THE PART THE BRIDE HAS IN THE SERVICE OF GOD
[p. 404] THE PART THE BRIDE HAS IN THE SERVICE OF GOD
Exodus 18:1 - 6; 1 Samuel 25:2,3 1 Samuel 25:39-42; 1 Kings 7:8
JT What is in mind is to dwell on these scriptures as typically indicating how the assembly as the bride of Christ has part in the service of God. There are several other types of the assembly in these early chapters of the Old Testament, but these are selected because they show the relation of the assembly to Christ as charged with the service of God. This could not be said of Adam, or even of Isaac; Moses, David and Solomon have peculiar relation to the service of God, and the assembly is seen typically as the bride or wife of each of these men. The assembly is seen otherwise in these sections also, for the tabernacle itself is a type of the assembly, and so is the temple, but it is the marital relation, and how far it enters into actual assembly service, that is in view now.
JHT Would you say what specific phase of the service these three men, Moses, David and Solomon represent?
JT Well, the service of God is formally introduced to Moses by Jehovah even before the exodus, the deliverance out of Egypt. Jehovah said that His people, Israel, should serve Him at Horeb, so that it was a leading thought as to the divine needs in the exodus. Following on that the word to Pharaoh was that he should let Jehovah’s son (Israel) go, that he might serve Him, and the idea of authority enters into the position of Moses as he was the mediator of the covenant, typical of Christ as Mediator of the new covenant. What is stressed is subjection to the authority of God in him. The assembly is seen not as in any particular personal attractiveness, in fact Zipporah scarcely suggests that; it is the bare thought of the wife; her name is only mentioned once, and the word “wife” three times, I think, in the passage; whereas her father, or Moses’ father-in-law, is mentioned a great many times throughout the chapter.
FW Do you suggest that Moses learned the features of subjection from Jethro, who is very prominent in this chapter?
JT Well, the word father-in-law is the prominent word as to Jethro; there is something in what you say, and we should therefore consider the history of Moses up to this point. I think he had learned subjection before he met Jethro, at least in the sense that he sat by a well; he had been a man reliant on his own ability, but now he typically recognises that the well is a source outside of himself, but which, in type, would be inside of himself, that is the Spirit. I think your suggestion is good, because his continuance with Jethro denoted that he was already subject, and was content to dwell with the man, as it says. The experience of forty years in such circumstances, however, must have greatly augmented the idea of subjection in his soul, for he dwelt with the father-in-law, but it was “in law”, and such authority has peculiar force, which is sometimes irksome.
FW More so than that of your own father, I suppose.
JT I think so, but the relations between them evidently were good throughout, none of the bickerings and irritabilities that usually come up between sons-in-law and fathers-in-law, and daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law seem to be present here; the relations seem good throughout; and although Jethro was a Midianite and would have but little in common with Moses, an Israelite, yet Moses’ influence for good seems to have had weight with Jethro; that is, he influenced him Godward, according to what we find recorded in this chapter. There was evident formation in him, for it is said “Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ [p. 406] father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and to Israel his people; that Jehovah had brought Israel out of Egypt”. He heard that, and then we are told later, “And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake” (verse 8). Then we are told, “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God” (verse 12). So it is clear that there was some formation with Jethro, and in fact he is a priest himself here as offering sacrifices in the presence of God and eating with Moses and Aaron and the elders in the presence of God; another thing is that verse 7 says, “And Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other after their welfare; and went into the tent”. It does not say his wife and children, but his father-in-law, and he did obeisance and kissed him. The facts would bring out that whilst Moses must have learned subjection, as it is said of Christ that He learned obedience by the things He suffered, Moses learned also in his experience with such a man over him, a foreign element to begin with; but evidently Moses prevailed, and his influence prevailed. God was working, and there was evident formation in the father-in-law and a link of affection between him and Moses; the wife is still there, but that is all; there is nothing said about her at all beyond that she is there, as if at this stage of the progress of the truth of the service of God it is just the thought of the assembly as in Romans.
