophets were wanting in that. They were wanting in exercise, in intentness; these things were found in the disciples.
C.B. When He says to them: "Ye shall ask
what ye will" (John 15:7); I suppose that implies that there would be exercise so as to ask for what would be right.
F.L. If one were going to connect what is now occupying us with Romans it would take us into Romans 8, where we have both Christ and sonship, also the Spirit.
J.T. Romans presents so much that is moral, it involves great exercise. The ministry of the twelve apostles necessarily hinge on the things which they went through. Paul makes a good deal of the things he went through. Now Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit. That was a very excellent desire and one befitting the circumstances. In fact a less portion would not be adequate, so he says: "if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee". It was a "hard thing", but "if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee". I think what is implied is that Christianity is more than millennial. The saints on the earth then will have a portion, but not a double one. They will not have the firstborn's portion, whereas the Christian, the assembly, has the place of the firstborn; the assembly of the firstborn, who are registered in heaven. We have the double portion, and therefore adequacy for the carrying out of the will of God here where it had broken down under the old order of things, under the law.
F.L. That beautifully fits in with John 14 and 15; that is, Christ's going in connection with the Spirit's coming and the consequences. One sees the power of it.
J.T. I think that is very important, because the Lord, I believe, has raised the question amongst His people as to the character of Christianity; what it is, and whether there is means sufficient to answer to the will of God in it; whether it is not superior to that which preceded it and that which
succeeds it on earth, and I think the double portion here is the indication that there is ample means for the fulfilment of the will of God.
J.T. Yes, in the way of power there can be nothing greater than that which we have. It is the Spirit of God. "God gives not the Spirit by measure", John 3:34. That suggests the great distinguishing feature of this dispensation.
J.T. That comes out subsequently, but I think it is of great moment to see the formation of the vessel, how the vessel is formed so that this double portion should not be too much. The vessel is equal to it.
P.H.P. You would require a double portion of a man's spirit to thus fully represent him.
J.T. Yes, it is not, of course, that Elisha had more than Elijah, or that he was to have twice as much as Elijah. That is not the idea here, because Elijah is a type of Christ. It is rather that we have more than they will have in the millennium.
F.L. When Elisha returns to Jericho he asks for a new cruse. There is to be a new vessel. He will proceed to do things with a new vessel.
J.T. That is it. It is not now restoration, as we were saying this morning. Things were to be new, so the second book of Kings, I think, is more exclusively Christianity, and Christianity as seen in Paul's ministry. It is Christianity in its full sense, so that the end of this chapter shows that the generation from here on becomes reprobate. They were accursed.
B.T.F. Will you open out a little in connection with this; "If thou see me?" The power given was conditional on that.
J.T. We were just touching on that, the intentness with which the disciples followed the Lord's steps, and how interested they were. It denotes interest
of heart, that you cannot be indifferent in dealing with these things. It requires constant application of mind and heart.
C.A.M. We learn these things individually so as to enter into Christianity. Is that the thought?
J.T. You feel the importance of applying yourself with undivided heart to the things of God.
C.A.M. The difficulty I have is that things are conditional even to a man who has passed over Jordan.
J.T. I think it shows there is no allowance of indifference or carelessness in these wonderful things. Proverbs speaks of one watching daily at wisdom's gates, and waiting at the posts of its doors.
F.L. Morally He calls the company that stood with Him at the cross to view Him going to the Father. "Go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend" (John 20:17); that in a sense, is seeing Him go up.
J.T. He would direct their mind to that thought.
F.L. And that puts its stamp on the saints of this dispensation. They see Jesus as it were, going up to the Father.
J.T. And that same chapter opens up to us the wonderful transaction between Him and them, the breathing into them, and then they are sent out.
G.W.H. In virtue of having a double portion of the Spirit, do you take up the will of God now in the light of sonship?
J.T. Surely you do, but it is the abundance of the power that is in view here, I think.
W.H.F. Is life in abundance connected with power? "I am come that they might have life and might have [it] abundantly", John 10:10.
J.T. It is a parallel thought. It is the manner in which Christians have life. I think Christianity has something distinctive about it above all other dispensations, even in regard to life. Abundant life, I think, refers to the form in which Christians have it.
F.L. In the last few years we have been greatly helped by the emphasis upon ascension. I think our minds too generally looked upon resurrection as embracing everything. Resurrection is a necessity for everything from Adam to the end, but the peculiar light and privilege for the assembly, for the day of the Spirit, is ascension. "If thou see me when I am taken from thee". Now the thing is a company that sees Jesus go up -- ascension.
J.T. And the power we have in the Spirit is commensurate with the light.
A.N.W. And one would never cease to be conscious of the source of that power.
J.T. I think so. You connect it with the Man in heaven. Although not here, it is in the New Testament; namely, the translation of the assembly. She goes to heaven of necessity. "[The] assembly of the firstborn [who are] registered in heaven", Hebrews 12:23. It is a question of God's mind and counsel, and nothing can interfere with that.
J.S. Is that more seen in Enoch than here?
J.T. Quite so. Our translation to heaven is in one sense on account of our being the body of Christ.
C.A.M. Christianity is something entirely new.
J.T. And therefore the new cruse.
C.A.M. This morning we were speaking a good deal about restoration. How do you make restoration agree with something entirely new?
J.T. That was the point. It was simply restoration under the ministry of the prophets, ending with the Lord Himself, a power in the midst of men capable of restoring things, but on account of the conditions restoration was impossible, so the Lord had to die. Things are to be on the ground of death and resurrection, and hence Christianity is new.
C.A.M. Christianity is not on the order of restoration?
J.T. It is a new thing, but divine thoughts are reinstated.
C.A.M. You say that God's thoughts were reinstated.
J.T. All the thoughts He had given expression to before, such as the kingdom and the house, were reinstated, and man too. Indeed that ought to be put first, man is reinstated, but, as I remarked, it is as 'alive in Christ Jesus' . Man is not restored to what he was in natural life, but being alive in Christ Jesus he has a new Head. He is still man, but man alive in Christ Jesus, and following upon that we have all other thoughts that God gave expression to. Israel shall be reinstated, and the house of God is reinstated, but all in connection with Christ.
C.A.M. It is the same man and yet it is not the same man, when you speak of reinstating.
J.T. That is where many have a difficulty. I think we ought to get in our minds the abstract thought of man; "By man [came] death, by man also resurrection of [those that are] dead", 1 Corinthians 15:21. Not the same individuals surely.
F.L. Man in contrast to angels.
J.T. Yes, that order of being. God has not given up that order of being. He has not destroyed him and brought in another order of being. He retains the idea, but in Christ.
C.B. As to the salt in the new cruse, would having salt in yourself preserve what is of God?
J.T. The new cruse refers to what is taken up in Christ, and the salt is the preservative power of the Spirit in the saints.
G.W.H. Referring to our brother's thought about Enoch, is Enoch's translation greater than Elijah's?
J.T. As we remarked this morning, Enoch's translation refers to what he was. God would have that man. It says of him: "By faith Enoch was
translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before [his] translation he has the testimony, that he had pleased God", Hebrews 11:5. It is not that it was proclaimed about him, he had the testimony in his soul that he pleased God, so that God would have one with Him that pleased Him; whereas in Elijah there is nothing said about that. What is said about Elijah is that God would take him into heaven, not to Himself exactly, but into the heavens; meaning that He would put a Man there in order that he should administer the things of God from thence.
G.W.H. So His ascension is a greater thought than exaltation. There is the thought of the pleasure of God in ascension, while in exaltation it is more ministry manward.
J.T. When you come to ascension, referring to John 20, you see it is the Lord's own act. "I ascend". It is what He does. That is to say, it refers to what Christ Himself did; on account of His dignity as a divine Person He did it; whereas in Luke He is "carried up into heaven", Luke 24:51. That is not His own act. That is an act of God. He is carried up into heaven.
F.L. I would like to suggest that in Enoch, and of course in Christ, we get the thought of the pleasurable man; the man that was a pleasure to God, and God takes him in this connection. What we have been occupied with this afternoon suggests One exalted officially: "Wherefore also God highly exalted him and granted him a name, that which is above every name", Philippians 2:9. And then He administers from there. So there are the two aspects of the same One, the pleasurable One and the Man who takes everything up to administer.
J.T. So in John 13 He departs out of this world to the Father. It is not there a question of His right to ascend, but that He is going to the Father. That
is much more like Enoch, whereas in chapter 20 He ascends to the Father, the emphasis is on ascension. In Luke He is carried up, not to the Father, but "into heaven"; and in Mark He sits on the right hand of God.
J.S. And in chapter 14 you have: "I go to prepare you a place", John 14:2. We are to have a special place, and we are to be with Him.
J.T. As regards the assembly, it is not said that she ascends in the sense in which it is said of the Lord. She goes up, of course, but He comes for her and she is "caught up".
John 10:10; John 20:22; 1 Thessalonians 5:10
J.T. The abundant character of the life we have in Christ was suggested by the statement as to Elisha, that he received a double portion of Elijah's spirit, indicating that what we have in Christianity exceeds what others will have in the measure in which the firstborn's portion exceeds what the other members of the family receive. I thought it might be helpful to look a little at the introduction of the idea of life in the Scriptures. In the first chapter of Genesis it is presented perhaps in three forms firstly, in the vegetable form; secondly, in the animal form, and, thirdly (although intimately connected with the animal feature), in what one might call the intelligent form, in man, of whom alone it is said that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life", Genesis 2:7. Whilst the lower creatures are said to be "living", there is a clear distinction made in the fact that into man's nostrils was breathed the breath of God, the breath of life.
F.L. So "Man became a living soul", Genesis 2:7.
J.T. Yes. It is the same expression as is used of the lower creatures, although obviously it has a fuller meaning in regard to him, because it is not only that his affections are active in it, but his intelligence.
F.L. That is what we understand as a moral being. It is capable of response to God in intelligence and affection.
J.T. I thought that would help us in regard to living together with Christ. To live with Christ involves more than the gratification of our affections. It involves intelligence as to the mind of God and the things of God; so that life as Christians have it is of that higher order, although embracing necessarily
the other two. I just mention all that to make clear what one had in view in the Scriptures suggested.
F.L. So life is a very much greater matter than that of existence. I mean by existence the capacity to move, to eat, to drink, etc. Life according to the scriptural thought is much more comprehensive.
B.T.F. Do you connect in any way the Spirit "hovering over the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2) with life?
J.T. I think that is a divine act outside of any creature as intermediary. Historically life is seen taking form on earth. I refer to Genesis 1. The first intimation of life, I think, is on the third day: "And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind", Genesis 1:10 - 12. There I think is the first evidence of life, and it is what we may call the 'vegetable order'. It is alluded to by the Spirit in regard to the Lord Himself, one might say, in the "corn of wheat" falling into the ground, and other similar expressions. Indeed, it is very frequently referred to in the New Testament, as in the Old, as an evidence of life.
A.F.M. Does this first chapter present testimony as to what God would bring to pass?
J.T. I think there is a spiritual thought in each day, and there can be no doubt that the third day, the ordered earth brought out of the water, brought out of death as you might say, might be used as a figure of that form of life that appears in resurrection.
F.L. Yes, so that what we get in the first of Genesis brings into view what might be called
original thoughts. The first introduction of life conveys with it, that in due course of time it will be seen that God orders life in the resurrection sphere. The significance of it appears in verses 29 and 30 of the same chapter: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb producing seed that is on the whole earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree producing seed: it shall be food for you; and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food" (Genesis 1:29 - 30); also there is the distinction that with the animal kingdom as such they had what we would call the grass and the green herbs, but for man, he being marked out separately and distinctly, his food was to be that which contained the idea of life in resurrection. So that the distinction is very beautiful to see in that way.
J.T. Things are to be continued or perpetuated according to their own kind. The emphasis is laid, I think, on the seed. First of all it says: "let the earth cause grass to spring up, herb producing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit after their kind, the seed of which is in them, on the earth ... . And the earth brought forth grass, herb producing seed after its kind, and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in them, after their kind", Genesis 1:11 - 12. I think there we have laid down the divine thought, that there is to be no admixture. One great thought in life is that things are not to be crossed. They are to be of their own kind, and we might perhaps regard that as the initial idea of life; whereas, when you come to the fifth day, which follows upon the lights being set in the heavens, we have not exactly life governed by intelligence, but rather by instinct. The lower creatures have affections and therefore are "living souls". The soul I suppose involves that they have
affection, which a plant has not. That is, with an individual believer the idea is that there is a certain fruit of its kind in him, but it is not that he loves himself. Regarding him entirely as an individual, love is not the point, but when you come to a number of individuals then you have instincts and love of the brethren, because they are brethren.
F.L. When the prophet Isaiah is bringing out certain thoughts concerning the remnant which God would preserve, he makes use of this; "But a tenth part shall still be therein, and it shall return and be eaten; as the terebinth and as the oak whose trunk [remaineth] after the felling: the holy seed shall be the trunk thereof", Isaiah 6:13. It is preserved of its order by a remnant preserved of the Lord, as trees grow in connection with the seed. The idea of life is in it.
J.T. That is very helpful, and confirms the remarks in regard to the third day; and I might venture a further thought that in the gospel of John you have the vegetable figure in chapter 12. A corn of wheat falls into the ground and dies, otherwise it abides alone, but dying it bears much fruit. Life is seen there; the fruit comes up of itself as it were, being the result of the corn of wheat dying, but in chapter 13 it is regulated. The Lord regulates it. He enforces that there is to be love one for another. In that way, I think it answers to the "fifth day". And the Lord pursues the instructions in these wonderful chapters: John 14 to 16. The presence of the Holy Spirit with and in the disciples is contemplated; the instructions therefore imply the highest order of intelligence in them. The coming of the Spirit would bring in divine thoughts amongst them so that their testimony would be after the manner of the Lord's own testimony.
A.N.W. Now you are coming to the "breath" more.
J.T. Yes. The Lord instructs them in order that they should be as He had been here. The Spirit would bring into their souls all those divine thoughts, and He would support them; and then you have in that same chapter the idea of joy that a man is born into the world, because they had come up to that point. They would come up to the idea of a man. Man is the top stone of the structure in Genesis 1.
F.L. A great thought in John 16 is the joy in the birth of the Man -- that is Christ.
J.S. Going back to the third day, do you not think the life introduced there is introduced with a view of sustaining the life which was to follow, both in the lower creation, as well as in man? That is to say, we feed on something wherein there is life and thus we are living.
J.T. That is very important. "The king [himself]", it says, "is dependent upon the field", Ecclesiastes 5:9. The king's table is served from the field as much as the poor man's table. There is no other way of support for man than from the field.
F.L. The herb and tree yielding seed, the germ of resurrection life for a new scene, is reserved for man, who has intelligence, and who has a moral being responsive to God and the brethren. So what is to mark us is that we are feeding on what God would bring in in the new sphere.
J.S. So you would make a difference between the grass of the field, for instance, and the trees.
F.L. Those two verses do make a difference, and this is in keeping with the difference between the intelligent moral being and the beast of the field.
J.T. Nebuchadnezzar had to go back to the grass.
F.L. Yes, he had become a beast.
A.F.M. Would you speak of life in those three ways, as support, affection and intelligence?
J.T. Yes. There is the food for our souls and the enjoyment of affection, and then the mind.
A.F.M. I like that reference to living soul. I have often wondered why the creatures were made living souls. It sheds light on this section.
J.T. Well, although the same expression is used as regards man, any one can see it is of a fuller nature as to him, because he is a living soul by the breath of God, and hence his affections must be of a higher order than those in the lower creatures.
J.S. Following upon the introduction of that in the second chapter you have the tree of life introduced, which is especially for man.
A.F.M. I was going to ask, how does the tree with seed stand in relation to the tree of life?
J.T. Jehovah planted the garden eastward and put man there whom he had formed. "And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", Genesis 2:9. And then He said to him: "Of every tree of the garden thou shalt freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it", Genesis 2:16 - 17. They were all available save the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Well now, Romans shows that the question of good and evil is first solved. It is solved in the death of the Lord Jesus, and consequent upon that we have the tree of life; and we know from Revelation 22 that the tree of life is in the midst of the street of the city, on either side of the river, so as to be available, and the leaves of it even were for the healing of the nations; so that our food, therefore, is Christ as the tree of life.
F.L. The thought seems to be with regard to the trees, judging from the first chapter, that they all had seed and were all good, which the second chapter also confirms, and one sees when sin came
into the world other elements were brought in like the thistle and the thorn, and I think poison and the like, which have to be avoided, but until sin came in there was no indication of any such thing. All was good.
