THE REVIVAL UNDER JOSIAH
THE REVIVAL UNDER JOSIAH
JT We have more details of Josiah’s reign in this book than in Kings. A comparison between the books of Chronicles and Kings brings out that in the latter his ministry was more negative, dealing with evil, but Chronicles brings out the positive side touching the highest point of recovery, I judge. The Lord in the current revival, that is, the one we are profiting from, had to do a good deal of a character of work which is not necessary now; the servant raised up was specially fitted to break up the evil. The positive side was also there, of course, but in latter times this has been more stressed; the ground was cleared in the early parts of the revival. There is much less said in 2 Kings about the passover and the service of the temple, emphasising that 2 Chronicles deals with the more positive side of the revival, the work of the service of God, and we have much more of Josiah’s earlier service and ministry.
DLH Was not one great feature of this revival the recovery of the Scriptures and the place they had before the mind and heart of the king?
JT That fits in with 2 Kings, but this book goes further in regard of the writings and the Scriptures. It stresses in chapter 35 the writing of David and the writing of Solomon, that is to say, it goes further as bringing in what suggests headship. You mean that the earlier part of the present revival was marked by the assertion of the authority of Scripture?
DLH Yes; I thought there was a remarkable correspondence between that day and our own day. A hundred years ago the Holy Scriptures occupied much place as determining really the whole truth of God.
[p. 138] JT Having thus the general thought, what may be noted is the earlier ministry of Josiah and its reward. It was while he was young and tender that we have his zeal in regard of the house, bringing the Scriptures into evidence, and then the word of the prophets, for it is not a prophet, but prophets, bringing out the solemn fact that the general judgment of God pending in regard of the great profession is not to be suspended or abrogated. However much there may be for God in a revival, the judgment attaching to the great decline is not abrogated, but there are those who are affected by the Scriptures and escape it, as in Philadelphia: “I will keep thee from the hour of trial”. Then in the next chapter we find the place the ark has, as if it had lost its place, and the ministry of the priests as governed by the writing of David and the writing of Solomon.
Ques What bearing would the writing of David and the writing of Solomon have on us now?
JT That comes in later. This is only a general outline, but it brings in the highest place to be reached, really corresponding with Ephesians.
AMH Do you think this breaking down of what is contrary to God is done now? I was wondering what you would say as to fresh innovations which may come in in more or less limited areas and disturb christians outside. Do you think we have anything to do with that or should we leave it?
JT Since J.N.D.’s removal our service seems to be more positive, dealing with positive things. There have been attempts to deal with great public evils, but they do not seem to have had much support.
AMH There was just an instance I have in mind and stand in doubt of, and I thought perhaps we might get some light on it. In a certain place it was introduced as entirely new that Sunday was not the Sabbath but the Lord’s day and therefore we could do as we liked with it. It greatly disturbed [p. 139] the christians in the place, and I just wondered whether we should leave all that aside or whether there should be anything of this character to meet it.
JT The Lord seems to be blessing the brethren in positive ministry. It is positive testimony that He blesses and supports, as far as I can see. Of course, you would help souls wherever you meet them, but the feature of Josiah’s revival as seen in Kings and touched on here was a general breaking up of evil. That is the general feature of 2 Kings; the passover and the positive side are more secondary there, having in view this book which brings out the positive side touching the very highest features of the truth, and I believe that is what is telling today.
AMH So you would consider that anything coming in now is really apostasy from this position and you would leave it?
JT It is more Laodicea. The great ministry of the earlier days of the current revival placed Christendom under obligations. The whole of Israel, so to say, was reached, and that is what is in view here — the whole of Israel, not simply Judah and Benjamin. That is the bearing of the early ministry and, of course, it ought to be so now in principle, but it is the positive thing that you would hope that God would carry through to the praise of Christ.
Ques Does the movement of God with regard to Necho king of Egypt indicate that He pursues His ways in government entirely outside the assembly?
