FAMILY AFFECTIONS (3)
FAMILY AFFECTIONS (3)
JT It occurred to me that this chapter would help us in further considering the subject before us, as showing how a father’s wish was adhered to and carried out. We have been engaged with family relationships and were dwelling on certain passages in the book of Genesis. We saw how the parental instincts developed in certain dwelling places in Abraham, and how he, being the typical father in Scripture, dwelt with Isaac and Jacob. We noted the dwelling places with that in view. They were the heirs with him of the same promise, so that the family instincts and affections would be rightly developed. We saw that he is said to have dwelt in the land of Canaan, then by the oaks of Mamre, and last at Beersheba, and how the light as to Rebecca came to him there, and that he acted on it in sending his servant to seek out Rebecca; so that the family was to be continued, and the links were to be equal — she was to be of Isaac’s kin. Then we saw certain disarrangements having come in through Isaac and Jacob, the relationships were adjusted under Joseph, and I thought this chapter would furnish a further link in the chain of Scripture, as showing how a family rightly regulated and adjusted regard the will of the father.
GWH-n Before going on to that I wish you would go over the three dwelling places — Bethel, Mamre and Beersheba. He dwelt at each of those places, did he not?
JT It says in a general way he dwelt in the land of Canaan, in chapter 13 of Genesis. I think we enlarged on that as indicative of the purpose of [p. 367] God being in view in his dwelling places. Did you have something further?
GWH-n I only wanted you to say whether Mamre is an advance on Bethel.
JT I think it is, in that it speaks of stability, (”oaks”) and Beersheba is in the light of the death and resurrection of Christ, and of the oath; Genesis 22. God having no greater to swear by swore by Himself, so the soul is established in the faithfulness of God. You rest in that. Perhaps you had something else in your mind.
GWH-n No, I only wanted to be a little clearer on the difference in the positions at Bethel, Mamre and Beersheba. With regard to the last point, is it not very necessary for us to apprehend the faithfulness of God so that our souls may be established?
JT I think so. The family relationships are developed in these connections. We were noting that Abraham, on the one hand, suggests God’s own affections in the fact that he loved Isaac, gave him up, and received him back from the dead. Then we noted also that he represents the believer in the progress of his soul. Then the sons of Jacob, being adjusted in regard to Jacob and in regard to one another, I thought the sons of the Rechabites might furnish another link as showing how adherence to a father’s command is a mark of family affections. I think their position is very much akin to our own. Their father had died. The Lord’s relation to us is very like that of Jonadab’s relation to his family.
WCR You mean that where there is a brotherly spirit adjustment comes in and the natural consequence is that those who have been thus affected do the will of God and keep His commandments?
JT Yes, quite. The Lord said, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”, John 14:21. In the institution of the Lord’s supper there is a certain allusion to the family. It is a family institution. The parental thought enters into it. The Lord, in partaking of the passover, was in the position of head of a house, as Jonadab was head of a house. The passover was celebrated in families, all in relation to the centre in Jerusalem. To-day the family thought, natural family links are stronger among the Jews, I think, than among any other people, and the family principle was augmented by the passover. There was to be a lamb for a house. The family thought descended to the most insignificant man in the nation, but then all the families revert back to one great family, because all must emanate from, and all revert to, God. However, many thousands or millions of families there may be, the family principle is worked out in each, but then it reverts back to the great divine Progenitor. It must necessarily, and so the feast of the passover brought the family feature into evidence. They repaired to Jerusalem in families, and, as there, they had the passover, each family having it apart. The links would be strengthened in each family, but then they would broaden out. They all come from one parent stock. As the Jews said to the Lord, “We are Abraham’s seed”. The Lord admitted that Abraham was their father, according to the flesh.
“I know that ye are Abraham’s seed”, but he was not their father spiritually, for they did not “the works of Abraham”. He makes very plain who their father was in that sense. But then He says, “Before Abraham was, I am”. See John 8:58. That is, He went back further than Abraham, so that the family root goes back of Abraham.
RSS How would you apply that to the Lord’s supper?
