ETERNITY TO ETERNITY (6)
ETERNITY TO ETERNITY (6)
JT The subject this afternoon is the conflict. It seems fitting that this subject should be found at the close of this epistle, for whilst opening up to us the counsels of God culminating in the coming eternity, the epistle contemplates us as here, where the enemy’s power is. That is, if God would entrust all this precious knowledge to us, we should contend for and stand in it. As we have noted already as to the subjects in our several readings, the types serve well in unfolding this subject to us. Whilst the Old Testament is but little alluded to in the epistle, yet it stresses spirituality, and spirituality will avail itself of all that there is in the way of spiritual help and furnishings. So that the subject requires for the right understanding of it in detail references to the Old Testament, particularly to Joshua as the typical military man, and to David too. Joshua is not only a type of Christ as the Leader of His people militarily, but a type for young believers as to how they come into the conflict and learn to fight. That is, after the gift of the Spirit according to Exodus 17, the enemy attacks at once, so that the idea of spiritual warfare is seen in that chapter. The Amalekites attack and you have the initial idea of spiritual warfare, the leader in the conflict, Joshua, being still young. It may be advantageous that we should begin with this part of the subject, so that the young brothers present may follow, and see that the idea of military service and conflict begins at once, as they receive the Spirit of God.
HD'AC Military service begins at once.
JT Yes, as we receive the Spirit according to Exodus 17. Then in Numbers we are marshalled in relation to the standard of our fathers’ houses, having something definitely to protect. But in Exodus 17 the young believer [p. 290] is pictured as coming into the conflict with Amalek. For christians this is individual and inward.
DLH In connection with the conflict with Amalek, was not the effort of the enemy to keep the people immediately from the purpose of God?
JT That would be the thought, the Holy Spirit being given as the earnest of the inheritance.
ASL Does Amalek represent Satan?
JT Satan working in the flesh especially in young believers. Spiritual conflict begins there. Joshua is the spiritual leader. Moses says, “Choose us men”. The conflict is not to be on party lines in any way; it is in relation to all.
ASL And success depended on intercession.
JT It is a hidden matter, and there is a measure of uncertainty about it. Victory is not immediately granted, because we are to learn war. When victory is not immediately granted we become dependent. We have a wily foe. There was a swaying and uncertainty, all hinging on Moses’ upheld arms. That would not allude to any weakness in Christ now as interceding for us, but weakness in our reliance on Him.
ASL In our chapter our conflict is “not against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies”. It is satanic power.
JT It is not Satan in the flesh here; it is spiritual wickedness in heavenly places, but in order to have part in this great universal conflict in the heavenlies, young brothers have to learn war, to meet Satan himself in contending for the truth. We must understand how to deal with spiritual opposition. Joshua in Exodus 17 represents the spiritual leader, that is to say, Christ known in that small way first. In learning war we grow in the apprehension of the intercession on high, and of the Lord as our spiritual Leader in the conflict.
ESH [p. 291] So that you know where to turn. It says of Joshua that he “broke the power of Amalek”, (Exodus 17:13).
Rem It is not the believer that takes the initiative with Amalek. As soon as the believer has the Spirit, the enemy attacks.
JT He forces it on you, and that is of God.
Rem So it is intended that every young believer should be a man of war.
JT The great progenitor of faith had “trained servants” in his house — that is the idea, and he used them to rescue his brother. They were trained, and there were three hundred and eighteen of them. I think the training for war begins in Exodus, and then in Numbers, we are marshalled and set up locally, in relation to the testimony. Now we have something to defend.
JHT Do you get the idea in Paul in Acts 13:9? He was filled with the Holy Spirit in meeting one whom he calls “son of the devil”. John Mark goes back at that point.
JT Mark was unequal to the conflict then.
ASL This conflict is not exactly reserved for those far advanced in the faith.
JT No; and so I thought it would be advantageous to the young, to see that we are brought into it at once. It is forced upon us, and God uses it, that we might learn war, for He has a great deal for us to defend and protect, as the sequel showed in the books of Numbers and Joshua. Numbers is rather a defensive warfare, but Joshua is attack. It is to take the inheritance and stand in it; but Numbers is to protect what is set up in the tabernacle.