JT And he spoke from the mouth of God, showing he was under direction from God, so that it was a movement by itself. Josiah clashed with it, which, of course, was the difficulty.
Ques Do you think it right to say that those who are occupied with the negative side, however energetically, have very little beside to give?
JT That is what you observe. I think the ministry of J.B.S., to be simple, was marked as [p. 140] keeping to the positive side. We have to observe the current of the Spirit, for he that has an ear has to hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies; we have to be governed by that, so we have to observe ministry that is accredited and see what it says, and there is guidance in it. The ministry following that of J.B.S. regulated the truth and was more in the form of teaching, having its own voice and carrying food for the saints. I think we ought to pay attention to that side, what the Spirit says to the assemblies. We see what the Spirit is saying, and we get light from that as well as food. There is no power in what is negative and it leads nowhere.
MWB Do you think, in a general way, that those things you have referred to, the book of the law by Moses, and then the prophetic word, and then later the writings of David and Solomon, would show progress on positive lines?
JT That is very suggestive. The ministry following the one we have been speaking of (J.N.D.’s) had a prophetic character. We ought to be simple about it because what the Spirit said had its voice. It took that character and it would be like Huldah’s ministry here. I do not mean it would be that exclusively, but it would have the general outline of it. Then you have the definite position of the king; he “stood in his place” (verse 31), and entered into a covenant and caused the people to stand to it. There was great moral power in causing the people to stand to it; and you would look for that in prophetic ministry, that Christ should be in His place, in the sense of exercising moral power through the ministry and causing the people to stand to it. We are to stand to the covenant; we are committed to something definite which precludes all independency. That is what comes out at the end of the chapter, and then chapter 35 is the opening up of the ministry Godward with a view to the passover and the holy ark — a very [p. 141] beautiful expression — being set in its place. It shows that a priestly state was developed and Christ was acquiring a place in that way which He had lost in the service.
PL Would that answer to the reference in Philadelphia, “These things saith the holy, the true”, the Lord having His place now among them?
JT I think that points to a revival of a priestly state, as we were saying recently in connection with Peter’s answer, “Thou art the holy one of God”, John 6. That underlies the great service opened up in Hebrews which is, I believe, what the Lord would lay upon us at the present time, and which necessarily depends on a state of holiness amongst us.
MWB In what way are those thoughts linked on together — the law of Moses, the prophetic word and then the king having his place?
JT The idea of a dais is not mentioned here; it is just the king standing in his place. It is less official than in Kings. I think it alludes to moral power. That is, moral power is like influence; it is really greater than official power, because it implies that the Lord is acquiring power in His people in the moral sense. They are coming to see His greatness and that it is worth while to be subject, so that He has power enough to compel us to stand to the covenant. I do not see how we shall stand apart from moral power, and so in chapter 35 the offerings are those of the king and the princes, the great personages, that is to say, those who have moral power. That is much greater than formal official power or clerical power, for the man is really seen to be right in the influence he exercises.
DLH Does the standing to the covenant correspond at all with the Supper today?
JT Well, I think so. I shall be glad to hear what you have to say [p. 142] about that.
DLH I thought it was so, and it is an interesting point that we are called upon to answer to the covenant in that regard.
JT You will remember some ten or twelve years ago how the idea of entering into covenant was refused or questioned amongst us. Well, it is a very important thing to stand to the covenant that we are committed to, not in a mere legal way, but because the thing is morally right. There is something worth while to stand to, and I think we are proving it.
JJ Do you think the greatness of the passover in Josiah’s day corresponds with the prominence that has been given to the Supper in our day?
JT I think so, and it was held on the day appointed by Moses. Josiah did not ask for any extension of time; he was ready. You remember Hezekiah held it in the second month, which would indicate a certain weakness or unreadiness, but this goes back to the primary thought of God, showing there was a state of readiness. The people made themselves ready; they were ready for the first month. It is too good a thing to put off for a month.
JJ The scripture says that such a passover had not been since Samuel. It only goes back so far. Why is that?
JT Well, that is a good way back.