J.T. Like the "wild gourds" in "the great pot".
F.L. They are found in the field now undoubtedly, and the children of the prophets bring them in.
J.S. When we come to the second chapter, to the garden of Eden, we have there the conditions upon which man would enjoy life. It is especially selected of God for the enjoyment of life, all that was pleasant to sight and good for food.
J.T. It opens up a very interesting line of thought, and most important, I think. When you approach the higher order of life it requires particular attention. I think John develops it, as well as certain of Paul's epistles. It is not only that we love, although that is undoubtedly one great evidence of life, but we are qualified for companionship with Christ. Now in John 20 what is emphasised is the kind of Spirit we receive. It is not simply that you have what we might call the lower evidences of life, of vegetable life, for that was there already. They had in common what others will have, for those having part in the millennium will be made to live; but there is nothing said in regard to such as to the breath of Christ. It seems to me it is one of the most important subjects in the world, His breathing into the disciples what He called "Holy Spirit". It is not the person of the Holy Spirit, but the character that is prominent.
F.L. At the outset, where man is formed from the dust of the earth, the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul, and in John 20 the New Translation reading has a remarkable similarity: "And having said this, he breathed into [them], and says to them,
Receive [the] Holy Spirit", John 20:22. It is somewhat the language of Genesis. The Lord God breathed into their souls; He breathed into them. He is there as the life-giving Spirit.
J.T. In John 20 it is a Man breathing into men. "The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit", 1 Corinthians 15:45. It is what we are in our spirits that tells, and it is the spirit that gives character to the man; so that the Lord is to surround Himself with a company who have His spirit. It is really wonderful to think of the divine design, that there should be such a company. The Lord says: "Because I live, ye also shall live" (John 14:19) but this passage shows the secret of it, that we live in His spirit. We understand each other because of having kindred spirits, and so we understand and enjoy living together with Christ because the spirit is the same.
A.F.M. I would like to have a word, if not diverting from the immediate line, as to this spirit of life. He says "I am come that they might have life" (that is the sheep), "and might have [it] abundantly", John 10:10.
J.T. I do not think it could take place until Christ died; man could not touch the tree of life. The cherubim were there with flaming sword, keeping the way of it, until Christ died. Of course the work of God was going on in the disciples, but it was all in view of the death of the Lord Jesus; so that both the terms "life" and "life abundantly", I apprehend, refer to what is subsequent to His death.
A.F.M. Then could you define for us between "life" and "life abundantly?"
J.T. I think life in the general use of it is power, whatever form it may take. This is seen in the first of Genesis. It shows itself in vegetation, in movements of creatures, or in men. Would you not say so?
A.F.M. Yes, I suppose what the saints in the
world to come will have we have now, this "life", but we go beyond it. There is the excess in regard to us.
J.T. That is what I had in mind. The "abundant life" I think, refers to the peculiar way in which the Holy Spirit has come, in which He indwells us, so that we have excess. In other words, as I remarked at the beginning, we have what the firstborn had, the double portion.
A.R.S. What about Hezekiah? He says: "The living, he shall praise thee, as I this day", Isaiah 38:19. Men have forfeited life on account of sin coming in, but individuals like David and Hezekiah, while they did not have life abundantly, did they not have a measure of life?
J.T. The life Hezekiah spoke of was bounded by fifteen years, and that could not be said to be abundant life. He had light, you see. The Old Testament is like the light you get before the sun rises. You do not see the sun but the reflection, and hence they all had light. However dim the light was it pointed to a life beyond death. From the moment God acted for Adam in grace, there was the reflection back from Christ as it were. The Sun had not yet appeared, but there was reflection, so that all these people you read of as having faith and appreciating what was of God had light, some more and some less. Hezekiah, for instance, had a remarkable experience. He was brought down to the gates of the grave himself, and God brought him up again and he learned, that "By these things [men] live", Isaiah 38:16. He now finds that discipline is the sustenance of his soul "In all these things is the life of my spirit" (Isaiah 38:16) he says. So that whilst what he says may in some sense speak of what he enjoyed, in reality it is prophetic. As the Spirit says, "To whom it was revealed, that not to themselves but to you they ministered those things", 1 Peter 1:12. The Spirit was looking forward
to the blessings presented in the gospel, "which have now been announced to you ... by [the] Holy Spirit, sent from heaven", 1 Peter 1:12. So when Hezekiah says: "The living ... he shall praise thee, as I this day" (Isaiah 38:19) the Spirit of God was thinking of Christianity. That was put down for us. It does not mean that Hezekiah had spiritual life as presented in the New Testament. He may have had glimpses of it. It was the Spirit of God who made him say these things. The circumstances through which he passed gave occasion for it in his soul, but the statement itself goes beyond his experience.
A.R.S. "With thee is the fountain of life", Psalm 36:9. I suppose that is prophetic too?
J.T. All these statements are, such as the one our brother read: "Let everything that hath breath praise Jah", Psalm 150:6. The psalmist would not himself understand much by that, but the Spirit of God had much in it. There was a spiritual thought in it. The right way to read the Old Testament is to read it in the light of what the Holy Spirit had in His mind. For instance, the Lord says, "Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced", John 8:56. Abraham never would have said this. The Lord referred to Abraham in that way; and so Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ. He would not have said that, but the Holy Spirit puts that interpretation on the course he took.
F.L. Christ gives us the key in the verse you quoted. "Your father Abraham exulted in that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced", John 8:56. The Spirit of God always saw Christ. So in reading the Old Testament we can always interpret by that key.
B.T.F. Do you connect the life more abundantly with "Whether we may be watching or sleep, we may live together with him?", 1 Thessalonians 5:10.
J.T. I was endeavouring to get on to that, to show that in what we might call the highest order
of life intelligence is implied. Indeed you get the idea in a family. The youngest child in the family is in a sense alive. There is response in some sense there to affection, but then the grown up members are capable of entering into life in an intelligent way, and I apprehend that the breathing into the disciples implies that we live, not only in the sense in which men will have life in the millennium, but we have the spirit of that Man, and it is "Holy Spirit". As living together with Him we are not only so many children, but are capable of entering into the Lord's thoughts. We noted in regard to Elijah and Elisha that they walked and talked together. That is, there was ability in Elisha to reciprocate the communications of Elijah. So the saints, having the spirit of Christ, are able to reciprocate what communications He makes to them. He "died for us, that whether we may be watching or sleep, we may live together with him", 1 Thessalonians 5:10. Here it is not only that we should live, as we get elsewhere, but that we should "live together with him".
A.N.W. How do you account for such a high thought of life being in Thessalonians?
J.T. I think it was an encouraging feature coming in after the rapture in the fourth chapter. "God has not set us for wrath" it says, "but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has died for us, that whether we may be watching or sleep, we may live together with him", 1 Thessalonians 5:9 - 10. In view of their apprehensions in regard to the departed ones, that would be reassuring. It seems to me it reinforces the thought of the love of Christ for His people, and that He should have us not only as redeemed, but intelligently with Him, living together with him.
F.L. This touches on "Where I am ye also may be", John 14:3. It is to be with Him. I wish you would tell us a little what your thought of life is. I think, you know, we are not very clear as to the thought of
life. It is evident that life spiritually considered has its own meaning.
J.T. It is a great subject surely. I was thinking of the word in John, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men", John 1:4. Now, I think, in that statement we have suggested what was presented objectively for all eyes to see while the Lord was here; that is, it is a Man that is in view, and the life was there in Him as light. It was the privilege of those that were with the Lord to see how He lived. He did not live by bread alone, by what He ate and drank. That was merely incidental to His flesh and blood condition. His life was not in that. His life was with God, and, as a Man here, He was entirely free from the pressure of death, wholly immune from it; in His mind and affections He was taken up with God and God's counsels; there was also the love He had for the disciples. I think it is in that way you get an apprehension of it.
F.L. I quite go with that. I was thinking, that, if it is the life of a butterfly, the life of a fish, or the life of a saint, it involves environment and the scope opened to intelligence. So if you take the highest example in the blessed Lord, there were forty days in which He fasted (Luke 4:2), but yet in those forty days He lived. He lived to God. We are introduced into the life of Christ and it is a question of appreciation and enjoyment and feeding our souls on the things discovered in Christ. That makes life.
J.T. And all that centres around the statement as to the spirit of life. It is remarkable that in any of the environments in which men live in this world there is a spirit that pervades it. This is also true in Christianity. Normally you will find in a meeting of Christians a certain spirit marks it; and that, perhaps, is one of the most essential things to understand. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death", Romans 8:2. It
is an indefinable thing, yet patent to all that it is there. Edification is not simply in what we say; there is a certain spirit pervading the company; and this is the vital element that gives character to what is said. This is really what the Lord breathed into His disciples, and what He names formally as "Holy Spirit". Now it says that God breathed into Adam's nostrils "the breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) without defining anything beyond that, but in Christianity it is "Holy Spirit". How blessed indeed is the circle in which the Holy Spirit is free to act as the spirit of life!
F.L. "If any one has not [the] Spirit of Christ he is not of him", Romans 8:9. It is what is derived from the spirit of that Man.
C.A.M. In this connection, how about the verse that says: "The last Adam a quickening spirit", 1 Corinthians 15:45. Do you understand that as a Spirit He quickens?
J.T. It is in keeping with John 20. In Luke 24 He says "A spirit has not flesh and bones". He formally asserts that He is not a spirit. "A spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me having", Luke 24:39. Luke emphasises the Man. His humanity is emphasised. Now John emphasises the spiritual side. He brings forward certain facts such as that the doors were shut, and in spite of the fact that they were shut, He appears in their midst. That is a spiritual idea, and so He breathes into them. That was a spiritual act, and so also His remark, "Receive [the] Holy Spirit", John 20:22. The whole scene is characterised by being spiritual, and I think that is the thought in 1 Corinthians 15:45: "The last Adam a quickening spirit". But then He is the last Adam, mark you. That means He is a Man, but the chapter develops that the new thing is spiritual; even as to our bodies "It is raised a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44) but nevertheless a real, human body, as the Lord's is. So it is as risen from the
dead He is said to be, I apprehend, a quickening spirit.
C.A.M. I see. That helps in making a body a spiritual body.
F.L. You have touched on a thing of tremendous importance. I was thinking in the first of Genesis the origin of all, in connection with life in man, was seen with God; but now in connection with new creation, as I understand it, that which is taken up in Christ, the origin of all, as to the Spirit, is from a Man -- that last Adam. The import of that is tremendous, that He is the quickening spirit. It is the Man. He breathes into them and says: "Receive [the] Holy Spirit", John 20:22. It puts in a wonderful light the person of that Man.
A.N.W. The whole of God's world in that way is developed from that Man.
J.S. Reading Genesis 2 in the light of Christianity, do we not have life more abundantly suggested in the garden of Eden. Adam was set up in an environment suited to him, and into which God could come and commune with him?
J.T. The divine thought as to life was there foreshadowed.
Ques. We read something about life in Colossians 3. "For ye have died, and your life is hid with the Christ in God. When the Christ is manifested who [is] our life, then shall ye also be manifested with him in glory", Colossians 3:3 - 4. Does that life refer to what you are speaking about?
J.T. The life there is spoken of from our side; Christ who is our life. Our life is hid with Christ in God. We are speaking of life rather as presented from God's side. And it is undoubtedly developed in Scripture in the connection we have spoken of.
J.S. So that John 20 would be the fulfilment of John 10, life more abundantly?
J.T. I think it is. Life as believers now have it exceeds what those in the millennium will possess.
It is involved in that peculiar transaction of the Lord, His breathing into the disciples; and what He breathed into them is formally stated to be "Holy Spirit". It is not a question of the person of the Spirit, although implied, but it is the character.
C.B. And when the apostle Paul said the life "that I now live", it was Christ, was it not, he lived Christ?
J.T. That is another thought. I am endeavouring to bring out the importance of what I am free to call the higher order of life. In our being brought into intelligent relationship with Christ and one another in love as having the Holy Spirit, you have the expression of the highest form of life. Ponder it! In 1 Corinthians 15 we have the great idea of victory over death, but it does not develop what I am speaking of. It does, however, say: "As in the Adam all die, thus also in the Christ all shall be made alive", 1 Corinthians 15:22. It is really elementary, but it shows that we are made alive "in the Christ"; but John 20 shows how we are made to live; it is that we have received from Christ His spirit. The breathing is into the lungs as it were, so it is the inner, vital principle by which we exist and by which we are characterised that is in view.
J.S. But wholly a spiritual idea?
W.H.F. Life more abundantly I understand is association with Christ.
J.T. You can understand that this blessed breath, called "Holy Spirit", breathed into them, implies that we are viewed as raised with Christ.
W.H.F. Is there a distinction between life more abundantly and eternal life? I understand eternal life is condition.
J.T. I am sure it is correct, as stated by the beloved brother whom the Lord used to bring this truth before us, that the term eternal life in itself
is a testimony as to what God brings about through Christ on earth where the defeat was, where death was. The more you consider it, the more it becomes obvious that with regard to Christians the idea necessarily goes on to intelligence with regard to Christ, and this involves not only life in the enjoyment of God's blessing for ever, but I have the spirit of Christ and in that way am qualified to be a companion of Christ, with the brethren, in regard to the highest divine thoughts; and the greatest divine thought is that I shall have part with Christ in all that God has purposed in regard to Man as seen in Him.
F.L. So that is the supreme thought of life.
J.T. That is what I was thinking.
F.L. Life is never contemplated as other than the sovereign prerogative of God; life in the insect or bird, all life is traced as having its origin in God. Then if we take the life of man it takes character from what God is pleased to give. What we have been considering is something that is far beyond the character of things enjoyed by Old Testament saints or in the millennial day. It is the supreme thought of life; that is, receiving Holy Spirit and living together with Him.
J.T. That is what I had in mind and it brings it out very clearly. Every family of men will have eternal life as named of the Father, but it will take character in each from the privilege and endowments granted.
C.A.M. Can you make an individual application of the breathing in John 20?
J.T. I am sure He breathed into each one of them. Surely you have the spirit of Christ, and that is the point, you know.
J.T. You as a Christian. It is there in the gift of the Spirit. But we have to come to the thought
of the spirit of Christ, that that is the spirit you have, and no other.
F.L. Romans 8:9 is individual. "If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him".
A.N.W. Why is the breathing immediately connected with the disciples being sent out?
J.T. It was looking toward their mission here. They go out really, you might say, from heaven. It is the spirit of the heavenly Man that is to give character to their witness here. That shows what Christianity is. There can be no other witness like it.
A.F.M. Thessalonians really is developed in Ephesians, in that verse you have read, living together with Him?
J.T. Ephesians leads on to position; whereas the thought in Thessalonians does not go beyond our living with Christ. In Ephesians you are led on to your position, seated in the heavenlies with Christ.
J.S. It is more the glory, and position, in Ephesians.
A.F.M. I was thinking in speaking of it that Ephesians gives you the sphere of life.
J.T. Of course it is there, but the epistle develops much more, because it is a question of God's counsels; Christ and the assembly.
Rem. John 20 seems to be a definite thing, being an advance upon the gift of the Spirit.
J.T. It is all there in the gift of the Holy Spirit, but we must distinguish between John 20 and Acts 2; and then again the reception of the Holy Spirit by an individual. John 20 is pattern, as we have often had it, so when you come through exercise and experience to that Spirit you have no other. Now I may have a different spirit. I may not be up to that, but when I am energised and characterised by the spirit of Christ I measure with John 20.
Ques. It is presented in John 20 as a definite transaction. Now is that same thought carried out
in an individual at the present time, that there comes a time in his experience that Christ breathes into him?
J.T. I do not say it ever happened in the same way again. It is a pattern and therefore the reception of the Spirit involves what is presented, only many of us have the Spirit, but it does not characterise us. He has not become in me yet the spirit of Christ. I like what was brought out last night about the spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of God, and sonship. They are very important, and I think we ought to consider well the thought of the spirit of Christ. Is that the spirit that characterises me?
A.N.W. Elisha tore his own garments in two pieces after he saw Elijah go up.
J.S. John 20 is a pattern of the assembly, is it not?
F.L. The Lord says: "As the Father sent me forth, I also send you", John 20:21. That is, the disciples are sent out in connection with that pattern.