WL Why is subjection prominent in Moses at this stage of his history?
JT I suppose to bring out the type, as it should be, because subjection is really learned in Christ Himself. We learn it in Christ, not that He ever needed to be subjected, but the idea of subjection is proper to Christ, and will be eternally, and moreover it is proper [p. 407] to the assembly as a principle, for the assembly is subjected to the Christ; it is the position she is set in. It qualifies Moses for the insistence on God’s behalf of subjection in the subsequent instructions.
ELM I would like to ask, Is there anything in the way of ministry suggested in Jethro’s movements that should have a place amongst us in view of the service? Would you look for anything in the way of a spiritual touch that would bring this character of the assembly before us in view of the service?
JT Moses was himself in subjection, as we have been saying, and Christ, as become Man, is in subjection. The fact that it is said, “He learned obedience” (Hebrews 5:8), is not simply that He did not know it morally, or that there was any insubjection in Him — God forbid that there should be such a thought — He learned it as something that never came into His status before. He had taken up a position He had never had before, so that He learned it experimentally in that way, that is all, and it is in Him that we learn subjection. The prophets, and the Psalms and the New Testament show that the Lord was pre-eminent in it, He was there under His Father, and whatever His Father did, He did, and He did only what His Father showed Him. I think that comes into the service of God as we are together, everyone of us, each of us is subject according to the teaching of Romans. Chapter 6 brings out how we are to be subject, and so we sit down together in assembly as subject, and as under the Lord. No one can say, Lord Jesus except by the Spirit; the condition of the saint is such that the Spirit is free to be in power in him in saying, Lord Jesus. There is nothing so abhorrent to God either in individual christians, or collectively, as insubjection, for nothing can be done, the Spirit is hampered and hindered save as there is subjection.
JHT The disciples in the hour of the sorrow of Jesus would never forget the supreme lesson of obedience as the Lord said, “Father ... not my will, but thine be done” (Luke 22:42). Would that help them in their service later?
JT You may be sure they had heard such words before, because we have instances of the Lord speaking to His Father, but there was much of it of course that is not recorded, so that in 1 Corinthians 11, in view of the assembly being introduced to celebrate the Lord’s supper, we have the great thought of subjection, that is the head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, that is subjection, and that implies authority from God to Christ, and from Christ to the man, down to the woman.
EG The Lord Jesus was in subjection to His parents at the early age of twelve.
JT Quite so.
AHG Would the idea of the wife be one who is brought in a peculiar way to appreciate the features of her husband, and in that way to be formed by them?
JT Well, that comes into the subject, I am sure; there is nothing of it so far as I know, in Zipporah. I mean that side is not stressed in her at all. Indeed what is said of her earlier would rather indicate the opposite, but still she is the wife, and she is so introduced here, just as his wife. But what we shall see later in Abigail is formation; she represents the assembly on that side. Pharaoh’s daughter, of course, is Pharaoh’s daughter, that is all; we do not know what her name was, nor her character, but there is enough said to indicate that she is a type, just a type or suggestion of Solomon’s wife as in relation to the great matter on hand.
Ques In connection with Zipporah in verse 21 of chapter 2 it just says Jethro gave Moses Zipporah his daughter, without saying as wife. Would it appear to be the thought of our acceptance of what the Lord gives us here?
JT I think that is what the chapter means. What Moses had learned already shines at the outset, and [p. 409] then he came into circumstances that would help him on these lines so that he is subject, and even in regard to his helping the seven daughters to water their flocks. They did not seem to have any interest, their father says, ‘Where is the man? Why did you not bring him?’. There is nothing to indicate anything particular in Zipporah; it is to bring out what Jethro was, and the formation seems to be in him here, so that if we apply it to the brethren sitting together in assembly it would mean that our link with Christ is assembly-wise, but that the formation must be in us individually, not in an abstract thought which Zipporah represents here, but in ourselves. It is the “in law” matter, the link between Moses and Jethro, and it is successful. The work is going on, he is a different man from what he was. The wife is there, as representing the truth, an element of truth, but he is the active one.