JJ Not quite so far as Exodus.
JT No, but remember who Samuel was. I think we have to bear that in mind. It goes back as far as Exodus as regards the date but I have an idea that the passover gathered power as it went. That which the Lord Jesus partook of is the greatest obviously.
EuR Would standing to the covenant involve also, in a general way, the principles of christian fellowship, standing in relation to the Lord and one another?
JT Well, quite so. The covenant suggests what [p. 143] God is, He who made it. Verse 31 of our chapter says, “And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before Jehovah, to walk after Jehovah, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all his heart and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant that are written in this book. And he caused all that were present in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers”. And then it goes on to say, “all his days they did not depart from following Jehovah, the God of their fathers”. That was a great point reached.
AJG Does standing to the covenant promote what is priestly?
JT Obviously. I think the first point is that the king has moral power and brings them into a covenant to keep the primary one; that is to say, it is the idea of our committal.
PL So that you have tenderness of heart referred to in regard of Josiah. Would that answer to the fleshy tables of the heart in which we answer to the covenant?
JT Exactly. That is what I thought in alluding to the earlier ministry. It is made more of in this book than in Kings, because if God is going to reach a great end He begins early. Hence it is a question of each of us beginning early in tenderness. God builds up the structure in that way.
AMH I notice this committal precedes the sacrifices. Is that not the right order, that committing ourselves afresh every Lord’s day would lead to a more complete surrender of ourselves and all that we have, and would not that promote what is priestly?
JT Well, as was suggested, the covenant does promote what is priestly. It is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. It is a holy love, but I think it is important to notice that there [p. 144] was great moral power in the king. He “stood in his place, and made a covenant before Jehovah ... to perform the words of the covenant that are written in this book”. That is, he commits them beforehand under his own moral power to the idea of covenant: he brings them into a committal which has in view the words of the covenant written in the book, but what he brought in was additional to that. That is, it refers to something present, but including all that God had indicated earlier.
Ques Is there any significance in regard of the covenant, in the cup being mentioned before the loaf in 1 Corinthians 10?
JT I think so; it is the greater of the two, in the sense that it brings in what God is. It is the real thing. It is not the love of Christ shed abroad in our hearts, but the love of God. It brings God in and it is a holy love, and that really underlies chapter 35, which is the great chapter which treats of service Godward.
FSM Is the great secret of committal found in the words, “with all his heart and with all his soul” (verse 31); wholeheartedness and true affection being the objective of committal and all that would follow?
JT I do not think there would be many men among us without the idea of committal.
AMH Do you mean committing others? It is done in faith and the energy of the Spirit so that others may be committed.
JT It is a question of the power you have. Looking at chapter 35 you will see what is meant. In verse 7 it says, “And Josiah gave for the children of the people a heave-offering of the flocks, lambs and goats, all for the passover-offerings, for all that were present — to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king’s substance”. Now you can see what moral power goes with that offering. Then it goes on, “And his princes [p. 145] gave a voluntary heave-offering for the people, for the priests, and for the Levites: Hilkijah and Zechariah and Jehiel, rulers of the house of God, gave to the priests for the passover-offerings two thousand six hundred small cattle and three hundred oxen”. Then you have a number of names given, and then, the “chief of the Levites, gave as heave-offering to the Levites for the passover-offerings five thousand small cattle and five hundred oxen”. Now we may be sure that is where the moral power lies; it is what a man has.
WCG You mean moral power lies in the surrender?
JT Yes, and the volume that one has of spiritual power. A man is tested as to what he has got; it is not simply what one says, but what influence he has.
HFN Is the same principle seen in connection with David? When David stood upon his feet what follows is not only what he gave but the wealth that was given by the princes on that occasion. Is that the same idea?
JT Yes. It is the wonderful lead that Christ gives typically in 1 Chronicles, the enormous volume of David’s contribution. Moral power goes with that. The epistle to the Romans is the power that Christ exercises in a moral sense. Well, that leads on to headship so that we are delivered from mere officialism and we come to see the greatness of Christ, first morally and then in His Person, and then in Ephesians in His being set there by God, so that we see the gain of it and it has influence with us, and correspondingly as persons are formed after Christ they have influence. So the whole system continues in that sense governed by spiritual influence.