2 Kings 4:1 - 13; Romans 8:1 - 17
J.T. It seems clear that these chapters in first and second Kings afford us in type elements that go to make up the Christian dispensation so that they link on with Romans. What has engaged us has been that the rights of God were represented in Elijah; firstly, in regard to his ministry among the people, and secondly, in regard to his being placed in the heavens. God is entitled to act in this way, and what flows from it is that it is for the benefit of man. The ministry of Elisha involves a complete change of conditions on earth in principle. The new cruse and salt introduced changed the source of things. Things are dealt with in their source and this means that, whilst for the moment individuals only are being affected, yet the earth will be affected. Things will be changed and the word new, I think, indicates that things are to be new. The principle of the new, I think, is worthy of note, because God's great thought is expressed in this: "I make all things new", Revelation 21:5. That necessarily begins now in individuals, so that in Romans 6 we have "newness of life" and in Romans 7 we have "newness of spirit". The manner of our life is new and the manner of our spirit is new. You have the thing in principle.
A.F.M. You would regard this fourth chapter as the climax of Elijah's ministry?
J.T. I think it embodies it. Other features follow, but I think the fourth chapter embodies all from the destitute widow of a prophet's son to the man from Baal-shalisha. It would cover, you might say, the whole of Paul's ministry, from Romans to Ephesians.
B.T.F. What would you say the widow represented?
J.T. She is the wife of one of the sons of the prophets; it is evident that her husband did not leave her provided for. I suppose he would represent the old order of things.
A.N.W. Did he become a debtor under the ministry of Elijah?
J.T. Under the legal system, I should say. There was no supply. What came out in connection with Elijah was that the meal should not fail nor the cruse of oil waste until rain came, whereas here it is an abundance. There is no stay to the oil until all the vessels are full.
F.L. In connection with Elijah, there is that which speaks of Christ here in His humanity. There was the meal as well as the oil, but here the meal is gone. Christ in His humanity, as in the days of His flesh, is gone to another place, so that it is oil. It is the day of the Spirit. Everything now depends on the Spirit, and everything is apprehended in the Spirit.
J.T. The meal comes in after the oil here.
F.L. Yes, at the end of the fourth chapter.
C.B. Could we apply the principle today of the oil continuing until every vessel is filled?
J.T. Surely; that is the point of it now. It is the abundance of things in Christianity. That was what I thought might come before us, the character of the dispensation, how on God's side there is abundance and that as a result there is response as seen in this great woman. She not only pays her debts, but affords protection and shelter and hospitality in every way for the testimony of God.
A.P. Why is it a woman in both these instances: that of Elijah in 1 Kings 7, and Elisha here?
J.T. Because it is a question of the state of the people. Characteristically, Christianity accords
subjectively with what is presented objectively. The great woman of Shunem here typifies this.
A.R. You spoke of recovery in regard to the second chapter. What you are saying now involves more than recovery, does it not?
J.T. It does not go beyond what man should be on earth. That is, recovery involves that man here on earth answers to God's original thoughts as to him.
A.R. You were speaking about making all things new.
J.T. While that leads on to the eternal purpose of God, yet the principle of newness must be introduced even for recovery. In Romans it is a new manner of life in each of us, and a newness of spirit. Your body remains what it was before. That is not made new yet, and your outward environment remains what it was before, but your manner of life is changed and your spirit is changed. These two things are new.
P.H.P. I was going to say it is the new thing in the old surroundings.
C.A.M. Up to Romans 8 the idea of newness seems to be concurrent with something old, does it not?
J.T. The environment is old; the circumstances in which you are remain what they were before. They are not altered, nor is your body altered. You are still dependent on food and raiment as you were before, only that the body comes under the control of the new.
J.T. I thought it might be helpful if we were to see how the source of things is altered, in the "new cruse" and the "salt".
P.H.P. Superseding Jerusalem, do you think?
J.T. Yes, I think so. What was wrong was not the situation, but the source, the motives that governed the situation were wrong.
B.T.F. Do you think the oil here represents the power of the Spirit, as seen in Romans 8?
F.L. The Lord spoke of new wine in new vessels. That was what was to mark Christianity.
P.H.P. Would that suggest John 20 in the way of the door being shut? There was a new cruse formed and the salt was in it, and now things proceed from that point.
J.T. That is right, that is the source of things, as it were, and so the disciples are sent out from that point.
H.C. Referring to what was said about recovery and new creation, I was thinking of Lazarus. He was raised, but does it go further than recovery?
J.T. John 11 speaks of life from among the dead and Romans is not exactly that. We are regarded as alive here on earth, alive in sins, and the ungodly are said to be justified in Romans. "Him who justifies the ungodly", Romans 4:5. That is, the believer is taken up in his historical position on earth, and justified. God justifies him through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, and in the light of the resurrection of Christ, not his own resurrection, but the resurrection of Christ. He is justified by faith and has peace with God, although his circumstances are not altered, nor his bodily condition. That is how the truth is presented.
F.L. Romans gives us the idea of a "new cruse". Elisha, on returning to Jericho calls for the new cruse. Morally it was Jerusalem. In another sense Jerusalem was "Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified" (Revelation 11:8) but here we have a different point of view. There is a new element in the old place. Therefore the gospel had a historical connection with Jerusalem, but ultimately it took up a totally new position.
J.T. Quite so. The situation was pleasant. The
coming in of the Holy Spirit into the saints brought about what was new, but what was there was available really for Israel. Power had come in to rectify things, and that is the ground on which Acts 2 and 3 stand. The disciples were to tarry in Jerusalem till the Spirit came, and the gospel was to begin there. This was God's grace to Israel.
C.A.M. What I would like to know is what the cruse means?
J.T. Historically, it refers, I think, to the one hundred and twenty to whom the Spirit came at Jerusalem. It says: "Bring me a new cruse, and put salt in it. And they brought it to him. And he went forth to the source of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith Jehovah: I have healed these waters: there shall not be from thence any more death or barrenness", 2 Kings 2:20 - 21. I think that refers to the attitude of God at Pentecost.
P.H.P. Does not the interest lie in the fact that he does not create a new spring, but heals the waters at the spring?
J.T. I think that is God in grace taking things up as they were before He regards them as reprobate. It was all there for recovery for Israel. The salt refers to the preservative element in the saints. All was available for Israel on the ground of repentance. This chapter, 2 Kings 3, further sets before us the abundance of God's grace; how that, notwithstanding that conditions were wrong and the alliances formed with Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, and the King of Edom, victory and blessing come in through the prophet.
C.A.M. Would not Stephen be a sort of illustration of what the cruse is? The salt was in him. Would that be right?
J.T. I think so. The saints were surely all a representation of it. I think any one who reads the second of Acts will see that the principle of preservation
was there. Things were preserved. The element of corruption was not yet there. "The water is bad" (2 Kings 2:19) it says. "I have healed these waters: there shall not be from thence any more death or barrenness", 2 Kings 2:21. I suppose there were deadly principles there at Jerusalem, whereas what the Spirit brought in at Pentecost was life and fruitfulness.
A.A.T. How is the woman with the pot of oil connected with the new cruse?
J.T. Well, I think in chapters 2 and 3 the Spirit sets before us what we would call objective principles, namely, the new cruse and the victory afforded through the prophet in chapter 3. We come here in chapter 4 to what the believer has. Typically it is what he has. The woman was quite ignorant of the value of what she had. In that way it connects itself with Romans 8, because the point in that chapter is to show what the believer has in the Spirit. In Romans 5 the Spirit falls into line with other things. There is a group of things in the fifth chapter that are the result of what is objective, the light, and the Spirit is amongst them; it says, "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by [the] Holy Spirit", Romans 5:5. There it is rather the medium by which the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, but the eighth chapter is to show what the Spirit is to the Christian.
A.A.T. I notice this chapter speaks a good deal about the oil as a type of the Spirit, whereas in other instances the Spirit is typified by "running water", the "springing well", etc. Would you open out the difference?
J.T. What the oil represents here is its marketable value. It is a commodity which may be sold. It is the value of it, I think. The use you put it to is the point here. It is a mercantile figure, the oil is a commodity of value; it is to be traded with, and evidently the first thing is how much of it one has;
then you begin to trade, you get vessels, and enlarge the capacity.
B.T.F. Would the thought come in about ability to fulfil the requirements of the law?
J.T. It does. It comes in after you have the capacity enlarged. There is nothing said about selling it until the capacity is enlarged for it, because it would not have brought much, you know, as she had it.
C.B. Water does not make your face shine, but oil does.
J.T. You see she says to him; "Thine handmaid hath not anything in the house, save a pot of oil". Now the seventh of Romans is the widow, I think, and her husband has not left her anything. I suppose the husband may be regarded as the legal system. She was destitute and in danger of being in bondage with her two sons. So the eighth chapter comes in as taking up what she had in the house.
A.F.M. I was going to remark that in the fifth of Romans, to which you referred, we have the Spirit of God spoken of as the Holy Spirit; He is seen from God's side, but in the eighth chapter He is spoken of as in the believer and characterising him. I was wondering whether the pot of oil would refer to the latter. The Spirit as such has been given, but when you come to get the vessels and the pouring out it is rather the eighth chapter idea. Would you go with that?
J.T. Certainly. The eighth chapter designates the Spirit in different ways. It is to show the way in which the Spirit, as it were, may be turned to meet all contingencies in the believer's history. First of all, it is said that "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free", etc., Romans 8:2. That is one point. This woman was not free. That is quite evident.
A.P. But still she had the Spirit.
J.T. She had something in the house that was, as we know now, the Spirit typically, but she was in ignorance of it. She was in danger of being in bondage and certainly not at liberty in her feelings, and yet all the while there was the means in the house of discharging her obligations if she only knew how to use it.
F.L. Is it not important to see that while this has an individual application, yet in a broader way it really shows forth a side of the assembly? That is, the widow indicates a feature of the assembly now. The assembly got into a great condition of poverty, and the testimony was in danger of being surrendered, of getting into bondage as it were, but all the time the oil was in the house, the Holy Spirit was there. What was needed was the knowledge of the thing, and it needed that there should be light brought in so that advantage should be taken of what was "in the house". Now that has come to pass; the enlightenment has come; and it is seen that there is abundance; and liberty has come in.
J.T. That is very excellent. It makes the point of the vessels even more obvious.
F.L. So the vessels are brought in as a continuous supply, they are brought in from around and become vessels of the Spirit and contribute to the enlightenment of the assembly, and, as contributing to the enlightenment of the assembly, the testimony is set free.
J.T. So the point is to make room for the Spirit.
A.F.M. Would that be the revival of Paul's ministry?
J.T. I think the truth of Christ in heaven, as Head, on the one hand, and on the other hand the Spirit on earth commensurate with that position has been opened up; so that if room is made for the Spirit you have response to God, you have that which God seeks. It has been remarked that the
Old Testament is demand, which is true; it is demand without supply, whereas the New Testament is the supply; whether it be in Christ personally or in the assembly, there is supply Godward. As our brother has been pointing out, the truth of the Holy Spirit had been so obscured that the fact of His presence was hardly recognised at all. In fact it is not recognised today, except in a doctrinal way, in the 'systems'. There is no room made for the Holy Spirit; whereas the truth that the Holy Spirit remains here has been made clear, and the point for us is to make room for Him; and the more room you make the more you will have, as we have seen in the type before us.
W.L.P. Would you not think that would apply to the present day recovery of the truth?
J.T. It applies all the time I think, whether it be you, or myself, or Christians generally; everything subjectively hinges on our making room for the Holy Spirit.
P.H.P. So it may even apply to a meeting like this.
Ques. In seeking to help believers, would you raise the question as to whether they had received the Holy Spirit or not?
J.T. Surely; that is what is needed.
Ques. If one were applying for the privilege of breaking bread, would that be an important question to put to him?
J.T. I think so. Some here have been exercised about that very point; that is, as to whether the applicant has established a link with those already in fellowship. It is not simply a question of your having light, but have you a link with those that are already there? One idea in the tabernacle was that it was formed of several parts, bound together with taches of gold; these refer to the affections formed
by the Holy Spirit in the saints. So that, whilst one may not be very intelligent as to the reception of the Spirit, what you would look for is that link. Is there a link with the Person?
F.L. I hope we shall dwell on this point a little, as to the Holy Spirit. At the outset, in the early chapters of the Acts, we see great emphasis on what was of the Holy Spirit. Stephen, "being full of [the] Holy Spirit, having fixed his eyes on heaven", Acts 7:55. Stephen looked stedfastly into heaven, being full of the Holy Spirit. Now, as we are warned in the apostolic writings, there was a departure from that. Then throughout the history of the assembly the truth of the presence of the Holy Spirit was lost. The oil was there in the house, but it was lost practically. Then at what was called the Reformation, the reformers missed the road. They took the inspired Word and instead of connecting it with the Holy Spirit, they connected it with the freedom of men's minds. They said, We have the Word and our minds are capable of interpreting it, but they missed the mark as to the Holy Spirit. Now in the light that God gave eighty or ninety years ago, through Mr. Darby and others, one great feature was the recovery of the truth of the Holy Spirit, what there was in the house, and we cannot do more of importance than to emphasise at a meeting like this, what there is in the house and how it is increased as room is made for it. In touching this we are touching very deep things, and things that are more than anything else vital to the testimony with which we seek to be connected. Would you go with that?
J.T. Yes, indeed, very much. I was thinking, while you were speaking, of the creeds which have been formed, binding the things of God by a creed is the very opposite of making room for the Holy Spirit.
B.T.F. Do we reach the climax here individually
for the Christian in the first instance, and is there progress in the chapter after that?
J.T. There is progress as we come to the Shunammite, but there is a good deal in the verses that follow the first verse as to how the believer comes into the benefit of the Spirit. Elisha here represents the light, the mind of God, and he says to her: "Go, borrow for thyself vessels abroad from all thy neighbours, empty vessels; let it not be few; and go in, and shut the door upon thee and upon thy sons, and pour out into all those vessels, and set aside what is full". Now that is the light. That is what the prophet says, and it is well to observe it because it is the way to arrive at the benefit. We have to be regulated by the light. Then it says: "She went from him", (now we have the believer's side) "and shut the door upon her and upon her sons: they brought the vessels to her, and she poured out. And it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said to her son, Bring me yet a vessel". That is, she was not content with what she had. She was prepared for more, but he says, "there is not a vessel more"; and then it says, "the oil stayed". That is the position here. What the widow was told to do is what every believer should do, shut the door in view of this precious element, and be alone, as it were, with God about it. I think that is how you get the enlargement.
A.N.W. And the point would seem to be to get vessels.
B.T.F. But then you only get here that she is able to fulfil the claims upon her.
J.T. The statement is that the oil stayed. Now the woman needs more light so "She came and told the man of God, and he said, Go, sell the oil, and pay thy debt, and live thou and thy sons on the rest". So that now you have the light as to what to
do, and it fits on, as I understand, very perfectly with the eighth of Romans, because the seventh chapter shows that the speaker was left without any means of discharging his obligations. He comes to this, however: "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord", Romans 7:25. He thanks God. He has light. The experience of deliverance really begins with thanksgiving. You are thankful for the light that has come in in an objective way in the work of Christ, and then the eighth chapter is additional light as to what the Spirit is to the believer. Here the prophet says to the woman, "Go, sell the oil, and pay thy debt, and live thou and thy sons on the rest".
H.C. Would the faithful servant rightly using the money that was left to him correspond with this? He traded with it and made more for his master, while the other kept it. We are given the Spirit and are supposed to use it in that way, is that the idea?
J.T. I think the passage you quote from the gospels refers to what one does for Christ. It is subsequent to this. The great woman might answer to that, but primarily it is a question of what you can do for yourself by making room for the Spirit. You are in straits. I do not suppose, that in all Christendom, there is a single believer who is not recognising the Spirit, who can pay his debts. They may do their bit in regard to this world, as they call it, but are not really discharging their moral obligations, that which refers to God and that which refers to the Lord's people. These are the obligations that are imperative, whatever else may be done.
A.F.M. I think it would help if you would go back to this question of the door. She closes the door upon herself and upon her sons. Could you give us a little practical word as to these vessels, etc.?
J.T. That is the secret of power. The Lord referred to it in His ministry. "When thou prayest, enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who sees in secret will render [it] to thee", Matthew 6:6. Before you can have any dignity outwardly there must be this secret exercise with God. I believe that is what is here and perhaps it is the explanation of the want of power with many of us, that we live on what is public. We live in public, draw on the meetings, which, of course, is right so far as it goes, but we have to "shut the door" and be alone with God about things.
A.F.M. Where do the empty vessels come from?