W Is that why here it says “her two sons” and the names are in regard to his experience?
JT I think that is good, there is nothing at all said about her; it would indicate I think that we are just looked at as christians, as believers, in this early stage as set together, but the idea of the church is there; yet the formation is in Jethro and the sons are simply to reflect something in Christ’s heart, strangership and the power of God.
WL Does it suggest all the potentialities that the Lord saw in the assembly when He took up this place of subjection but that are not yet manifest as suggested in the term ‘wife’?
JT I think that is a good suggestion, because He saw that; He saw something in the disciples, they were very poor we know in their response to Him, but He would look at them as you say according to what they were potentially. The parable in Matthew 13 would show that He found something; the man is seen as finding a treasure; He hides it in the field and buys the field so as to have a right to it, which would mean [p. 410] He got the assembly out of it. Then the next parable is that He was looking for goodly pearls, as if the Lord was looking for the best He could get, not simply something found, but looking for the very best obtainable, goodly pearls, and He found one of great price, which would I suppose be a further thought, the power the Lord had of abstraction, in looking at things abstractly to see what He would ultimately have in the disciples.
GEE Would the references to “in the Lord” in the commendations in Romans 16 involve a measure of spiritual formation on the line that you are speaking of?
JT I am sure that is right. The whole list of salutations would bear that out; Paul speaks of some, “who were also in Christ before me” (verse 7), that would mean that they had the advantage of certain formation, because in the history that preceded Paul saw that those men had the benefit of it, an advantage that Paul had not had.
JHT But if the type of Zipporah is filled out in Romans and Corinthians what epistle should we go to for formation?
JT I think there is formation in Romans; there is formation in Jethro. I was thinking there is formation going on; if you were to ask Jethro, of course he would not know, but the facts related indicate what there was, he is offering sacrifices and rejoicing in the deliverance. That is an initial state of things, but still it is remarkable that he is so joyful about the deliverance of Israel, and that he knows God now, and he offers sacrifices. Does not Romans contemplate all that, for instance that we present our body a living sacrifice? In fact, we yield ourselves to God. It would seem to me that Jethro represents that side here, it is initial, but he is coming into the knowledge of God and he is subject, and moreover he is able to give Moses very good advice. I do not think you get proper formation here or in [p. 411] Romans either, but you get it in individuals; the apostle is not able to say to the Romans, “Ye are body of Christ” he just says, “We, being many, are one body in Christ” (chapter 12:5). The status is clear, as he says to the Corinthians, Ye are “babes in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:1); the position is clear, but there is very little formation.
D Is that the thought in the sixth verse, “I ... am come to thee, and thy wife and her two sons with her”? Would that indicate that there is something in view of development?
JT I think there is a great vista opening up now with these elements: the recognition of the strangership of Christ in the son Gershom, and the power of God in the other son Eliezer, and then the wife, for after all the marriage relation as entered into is all potential. What the persons are has to be worked out in this new relation; it is not what I have been, it is what I am in the new relation, and that is what comes into mind here, the new relation is just touched on in Romans. It says we should be to another, even to Him who is raised from among the dead; that is the marital relation, and it is just touched on.
JHT You said at Bristol some years ago that Zipporah was suggestive of the church in her public unloveliness. What is the next feature? In which epistle would formation come in in a collective way?
JT I think what I alluded to there was the Cushite woman, but she links on with Zipporah. I think 1 Corinthians is really a counterpart of Romans; it is a collective way of presenting individual christians as seen in Romans, although Romans, as was remarked, contemplates us as one body in Christ. Paul said to the Corinthians that he had to treat them as babes, but babes in Christ, they had christian status but very little formation; hence the ugliness that is depicted in the first epistle, inclusive you might say of both Zipporah and the Cushite woman. Romans I think is peculiarly Zipporah, because the marital relation is touched on;
[p. 412] it is an element, a formative element too, already in the mind of faith.
ELM Whatever formation might follow the status would not add much, I judge, to the status that is there for all saints.