WCG Does verse 3 give a right ideal in all levitical service?
JT “And he said to the Levites, that taught all Israel, and who were holy to Jehovah ...”. Notice [p. 146] that. They were ready as instructed to put the holy ark in the house that Solomon had built. The covenant is brought in and there is moral power enough to cause them to stand to it. I believe that is the secret of what God is doing for us now, that is, without the principle of committal you cannot get full manhood amongst us.
MWB I should be glad if you will develop that still further, as to how it leads on from committal to the thought of holiness, the holy ark, and that as giving leverage to the idea of headship. I was struck by what you said as to the “holy one”; is it the priestly and sanctuary idea?
JT I think it lies at the basis of Hebrews. I believe God would open up to us the great thought of the service of God in the assembly, and the element of holiness must underlie that. So Romans is the covenant in a positive sense, the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us. I believe that is the basis of the service of God, so that in Hebrews we are addressed as “holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”, not simply called to it, but partakers of it. It is an immense thought that we are outside the range of earth’s influence and laying hold of the heavenly.
EJMcB Is that a question of state?
JT It is entirely. Peter’s confession in John 6 indicates his state at that moment. He did not go beyond where he was, and that is the great point really. It was a question of Christ as “the holy one of God”.
EuR Do you mean that the confession that the Lord was “the holy one of God” would involve holiness in Peter?
JT Surely; he was making definite headway. It was no matter there of revelation as in Matthew 16, but it was a question of his progress of soul. “We have believed and known”, he says. It referred to [p. 147] past experience with regard to Christ, the “holy one of God”.
MWB I was wondering, in connection with inability to enter into the thought of headship in the assembly and the oscillation to which you have sometimes referred, whether it is not because we are not established in the idea of holiness practically.
JT I do not know anything I am so defective in as holiness. It is not a question of light but holiness.
JJ Do you think the reason why Paul had such a wonderful influence with the Corinthians was that he was prepared to sacrifice so much?
JT Well, just so. Those two epistles are a testimony to what we are saying. He caused them to stand to the covenant; that is really what was reached. The second epistle shows he brought them to the covenant, and that is where love lies. Romans in the normal course develops holiness: “ye have your fruit unto holiness”, Romans 6: 22.
JJ And the bringing of the thought of the temple into Corinthians would mean that, would it not?
JT Yes; that is what we need. God does not need holiness. I mean, He is holy, absolutely so, but we need that fruit, “ye have your fruit unto holiness”.
ECR Would the committal in that way be seen in Romans 12, in presenting “your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God”?
JT Exactly. Applied to the body in chapter 6, “ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life”. It is really “righteousness unto holiness”, and Corinthians is to call them back to that “The temple of God is holy”, 1 Corinthians 3: 17.
HFN How would you distinguish between the thought of the service of God in relation to holiness as presented to us in Romans and then in Hebrews?
JT Hebrews goes the whole way in regard to approach. We reach the minister of the sanctuary fully in chapter 8 and as soon as we get the light of [p. 148] the minister of the sanctuary the question is as to how we are going to get in, and the next thing is to open up the covenant, so that we are really holy by the application of the covenant, the holy love of God in our hearts. Hence the writer goes back to the idea of drawing near, and says, “Having therefore, brethren, 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, and having a great priest over the house of God, let us approach”, Hebrews 10: 19 - 21.
Ques Then would you say that holiness is the product of the action of the love of God shed abroad in the heart?
JT Surely. It has often been insisted on that it is not a matter of faith. Holiness is by the Spirit. It begins in that way to take a tangible form in the soul by the love of God shed abroad there by the Holy Spirit.
JRS As you have spoken of it in Hebrews 10, why is it in chapter 12 we have the invitation in view of holiness?