J.T. I think there is expansion in our souls as we are with God. Paul says to the Corinthians, "Ye are not straitened in us", 2 Corinthians 6:12. That is, there was plenty of room in him for the activities of the Spirit, "But ye are straitened in your affections; but for an answering recompense, (I speak as to children,) let your heart also expand itself", 2 Corinthians 6:12 - 13. Enlargement is in self-judgment, because that chapter, 2 Corinthians 6, shows they were cramped by worldly associations at Corinth. So he says, "Let your heart also expand itself"; I believe it is by the abandonment of worldly associations and the like, and as you are alone with God, that you get spiritual expansion.
W.L.P. Still there is always a limitation to our side.
J.T. Quite; the Holy Spirit is a divine Person, and although each believer receives Him, no one is great enough to receive wholly. He abode in an absolute way on Christ, and He resides wholly in the assembly.
F.L. I hope it is not diverting, but I am greatly interested in what is coming out. What is true in the individual, as it is being opened out from this chapter, is true also in the assembly; and the
counterpart of it, as I see it, is that the state of the assembly is the reflection of what is true of the individuals in the assembly. If the assembly is straightened and in a bad condition, it is but the same thing as saying that the individuals are in a bad state. It helps, I think, to see how the assembly condition depends upon the individual condition.
J.T. That suggests to my mind what marked Sardis: "I have not found thy works complete before my God", Revelation 3:2. I think the secret of that was that the Spirit was not recognised, because we cannot answer to the mind of God aside from that. It is because of the recognition of the Spirit that works correspond with the mind of God. Now the same principle, I think, appears in the foolish virgins. Outwardly they were all virgins and they had all fallen asleep, too, but those who had the oil did not come short. They reached the Bridegroom, whatever may be said about their sleep, and it is said they fell asleep, they reached the end. They did not fall to reach the Bridegroom. The oil did not fail. To go on in the Revelation to Philadelphia, you have there what corresponds with the mind of the Lord. He does not say anything to Philadelphia about incompleteness. To be short or incomplete spiritually is to be really on antichristian lines, because that is just what marks the antichrist; that he is incomplete. His number denotes that he is incomplete spiritually; six hundred, three score and six; and the number of his horns denotes that he is incomplete administratively, ten instead of twelve. Now it seems to me that the foolish virgins and Sardis are in that way on antichristian lines. They are incomplete because the Spirit has not been recognised, whereas Philadelphia and the wise virgins, although we have to admit great failure, reach the end, the divine end, and they are recognised. Those that had the oil went in to the marriage.
A.N.W. Why were the wise virgins not permitted to sell their oil, as in this case?
J.T. I think the figure is that there is no hope for those who do not have it. It is rather to show the hopelessness of the case of one who neglects the Spirit. You cannot get it from another.
A.N.W. They tell the foolish to go and buy it.
J.T. Whilst the assembly period remains, of course, the Lord counsels those in need to come to Him to buy. The foolish virgins evidently did not go to the Lord about things; instead of that they went to the wise virgins to get help. But the time was short, and as they went to buy, the Bridegroom came and they were left outside.
A.R. Would you be free to say that Romans 7 involves the Spirit; that is, has the person referred to there the Spirit?
J.T. I would not say that, because in the main the passage refers to a time "when we were in the flesh"; but certainly verse 4 implies the Spirit "Ye also have been made dead to the law by the body of the Christ, to be to another, who has been raised up from among [the] dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God", Romans 7:4. That is a Christian, but then he goes on to speak about a past state when in the flesh, the motions of sins wrought in us; that is a past state, and he speaks of that at length. It has often been remarked that the seventh chapter of Romans is like a psalm of experience. The end to be reached is stated at the first, and then the process by which you arrive at it.
A.R. You would not compare the seventh of Romans with what you have in the house.
J.T. I only referred to it as the widow state, the law had not afforded a supply.
F.L. The seventh of Romans rather indicates one who is the subject of a work of the Spirit. That
is, the Spirit is working with that one, but he is not indwelt with the Spirit.
J.T. Quite, that is that particular section of it which has been pointed out.
A.P. Are there not Christians who have the Spirit and do not know the value of it? Would that not be like the seventh of Romans?
J.T. It would in measure, but we must accept the fact that the major part of the chapter describes the experience of one who was not in the Christian state at all; it was "when we were in the flesh".
A.F.M. Do you not think many who have the Spirit go through the experimental part of the seventh of Romans after receiving the Spirit?
J.T. That has often been remarked, and it is, in measure, true. This woman is very much in that state. But the portion of the chapter we have been dealing with does not refer to imperfect Christian experience, but to the experience of one who did not know redemption and so had not the Spirit.
B.T.F. Would you enlarge upon what is said of the widow and her sons?
J.T. Romans 8 shows how she pays her debts and lives. The Spirit is said to be life. It is also said: "that the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to flesh but according to Spirit", Romans 8:4. The point in it is to show what the Spirit avails for. That is, I apprehend, that one discharges one's obligations in the power of the Spirit, which one could not have done under the old husband. With the new husband, Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 7:25, you have supply; you have means of discharging your obligations. That is, you love God and you love your neighbour as yourself, which the law demanded. Surely a Christian does that.
A.F.M. That is paying your debts. What is living on the rest?
J.T. It goes on to say, "If ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if, by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live", Romans 8:13. That is by the Spirit, who is the means of life; and then it says, "If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin, but the Spirit life on account of righteousness", Romans 8:10. I apprehend it is in view of righteousness; so righteousness in a practical way is the fruit of life in this sense.
F.L. One might illustrate it from the natural sphere. In my daily experience I should meet all my obligations, business, family, and the like, and then when that is all attended to what is left over I live with. Where do I go? That indicates my living, what I do with the excess. If I am a politician I go into politics. If I am a follower of the Lord I turn to His interests and His people. I live on the excess in a way. I mean that is where I turn in my freedom after obligation is fulfilled.
J.T. That is the idea of living; it is a question of the bent of the mind, of the desire. And what about a Christian? What do you desire to live on? The Shunammite woman says here: "I dwell among mine own people". She did not want any conspicuous place in the world. She did not wish to be spoken of to the king, nor to the captain of the host. She was content to be with her own people.
Rem. She appreciated spiritual people.
J.T. Yes, she was "hospitable, a lover of goodness", Titus 1:8.
A.N.W. Is righteousness paying your debts in a moral or material sense? Is that the full extent of righteousness?
J.T. It seems to me that Romans is a question of adjustment; first adjustment of man's relations with God, and then of his relations with men. For all this the necessity for the possession of the Spirit
is evident. Having the Spirit, the believer can be practically righteous and he can live to God.
A.N.W. What is your highest interpretation of righteousness?
J.T. Well, it is that one is here like God. "He put on righteousness as a breastplate" (Isaiah 59:17) is said of Christ. That is how He garbs Himself as it is said in the prophet, and I am corresponding with Him, and I am putting on righteousness. This marks the Christian. In the earlier part of the epistle God puts the garb of righteousness on me. He gives me righteousness on the principle of faith, but I put on righteousness by the Spirit. That is what I apprehend. I think the Shunammite, this "great woman", is putting on righteousness like God. She is not paying debts; she had no debts to pay; but the widow had debts. Righteousness with God is not paying debts, because, we might say, He owed no man anything. It is a question of His rights in mercy. "I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy", Romans 9:15. When your debts are all paid and things are adjusted in your soul, you want to be like God. As David said, "that I may show the kindness of God" (2 Samuel 9:3) be like God. Romans, I think, has that in view, that a Christian is like God here in the way of righteousness.
A.N.W. So even the sacrifice of his body is reasonable and right in the twelfth chapter.
P.H.P. And the Shunammite's supreme act of righteousness was to build a chamber on the wall. That was righteousness.
J.T. That is, she was abounding in liberality, but her liberality took the form of caring for the "holy man of God". If we have means, then to care for those who are concerned about the testimony of God should be our special exercise.
F.L. What you were saying suggests the verse,
"Be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved children", Ephesians 5:1. I mean acting like God.
A.F.M. Would you regard the first woman as representing life, and the second as life more abundantly? I was thinking of the word 'great'.
J.T. The Shunammite so far does not go beyond Romans, as far as I see. She has not as yet found an object outside of herself according to the passage. Subsequent history brings in a new object, for her affections, but for the moment she is a great woman, and uses her means for the benefit of the testimony, and is content to dwell with her own people.
J.T. That is life according to Romans 8.
P.H.P. She is what you might call a Roman Christian. When she gets an object outside of herself she passes into Colossians.
F.L. I think she reaches the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus in a way, because she will not accept anybody but Elisha when her son is taken. Life is in him; it is in connection with him. She discerns that he alone can bring in life.
J.T. And see what taste she had in selecting furniture. She considers for the man of God who is to occupy the chamber. He is a holy man of God. She perceived that by his walk, which shows that she had discernment. The passage reads: "she said to her husband". Notice how she recognises her husband. "I perceive that this is a holy man of God, who passes by us continually. Let us make, I pray thee, a small upper chamber with walls, and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a seat, and a lampstand". That is the furniture, which shows good taste, I think.
F.L. We would say our houses were very poorly furnished if we only had those things.
J.T. Yes, but it does not say what she might have had. What I wish to point out is that she thought of what was suitable to this man. She had right instincts as to what was becoming to the testimony.
C.B. It indicates what is necessary for a holy man.
A.F.M. What does the furniture signify?
J.T. I do not know what they might be in detail, but at any rate they were befitting in her mind a holy man of God.
Ques. Do you not think we have men of that type today, who are prepared to lay down their lives for the brethren?
J.T. I would not like to say much on those lines, lest we might be considered as taking too high ground, but I believe the recovery of the light of the Spirit, and the recognition that we may give to the Spirit, will bring about at the end of the dispensation what marked the beginning, not in quantity, but in quality. I believe the testimony we have in Revelation shows that the end will afford that which marked the beginning in the principle of it.
A.F.M. Going back to the little chamber for a moment, it says it was on the wall, it was elevated; and then the bed might suggest rest, the table food, the candlestick light and the stool meditation or discipleship.
Romans 8:1 - 17; 2 Corinthians 5:14 - 18
B.T.F. Following on the first incident in 2 Kings 4, which we have considered, we get the Shunammite, the great woman, and her love for the testimony. Why did death come in upon her son?
J.T. It raises a question as to the teaching of the remaining part of the chapter. Gehazi discerned that there was a want with her, notwithstanding that she had means and a husband, and made no form of request. She was childless, and what follows suggests a maternal thought, which means that the Spirit forms Christ in the believer. He not only enables us to meet our liabilities, and to help others who care for the testimony, but He forms Christ in the saints.
G.W.H. Would you say that is the Spirit's normal work?
J.T. I think it is after our side is settled. The maternal thought is very interesting, and it runs throughout Scripture. It has been already alluded to; "the joy that a man has been born into the world" (John 16:21) -- a Man. The disciples had to go through sorrow, and so did this woman; her sorrow was that the man child born is taken away in death. But she was to have him, not as born after the flesh, or given in connection with the flesh, but out of death. It refers to what takes place in the believer's soul.
C.A.M. The child is typically after a spiritual order when brought to life again. Were you referring to that?
J.T. The child dies. The thought is that Christ is to be before us, not as He was, but as He is.
A.F.M. The second epistle to the Corinthians is
helpful; we now no longer know Christ after the flesh.
J.T. You do not know Him in that way now. We know Him as He is.
P.H.P. In connection with Israel, it is when the Child is born, but in Christianity it is a Man. We have to get the full thought, Christ in another sphere.
F.L. The birth of Isaac, and then his being given over to death and received back in connection with the purpose of God is a kindred thought. Everything is established in the one brought back from the dead.
A.N.W. Both Isaac and this son were given of God even after the flesh, were they not?
J.T. I think they both refer to Christ as He was after the flesh. Mary Magdalene would have retained Him on that ground, but He refused her touch. He has to be known on other ground than that. He was to be known as risen and in heaven.
G.W.H. The moment comes in the history of the soul when you apprehend Christ risen and glorified. A new day dawns to you.
B.T.F. The death and resurrection of the child would occasion much exercise to the mother. In the Christian this would lead to Christ being apprehended as the heavenly One.
J.T. It leads to that. The child is given back to the mother. It says in verse 36: "And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. And he called her; And she came to him. And he said, Take up thy son. And she came and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground; and she took up her son, and went out", 2 Kings 4:36 - 37. She has her son now in another way, and then immediately upon that you have the figure of the meal. That is Christ is apprehended now, although having passed out of death, as still a Man.
F.L. It goes somewhat further than resurrection. I mean there immediately comes in the thought of new creation. We apprehend Christ as in a new sphere.
J.T. The thought of the "meal" here is different from what we had in connection with Elijah in 1 Kings 17. That is Christ as He was here in the flesh. That was not the remedy for things, although He brought in all that is of God and every requisite for the recovery of Israel. Really the remedy is Christ as He is now. It is Christ as He is now that the Holy Spirit witnesses to and brings in here as the remedy.
A.F.M. Nevertheless, all that He was morally in the days of His flesh is taken up in resurrection. Nothing is lost by His dying.
J.T. So the Gospels all have to be read in the light of the last chapter in each. His ministry had His death and resurrection in view. Hence the gospels are written from the standpoint of Christ risen and glorified, written really by the Holy Spirit come down from heaven, come down from that Man in heaven. Hence the Gospels become in that sense meal for us.
F.L. Mr. Darby had the thought when he said,
What He brought into manhood is everlasting. The manna was to be laid up in the presence of God in the golden pot. The thought is not to be lost.
A.N.W. Was the main reason for Christ having come after the flesh to put an end to the old order?
J.T. So much was involved that one would scarcely undertake to say. In Romans 8 we have a very important feature. "God, having sent his own Son in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has
condemned sin in the flesh", Romans 8:3. But there was also, in the way of testimony, in His presence here, all that was necessary for the restoration of Israel. "How often would I have gathered thy children as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!", Matthew 23:37. Throughout the Gospels you have reference to that. "Behold thy King cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass", Matthew 21:5. There was the testimony. He was there, with power to re-establish them, but they would not receive Him.
J.T. Because of their state it was ineffective.
F.L. In addition to that, you would emphasise that for God it was a necessity that in the scene where man had failed under the power of Satan, man should stand for God. I mean that the fact that a man dependent upon God should answer to Him in the scene where Satan had previously overthrown man, is God's side. It is very important in that way, I think.
J.T. The visits to the different points, Gilgal, Bethel, etc., by Elijah and Elisha, as referred to already, were to call attention to the fact that these features of God's testimony, although witnessed to, had not been established on that line. Even the disciples say, "We had hoped that he was [the one] who is about to .. redeem Israel", Luke 24:21. In that same chapter, we have the Lord opening up to them that He must suffer and die according to the Scriptures; but the exposition that He gave them in that chapter was from the standpoint of His position as risen. The Gospel necessarily depends on that. It is a Christ who came by water and blood that is presented in the glad tidings by the Holy Spirit come down from heaven. That is the remedy for the "death in the pot", 2 Kings 4:40.
J.S. In Christendom they are going on with Christ as He was, and the testimony is not effective with them. They have no apprehension of Christ as He now is.
J.T. That is very true. It shows the ineffectiveness of what is about us, that nothing is remedied, whereas the true remedy is the meal. "Bring meal", the prophet says.
A.F.M. The point is the transference from the old side to the new. Would you say a little upon the difference between the expression "in Christ" in Romans and in 2 Corinthians 5?
J.T. I think in Romans "in Christ" refers to what we are here in the sphere of responsibility; one has a new head; whereas 2 Corinthians 5 says: "If any one be in Christ, there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. And all things are of the God". It takes in the whole divine thought; whereas in Romans, I am simply transferred from Adam to Christ, I apprehend.
W.L.P. Referring to Christ here, it is very important that we become familiar with Him as He was here by reading the Gospels, is it not?
J.T. I think that is really the "meal" the prophet spoke of.
W.L.P. That leads our thoughts to Him where He is, and that is where we get the blessing.
J.T. It is knowing Him where He is that enables you to appreciate what He was.
F.L. "Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone", John 12:24. Up to that point you might say He was alone here for God. He was a Man who stood for God.
J.S. I think what you say about reading the Gospels in the light of the closing chapters is very helpful. We read them in the light of His death, resurrection and ascension.
A.P. What is the difference between the Last Adam and the new man?
J.T. Well, Christ is never said to be the new man. He is said to be the Last Adam and the Second Man. The Last Adam refers to Him as a life giving Spirit, and involves that He is divine. He is God really, for to God alone belongs the prerogative to give life, whereas the point in connection with the Second Man is that He is "out of heaven". Hence the importance of the apostle's remark that we do not know Him as He was, we now know Him as He is. That is the point of it, and the Holy Spirit has come down from Him there.