JT Formation does not affect that status at all; that is a comforting thing. The “in Christ” in Romans and Corinthians gives us the status, the smallness of formation does not affect that; it affects our enjoyment of it of course, but it does not affect the status itself, which is very comforting.
JMcK In this first scripture is there a suggestion that the Lord has long been deprived of what is marital; apparently there had once been the enjoyment of it, and there had come a dissolution. Would that be seen in church history?
JT That may be in church history, quite so, but she was sent back for a purpose, it says, and after he had sent her back he had been deprived; she had been away during the exodus; of course that would give her an opportunity now of more definiteness and distinctness. Perhaps we ought to be reminded that even the youngest believer sitting down at the Lord’s supper ought to have some little understanding of his relation to Christ, that he is to be to Another, even unto Him who is raised up from among the dead.
AHG Do you suggest that some progress or formation in the marital relation is necessary in view of the service of God?
JT Well it is, and that is what I hope we shall come to. We do not get the full result in Moses. We do not get more than we have here, as far as I see it, but when we come to Abigail we get what fits in with the second part of the service of God, namely the Davidic part, a part that attaches to David, Christ. It is David rejected of course, but still he stands out as the one who inaugurates the service of God in its heavenly character. It is the heavenly side that we get [p. 413] in David and Solomon and I think that is where Abigail comes in, first in her understanding, then her beauty, then the comeliness, that agility with which she responds to David as the marriage is proposed. I think all that fits in with assembly service as we are entering on the heavenly side of it.
ETS Is it your thought that the Zipporah side should come in as we come together to break bread?
JT I think so. That is what I had in mind, that the youngest believer ought to have the sense that he is to be to Another. There is that idea; we enter on a collective position; we cease to be so many individuals, and I think in the loaf there is a thought that the Lord has devoted Himself to us, and that we are to be to Another. It is just that, even to Him who is raised from among the dead. It is the immediate transition that is alluded to, to be to Another, “So that, my brethren, 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 unto God” (Romans 7:4), and immediately you get this, “that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter”.
Ques Do you intend us to understand from Exodus 18 that while assembly relationship is recognised the prominence of Jethro is to emphasise the importance of subjection as approaching the service of God?
JT That is what I have in mind. Subjection and initial formation. As you have been remarking Jethro takes great pleasure in what God has done for Israel, and he is now coming into it himself because he says, “Blessed be Jehovah, who has delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians ... Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods” (Exodus 18:10,11). He is delivered from idolatry, which is very important. 1 Corinthians 10:14 stresses that, that we are to be free from idolatry, “Flee from idolatry” the apostle says. That is what I was thinking of, do you think that is right?
[p. 414] Rem Yes, I just wanted to be clear. I gather that the marital idea you were emphasising is not developed, but rather that the moral conditions which are suggested in Jethro would prepare for a full part in the service of God.
JT I think if we follow that thought we shall get help, especially young christians. Jethro is evidently a subject man, and has come under the influence of God through Moses. In the next section of the chapter he assists Moses; then we find that Israel in the beginning of chapter 19 is directly in the presence of the mountain of God, where they were to serve Him. Now we are ready for service. It says Israel encamped there before the mountain. We have an allusion to the time which elapsed since they left Egypt, three months; then their departure from Rephidim is mentioned, alluding typically to their having received the Spirit although it is not stressed; it does not say they drank the water, but still the idea is that the Spirit is already there. Rephidim and the period which elapsed since they left Egypt I think are elements that enter into the position. We are now ready for the service of God, so that it says Israel encamped there before the mount. It is their own action. Earlier Moses brought them and Jehovah commanded them to move, but now they are doing it themselves, meaning we are making headway. Then we are told that Moses went up to God and Jehovah called him. God now has to say to them through the mediator, as to what they are in His own mind, what Israel is to be to Him. We are made to understand now what delight we afford God, but all is to be on the principle of obedience; that is what chapter 19 brings out.