ASL So it would be young believers who have been granted some apprehension of their place in the church.
JT Yes. I think Exodus 17 is very much like Romans; but Numbers is more Corinthians, what there is in a collective sense to be defended in the wilderness.
EuR And does not Joshua accept a kind of training under Moses?
[p. 292] JT He does. As a young man he was lacking in a good ear for sounds. Coming down from the mountain in Exodus 32 with Moses, he thought it was the sound of war, but he was mistaken. Military operations require a good ear and good eyesight.
Ques Was the apostle teaching Timothy war in the second epistle?
JT He was calling upon him to be a “good soldier of Jesus Christ”.
ASL Is there a difference between Joshua and Ephesians in respect of conflict, that in Ephesians we are exhorted to stand as being there, whereas Joshua, as you said, had to be aggressive, to go forward and attack?
JT We have to be aggressive, but I suppose this epistle contemplates the land as already taken; the territory was all taken by apostolic service, and it is for the saints to hold the ground.
MWB There was warfare in connection with Sihon and Og. What is the difference between that kind of conflict and the conflict in Joshua?
JT That is still wilderness conflict. I think that Sihon and Og have allusion to the territory that Moses gives us. It is a question of the authority of the Lord. There is territory given to us on the principle of authority, that is by Moses; and then there is territory given to us by Joshua which is rather spiritual leadership. Rahab spoke of what the people did to Sihon and Og. She knew what Jehovah did at the Red Sea, and what the people did to Sihon and Og. I think it alludes to the believer as himself belonging to God, that God has rights in him. It is what occurs in the believer after he recognises the Spirit. It is the overthrow of the ‘big I’; that is one of the greatest struggles. That is not in Exodus 17; which is rather the way I am troubled by Satan interfering and working through the flesh before I understand Romans 7. But the victory over Sihon and Og, is after the Holy Spirit is formally recognised. That is to say, it is Romans 8,
[p. 293] and the great battle then is whether it is to be Christ in me, in His rights over me, or whether it is to be the ‘big I’, that is to say, the big man, Og. His overthrow is a great victory.
MWB It is all in relation to the wilderness, and to self in some form. But the warfare in 2 Corinthians 10 “the overthrow of strongholds; overthrowing reasonings and every high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God” — does that go further or is it still some element of the ‘big I’?
JT That goes beyond the battle with Og. Paul speaks of the weapons of his warfare; they were not carnal. They had not overcome the ‘big I’ at Corinth; that was the difficulty with the leaders.
MWB Then the question of self coming into the wilderness sphere, shows that that question might arise even after taking up a military position in respect of the testimony in Numbers.
JT Yes, quite so.
MWB Do you think that affords the testing circumstances for the exposure of this ‘I’?
JT I think it does. You get a brother who attends the meetings, he is so far set for the testimony, but in how many of us is self overthrown? One can speak feelingly, because the fact that I am in fellowship and contend for the truth and the principles of the house of God does not prove, in itself, that I have overcome Sihon and Og, because it is a question of the rights of the Lord in me. He would be in me instead of myself. “If Christ be in you, the body is dead” (Romans 8:10); that is the overthrow of Og.
ASL That comes after the brazen serpent.
JT It does; the overthrow of Sihon and Og is after that.
Ques Do you get that in spirit in Matthew 18 where you humble yourself to come into the kingdom?
JT Exactly. You can see how self stood out even after [p. 294] all the light of the mount of transfiguration. They were talking of who was to be greatest in the kingdom of the heavens. So the Lord called a little child to Him and set him down and said, “Unless ye are converted and become as little children, ye will not at all enter into the kingdom of the heavens”.
WC How does Phinehas come in here? Numbers 25?
JT That would be priestly zeal, as Paul came in at Corinth.
The issue at Corinth was Midianitish. It belongs to the conflict in Numbers. It is a question of worldly associations.
Phinehas was later sent out against the Midianites with twelve thousand of Israel. It was a continuation of the principle of warfare in Phinehas; it is priestly. You are concerned about the holiness of the people of God, that they should be saved from worldly associations. To Phinehas the priesthood was established for ever.