JT That is an additional thing to help you.
Without it you cannot see the Lord.
MWB There has been a good bit of care for some years in making a difference between the sanctuary and the assembly. I judge that you are bringing in the moral link in the thought of holiness and the sanctuary in relation to passing over to the privileges of the assembly. Would you explain that?
JT The service of God is now in the assembly.
It has not always been limited to that, but it is now, and so as we come together and sit together in affection, and as the Lord’s supper comes before us according to its true significance there is movement, and in that God would seize the opportunity to bring in the idea of service. The sanctuary goes beyond the assembly; the idea of [p. 149] it is very wide.
MWB It is a wider thought, not higher?
JT It could not be higher than what is in the assembly, but it is wider. The Lord is “minister of the holy places and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man”. That is what He is up there, for He has “sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens”. It is well to seize the idea of the magnitude of the sanctuary, and then to see how God brings it down to the present time, for that is what is in view in Hebrews. It is, “Let us draw near”, and the opportune moment is when we are together in affection in assembly.
Ques Is the sanctuary greater than the world to come?
JT Surely; but He brings it down now to where the atmosphere is suitable for it, and that is where the saints are together in affection and where the Holy Spirit is free.
CHP Does the High Priest come in in connection with our spiritual state and does the minister of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3) answer to it, so that we are formed after Christ?
JT I think that is so. Some of us were saying the other day that Luke does not give us any eating at the Supper; it is a question of memorial, you do not need special strength to call the Lord to mind. But Matthew and Mark speak about eating, and the blood of the covenant shed for many, so that power is needed, and hence you get eating stressed in both Matthew and Mark, and in those two gospels only you get the movement to the mount of Olives; and that is what underlies what we are saying. It is a question of appropriating Christ. “Take, eat: this is my body”, and “Drink ye all of it”. Let nobody miss drinking it, for God would bring all into it. It is the blood of the covenant shed for many and the power is great enough to bring many into unity, so that all are to go up to the mount of Olives.
[p. 150] Ques Would the spiritual silence you spoke of recently lead up to that?
JT I think it furnishes the atmosphere for it. The sanctuary now is a question of condition. However few, if the condition is there you get the sanctuary, and Christ will take His place amongst us.
JJ What is the extent of the “true tabernacle, which the Lord has pitched, and not man”?
JT It is the great universal system. We are told in Hebrews 9 that it was one of the “figurative representations of the things in the heavens”.
GWW Would you say that the underlying cause of the failure of all these revivals — for they did all fail one after the other — lay in the fact that the state of holiness was not induced in the people at large? The influence of the king held them for the moment, but as soon as that influence was gone, there was no formative work, nothing had taken place with them spiritually, and they at once lapsed to what was before.
JT As soon as the king is removed there is independence, but the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit given to us holds us, and that is what affords conditions for the sanctuary hence the importance of hearing the word which the Spirit says. There is guidance in what the Spirit is stressing. He gives us the positive side in this particular revival according to this book, and we have to pay attention to that. So we have the passover on the first day. That shows that Josiah was a man that would pay attention to details. There are those who object to the idea of detail, but Josiah was a man of detail; he went back to Moses, but he did not stop with Moses, for he brings in the holy ark to be placed in the temple which Solomon had built not the tabernacle. That is, we are on the line of Ephesians here, [p. 151] not Corinthians.
WCG What is the meaning of the word, “ye have not to carry it upon your shoulders”?
JT It means it is not the wilderness, or the Corinthian side of things; he is dealing with the heavenly side, where there is no more bearing on the shoulders. We want to get the idea of Christ in relation to heaven, the “holy ark”. People assume that Christ can be attached to all kinds of names and conditions, but He has been detached from all that. The ark belongs to the temple which Solomon the son of David built, and Josiah is concerned that it should be there.
WC What place did the oxen have in the sacrifices connected with the passover? The king and the princes and the priests all give in addition to the lambs and goats a certain number of oxen.
JT I think it is to bring out the wealth that was there. There is nothing said about them in Exodus.