A In verse 10 Jethro refers to the goodness of God to Israel. Would that be the element of unselfishness — important as bearing on the service of God?
JT Quite so. He is not thinking of any deliverance from Midian; he is clear of that, he is delighting in Jehovah, the God of Israel; it seems to me that it is a [p. 415] christian coming into the truth through Moses. Now Moses takes the initiative, and in verse 3 of chapter 19 Moses went up; it is Christ’s part now: the people are ready for service, but how are they to serve? Well, Moses takes the matter over; it must come under his hand, and that is what enters into the whole of chapter 19 until Moses leads the people out of the camp to meet God; that is a definite act of Moses, a definite movement.
WF Is there a further thought in Ephesians 5, where the assembly is subjected to the Christ? That would bring in formation, but it seems there is further development.
JT The word subjected has to be noted. I apprehend that it is the divine mind for her. There can be nothing else; it is the divine mind for Christ, not that He ever needed it, but Christ is subject to God too. “Then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection” eternally (1 Corinthians 15:28), it seems to be that the mind of God has the whole divine realm in view. Individual members of the assembly may not be subject, but the divine mind is that the assembly is subjected, it is put in that position.
WF So the thought of subjection is carried right through up to Christ, subject to the Christ, in Ephesians?
JT I think all this is very wholesome, and especially for young christians, because our minds travel faster than our feet, and the question is whether we will get any further light until we move in a moral way.
WD Would the end of Acts 1 fit in? I was thinking that the details and the time in connection with the bringing in of Matthias would teach them subjection, and then there is the question of this service.
JT Exactly. You see it in the converts at the beginning; in Acts 2:42 it says, “They persevered in the teaching ... of the apostles”; that meant teaching that had authority in it. It was not simply God’s teaching, which of course has authority, but the apostles [p. 416] were the express representatives of God, in Christ, of authority, and all truly converted people recognise the necessity for obedience, and obedience to the truth, the apostles’ teaching. We learn everything from that; we cannot learn the apostles’ teaching from the Old Testament but we understand the Old Testament from the apostles’ teaching; that is how we understand the truth; we begin with the apostles, and of course that includes their epistles.
S May I ask if the reason for the exhortation to Titus to ordain elders in each city was this matter of subjection and moral conditions?
JT That is a very good suggestion; it would be better if you quoted from Acts 14, where the apostle Paul and Barnabas, at the end of their first service, chose themselves elders; the ones they would select must pass under their hands, under their judgment. They selected themselves elders in every assembly, not only in every city, because the time for the city had not come; it is rather the need of the little gatherings to come under the principle of rule. They can never be self-sustaining without it, so that the elders constituted them, as it were, self-contained — of course, I only mean in a relative way. The apostles selected the elders, not just old brothers, but selected persons; it is heaven’s choice and provision so that heaven’s rule may be in all these little gatherings. That is the idea; then Titus was to select them in the cities later, because the idea is progressive; the cities are places of testimony where God would have His base, and there must be elders, not simply one elder, but elders in each city.
But as to the matter of formation, Romans introduces the word in chapter 12:2: “Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”; that is where it begins, in the mind. Then, of course, we have in the end of the book a reference to the mystery, which is an element introduced at Rome.
[p. 417] One can understand that spiritual brethren at Rome — there must have been a good few because there are so many mentioned by name — might ask, what does this last paragraph in this letter mean, this matter of the mystery? That of course lays the basis for Colossians and Ephesians; that is to say Christ is to come before us now in a new way; He is head of His body the assembly, in Colossians; it is what He is personally. The facts stated of Him make Him exceedingly attractive, the Father has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, a very attractive thought, the Son of the Father’s love. We begin to see Him now in a new light, and He becomes more and more lovely in our eyes; the Song of Songs enter into all this, showing the growing appreciation of the bride for the Bridegroom, how well she can speak of Him. I think Colossians is the epistle that helps christians on that line, and as Christ becomes lovely to us we become lovely to Him; that is how the matter stands in the Song of Songs.
FW Are you passing over now to Abigail?