Ques Does the expression here, “Be strong in the Lord”, suggest that self has been abandoned for Christ, and you have taken up a new position?
JT I think so. The Lord is now dominant; but in this chapter it is not the Lord, as in Romans. It is not a question of the kingdom, but a military title; He is Lord militarily. It corresponds with Acts 19. In chapter 18 where we have the wilderness in view, that is, Corinth, it is God — “the word of God” — but in Acts 19 where the land is in view, it is the Lord — “the word of the Lord”. The latter is what is in view in this passage: “be strong in the Lord, and in the might of his strength”.
FHB Does Joshua represent the Lord Himself or the Spirit of Christ in the saints?
JT He is Christ apprehended in a spiritual, military way. Joshua is the spiritual leader as we have seen, introduced in Scripture in a military way. His ministry corresponds with Ephesians, whereas the ministry or leadership of Moses enters into Romans and Corinthians.
[p. 295] That is, it is a question of Christ’s authority over the saints, whereas Joshua is a question of spiritual power and leadership in warfare, placing us in Canaan.
Ques Where does Caleb come in on that line?
JT Caleb represents the faith and energy in the believer that takes possession of the inheritance. He valued his own portion, Hebron, a portion divinely given to him, and he dislodged the enemy there. In Caleb we see sustained military ability to an advanced age.
Ques. What about Othniel?
JT Othniel would be Christ obtaining the church through warfare.
EuR Where does the “captain of the Lord’s host” come in? (Joshua 5:15).
JT He refers to this epistle. The great military service in Joshua begins as the people are set up at Gilgal. The conflict begins at Jericho. Here a man stands over against Joshua with a drawn sword in his hand. Now this is for Joshua’s education; he is to be on new ground in the warfare; he is to understand it is not partisan, but a question of Jehovah’s host, so that when Joshua says, “Art thou for us, or for our enemies?” the man says, “No; for as captain of the army of Jehovah am I now come”. The position in Joshua therefore, is that there is a captain of Jehovah’s host, and He is no less than a divine Person, because Joshua was to take his shoes off his feet before Him. Holiness was to enter into the warfare; selfish thoughts were to be excluded.
FHB Is the object of the warfare here to maintain the full testimony of the Christ, and not simply to secure our inheritance? The Man with the drawn sword said He was captain of the army of Jehovah.
JT Exactly; so in the next chapter in Joshua the ark is prominent. Having the captain, you have also the power in which the conflict is carried on. So that the ark, accompanied by the blowing of the trumpets, is carried [p. 296] round the city, and on the seventh day it encircles the city seven times, when the shout brings the wall down. We are taught in all this “that the excellency of the power may be of God” (2 Corinthians 4:7); that is, we have no strength at all in ourselves. In the ark and trumpets, there is a definite presentation of the testimony in Christ brought into view. The Lord said, “I have overcome the world”, not only Satan, but the world, and I think the apostles in their testimony overcame the world. In principle it is overcome for us.
JJ Would the four gospels help us in connection with putting on the whole armour of God? You see the Lord invulnerable there.
JT Yes. The armour of God is seen there. The Lord overcame by the manifestation of the features we have here. We do well to weigh the facts at Jericho because they put us into our place; the power is of God. It is in the clear sounding out of the testimony and the presentation of Him who is the subject of it, that the world is thus brought down. But in the bringing down of the world you look after those that are to be saved. Rahab represents them.
HH Do you mean the world as a system?
JT Yes, and the things by which it is kept going, such as the books and the seven sons of Sceva, that is, the perfection of spiritual wickedness in persons who have apostatised from God.
HH We have, of course, to judge all that for ourselves; much has thus to follow in our souls’ history after we receive the gospel.
Ques Does the apprehension of the truth of the Son of God help us in overcoming the world?
JT Scripture says so. “This is the victory which has gotten the victory over the world, our faith. Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:4,5). I apprehend that this epistle is specially included in “our faith”,
[p. 297] which faith has overcome the world. It involves another system, and moral superiority over the present one; so that, although I move about in it, the world has no influence over me. That seen in a number of christians shows what God has effected — there is something set up here that has overcome the world, “our faith”.