B.T.F. Then what would you say regarding the contemplation of Christ as He was? Might we not feed on Him as manna, and in that way be helped?
J.T. The manna is for those who know Him as He is. It is as knowing Him as He is that you go back to what He was and feed on it.
A.F.M. Is the meal a further development of the truth in the passage?
J.T. The meal comes in immediately and I believe it refers to our apprehending the heavenly Man, and then what follows upon that is the man from Baal-shalisha, which refers, I think, to the place where He is; "The Son of man who is in heaven", John 3:13.
A.A.T. What would you say the pottage referred to, in contrast to the meal? The meal was put in the pot.
J.T. It is what was there. The passage reads, "Elisha came again to Gilgal. And there was a famine in the land; and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him. And he said to his servant, Set on the great pot, and boil pottage for the sons of the prophets. Then one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered from it his lap full of wild colocynths,
and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they did not know them. And they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out and said, Man of God, there is death in the pot! And they could not eat [it]. And he said, Then bring meal. And he cast [it] into the pot, and said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot" (2 Kings 4:38 - 41). I think, what may be noticed is, that it was the prophet who cast it in, he represented God. It is, I think, the way in which Christ is introduced in the ministry of the Spirit.
G.W.H. In this fourth chapter do you get an account of the complete work of the Spirit in the soul?
F.L. I suppose we get a kind of climax in the concluding verses of the chapter, barley loaves and the full ears of corn.
J.T. The last paragraph typifies a heavenly scene.
F.L. New creation is spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5, and typically it is seen in this chapter in 2 Kings.
J.T. In 2 Corinthians we have the idea of a man in Christ, and that he was caught up into Paradise. That really fits in with these closing verses.
F.L. Do you not think, that if 2 Corinthians 5 went on to show us the full product of the ministry of reconciliation we would have what we get in the end of 2 Kings 4? The product of the ministry of reconciliation is the barley loaves and the full ears of corn.
J.T. Of course barley loaves refer to what Christ is as the firstfruits. I suppose the barley was the first part of the harvest, and no doubt the sheaf of firstfruits in Leviticus 23 was the barley, so that it would all point to Christ as He is now.
B.T.F. Are the firstfruits on the same line as the meal?
J.T. The firstfruits are for God, as we see in the sheaf being waved before Jehovah in Leviticus 23.
B.T.F. The meal is the heavenly One?
J.T. I think the meal is Christ as He is now, the Second Man out of heaven.
J.S. Are not the barley loaves included in Christianity? Referring to the closing paragraph in 2 Kings 4:42 - 44, the man from Baal-shalisha would suggest Christ in heaven and then the barley loaves and corn would embrace Christianity, would they not?
J.T. I should say so. It reads: "And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack. And he said, Give to the people, that they may eat. And his attendant said, How shall I set this before a hundred men? And he said, Give the people, that they may eat; for thus saith Jehovah: They shall eat and shall have to spare. And he set [it] before them, and they ate, and left [thereof], according to the word of Jehovah", 2 Kings 4:42 - 44.
P.H.P. The bread in the end of the chapter is Christ according to Ephesians. The woman receiving the child again is according to Colossians, "Christ in you".
A.F.M. I suppose the prime thought is the greatness of the supply; "they ate, and left [thereof]", 2 Kings 4:44.
J.T. So that the whole chapter taken together is a wonderful presentation in type of Christianity, the magnitude and abundance which mark it.
A.F.M. There will be something for the Jews by and by.
J.S. So at the close it is not yet exhausted. We are first, but, as you say, we leave something for the Jews.
J.T. What has occurred to me of late is that, whilst we should surely be very much humbled on account of conditions that exist, the failure that marks the history of the church, yet the Spirit of God would emphasise the character of the dispensation, what it is from the divine side. It remains what it was, and the Holy Spirit being here, we may count upon an answer to God's desires at the end.
F.L. I think we have the same thought of abundance brought forward in John 6. It was "five barley loaves". Here where it is indicative of the day of the Spirit it is twenty loaves, beside the full ears of corn.
P.H.P. What you were suggesting would culminate in a real heartfelt desire for the Lord to come, so the bride would say, "Come".
C.A.M. In John 6 it is the bread come down from heaven; and that refers to Christ personally?
W.H.F. Knowing Christ, where He is is not simply a question of faith as to where He is, although that is involved, but it is conscious knowledge by the Spirit.
J.T. I think the teaching of Colossians centres in the mystery, as the mystery is presented in that epistle, "which is Christ in you, the hope of glory", Colossians 1:27. In Ephesians it is said that God "has raised [us] up together, and has made [us] sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus", Ephesians 2:6. We are in Him in heaven. Then it is further said in Ephesians, "that the Christ may dwell through faith, in your hearts", Ephesians 3:17. It is a further and a greater thought than simply that He should be in us, but that He dwells in us.
C.A.M. Would you say the passage in Colossians, "Christ in you the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27) is a further thought than Romans, having the Spirit of Christ?
J.T. In Romans 8 there is an "if". "If Christ be in you", although it was true, no doubt, of the
Romans, at the same time it may not have been true of some of them. "If Christ be in you" the apostle says, "the body is dead on account of sin". But in Colossians he says, "Christ in you", without an "if".
F.L. I think Colossians suggests the definite formative work. Ephesians goes further and gives the full developed result.
A.F.M. Would you say that in Philadelphia we have the same thought in connection with recovery? The thought of the Lord's coming is there too, and it is carried right through and found in Revelation 22.
J.T. Would you not think that in regard to Philadelphia, Christ is in them really, because everything is personal there; it is My word -- My name -- My God, etc. It seems to me that what has brought about Philadelphia is a presentation of Christ so that He has become the supreme object of the saints.
C.A.M. To go back in the chapter for a moment, when this child was brought to life again in the image, as it were, of the man of God, would that correspond with "renewed into full knowledge according to [the] image of him that has created him", Colossians 3:10.
F.T. I apprehend that the prophet stretching himself on the child, and putting his eyes on the child's eyes, and his hands on the child's hands, and his mouth to the child's mouth, is the way Christ is formed in the saint. It typifies how Christ is presented to the believer so that a corresponding subjective result may be produced.
J.T. The new man in Colossians 3 is "according to the image of him that has created him".
C.A.M. I was struck with the idea of image.
A.F.M. In verses 32 - 34 of 2 Kings 4 the expression child is used, and afterwards he is called son. "Take up thy son", Elisha says, and she "took up her son and went out", 2 Kings 4:37.
J.T. Evidently the desire of her heart was to have a son and now she has him as risen from the dead. Compare Isaiah 9:6.
W.H.F. Christ dwelling in your heart by faith is the exalted Christ. That would take account of Him in relation to the divine system, as "the Christ".
A.R. Referring to 2 Corinthians 5:16; when we come together to remember the Lord, do we remember Him as He was or as He is now?
J.T. As He is now I should say. He does not exist as He was.
A.R. Do we not contemplate Him as the Man down here when we come together in that special way?
J.T. You recall the circumstances, but it is Himself you call to mind.
A.R. He is the glorified Man now.
F.L. So if a man goes away from home for a year his wife looks at his photograph, it is to bring him to mind.
J.T. Morally what Christ is now He was when here on earth, and really it is by our knowledge of Him now that we apprehend His manner of life when here; but it is a mistake to think that the Lord's supper is meant to be a remembrance of what He was. "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19) was given out from heaven. It is the Person that is to be remembered, and, of course, He exists only as He is now in heaven. The apostle says: "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more".
A.F.M. We do not remember a dead Christ exactly?
J.T. The Lord's supper recalls Himself, the living One, who became dead; death is the proof of this love. I think we feed on a dead Christ. His flesh is truly meat and His blood is truly drink. We need
such food as that whilst we are down here. That is John 6.
A.F.M. But that is not the Supper?
J.T. Only there is the idea of food in the Lord's supper. It has been remarked that there are two ordinances in Christianity; baptism and the Lord's supper; one introduces me into the wilderness, and the other sustains me in the wilderness. You do feed on what is presented. The thought of food is present. "Take, eat; this is my body", 1 Corinthians 11:24. Surely there is spiritual sustenance in that. It is Christ come down from heaven and dying. That is a very solemn thing, but it sustains our souls as we feed on it while we are down here.
A.P. Why is it called "Supper?"
J.T. Well, it is the last meal of the day, but it is a meal, and so involves sustenance. The idea in Scripture is you eat to live. This is taught in John 6.
A.P. It is to sustain us down here in our wilderness journey, but I was wondering why it is called Supper.
F.L. And not dinner, you mean. I suppose dinner is connected with the introduction of the millennial day, John 21. The supper comes when the work of the day is over. We sit down restfully at supper; we have not a day before us.
J.S. There is nothing to disturb, so you are free to enjoy it.
A.N.W. And we regard the Lord just about to come.
A.F.M. Would you limit John 6 to the Lord's supper?
J.T. No, but the thought enters into it. What we have before us in the emblems is a dead Christ. The blood is separate from the body. That is a solemn thing. It is death that is before us, but it is death as the evidence of love. That is what it is.
A.F.M. So we recall Him as He is, but feed on Him as having died.
F.L. I think the Lord's presentation to John personally helps us in that way. John says, "I became in [the] Spirit on the Lord's day" (Revelation 1:10) and then the Lord presents Himself. "I am the first and the last, and the living one; and I became dead, and behold, I am living to the ages of ages", Revelation 1:17 - 18. Now as we are in the Spirit on the Lord's day, He discovers Himself to us as the living One, who was dead, and is alive for ever.
J.S. Had you any thought of dwelling further on Romans 8?
J.T. It is the variety of ways in which the Spirit is available to the believer. It says: "ye are not in flesh, but in Spirit, if indeed God's Spirit dwell in you". There the believer, as having the Spirit, is entitled to regard himself as in the Spirit. It is a matter of light as to the Spirit.
C.A.M. And a man in that condition would be able to say "When we were in the flesh" (Romans 7:5) as a past thing, would he not?
J.T. Yes. You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if so be that God's Spirit dwell in you.
B.T.F. "A man in Christ" (2 Corinthians 12:2) goes further than that?
J.T. Yes. Here the believer is entitled to regard himself as in the Spirit and not in the flesh. It is a delivering thought. The flesh is a present thing with us and asserts itself, and we are at times baffled, discouraged and dejected, whereas this comes in as a matter of light and comfort. As having the Spirit of God, you are entitled to ever regard yourself as in the Spirit.
W.H.F. Would you call that the divine side?
J.T. It is the ground the believer is to take, as corresponding with his position in Christ.
W.L.P. The Spirit of Christ would be that which is produced in us, I suppose, by the Spirit of God?
J.T. He characterises you. The Spirit becomes characteristic of you.
F.L. What we get here is very largely a question of title, while Galatians 5 is more what is worked out subjectively; the fruit of the Spirit. You are entitled to reckon yourself that way.
H.C. Is this statement, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit" true of every believer from God's side?
J.T. Every one who has the Spirit of God, and then we have the Spirit of Christ: "If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him" and then, "If Christ be in you, the body is dead on account of sin; but the Spirit life on account of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that has raised up Jesus from among the dead dwell in you, he that has raised up Christ from among the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit which dwells in you ... . If ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live: for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God". There are the different connections, and it is most important for each believer to see that he has the Spirit and that is power, as indicated here.
A.R.S. What is the difference between "in Spirit" here and in Revelation where John says, "I became in [the] Spirit on the Lord's day", Revelation 1:10.
J.T. There, I think, he is wholly under the control of the Spirit, in a state of blessed abstraction, whereas Romans is light for those who have the Spirit, they are no longer in the flesh. They are thus fortified against the flesh.
A.R.S. What you are saying recalls to me what I heard a great many years ago. Mr. Stoney spoke of standing and state. Now this is standing, is it not?
J.T. No, this is state, only it is presented abstractly. In virtue of the possession of the Holy Spirit you have a state corresponding with your standing. According to chapter 6 I reckon myself alive to God in Christ. That is a reckoning, you see, but then this chapter supports the reckoning, so that in it you find the support of the Spirit and you are entitled to regard that as qualifying you subjectively for the presence of God. This helps one, too, against the inroads of the flesh. I know it helps me. Under all circumstances I hold to this one thought. I know I have the Spirit and, as having the Spirit, I am entitled to regard myself as in the Spirit and not in the flesh. It is a great stay to the heart.
Ques. Do you call Romans 8 light?
J.T. It is light, just as what we get in 2 Kings 4. Elisha represents the light of God. Now Romans 8 is light in regard to the Spirit.
A.N.W. I thought light refers to what is objective.
J.T. Yes, but you need light as to what is subjective. The widow needed light as to what she had in the house. That is light as to what is in the house, so to speak.
A.N.W. Corresponding with chapter 5, which is objective?
J.T. I think so. The epistle is divided into two parts, as we know, at chapter 5, and I apprehend that what we get up to that chapter is what has been effected in Christ outside of myself; but I want to know what is "in the house", what I have. I have the Spirit, and chapter 8 is light as to this. So it is in that way that I am guided. Even the resurrection of the body, the quickening, is by the Spirit in this chapter, whereas the Lord does it elsewhere and God does it. Here it is "on account of his Spirit which dwells in you".
J.C. Will you speak of: "If any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him".
J.T. That disqualifies a great many. The question is, Have you the Spirit of Christ? That is how a man is marked off.
Rem. You can see it if a man has the Spirit of Christ.
Ques. Would Stephen illustrate it? He is spoken of as being full of the Holy Spirit, and at the end of Acts 7 he is marked by the Spirit of Christ.
J.T. That is very beautiful. You mean that he prayed for his enemies.
A.F.M. You do not unchristianise a man if he has not the Spirit of Christ? You would not say he was not a believer?
J.T. You do not know. What have you to go by?
A.F.M. No, but he is not of Christ's order or kind if he has not Christ's Spirit.
J.T. It means that he has no part in Christ.
F.L. The only thing we can go by is fruit. Beyond that we have to leave it. If proud, haughty and pleasure loving, we are checked by this if we profess to be Christians.
A.F.M. There are many weak believers that stumble at that verse and wonder if they are believers at all.
J.T. It does not refer to such. In this same epistle it says, "him that is weak in the faith receive", Romans 14:1. One may be weak in the faith and yet a brother; so it does not refer to people like that at all, but to pretentious people with great light and natural intelligence, but not a right spirit.
A.A.T. I once heard you remark that nobody could judge himself unless he had the Spirit.
J.T. Not rightly and fully without the Spirit of God.
W.L.P. Others have to judge by the fruit if you have the Spirit of Christ.
F.L. The distinction in the New Translation is important. In the authorised version it is, "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his", but the language rightly should be, "If any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him".
H.C. Speaking of the Spirit of that Man, Christ, is it the result of formation that is referred to here; as we are formed by the Spirit, the Spirit of that Man comes out. Is that not what this refers to?
Psalm 118:22 - 24; Acts 2:1 - 4, 32 - 36
In reading this passage from the Psalms what I had in mind was to call attention particularly to the twenty-fourth verse: "This is the day that Jehovah hath made". I wish to call attention to that day, a day of divine design and making; and in speaking about the day that the Lord hath made one is reminded of the first piece of workmanship in the creation as we know it. It was a day: "There was evening, and there was morning -- the first day", Genesis 1:5. God in that way began His work with one day. I am not ignoring what He had done before, for much preceded that day, both in regard to time and in regard to work. God speaks to Job of a day, antecedent to this, a period in which God had laid the foundations of the earth. He wrought by weight and measure, having in mind the top stone, as it were, so that all should be perfectly poised. He wrought with design, and it is said that "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy", Job 38:7. They took account of what He was doing and they sympathised with Him in it. They were "glad in it".
In Genesis 1 the measure of time that we find, covered by the word "day", involves, as I said, a piece of workmanship. God had commanded that there should be light. He commanded that. It was imperative; anything that God commands is imperative. It was imperative on account of the darkness; it says, "there was light", and, the light appearing at His word, He names it. "God called the light Day" (Genesis 1:5) and it "was good".
Now I mention all this so that you may at the outset have before you what I have in mind, namely, that a day is a measure of time, and that it is equivalent to light. "He called the light Day" (Genesis 1:5) then, as
a measure of time divinely prescribed and named, it involves responsibility. In other words, in our histories each day has its own responsibilities and its own possibilities. As the sun arises on each of us, normally we think of what lies ahead, of the possibilities of the day, and of the responsibilities of the day. So that our lives are just so many days.