JT Yes, and so Abigail goes on to Colossians and Ephesians. The first thing mentioned about her is that she was a woman of good understanding. A wife will soon lose caste in the eyes of her husband if she has no understanding; understanding holds longer than any mere beauty or graces; it lasts to the end.
H Do we see in Abigail both the thought of subjection and formation?
JT I think she is a woman who has had a history as a wife.
H The thought passes on to Colossians and Ephesians.
JT As Jethro and Moses each had histories, Abigail had a history as a wife, how she developed with such a husband. What trials she must have had, possibly alluding to what the early disciples had to contend with from the Jews; the twelve apostles and their converts had to contend with this sort of churlishness [p. 418] from the Jews, such unreasonableness from the high priest and others. Well, they gained through it; it is that kind of formation developing into great wisdom, knowing what to do.
You can see how delightful they were to Christ in all their experience with the Jewish leaders: there is no resentment with them, no natural quarrelsomeness at all, they are subject in all they are going through, so that the Lord in time speaks to Saul of Tarsus and He says, ‘You are persecuting Me’. That is the Lord can call attention to these people as Himself; they were people that endured under these circumstances, and who were formed under them. He can call attention to them as showing the same graces that marked Him, as He suffered from the very same people, from the Jews.
ELM Would you think that the men that David sent to Abigail would bring in their service the character of ministry that enhances grace in the eyes of Abigail and that would correspond to the greatness of Christ in Colossians?
JT Quite so, the message was in the grace of Christ, you mean, but there is no response to it at all, that is, I suppose, Nabal is just a type of the Jewish element, or rather the Jewish authorities under which, you might say, the twelve had to serve. “David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her as his wife. And the servants of David came to Abigail to Carmel, and spoke to her, saying, David has sent us to thee, to take thee as his wife. And she arose and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thy handmaid be a bondwoman to wash the feet of the servants of my lord”. Beautiful submission and humility mark her. “And Abigail hasted, and arose, and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that followed her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife”. It seems a beautiful tribute in type to the saints in the early days in the Acts in the way they came to [p. 419] see that they were no longer subservient to the Jewish authorities in things relating to God, and how the graces suitable to them appeared, so that the Lord can speak of them as Himself; they correspond with Himself when He speaks to Saul, hence they are fit to be united to Him; that is where union lies, in what is entirely of Christ and suitable to Him.
JHT Is it a feature of the last days that in spite of the serious opposition, where there is a desire on this line the Lord will make a highway for ministry of this character?
JT I am sure that is right. You would like to see now in our service these graces that are seen in Abigail; she is, to begin with, a woman of understanding; that is most important, because it helps us in the giving out of our hymns and our thanksgivings, we are to know when to do a thing and how to do it. There is a time for everything, and then in doing it she is of a beautiful countenance. That is how we come under the Lord’s eye as formed in His own graces.
GEE Would this be the counterpart to the reference to David personally in chapter 16?
JT I think that is right. His name means “beloved”, of course, and his graces and beauty are depicted there, and now she corresponds.
FTS Would it be her commendation that she says, “to wash the feet of the servants of my lord”. Would she be on the line of John 13 there?
JT I think that is very good. You remember the qualifications of anyone put on the list of the assembly in 1 Timothy 5: a widow, not less than sixty years of age, the wife of one man, who has brought up children, who has washed the saints’ feet. She is suitable; that is beauty really; she adds to the assembly and is no charge to it. The assembly has a peculiar place in that scripture as to being charged: “Let not the assembly be charged” (1 Timothy 5:16). It is a remarkable thing that the assembly is under the Lord’s eye and it is not [p. 420] to be freighted with unnecessary things, because it loses its beauty if it is bowed down with such. So it is here that the graces of Christ in His service, and in every way, are to be reflected in the assembly. The Lord is pleased with us as we approach the heavenly part of our service; there is impulse given by the Lord’s delight in that, in what He sees in us. So that each has to have in his mind, ‘Can I stimulate the Lord?’ We have the idea of this stimulation in the drink offering; it is what is delightful to the divine mind and it is an impulse of love.