WJH Do you think that “Jesus is the Son of God” would be a conception of the ark, so small outwardly, yet infinitely great and powerful? I was thinking of what the demons said in regard of the sons of Sceva: “Jesus I know”, (Acts 19:15). Jesus is His name in the lowly conditions He took and yet He is powerful enough for them to know Him.
JT “Who is he that gets the victory over the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” — that lowly One, all power being in Him.
Ques Would that be illustrated in the way they brought their books and burned them at Ephesus?
JT Exactly. Othniel took that city, the “city of the books”; that was a particular feature that Caleb had in his mind to be overcome. It is a formidable element of the world — ‘the power of the press’, as men say. Very few of the people of God are free from damaging literature. It is sometimes said that there is so much ministry printed that brethren have not time to read it, but one large daily newspaper contains more reading matter than one of our books.
SJBC I suppose Kirjath-Arba would be the city of human power; and Kirjath-sepher would be the wisdom of the world.
JT Yes. Kirjath-sepher would be the Greek world, and Kirjath-Arba the Roman, the world of power. I refer to the period when the world was overthrown by the testimony of the apostles.
Ques Would you mind saying a little more about the Man with the drawn sword in His hand? One feels a little difficulty as to the distinction between Him and Joshua.
JT I think Joshua, there, represents any one of us as [p. 298] in the warfare. Warfare tends to taking sides by those engaged in it. I have something in my mind that I would like to attain and I crave for some one to help me. What happened at Jericho, is to remind us that the Lord will have no part in that at all. I get no help from Him in that relation. Joshua asks, “Art thou for us or for our enemies?” The first time Joshua is told to take the sword to lead in a battle, Moses says, “Choose us men” (Exodus 17:9), meaning for all the people of God, not for any section of them. I do not believe Joshua was free from partisan bias in his early life; in Numbers 11:28 we are told that when God would extend the Spirit by bringing a greater personnel into the ministry than one man, and Eldad and Medad were actually prophesying, Joshua said, “My lord Moses, forbid them”. He did not wish anybody to prophesy but Moses. Apparently he was not clear of partisan tendencies, even at Jericho. He enquires, “Art thou for us, or for our enemies?” The Man with the drawn sword answers, “No; for as captain of the army of Jehovah am I now come”, (Joshua 5:13).
Ques Does Peter come to that when he says, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15)?
JT Yes. After the incident at Antioch, where evidently partisan spirit existed, it is very beautiful that he could refer to Paul in that way.
JJ Would you bring David into this chapter as well as Joshua — he took the stronghold of Zion? He moved on from Hebron to do that. Would the Jebusite (2 Samuel 5) refer to spiritual wickednesses?
JT Yes. Joshua places us in the inheritance, but, after we are there we find enemies. Some were allowed to stay in the land. David’s work involved subjugation of internal and external enemies. David’s service was imperial; he was king of kings and lord of lords. He foreshadowed Christ as seen in Revelation 19.
CCE Is there any distinction spiritually between Jericho and the rest of the seven nations?
JT [p. 299] Jericho is representative of all, I think, it represents the power of the world. Israel were faced with it immediately, so that the coming down of its walls, as they did without Israel having to strike a blow, would mean that the power in the conflict was of God and not of men. I think it was, in principle, the whole entrenched power of the enemy. It typifies what is before us here — “The universal lords of this darkness ... spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies”. Jericho was evidently very well fortified.
Ques Were not the seven kings in Jericho? Would not Joshua 24:11 indicate that?
JT I do not think it means that they were actually in Jericho, but rather that Jericho represented, as we were saying, the whole territory of the seven kings in the land of Canaan. The conquest of the land is in view there, as the context shows.
FHB What would be the difference between the overthrow of Jericho and the five kings that he destroyed afterwards?
JT The curse came on them; the captains put their feet on the necks of those kings and then they were hanged. In the book of Joshua all the conquered kings were enumerated. Hazor was “the head of all those kingdoms” (Joshua 11:10), it is said. Rome was in the same position at the time of the apostles. Hazor was burned with fire. Instead of Rome being constituted the head of christendom, the type would teach us that it was overcome. Nothing that marked the world’s city was to be incorporated in the city of God, the church answering to this. The whole system of Romanism is developed out of Rome the head of the nations, the empire taking on a spiritual garb; and I suppose the burning of Hazor would mean that that which it represents must be utterly repudiated by the people of God.