Now God makes each day for us, as I was saying. I never look at my days as simply the product of the revolution of the sun; that is mechanical. They were all seen in the distance by God, and I never curse any of them. A Christian never curses any of his days. Do you ever regret the days? Jacob's were six score years and ten multiplied by three hundred and sixty-five. They were evil days, according to his own judgment of them. "The days of the years of my sojourning", he says, "are a hundred and thirty years. Few and evil have been the days of the years of my life", Genesis 47:9. Now that should not be a Christian's experience. Job cursed his day, the day on which he was born. Think of that! A day on which the sun arose, a day in which, as we might say, the moon and the stars with all their benign influence appeared. A puny man lifts up his voice to curse a day on which he was born! Were there no others born on that day? Such is man left to himself. He cursed his day in eloquent language, too.
I am making these remarks in a very practical way to raise concern with us as to how we look at our days, and how we spend them. It is happy for us if we can take a retrospective view, and see that there has been something for God in each day that is past; and thus as day is added to day, and week to week, and month to month, and year to year, there is woven out in my history that which God can take up, and this is in view of the great moral system of things that He has in His mind for the
future. Such I perceive are Christian days, days in which men and women, justified through the death of the Lord Jesus and indwelt by the Spirit of God, spend their time on this earth. Such days are not evil: a day in which one lives in the Spirit and walks in the Spirit is truly very good. But what I have in mind is not our days, but the day which God has made for His own satisfaction; a day in which His nature and attributes are seen.
Now I want to say a word about a day mentioned in the book of Joshua, about which the Spirit of God says, there was none like it before nor after; that is, up to the time in which the event was recorded. It was a day in which God's people, led by Joshua, were confronted by powerful enemies, and Joshua lifts up his voice to God. He prays, as we may say, to Jehovah, and the word was that the sun should stand still and the moon in the valley of Ajalon. Now think of that for a moment, as a day. It was an arresting of the course of the heavenly bodies at the voice of a man. Is that not like our day? Has not the course of moral history been stayed by the voice of a Man? As the Lord Jesus Christ hung on Calvary's cross, there was being perpetuated a crime the like of which never had been enacted before nor since. The normal answer to that crime, the normal penalty, would have been vengeance. The normal course of government implied that penalty should have been meted out to the perpetrators of that crime, and others that had been accumulating up to that time; but a Man speaks! One might picture all the heavenly intelligences hushed, if those on earth were not, to hearken to the movement of those holy lips of Christ on the cross, as He says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", Luke 23:34. We might say the course of government was arrested as that voice arose. He dies; He is buried; He rises; He goes into
heaven, and again a voice of prayer. He received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and He sheds it forth, and we have thus introduced what we may call "The day which the Lord hath made". Viewed from the governmental side, a parenthesis had begun. The clock, as it were, the clock of time, as we have often heard it, had stopped. In that parenthesis, I may say, following the figure, we have brought about according to divine design, a day.
Joshua caused the sun to stand still. It stopped its course then for vengeance. Heaven helped Israel in the execution of vengeance on their enemies. Now contrast that with the voice of Christ! "Father, forgive them", He says, "for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34) and the clock stops. Christ dies, as I said, and goes into the grave. He is "raised up from among [the] dead by the glory of the Father", Romans 6:4. That does not involve judgment. In that word, "glory of the Father", we have the secret of this great day. It was in the heart of the Father that there should be such a day. Christ was "raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father"; and it is said that He "is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2) not on His own throne yet. That does not enter into the day which the Lord has made; He is on the Father's throne. Jesus is on the Father's throne tonight. Instead of wrath, Christ says to His disciples, "Do ye remain in the city till ye be clothed with power from on high", Luke 24:49. He had a day in His mind, and He says further to them that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem", Luke 24:47. That is another element of the day.
After saying these things He blesses His disciples and is carried up into heaven. He is thus made the Head of the corner. Now it is in Christ being there that one sees the completion of what one might call the heavenly side of the day, for the day stretches
down to earth. The light is there. The Psalmist says, "This is of Jehovah" (Psalm 118:23) He has placed that Man on His throne. It is said of Solomon that he sat on the throne of Jehovah. A remarkable expression, meaning that in that man's reign there should be the fulfilment of the promises of God to Israel. Now what about Christ's position on the Father's throne? What does that mean to me? It means the fulfilment, not of promises, although promises will be fulfilled; it means the outshining of what God is. I want to make that clear to you.
What I am leading up to is the day in which we are now. Christ on the Father's throne means the outshining of what God is, and the administration of all the blessing He has in His heart for men. It is the day of the reign of grace and of the activities of the Holy Spirit. Think of all that entering into a day! We must allow God to limit the length of that day. If He makes it, He makes it great enough and long enough to accomplish His blessed designs. Jesus is on the Father's throne! Let those words sink down into your hearts. He is on the Father's throne. John says, referring to this very thing, "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things [to be] in his hand", John 3:35. Now there must be a period of time in which Jesus, the Son, administers the "all things" and so, the next person He meets, according to John's record, is the woman of Samaria. Jesus "sat just as He was". If there is one thing about the blessed Lord more than another, it is that He never was affected. He was always just as He was. He "sat just as he was at the fountain" (John 4:6) but beneath that outward garb of humanity, yea human weariness, was the Son. "If thou knewest" He says, "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", John 4:10. Living
water is given in that day that the Lord has made. It belongs to it.
The Spirit of God in the second of Acts sets out in beautiful order the facts that occurred on the day of Pentecost. It says, "When the day of Pentecost was now accomplishing ... there came suddenly a sound out of heaven as of a violent impetuous blowing", That was what was observable in Jerusalem. Instead of wrath, there came out of heaven a sound "as of a violent impetuous blowing, and filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each of them". And then it says, "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave to them to speak forth". Now these are the facts and I want you to note them. They are all simple, well known perhaps to many of us, but I wish you to note them. "They were all filled", it says, "with the Holy Spirit". Filled! You see the day had extended down to earth. It was complete. The Son is in the heavens, Jesus is on the Father's throne, and as there, as Peter explains, "having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this".
Now I want you to dwell on these things. My point is that we might go back to the beginning and see what the day is that Jehovah had made. It says, "he has poured out this which ye behold and hear". You may say to me, 'We have no difficulty about Christ in the heavens. We believe it. We believe that Christ is in heaven, but our difficulty is that we do not see here on earth that which is spoken of in this chapter' . With shamefacedness we, as Christians, have to admit that, whilst we are assured, yea certain, that the Holy Spirit is here, yet there is very little to "see and hear"; but, whilst I say very little, I imply that there is something on earth. You
will remember how the Lord said to Philadelphia, "thou hast a little power", Revelation 3:8. Now it is worth while to look out for that "little power", if you desire to have some idea of the day in which we live. It may require, and indeed men of God have done this, that we put our faces between our knees, like Elijah at mount Carmel, to see it. Elijah sent his servant to see the sign of the blessing coming. He says, "Behold, there is a cloud, small as a man's hand, arising out of the sea",1 Kings 18:44. That is enough! If you put your face between your knees, or as Paul says, "Bow my knees" (Ephesians 3:14) in exercise of soul, you may depend upon it that you will see the evidence of blessing. The use of the words "a man's hand" is suggestive. A man's hand belongs to the day. Whilst the Lord was here His hand wrought. "I must work ..". He says, "while it is day. [The] night is coming, when no one can work" (John 9:4), and so the work goes on. What work? The work of God. I have not a doubt about it. At the beginning we see "the wonderful works of God" these works continue, the Holy Spirit being here, the hand of God is here, and so the work goes on. Thank God for that! I thoroughly believe that as we are exercised before God we shall see it, and the more you see it the less discouraged you are. But it is not only that that hand is for me, I want to be with it. You want to be with that hand, and the more you are with it, the more you realise that it is with you. That is the encouragement that I see for the moment.
Now that is the nature of the day; that is, the day which Jehovah has made, and I want to appeal to every one of you and to myself, as to whether, first of all, you see it, as to whether you are aware of it and its magnitude, and as to whether you have any joy in it? The Spirit of Christ says, "we will rejoice and be glad in it". I am prepared to get down with brethren as regards the failure of the
church. I believe it; I own it; but we must not lose sight of the day that the Lord has made. We must not lose sight of that day, and in apprehending it you are not going to be out of accord with it. I would cite you as an example of what I am remarking, Gideon. The book of Judges depicts a period in which Jehovah was acknowledged to be Israel's King. Gideon accomplished a great victory and the people are prepared to make him the king. Ours is the day in which there is outwardly no king. I hope it is not a day in which every one does what is right in his own eyes. We should be like the locusts who have no king, yet "they go forth all of them by bands", Proverbs 30:27. Now we do not want to alter that state of things. The people say to Gideon "Rule thou over us". Gideon replies: "I will not rule over you ... Jehovah will rule over you", Judges 8:23. That was a noble reply. Is there anyone who wants to be in the place of leadership? Think of Gideon! He was true to his day. His son Abimelech, alas, came forward to rule, and slew his brethren to this end. We do not want that, we want things as God has made them. We cannot improve on the day. It is the day which Jehovah has made. Our part is to rejoice and be glad in it. Is it so with us?
I close with that, although I have treated the subject very imperfectly and inadequately; but I think I have made clear to you that God has inaugurated a period of time, a day, which is according to His own blessed nature. It is governed from His own throne, the Father's throne, by a Man. As Ezekiel saw in the vision the figure of a man in the bright spot "above the expanse" (Ezekiel 1:26) so Stephen sees Jesus in the brightest spot in the glory. Seeing Jesus there, Stephen bows his knees. He was a wonderful reflection of the light of the Father's throne and the prayer uttered by Christ! "And kneeling down, he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay
not this sin to their charge", Acts 7:60. He was in wonderful accord with the day that Jehovah had made. He was equal to it under the most painful circumstances. He was a perfect reflection of Christ in the midst of the darkness in Jerusalem. How one would seek to be that! To be just unvarnished, unaffected, to be here according to the divine appointment, maintaining in one's ways, and walk, and spirit, the day which Jehovah has made, and rejoicing in it and being glad in it! May God grant this to us!
Luke 24:33 - 40; John 20:19 - 23
The word mutuality has been much in my mind today, and it is the word I wish to speak about from these scriptures to show that Christianity in its inception was to be marked by this.
The Lord in leaving His disciples on earth and going to the Father, took great pains to fortify them in view of the varied contingencies which would arise during the period of His absence, and I need not remind you that His words were not simply local in their bearing; they show the end from the beginning; indeed one might say that the gospel narratives are rarely, if at all, local. They are on the divine platform, it being the divine mind for them to be narrated and left with us. Their bearing is general and universal, so that in treating of the truth from different points of view they treat of it in its entirety, at least in principle. The epistles no doubt give details, but the gospels set out the truth in its general bearing, and this especially as referring to the truth of the assembly.
The Lord at the close of His sojourn on earth, having withdrawn from His public service, devoted Himself to the company He had drawn around Himself. He was about to suffer, and He had them in His mind, He was not thinking of the nation now, but the "you", the tiny band of whom He had previously spoken as "a little flock". He loved to regard them in that light. He said, "Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of your Father to give you the kingdom", Luke 12:32. It was the Father's pleasure and He would prepare them for that, and for occupying here on earth until His return. So He devoted Himself to them, especially on the last night, the night of His betrayal, and the disciple John is specially
selected by the Spirit as the vessel to enlarge on that evening. The disciple John, who styles himself as "that disciple ... whom Jesus loved" (John 21:7) was humble and unpretentious as to himself, yet enjoying the greatest thoughts and privileges. He had access to the heart of Jesus. He was, we may say, the antitype of the Urim and Thummim. Hence he was qualified to be taken up by the Spirit to narrate for us the occurrences of that last evening. He lived to be a very old man, and I have not a doubt that he reverted continuously to that time. It was the evening of all evenings to him, the evening in which he received impressions that never left him.
So he tells us in this whole chapter and the four following ones, about what happened, what the Lord Jesus did on that night. It is an account in which every one who loves Jesus delights, for he lives in what is there. The Lord, at the end of His discourse in connection with feet-washing and His betrayal, said, "A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you" (John 13:34) That ye love one another: it is an enforced statement, and then to reinforce this He said, "By this shall all know that ye are disciples of mine, if ye have love amongst yourselves", John 13:35. Yourselves. Have we that? It is this word that I dwell on for a moment, for it conveys to us the thought I have in my mind, namely, mutuality. The word "yourselves" refers to John and James and Peter, Matthew, Thomas and all the others. It is a word that conveys mutuality. We are to have love amongst us.
Now before I dwell further on this point I wish to remind you that in John's gospel the Lord places Himself, as it were, in the centre of a vast expanse, an expanse far exceeding what we call 'the solar system' The Lord was "the true light ... which ... lightens every man", John 1:9. The light was impartial. The word impartiality may be conveniently grouped
with mutuality. If you are partial you will not be mutual. If you are impartial you will arrive at mutuality. The Lord Jesus shone "on every man", not every Jew merely. John says further, "In him was life, and the life was the light of men", John 1:4. Dear brethren, let me press this on you and on myself, let us not refuse to be tested by that one statement. The Lord Jesus sets forth the great idea of impartiality. Christians are to be impartial. James says we are to act "without partiality".
John tells us in chapter 13 that supper being ended, Jesus took a towel and water and washed the disciples' feet. He might have requested that one of His disciples should help. No: there is to be no help in feet washing. You are to do it yourself. Do not say you cannot. The Lord did it Himself without any aid. Martha had complained that she did not get any help. There was ground for it from the natural point of view, but none at all from the spiritual. In service you do not seek it. The Lord was pleased to gird Himself. He took water, poured it into a basin, and washed the feet of each disciple. He did it. What a model for us! He says, "Do ye know what I have done to you?", John 13:12. Doubtless we all know the letter of that wonderful chapter, but have we understood it? "Ye call me the Teacher and the Lord, and ye say well, for I am [so]. If I therefore, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet", John 13:13 - 14. It is not that Peter should wash John's, and that John should wash Peter's in return; that is not the idea in "one another". "One another" is a mutual expression.
Now to proceed. Judas then went out, and this new commandment was given. I have no doubt that Judas' defection and betrayal of Jesus had brought into evidence their need of love amongst themselves. He had already probed them, in saying, "one of you". They looked on one another, but each said, "Is it
I?" Let us thus turn it on ourselves. That is the sure way of eating the sin offering. Do not say, "It is he", but "Is it I?" Apparently they did not know Judas then. It is one of the twelve, "He it is to whom I, after I have dipped the morsel, give it", John 13:26. "What thou doest, do quickly". Jesus knew what was in Judas' heart to do. It was to be done quickly. And as he received the morsel Satan entered into Judas, and he went out, and it was night. Judas was the leader of the betrayal and hatred against Christ; he is the inaugurator of the anti-Christian world. "He went out", and took out into the world that which had never been there before, the spirit of the betrayal of the Lord Jesus. He left the circle in which Christ was, so there was the necessity for a new commandment in regard to them. Let us never be satisfied with our love for Christ. It is not anything like what it should be. In Peter's case love was so hidden that apparently only the Lord knew it, but it was there. The Lord would have others know of your love for Him. Our love for Him is proved by our love for each other.
It is not wise to tell the brethren that the Lord knows your heart. Make inquiries as to how much they know. Do they know anything about your love? It is a good question. How much do the brethren know of it? Peter says, "Lord, thou knowest that I love thee" (John 21:16); but did John know? The disciples evidently did not know Judas, and that he had no love for Christ. The presence of love amongst ourselves enables us to detect evil, and the good also is rightly estimated. If we take note of who contributes to the saints we shall soon find out who has love. The apostle says, if we have not love we are nothing. The Greeks did not have love, nor the Jews; no nations had it; on the contrary they were hateful and hating one another. What a terrible spectacle the nations present at the present time! But the
Lord's thought was that there should be a circle here marked by having love amongst themselves. It was ever to be there. What a stand-by it has been for Christians since. See how Christians love one another. They have love. It is manifest in their meetings and in their general relations to one another. They prove, we may be assured, that "love never fails", 1 Corinthians 13:8.
Now Jude comes in at the end, in view of the great apostasy: "Beloved ... keep yourselves in the love of God", Jude 1:20 - 21. No one of us is a source in himself, nor can we do without each other; there is to be mutual preservation. "Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God". The love of God always exists, but we are to keep ourselves in it. The Lord says, "When the Son of man comes, shall he indeed find faith", Luke 18:8. One might add, Shall He find love. He has left the Spirit here and has given a new commandment that He might find love when He comes. If a brother fails, the Lord will not cease to shine on him. He will shine on his back; but how much better to be in the circle of the praying ones:
"Ye beloved ... praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God", Jude 1:20 - 21. It becomes mutual. You get love from the same source from whence I get it, for it is entirely impartial. It produces impartiality in your soul and mine, and hence a mutual state of things will exist.