AHG What would be the setting of Nabal here? Although Abigail was linked with such a man yet these features were being formed in her.
JT I thought as we were saying that it might be traced in the ministry of the twelve and the converts in the early chapters of Acts, because the Jewish element was still in control and had the husband’s place. Romans 7 says she should be to another. We have been made dead to all that by the body of Christ, I think it is that sort of thing, churlishness; as Paul says their hand is against every man, they are like Ishmaelites, they are impossible; the Jewish element is impossible. The brethren were subject nevertheless; people went and dragged them out of their homes; Saul of Tarsus represented that element, an insolent, overbearing man who would go and drag women and children to the tribunals; that is the idea, but one day all that ceased.
EG The same principle is seen in Hannah and Peninnah?
JT That is beautiful, Hannah was formed under that influence. I believe when Paul heard the Lord’s voice, “Why persecutest thou me?”, morally that was the end of judaism; it awaited the destruction of Jerusalem, but that was the end of it morally. Those that were scattered at the persecution that arose in relation to Stephen went to different parts; they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They went as far as Antioch [p. 421] and Caesarea, but there was a serious salient left in the divine territory in the person of Saul, so that Acts 9 begins “But Saul”, as if to say in spite of all this activity, for in truth the saints (or Abigail) are escaping the influence of judaism. Had they followed the Lord’s word they would have left Jerusalem when Stephen was martyred, had they fully followed the Lord’s direction that would have been the end of that thing, the metropolitan influence that centred there. The persons remained there, and the scattered ones went on preaching, went out into the gentile world preaching, but a serious salient remained in the divine territory, and it is said in Acts 9 “But” as much as to say in spite of all this, there is this point where judaism still rules; it still rules in the person of Saul breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. But the Lord says, I will bring him down; and that was morally the end of judaism. Saul’s ministry was to take the saints out of all that and set them up in relation to Christ in heaven as the new Husband. The Lord brought that man down and the whole line is straightened out, and now there is movement forward. Judaism is left, I know it continued in detail, but the destruction of Jerusalem by God later brought it all to an end.
Ques Is it significant in connection with what you say that at that particular moment Abigail hasted?
JT That is the sort of agility which reminds you of the hind of the morning; it is a feminine thought, it is the heading of Psalm 22, pointing to what Christ had in mind in dying, that He might have this agility of affection for Himself. She has it here.
Now as regards Pharaoh’s daughter there is nothing to say, we have the formation in Abigail; she represents the full thought, the wisdom and understanding and the beauty and the graces and humility and all that is proper to the assembly, but we must carry the thought on to Solomon because he is the counterpart of David,
[p. 422] for 1 Kings is the heavenly system of Christ in which he shines, hence the number of buildings, the house of Jehovah, the house of the forest of Lebanon, the house of Pharaoh’s daughter. It is all a question of glory, glory in display presently, and we come into that in our service, gradually we come up to the greatness of the heavenly thought, the glory of Christ in heaven, and all that, but we must have the assembly in its own distinction, that is a house for it. She is Solomon’s spouse; we have the very thought in Song of Songs 3:11: “In the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart”. All that enters into the assembly service.
Ques Would that peculiar place for the assembly be suggested at the beginning of John 14, “I go to prepare you a place”?
JT Very likely; it is the heavenly side of the position. These houses are interesting; it is not easy to place them, but to me the Father’s house is a great general thought, and then there is an individual place for each, He has gone “to prepare you a place”; it is like Solomon preparing a particular place for those of us who form the assembly. Is that what you have in mind?
Rem I thought you were suggesting that there had to be a peculiar place for Pharaoh’s daughter.
FW And that place would indicate the preciousness of the assembly to Christ.
JT Clearly, we cannot say anything about Pharaoh’s daughter personally, beyond that she is just a gentile, but that is the point, what Christ has from among the gentiles in the scene of glory; we do not want to deny Him that now.