JHT It says, “they left none that breathed”, (Joshua 11:14). It is a striking [p. 300] expression.
JT It is. Hazor later recovered strength, as we learn in the book of Judges, with remarkable rapidity; we read also of Jabin its king and Sisera the captain of his host living in another place (chapter 4:2). There was great confidence between them and mutual reliance; that was the power Deborah had to deal with. He was “king of Canaan” answering, I think, to what Romanism has become. But Deborah says to Barak, “Hath not Jehovah the God of Israel commanded? Go and draw towards mount Tabor”, (verse 6). This indicates the way we overcome that kind of evil; it is by recognising the commandment of the Lord. “Hath not Jehovah the God of Israel commanded?” Deborah says. She was a remarkable woman in a military sense, and her song with Barak shows the great military energy that filled her soul. She was dealing with an intrepid enemy, one in the place of head, which Rome has always arrogated to itself. Sisera was overthrown by obedience to God’s commandment: Barak with ten thousand men should draw towards mount Tabor, meaning that now it is a question of military manoeuvres or tactics, so that you have the advantage in the battlefield; a very important matter in warfare. The Lord selected the battlefield, and it is important for young believers to understand that the battle is the Lord’s and victory is sure as we are obedient. God says to Barak, “I will draw unto thee, to the torrent Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, and his chariots and his multitude”, (verse 7). The army of Sisera had thus a great disadvantage, and the issue in favour of Israel was certain. We are taught in all these incidents what is meant here, how we are to be in the conflict, because we have a wily foe operating in a very wide sphere. By and by he will come up “on the breadth of the earth”, after the millennium, as we are told in Revelation 20:9. Satan will have a free hand on the earth, on the whole breadth of it, to encircle the camp of the saints. But fire from heaven consumes his army. Now it is not the earth but the heavenly [p. 301] places, because it is a question of the conflict of the church.
HH Is there not a striking allusion to the apprehension of headship in Judges? Are not the facts in the light of the headship of Christ? Outwardly things are in disorder, no king in Israel. Deborah was a woman, but she got Barak to move, and Jael was the wife of Heber the Kenite.
JT Yes; and it is said of Deborah that she was the wife of Lapidoth. They were both in subjection, but Deborah had evidently gained a moral victory over herself. She dwelt under her own palm tree. She refers to Jael as preceding her, mentioning her with Shamgar. In their days the highways were unoccupied, that is, the principles of God had not been attended to. So it seems Jael was not on the same spiritual level as Deborah, but she slew Sisera, and Deborah magnificently renders tribute to her.
JHB Does the conflict in Ephesians 6 go on together, or is it what we do individually?
JT I think it is collective. It is universal and I believe involves the “unity of the Spirit” and the “unity of the faith”, (chapter 4:3,13). I do not see how we can meet this combination of darkness unless we hold universally the “unity of the Spirit” and the “unity of the faith”. The Lord would have us drop all localism and nationalism, and move together in the light of the assembly and its heavenly places and privileges.
MWB Is that the link with Psalm 68:18 from which the verse is quoted in Ephesians 4: “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts in Man”?
JT I think so. The Lord having gone on high leading captivity captive, the power is in His hands, and His giving gifts to men implies the power of the Spirit specifically expressed. As we were saying the other day, and which I think is worthy of notice, the mighty men come in immediately after David’s anointing in 1 Chronicles; but in 2 Samuel they come in at the end. I do not think we should minimise what there is in the last days, for they are in a certain way equal to the first days, and I think the mighties go right through. Samuel would show that they go right through, that no one of that character is omitted from the list. Whatever they were at the beginning, as in Chronicles, they also have their place at the end.
MWB So that links on the days of Acts 19 — the overthrow of the power of evil at Ephesus — with the present time; and our exercises today should have the same end in view.
JT That is the way to bring this chapter into the present time. The same circumstances exist — Christ is in heaven and the Holy Spirit is on earth, and the gifts are here; there is the possibility of mighty men to lead on the people of God, and to hold the ground that God has restored to us.