JT The Lord’s supper was instituted on the passover night. They partook of the passover as a family matter. He instituted His Supper under those [p. 369] circumstances, and it was to supersede all that went on in Jerusalem at that time in the many houses in which the passover was celebrated. The Lord was the “House-father” on that occasion, and the word, or commandment, as we may speak of it, was to be the bond, and indeed the test, of the saints during His absence.
RSS Do you, for that reason, think that the gatherings of the Lord’s people now are more in the character of a family than a large congregation? The Lord made them sit down by fifties, etc., having some reference to the gatherings of the Lord’s people to commemorate the Supper.
JT Yes, I think the small gatherings afford occasion for the development of family feelings and affections more than the large ones do, but then the small ones have the one great family in view. We must revert to that. There is one great family now — the children of God. “That we should be called”, it says, “the children of God”, 1 John 3:1. So that the local companies afford the occasion for the development of family feelings and affections; but we ever bear in mind that now there is one great family.
GWH-n The great point here in these sons is obedience, is it not?
JT That is it.
GWH-n What begets obedience?
JT Love does.
GWH-n While you were quoting John 14, I was thinking of verse 23, “If a man love me he will keep my word”, John 14:23. Love begets obedience.
JT Yes, there is the keeping of the commandments in verse 20, and in verse 23 the keeping of the word. In both cases it is love. There is a striking parallel between John 14 and this chapter.
GAT Does partaking of the Supper denote [p. 370] that I have affection for Him, and that I also want to keep His word?
JT Yes, the commandment refers to His will and the word refers to His mind. The commandment must necessarily come first. Unless the will of the Lord prevails we do not get His word. The word comes out in ministry. The commandments are specific; they are the test, but, “If a man love me, he will keep my words”, (John 14:23) He says.
GWH-n It says the virtuous woman of Proverbs does her husband good and not evil all the days of her life. Her service springs from affection.
JT I think we might get help if we were to see that fatherly instincts and affections necessarily emanate from God. He is the source of all; I think the Lord meant that when He said, “Before Abraham was, I am”, John 8:58. He was before Abraham, hence all that comes out in Abraham, in this respect, is a reflection of what is in the heart of God. God took him up for that. His name signifies “father”, which means that God intended to set out what was in His own heart and bring it near to us. Abraham is said to be “father of us all”, and we ought to consider him in this light. The Lord was before Abraham; what came out in Abraham was from Him, and so He says, “I am the root and offspring of David”, Revelation 22:16. He was the Root. To appreciate the royal line you must go back to the Root of it. The two features come out in Matthew: “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”, Matthew 1:1. Although He comes in through them, He was before them.
GWH-n So that when Abraham took the three days’ journey with Isaac, he was only setting forth what was in the heart of God.
JT That is it.
RSS Do we not find that the thought of relationship originates not only with, but in God? I [p. 371] mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So God is the source of all, of what we are now speaking about, and that which also goes with relationship — affections.
JT It is “Before the foundation of the world”, (John 17:24) but God graciously takes account of our capacities. The Lord connects eternal things with time, or an event by saying, “Before the foundation of the world”, John 17:24. That is the way the Spirit of God refers to eternity. Our minds are capable of taking that in to some extent, at all events, but it was there then before the foundation of the world. The Lord refers to it, that the Father loved Him then, and also to the glory that He had with Him then. So we can look back to the circumstances of Genesis and see that they must be but the reflection of what was in God’s heart. God was working it out in a man, so He says, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house”, Genesis 12:1. There must be complete severance from the natural before God can develop spiritual relations and affections.
Stephen says, “After his father died” Abraham removed into Canaan. It was after his father died that all this came out.
RSA That throws great light on the necessity of Abraham having to leave his kindred and father’s house.
JT Quite so. He must be apart altogether from the natural, he was to dwell in the land of Canaan.
RSS Really in all this it was God’s desire to reveal Himself and what was true of Him.
JT That is it, and the affections seen in Abraham are but the reflection of what is in the heart of God.