I want to show you further from Genesis how a state of things such as I have described invites a divine visitation, and this visitation is characterised by mutuality. You will have observed that the conditions were such as the Lord could delight in; in other words, Abraham was living up to his light. He was in a tent. The Lord had spoken to him about circumcision. He had changed his name and indicated to him that he was to be the father of many nations. His name was changed from Abram to Abraham. He was in the light of the almighty power of God.
"Walk before my face and be perfect", Genesis 17:1. God says. And now Abraham is in the full light of his calling. He is intelligent as to it. He is sitting in the door of his tent in the plain of Mamre. Abraham lifts up his eyes; previously he had been told that the land, north, south, east and west was his, according to counsel, but Abraham never dug the foundation of a house. He lived in a tent. In Hebrews the Spirit tells us he dwelt in tents by faith with Isaac and Jacob.
The Lord acknowledged the walk and ways of His servant. He comes to His servant; He comes in company, not alone. Abraham saw "three men". Lot saw two angels, but Abraham said "My Lord", though there were three. He was intelligent and humble, yet in perfect liberty, recognising what the Lord would condescend to. He knew the Lord, so be addresses Him, as the passage reads, "My Lord", and "they said", The principle of mutuality is there, dear brethren, but Abraham carefully addresses the Lord, which every one who loves Him, I am sure, would do. The apostle says, "No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in [the power of the] Holy Spirit", 1 Corinthians 12:3. That is a remarkable expression. It is an expression of affection and respect. The Lord is pleased to be amongst us in grace, so in answer to Abraham's proposal it says, "they said". It is to convey the simplicity and mutuality of this remarkable occasion. There was a mutual answer to the proposal of the patriarch, as if the Lord would set Abraham at perfect liberty. There were three visitors to converse with, and before whom he could set down a repast. "They said, So do as thou hast said", Genesis 18:5. Is it not attractive? Is it not worth our while to bring about these conditions? It is. The conditions themselves involve blessing unspeakable.
How much is attained when a visitation of the Lord is secured. He approves what He finds according
to His own mind. He takes a place amongst us as recognising mutual relations, although, of course, always pre-eminent. Compare Peter and the tribute money. "Take that and give it to them for me and thee", Matthew 17:27. The Lord is the Firstborn among many brethren. His message by Mary was to the company who had been attracted to Him, who had continued with Him through His temptation. They were precious in His sight. They were to be regarded as His brethren. Earlier He had partaken of the passover with them. Here again we see mutuality: "with them". The Lord graciously imparts to the scene of Mamre the spirit of mutuality. I believe this spirit of mutuality will be in heaven eternally. It is "Jesus alone with themselves", Mark 9:8. It is marked by perfect simplicity, and yet fraught with infinite blessedness. It is simply "Jesus alone with themselves" -- ourselves. In the meantime, as we are true to His principles, we enjoy His presence in our own circle. There will be suffering, but how can this compare with the enjoyment within, the presence of the Lord amongst us? May He give to understand it, dear brethren.
Matthew 18:1 - 6
References to children in Scripture are numerous, and none are more interesting than those in the gospels. A little child is usually attractive.
In Matthew we are told that the disciples inquired of the Lord, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?" Before replying, "Jesus having called a little child to him, set it in their midst". As in the midst, the child would be before the eyes of all the disciples. The Lord's object in this was to demonstrate to their vision what He was about to convey in words to their ears. So He said, "Verily I say to you, Unless ye are converted, and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens". The kingdom of heaven is of such, hence the urgent need that believers should become as little children. For this conversion is the first necessity, for naturally we do not wish to be considered little children; to become great or conspicuous is the governing motive in the unregenerate heart. The teaching of Christ suggests the opposite of this, and a little child represents the spirit of His instruction. Humility, simplicity, guilelessness and confidingness mark the little child. Hence the Lord says further, "Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of the heavens".
We must inquire more closely into the instruction our Lord was pleased to furnish in this connection. For this we may turn to Mark 9:33, 37. In Matthew 18 it is simply a question as to who is greatest in the kingdom, but in Mark we read of a disputation among themselves who should be greatest, and Luke 9 of the "reasoning of their heart" as to this. Evidently the question was, Who should be greatest
amongst themselves. The Lord discerns this reasoning of their hearts, and rebukes it by setting the little child before them.
In Matthew the child is called; he was not exactly with the Lord, we may say. This is often true of us, although in a general way we may have the character of a little child. But how blessed to have this character, and to be at least within the call of Christ, so that He might use us to reflect His own Spirit and nature before others. According to Mark He takes the little child and sets him in their midst. This suggests previous nearness. It comes after He had "called the twelve", having sat down, and said to them, "If any one would be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all", Mark 9:35. Following this He takes the little child in His arms. How lovely is the picture. How worth while it is to be of no repute in one's own eyes, if, as a consequence, one is taken into the arms of Christ! With this representative of a believer formed after Himself in His arms, the Lord further says, "Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receives me; and whosoever shall receive me, does not receive me, but him who sent me", Mark 9:37. From this statement it is clear that the believer's concern should be, in all his relations to be marked by the spirit and character of Christ. Being "one of such little children" here on earth in Christ's name, the attitude of others towards him, whether it be of love or hatred, is really their attitude toward Christ and toward God. The Lord would call His people to Him, indeed He is doing so, and would sit down and instruct them in this way. May we all hearken and be learners!
Pages 106 - 228 -- "Readings on Leviticus", Brooklyn, 1917 (Volume 36.)
F.L. To understand the point of view in this book I suppose we should refer back to Exodus 40:25. In that chapter things are seen in suitability to God; hence He came to dwell in the tabernacle.
J.T. I think it is well to keep that in view, because the book of Leviticus depends on the teaching of Exodus. Exodus shows how the tabernacle was introduced and reared up; how that in every part it was according to the divine pattern, and anointed with oil; so God was complacent in it and came in to dwell there. "The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle", Exodus 40:35. It is from this position that God speaks to Moses. It will be observed here that God called unto Moses, "and spoke to him out of the tent of meeting". He is now in a position to be approached.
F.L. And it is suitable that He should begin with the burnt-offering.
A.A.T. Would you say that Exodus is God's approach to man, and Leviticus man's approach to God?
J.T. Yes. God came down to dwell. He delivered His people out of Egypt, brought them into the wilderness, and desired them to build a tabernacle that He might dwell among them. Therefore Exodus typifies the Lord Jesus as become Man and effecting redemption, and on the ground of this the Christian system has been established, and the way is now opened for man to approach God through Christ.
F.L. It is well to have our minds upon that central thought. The great central thought is that God
would be approached in the place where He is at home.
J.T. And He begins with what denotes the highest spiritual ability to enter into; namely, the burnt-offering.
A.F.M. Would you say why Moses is addressed, he being the apostle, instead of Aaron, the priest?
J.T. Because it is a question of communication; authority is involved; hence Moses is addressed. In Acts 2 it is said that Christ "received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit". That was on our side. Then it says, "he has poured out this, which ye behold and hear" (Acts 2:33) which was more apostolic, as were all the communications that followed; hence in Hebrews Christ is referred to as the "Apostle and High Priest of our confession", Hebrews 3:1.
A.N.W. Priesthood is on our side; hence we have in verse 5: "and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about on the altar".
F.L. Authority, revelation, and communications, suggest apostleship. Whereas the priest is on our side, and is necessary if man is to approach.
J.T. Yes. The priest would come in on the side of the offerer. He carried on his service in the full light of the revelation made.
C.B. I notice that it is said "Aaron's sons", not Aaron and his sons.
J.T. That is worthy of note, showing that the priestly service, typified in the offerings, is carried on by the saints.
A.F.M. In the opening of Numbers the wilderness seems to be prominent in connection with the tabernacle; but here it is the tabernacle itself.
J.T. Yes. Primarily the title of the book of Numbers seems to have been "In the wilderness". It treats of the position of the testimony in a contrary
scene. You will observe that Numbers opens as follows: "And Jehovah spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai in the tent of meeting, on the first of the second month, in the second year after their departure from the land of Egypt", Numbers 1:1. This fact helps to an understanding of the teaching in the respective books. In Leviticus there is nothing said about the tabernacle being in the wilderness, nor are any dates given in the opening verses, as in Numbers. Outward position and time have nothing to do with approach to God. Besides, God would have all His people approach, however young some of them may be in the truth. Whereas He does take account of our spiritual age in setting us in our relation to the testimony. Every Christian with love in his heart for God wants to draw near.
F.L. Exodus gives us the structure of the tabernacle, Leviticus the moral element which is seen in the offerer approaching God. Numbers sets the believer in relation to the testimony.
J.T. Exodus is the groundwork of all. Redemption is seen there and on this everything rests.
Ques. Why is the tabernacle called "The tent of meeting"
J.T. Because it is a question of God meeting with man here. In Numbers it is more the tabernacle of witness; because the point there is what is presented outwardly in testimony.
W.B. Hebrews would correspond with Leviticus for us. We are there encouraged to draw near, "Having ... boldness for entering into the [holy of] holies by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which he has dedicated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh", Hebrews 10:19 - 20.
J.T. We may say, however, in this respect, that Hebrews is usually in contrast to the types. But having the Holy Spirit, we are enabled to avail ourselves of the teaching of the types in reading
Hebrews; hence the understanding of Leviticus greatly helps us in reading Hebrews.
F.L. We have now title to enter the holiest, "[Having] a great priest over the house of God", Hebrews 10:21. This privilege is not limited for us to once a year; it is always open to us.
J.T. We should take note of how the subject is introduced, 'When any man of you'; namely, any one who is in relationship with God. It is the believer who brings the offering. The worshipper comes into evidence in this way typically. He draws near to God; and he draws near with a full appreciation of Christ in his heart. One can understand how a priest, Eleazar, for instance, would take account of an Israelite coming up out of the camp with a bullock as an offering to Jehovah.
A.R.S. So that the offering here is not an offering brought by a sinner. It is a worshipper who approaches, typically, because he knows God and loves God.
J.T. This offering supposes the highest spiritual ability. The full answer to it in Christianity, no doubt, was seen on the day of Pentecost. Perhaps that occasion furnishes the greatest evidence of spiritual energy and power in the saints. God took account of all that, and it is in view in this type.
F.L. Abel's offering was evidently of this order.
C.B. It is said of him, "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain", Hebrews 11:4.
J.T. The offerer of the burnt-offering has, typically, a very great appreciation of Christ. The priest would be greatly interested in this offerer, for the priest ever considers for God.
A.F.M. Will you tell us what this burnt-offering suggests? You spoke of the size, what does that suggest?
J.T. It suggests the great appreciation of Christ in the offerer. The priest would take account of the
size, or value, of the man's offering. Typically he apprehends Christ as having come to do the will of God. The Lord said, "Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will", Hebrews 10:7. He was here entirely for God's will. He did not exercise His own will. The man who brings a bullock as a burnt-offering appreciates all this in Christ, and that suggests that he too is subject to God's will and delights in it. Whereas the offerer of the pigeon, as mentioned at the end of the chapter, has evidently, not come to this. The pigeon's head was to be pinched off, and his crop and feathers cast beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes. It is questionable, therefore, whether the offerer of the pigeon is marked by a subdued will. He has but a feeble appreciation of the devotedness of Christ.
F.L. It helps us to see this distinction in the offerers, as denoted in their offerings. It is worthy of note, too, that there is no compulsion, the offerings are all voluntary.
J.S. The priest, we may assume, takes account of the size of the offering. He would consider for God, and for the provision for God's house.
J.T. There is that too. The priest will consider for God, he always does. One who is in a priestly state values a brother on account of his contribution in the assembly. Exodus is the divine side. It is the revelation, typically, of what God is, and of His mind as to the character of His abode. It was all presented concretely before the eye of the Israelite in the tabernacle. The cloud rested on the tabernacle as the witness to every Israelite that God was there. It was now his opportunity to show how much he appreciated this; hence he would come up with his offering. The offerer's spiritual measure therefore, would be indicated by the value of the offering he brought.
A.N.W. I thought God had a right to look for the
bullock in view of all that He effected for the people, as recorded in Exodus. The bullock would necessarily afford more sweet savour than a smaller offering. God would get more and the priest would get more.
J.T. The whole of the burnt-offering was for God with the exception of the skin, which belonged to the priest who offered.
F.L. In John's epistle we have a gradation of the family: fathers, young men, and babes. There can be no doubt we have the same gradation here; I think John's writings are generally on the line of the burnt-offering. He speaks much of the Lord having come to do the Father's will, and this works out in the saints, as seen in John's epistles. Romans sets before us the way the believer is brought to appreciate the will of God. He presents his body a living sacrifice and proves "what [is] the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God", Romans 12:2.
T.A. Why is it said, "make atonement" in verse 4?
J.T. It must ever be remembered that the types are but a shadow of the truth. The teaching of Hebrews is, "for by one offering he has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified", Hebrews 10:14. So that our consciences are purged, there is no more need of sacrifice for sin. It is true, however, that the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ is ever present to the conscience, so that the Christian draws near by the blood of Christ, "sprinkled as to our hearts from a wicked conscience, and washed as to our body with pure water", Hebrews 10:22.
B.T.F. The order of appreciation here is downward, that is, from the bullock to the sheep or goat, and then to the turtle doves or young pigeons.
J.T. It is well to see that the offering denotes the spiritual stature of the offerer. How delightful to God to see a man here so appreciative of Christ,
as having come to do His will, that he also is devoted to the will of God.
B.T.F. Do we see greater appreciation in those who offer a burnt-offering than in those who offer a meat-offering?
J.T. The meat-offering is Christ as He might have been in the ordinary circumstances of life when here on earth; all the grace that was peculiar to Him as a Man amongst men, but tested even unto death. A man who brought such an offering undoubtedly typifies a spiritual believer, for only such an one appreciates the Man Christ Jesus.
But the burnt-offering obviously has the first place as involving the complete surrender of the Lord in every respect, and His entire devotion to the will of the Father. "On this account the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment of my Father", John 10:17 - 18. Then in Gethsemane we have the, full expression of it. He recoiled from the forsaking of God but went through it in obedience, saying, "but then,, not my will, but thine be done", Luke 22:42.
A.N.W. So that the burnt-offering is the basis of all. Are not all the other gospels in a sense dependent on John?
J.T. I think so. There the Lord says, "I have glorified thee on the earth, I have completed the work which thou gavest me that I should do it", John 17:4. And on the cross He uttered, "It is finished". What infinite satisfaction there was for God in all that! What a basis, too, for the accomplishment of all His counsels! In view of all this we may well understand how God values the man who draws near with Christ in his heart in this light. One who appreciates Gethsemane can thus draw near to God.
F.L. The mention of atonement here suggests a wonderful thing. Sin having come into the universe Christ comes and touches it in such a way that He glorifies God in the removal of it. John speaks of Christ as the One "who takes away the sin of the world", John 1:29.
T.A. John is the only evangelist who records for us the Lord's expression on the cross, "It is finished", John 19:30.
P.H.P. "Not my will, but thine, be done", Luke 22:42. The Lord was entitled to have a will, therefore the surrender of it was all the greater on that account.
J.T. I think we may take note of the word sacrifice here. A sacrifice is that which costs us something.
A.N.W. The turtle dove or pigeon would not cost much.
J.T. "And the priest shall bring it near to the altar, and pinch off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be pressed out at the side of the altar. And he shall remove its crop with its feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east, into the place of the ashes", Leviticus 1:15 - 16. Notice how that this offering was not to be divided asunder. There can be no doubt that the offerer of it typifies a believer who has not fully judged his will, and who retains certain natural traits which would be an occasion of natural pride. These are typified in the crop and feathers.
W.L.P. It is sweet to see, however, that even this offering is said to be "a burnt offering, an offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour", Leviticus 1:17.
J.T. That is true, and it shows how God accepts the offerer on account of his love for Christ. This applies, it seems to me, especially to young believers toward whom there is peculiar grace and consideration
from God. However, the fact that this third offering is not to be divided asunder would indicate the smallness of it in a spiritual sense. At the same time, the character of it is the same as the greatest offering. It affords a sweet odour unto Jehovah.
C.B. There is nothing said about the blood being put on the altar in this third kind of offering. It is said to "be pressed out at the side of the altar".