WC Would they show the gain of the covenant in continuance?
JT It shows the gain of headship; it is the idea of wealth. Exodus puts the obligation for the material of the tabernacle on every Israelite. But it is not so here, nor in 1 Chronicles. It is the gift of the princes, persons of wealth, and it shows the gain of bringing in Ephesians, for that is where you get the unsearchable riches.
HFN Would you say a word in regard of the writing of David and Solomon? David is referred to three times. You have the “ways of David”, and then the “writing of David”, and when the singers come in you have the “commandment of David”. Would all these thoughts come in in headship?
JT I have understood that David is Christ in affliction, so that all that comes out in Solomon, that is Christ in heaven, has its correspondence in Christ here in affliction. It seems to give a peculiar touch to what came out in Christ in the time of His affliction,
[p. 152] which ought to appeal to us more, but when you come to Solomon it is the same Christ only in glory, and it is His dignity, His greatness, His grandeur and His sonship that come into view. The two aspects run together in our apprehension and greatly tend to give lustre and tone to our worship. A suffering Christ is sure to produce holy feelings, and a glorified Christ produces spiritual liberty and dignity. There is the idea of the pathos that enters into the song as the suffering Christ is apprehended. Think of them joining in that song as they went to the mount of Olives surrounded by the murderous atmosphere. It touches a chord of feeling in our hearts, whether it be the ways of David or the writing of David, answering to what the Lord did with great deliberation here, so that it might be constant, as He says to His disciples, “The Comforter, the Holy Spirit ... will bring to your remembrance all the things which I have said to you”. But then, there is the writing of Solomon, too. He is the son of David, which would be, I apprehend, Christ as He is in heaven.
EuR Were you connecting those two writings with ministry?
JT Yes; it is the way the thing is brought to us. The writing of David and the writing of Solomon would be brought to us by the Spirit. Someone has been remarking that everything must be by the Scriptures. It must; Scripture must test everything, but we cannot limit the Spirit of God to the Scriptures. Not that the word of God is not complete, but we cannot limit the Spirit of God to the Scriptures. I mean to say, He brings out things and gives them a fulness and pungency that the Scriptures only guard. You have a divine Person here; see what He brings out if there is scope for it.
Rem So that access in Ephesians is on a very high plane. “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”.
JT Exactly. Well now, you see in verses 7 to 9 the great wealth that comes in if headship is recognised. He ministered all the wealth that was available, and then in verse 10 we come back to the actual service. “The service was prepared, and the priests stood in their place”. You have much of that idea of place — the king in his place and the priests in their place. Then you have the passover properly roasted, and then the consecrated things that are to be boiled. It is the accuracy with which things are done in this holy service, so that you have roasting and boiling.
Ques Are you looking at Josiah as representing the Lord in this acting or is it spiritual leadership?
JT I think it is the Lord as apprehended spiritually in the assembly. I think that is the first thought, and then the wealth that there is by the Spirit in the apprehension and the special attention given to the priests and the Levites. “His princes gave a voluntary heave-offering”, we are told in verse 8, “for the people, for the priests, and for the Levites”, as if they had in mind that there should be proper priestly and levitical service. We have the wealth of the king in verse 7; he “gave for the children of the people a heave-offering of the flocks, lambs and goats, all for the passover-offerings, for all that were present — to the number of thirty thousand, and three thousand bullocks”. Those were the king’s substance, and then the princes consider for the people, for the priests and for the Levites.
Ques Would you say something about roasting and boiling?
JT Roasting is direct action, as we know. It is the fire acting directly on the flesh. Boiling is indirect, that is to say, it is more what Christ is to us in the Supper. The judgment is there, but not emphasised.
CHP Do the princes represent those that [p. 154] are spiritual amongst us, coming out exactly in the spirit of Christ?
JT I think the idea is to bring out the fulness of the wealth, and that is where you would expect to have it, first in the king and then in the princes. So that if the conditions are there you will get the wealth.