PL Are the mighties found in 2 Timothy 4:11,19 “Only Luke is with me”; “take Mark”; “Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus”.
JT They are mighty surely.
HH You get a good list at the end of Romans of church material.
JT Yes. The many salutations of Paul would give those mentioned a status in Rome that would greatly assist in leading them into the inheritance. Immediately after the salutations the apostle goes on to speak of the assembly.
JHB Then if in Ephesians the enemies are viewed in the heavenlies, where are the saints viewed as standing?
JT In the light of our calling — the church’s place. A comparison with Revelation 12 will show that the final conflict is in the heavenlies, Michael leading, to drive out Satan and his army. That would be to make room for the church literally there. Now it is a faith period, so that we [p. 303] are contending on the principle of faith for all these things. The heavenlies belong to the church; we have prior rights there. Satan should not be there; it is a question of holding in faith the heavenly position — and unitedly too.
HH Do we not combat with the influence of wicked spirits on the minds of people through bad doctrine. This might get in even amongst the saints?
JT Yes surely. That is how the enemy is working. He is operating from a great central spiritual position on the minds of men here; he reaches us in that way. It may reach us in a multitude of ways, but we are to have on, not only the armour of light, as in Romans, but the whole armour of God. Thus the whole position is held.
HH We know our place on high.
JT And your walk and ways are in keeping with it; you are standing in the full light of the calling.
HH The armour would protect you there.
JT It would.
MWB You referred just now to the “unity of the Spirit” and the “unity of the faith” in special connection with this. Would you say a little how that works out?
JT I think that is very important because it is a universal thing here; it is universal and collective. Of course we are in the greatest weakness, but the chapter is light for us as to how we are held together in the overthrow of all that marks the world. The world is being led on to the idea of a head and a central position, which is working out now on the Continent. The most potent opposition is organised opposition, and God meets that by organisation. Matthew shows that the Lord met two demoniacs, two blind men, and so on. It is a question of organisation. Chapter 4 of this epistle is divine organisation. That is to say, we are bound up in spiritual affections — which would mean that I cannot afford to lose my brother. And so you have the word to Paul on the ship, (Acts 27), that God had given to him all that sailed [p. 304] with him. That ought to be the desire of every one of us — not to lose one. Well, that implies the unity of the Spirit; it is a question of affection. As we saw yesterday, Absalom’s kingdom was thus overthrown in Jerusalem. For that you have the unity of the Spirit, but then there is also the unity of the faith, which would mean the superiority of christian truth, the truth that God has restored — the wonderful unfolding of the mind of God before which no philosopher could ever stand. The books were burnt because they were shown to be fallacious. This was because of the great superiority of the truth. Paul’s ministry at Ephesus involved the most wonderful unfolding of the truth and counsels of God, so he says, “I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God”, (Acts 20:27). Hence the intelligence the Ephesians had, and that I think is what is involved in the unity of the faith; so that you have the unity of the Spirit, and the unity of the faith, and the self-action of the body. Instead of being overcome you have a system of things that is invulnerable. Walking in the light and practical acceptance of all this, God gives us the victory in the conflict.
Ques “Having accomplished all things, to stand”? What are the “all things”?
JT Whatever was obligatory on them; they were to stand; not give up any ground, but hold what was secured for them.
JHT Is there time to say a word about the panoply of God?
JT It is the whole armour, what has marked God in coming into this world in which Satan was entrenched. How in Christ He met the evil. The gospels show how Christ met all opposition. I think we learn in that way; but these varied parts of the armour are most instructive and practical. “Stand therefore, having girt about your loins with truth”; that is the first thing. Then the breastplate of righteousness, and the preparation of the glad [p. 305] tidings of peace on the feet; and then, besides all this, the shield of faith “with which ye will be able to quench all the inflamed darts of the wicked one”. “Have also the helmet of salvation”. Those are all armour; and then, the “sword of the Spirit”, by which you defend yourself and also go forward in attack.
EuR You referred to the captain of the Lord’s host as suggesting a divine Person; do you connect it with the title ‘Lord’ in this chapter, and that it is a divine Person who has the situation in hand?
JT That is exactly the truth.