A.N.W. Nor are Aaron's sons mentioned as in the other offerings. It is simply said, "the priest"
J.T. Evidently the spiritual stature denoted by this offerer is very small. There is not much intelligence as to the import of the blood, nor the priesthood. There is, however, a recognition of both, and this God values. And what is most important of all is, as already noted, that the offering is spoken of as "to Jehovah of a sweet odour". This fact should be very encouraging to every young Christian. The grace, too, indicated should lead those more advanced to be considerate of their younger brethren, especially in their service in the assembly.
We may now look for a moment at the law of the burnt-offering, Leviticus 6:8 - 13. "And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt-offering; this, the burnt-offering, shall be on the hearth on the alter all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it". It will be observed that the law of the offering is directly for the priests, Aaron and his sons. Chapter 1 does not enlarge on that, it is more for guidance of the offerer. Whereas, the law of the offering is especially for Aaron and his sons.
F.L. There is a beautiful suggestion in that. Christ and the assembly preserve this sweet savour for God until the morning, which is the world to come. After that there is no night. But, in the meanwhile,
it is maintained through Christ in the assembly until the coming of the Lord.
J.T. Chapter 1 is for the individual believer; but the law is for the whole company of saints, viewed as priests, who are to see what use is made of what is brought in. If a brother has something, the saints should see to it that it is enhanced rather than detracted from. The priests, normally, consider for God, so that the offerings brought are rightly presented to Him. All the sweet savour is caused to ascend by the careful attention of the priest. The fire is to be burning all night, according to the law; hence it is always in readiness when the offerer comes.
T.A. Is this from the day of Pentecost on to the rapture? Are things secured during all this time for God?
J.T. All is secured by Christ. All that is built by Him is preserved under the eye of God, though it is not visible in testimony to the world, as it was at Pentecost.
J.T. The meat-offering typifies what Christ was as Man in all His ways.
F.L. So that it is the perfection of His walk.
A.R.S. The fine flour represents the perfect evenness of His life.
J.T. There were no incongruities, but absolute perfection in the Lord's humanity. The burnt-offering is more what He was inwardly, His motives, what came under God's eye. "Lo, I come ... to do O God, thy will", Hebrews 10:7. All was for God. The meat-offering speaks rather of what He was externally.
A.R.S. To what does the oil refer?
J.T. There is mingling with oil, and anointing with oil. The former refers to the Lord's humanity as conceived of the Holy Spirit; the latter has reference to the Spirit coming on Him as the power by which He walked and carried on His service. The general view of the meat-offering is presented in verses 1 - 3. It is fine flour, oil upon it, and frankincense. It is the perfection of the Man who could have been seen every day in the period of His life here on earth. What follows in the chapter affords additional details of His humanity.
B.T.F. The burnt-offering speaks of the perfection of His work; the meat-offering speaks of the perfection of His humanity.
J.T. Of course, there, is perfection in both, but the meat-offering is what might be seen at any time during the Lord's life on earth: His ways, manners, words. He was always a perfect Man. There was nothing incongruous in the Lord in any relation in which He was seen; whereas, the burnt-offering takes account of His motives more, what He became man for: "Lo, I come ... to do, O God, thy will", Hebrews 10:7.
The meat-offering is everything that is perfect and morally beautiful seen in him as Man. If it were His relation with His parents, or with men as such, meeting them in whatever capacity, He was always right and perfect in what He did and in what He said.
F.L. I suppose you would see that coming out, for instance, in His parents' house. He was subject to His parents; it went on throughout His path here as Man right up to the cross itself: when He prayed, "Father, forgive them", Luke 23:34; when He confides His mother to John; when He speaks to the thief; all was in the perfection of that life. What is seen in the meat-offering is parallel to and blends with what is seen in the burnt-offering.
J.T. It comes under the action of the fire: "The priest shall burn the memorial thereof on the altar, an offering by fire to Jehovah of a sweet odour". The greatest test brought out the greatest fragrance.
B.T.F. Will you say what the fire sets forth?
J.T. As seen here it is the means of testing. No doubt it refers to the cross, but as that which brought out fully the perfection of His humanity. The burning of the memorial brought out the fragrance that was there. Fire is referred to by Peter as that by which things are tested: "gold ... proved by fire", 1 Peter 1:7.
B.T.F. Would you not connect it also with the testing that the Lord passed through all along His pathway from beginning to end?
J.T. Yes. But I think that leads up to the final issue. For nowhere does the perfect humanity shine more than on the cross. Of course, the burnt-offering mingled with it there, but every grace suitable to man in those circumstances was present. His affection for His mother found its place there. He was a Man there; He was there with all the sensibilities
and affections that were suited to a man. All in Him is perfect, too, as regards the thief, and as regards those who put Him to death. He says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", Luke 23:34.
A.N.W. Would you agree that Luke rather gives us the side of the meat-offering? The centurion says, "In very deed this man was just", Luke 23:47. In Matthew and Mark it is "Truly this [man] was Son of God", (Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39).
J.T. In John He speaks to His mother when on the cross, and speaks to John in regard to her, so that the thought of the meat-offering is there also. But no doubt in Luke it would be found more frequently, because his gospel gives us "[the] man Christ Jesus", 1 Timothy 2:5. In Luke His humanity is prominent from beginning to end. The perfection of His humanity shines, whereas John gives us more the burnt-offering, but they are so blended in the Lord's life, that both aspects are found in all the gospels.
A.N.W. Luke is the only one that gives us the instance of the Lord commending His spirit to the Father; He is not seen as forsaken in Luke.
W.B. What does frankincense refer to?
J.T. There was a moral fragrance in Christ that was delightful to God.
The priests are brought in very prominently in the law of the offering; it speaks of what they have in it, chapter 6:14 - 23.
A.R.S. I was very much struck with the fact that it says, "All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it", Leviticus 6:18.
J.T. The males refer to the saints as formed in intelligence.. In Luke Zacharias represents the male side. In some instances Aaron's daughters had a part in the offering; his whole household had part; but here it was only the sons. It belongs to mature Christians, it is what we might call "strong meat".
F .L. It would express both intelligence and moral fitness.
A.A.T. At our first reading it was mentioned that Leviticus is approach to God. Exodus being God's approach to man. How does approach to God apply in this chapter?
J.T. As approaching to offer a meat-offering, one has advanced from one's own side and has come to an appreciation of the order of man seen in Christ. "To you therefore who believe [is] the preciousness", 1 Peter 2:7. Those that believe come under the eye of God in the preciousness of Christ. No doubt He is precious to us. The offering denotes it, but you come under that as you approach. God will take account of you as identified with the offering. Therefore the saints are taken up under God's eye as in all the value of it. "To you therefore who believe [is] the preciousness", 1 Peter 2:7.
C.B. When does the offerer give expression to his appreciation of Christ?
J.T. It appears in us in the part we take in the assembly, when we are in the apprehension of Christ according to the perfection which the fine flour here suggests. To have Christ in one's heart in this light would also produce similarity to Him in other relations. There would be a certain evenness of character. In drawing near to God all this is present, and hence one is pleasing to God.
C.B. The offering in that way is tangible; you give expression to Christ as He is seen in it.
J.T. You give expression to Him in your measure, and this is what pleases God. The character of Christ is also to be seen in one's everyday life. Paul says, "That the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body", 2 Corinthians 4:10. Here it is not only that the believer is righteous, but that he is a man of a new order altogether. The life of Jesus, as reproduced in us, is what is delightful to the eye of God. In this sense the believer is always an offerer, at least he is so in
an abstract sense. No doubt the idea of offering appears more definitely when we are gathered together. All the frankincense goes up to God with the meat-offering; the remainder was for the priests.
B.T.F. Hence the great advantage of apprehending Christ in this light. The effect is seen both individually and collectively.
J.T. It is a great thing to have in your mind a standard as to what is pleasing to God; Christ is that standard and you delight in it. God takes account of you according to what is in your heart. Christ is your ideal, and God regards you accordingly. In Philippians 3, Paul speaks of his ideal. The believer is regarded by God according to the desire and aim of his heart. God looks at the heart.
A.A.T. The offerer here would refer to the individual saint as expressing his apprehension and appreciation of Christ; the sons of Aaron would be those forming the assembly as such, would they not?
J.T. It comes to that. The offerer is one coming, so to speak, out of the camp; what he brings is the product of his exercise. It is not secured for nothing, he has had to pay for it. We pay for it by self-judgment, by exercise.
F.L. The line along which it is presented is individual exercise. We get the burnt-offering, then the meat-offering in which the priests were to share, and as assimilating it they would take character from it. The priests have a special provision in the "law" which is not provided in the primary instructions. They themselves make an offering of like character, which would be wholly for Jehovah, a like character to that which they have eaten; the "law" goes on to the sin-offering, then the peace-offering. The reversal of order is very interesting and significant; the peace-offering, which presents fellowship, comes last.
J.T. Before we arrive at it we have to judge sins.
F.L. Then we get the assembly. The burnt-offering and peace-offering are mingled there.
J.T. It is well to see all that. The one who offers come up out of the camp. In the camp he would have to do with a different order of man from that required in the sanctuary, so that the exercise occasioned by this produces what is offered. One going up out of the camp with the offering, shows in type that he is of the order of Christ. It is the tabernacle of the congregation here; the tabernacle of witness is more in Numbers. Going up from the camp, as it were, the Israelite had, in type, worked out in his soul what was suitable to God; he drew near with something that typified Christ. In Christianity, the offerer of course, merges into the priest. The meat-offering for the priest was wholly burnt. The meat-offering of the ordinary offerer ministered to the priest as well as to Jehovah; whereas the offering of the priest was wholly for Jehovah. There is that in the ordinary exercises of the saints which is for God, but his spiritual power has also to be sustained and increased. In connection with this latter, he is a priest, and so offers what is wholly for God.
B.T.F. John looked upon Jesus as he walked. Is that the meat-offering?
J.T. The effect of our appreciation of Christ as seen in the meat-offering is seen in our every-day experience. It is apparent also when in priestly vigour all take part in the assembly.
A.R.S. Coming out of the camp, we realise what the hymn says, 'Closed the door we leave behind us' .
J.T. It is all what Christ is, and you are equal to that in spiritual power through your exercise. The daily experience, when gone through with God, increases our spiritual power.
F.L. The trespass-offering comes into view when
there is the sense of trespass; the peace-offering is in connection with fellowship; the burnt-offering leads to a life devoted to God in the believer -- his body is presented a living sacrifice; the meat-offering leads to similarity to Christ in one's manner of life.
J.T. A point of great importance as to the burnt-offering is that through it everything that is of God is permanently maintained before Him. The fire was ever burning upon the altar. Our appreciation of it may vary, but the infinite value of the offering of Christ is always before God.
A.N.W. There is not the variety of degrees of appreciation in the meat-offering as in the burnt-offering?
J.T. No. The facts presented suggest general equality in the offerers of the meat-offering. Of course, there are different vessels in which the material is subjected to the fire, each having its own meaning.
F.L. These suggest the different aspects of the testings and sufferings of Christ and our response to them.
A.N.W. It needs more energy to discern the result of the fire through the oven.
J.T. The oven would be covered, whereas the frying pan would be open. Many saw what went on at the cross in an outward way. The centurion saw and recognised that the Sufferer was the Son of God. In the pan the heat would be underneath only; in the oven it would be all round. In every place of testing the Lord was perfect. The pan may refer to the effect of testing as seen by others, the oven may suggest what was seen inwardly, and known to the Father and Himself only. In each case the fire was there and the perfection of Christ was there. Firstfruits are introduced here, leading up to the assembly. The assembly is typified by the meat-offering
in Leviticus 23:16, 17, showing that as the order of man seen in Christ. In it, however, leaven is seen. At Pentecost there was leaven recognised, but it was not active.
F.L. It is interesting to note that leaven is seen in the meat-offering in Leviticus 23:17 The Lord says, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart", Matthew 11:29. Though leaven remains in us we partake of His character.
J.T. The different cities referred to in Matthew 11 were "raised up to heaven" (Matthew 11:23) fulness of inflation was there. At that time Jesus "rejoiced in spirit", Luke 10:21. He was not dismayed by the combination of things against Him. He rejoiced in spirit, thanking the Father, and bowing to His will. Such was the order of man that came under the Father's eye. There was perfection of manhood in all circumstances. "I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes. Yea, Father, for thus has it been well-pleasing in thy sight", Matthew 11:25 - 26. He presents Himself to them and to all as a Model. That is the order of His humanity. They were to be brought into that, and the apostle laboured to that end, to present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.
F.L. Philippians 2 gives us the meat-offering. "Let this mind be in you, which [was] also in Christ Jesus", Philippians 2:5.
P.H.P. Will you say a word about the anointing?
J.T. It refers to the Holy Spirit coming on the Lord. As Man, He was marked by the power of the Spirit. In the meat-offering there is anointing with oil, and mingling with oil. The former refers to the Holy Spirit upon Him.
F.L. I suppose mingled means that it was impossible to conceive of that One apart from the Holy Spirit in all His holy being as a Man. "[The] Spirit
of [the] Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach", Luke 4:18.
P.H.P. I was thinking that the Spirit was there before and did not depend on the anointing or baptism.
J.T. As to His humanity, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The anointing is God committing Himself to that Man. After His anointing, it is said that He was driven of the Spirit into the wilderness; this was to emphasise the fact that now the Spirit had come upon Him, He would be wholly governed by Him. Prominence is given to the action of the Spirit. It is not presented as the Lord's own action. In coming out of the wilderness it is His own action. He returns from the wilderness "in the power of the Spirit", Luke 4:14. If we learn from Christ we avoid evil. We do not go near it. If a man of God touches evil, it is because he is driven of the Spirit to deal with it for the sake of others. He abhors it, but it is necessary. But coming back from the wilderness the Lord's heart was free.
Ques. What is the difference between mingled and indwelt?
J.T. Mingled refers to the Spirit being there. The Spirit came in the form of a dove, and abode upon Him, meaning that there was nothing to disturb. That could not be said of any other person.
F.L. In regard to Adam, the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. That was characteristic. He could not be without that breath which constituted him a living being. The second Man out of heaven is a life-giving Spirit. He breathed into His disciples the breath of life. As Man, He is seen as inherently connected with the Holy Spirit; in that way we are helped to see the difference between Adam and Christ, the second Man.
J.T. John the baptist says, "He it is who baptises with [the] Holy Spirit", John 1:33. Before the Lord
was formally anointed, all His actions recorded were largely to prove the reality and perfection of His humanity. He was perfect in every stage. We have a few facts presented as to what He was. In no case does it say that He acted by the Spirit. The point was to bring out the humanity that was there, and when the Spirit comes upon Him, the point is to show that the Spirit is there, and all that He does is by the Spirit.
F.L. There is a difference between the meat-offering and the manna.
J.T. They are very intimately connected. The manna is what He was in dependence on God in a scene of contrariety. The soul has to learn how to depend on God and for that he feeds on the manna. It was found everywhere in the wilderness, and it rested on the dew.
B.T.F. Will you say a word about "firstfruits" and "green ears of corn".
F.L. Firstfruits are in anticipation of what is brought in in connection with the feasts in chapter 23.
J.T. Firstfruits necessarily involve death. Christ is the firstfruits from among the dead, but it is a question whether it is not more than that here; whether there is not provision made for the thought of the assembly coming in here in type.
W.B. They refer to Christ in resurrection.
B.A.M. John's testimony to the Lord, "Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:36) would apply to the meat-offering.
F.L. The Lamb suggests the burnt-offering; looking upon Him as He walked, the meat-offering. They have to be taken together.
J.T. John the baptist may be regarded as a typical offerer in that sense. His heart was filled with a sense of the perfection of that walk. In John 3 he rejoiced to hear the Bridegroom's voice. His joy was full in hearing it. It has often been remarked that honey is the sweetness of human
nature: right in its place, but it has no place before God as an offering.
F.L. The frankincense suggests the altar of incense, which was put upon it. There was that which was wholly for God. This links the meat-offering with the burnt-offering.
J.T. "Every oblation of thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt". In Christ there was always the antidote to any corruption. "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another" (Mark 9:50) is the word to ourselves.
F.L. "[Let] your word [be] always with grace, seasoned with salt", Colossians 4:6. Salt enhances the flavour.THE RIGHTS OF GOD (2)
LIFE ABUNDANTLY
ELEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION (1)
ELEMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION (2)
"There on the hidden bread
Of Christ once humbled here". (Hymn 79)THE DAY WHICH THE LORD HATH MADE
MUTUALITY
A LITTLE CHILD
THE BURNT-OFFERING
THE MEAT-OFFERING