RSS Referring again to John 14:23, “If a man love me he will keep my word”. “Word” carries with it not only the will of God, but the, revelation connected with it.
JT There are the “commandments” and the “word”, and then the “words”; John 14:21 - 24. “Words” express details, you might say.
RSS Quite so.
GWH-n In connection with what you have been saying about Abraham reflecting the thoughts of God, how affecting it is to think of the Lord saying, “Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God”, Psalm 40:7,8. How, if one may speak reverently, He awaited the opportunity to act for His God. In His life it was the joy of His heart to unfold what was in the heart of God and to bring to pass His will.
JT John’s gospel, in one feature of it, develops that for us, that He did the Father’s will always. He was the sent One.
GAT All these men that God placed on the earth in testimony before the Lord came were but a reflection of what was in the heart of God, but when Christ came He brought the fulness of it.
JT Yes, all that was in God’s heart had now taken form. He said, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14:9. The Son having become Man, you have here on earth One in whom all these features are seen, so when the Lord said, “Before Abraham was, I am”, John 8:58. He implied that He was the source of all that came out in Abraham, but then He would give expression to all its fulness, and I have no doubt when He instituted His Supper the parental idea was there in its perfection. Those who sat about Him would know what the heart of a Parent was. It all came out in Him.
RLC A peculiar test is submitted to these Rechabites by Jeremiah.
JT It is a very strong test because they are brought into the house of the Lord.
RLG It emphasises the parental thought very beautifully; they respect their father.
JT I think the institution of the Lord’s supper [p. 373] is strongly related to this. The parental thought was there. The Lord was the House-father. They say to Him, “Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?”, Matthew 26:17. It would be His house, as it were, for the moment. Jonadab’s command to his house is parallel to the Lord’s request in instituting His Supper.
RLG Would it have been very becoming for them to have drunk wine in the house of the Lord?
JT It was a strong test, through the prophet.
RSS Would there not be rather this difference between what we have in the command of Jonadab, and what the Lord says in connection with the observance of the Supper; it was a command in one case, but it is not exactly a command in the other?
JT It is not, but His will enters into it. “This do for a remembrance of me”, Luke 22:19. Love would not ask anything stronger than that in the way of a command.
RSS I suppose, in a way, it shows the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism was connected with demand, whereas in Christianity it is not exactly commandments we get so much as principles, precepts, and expressions of the Lord’s mind, to which affection would delight to adhere.
JT I think 1 and 2 Corinthians taken together form a commandment, especially the first one. In fact, he says so. “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. I think it is strictly commandment, not commandments, but commandment of the Lord. The first letter has a sort of imperative bearing on it. The second one is restorative. I have been thinking a little of the expression, “the second time”. It was on the occasion of the second visit of his brethren to Egypt that Joseph made himself known to them; the second letter to the Corinthians is like that.
“[p. 374] That ye may have a second benefit”, 2 Corinthians 1:15, he says.
WGR The first one is more regulation, preparing them for the second.
JT Yes, quite so. The second brings in what is more positive — the heart of God and of Christ.
W.G.R. The covenant?
JT Exactly. God is made known to them there.
GAT They were to prove their love to their brother.
JT That was it. “Assure him of your love”, 2 Corinthians 2:8. The brotherly spirit was to be there. The evidences of it were there, in that they had judged themselves, but they were to confirm their love to their erring brother; 2 Corinthians 2: 8.
OJO Would you say the parental thought was in evidence when the Lord says to Mary, “Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God, and your God”, John 20:17.
JT Well, it brings the Father in, but I think as the Lord instituted His Supper the parental idea was there in Him. The Father’s affections were there, they were brought near to the disciples, and our position now is seen in theirs. In the Rechabites there was sacrificing love. Is our love such in kind and quantity that it will keep the commandment under all circumstances? In the severest test can we hold to the commandment?
JS It has been said if we keep His word the world has no use for us, and if we keep His commandment we have no use for the world.
JT That is so, I am sure.
WGR Would the commandment of Jonadab to his family not have significance with us now? He commanded them, not to drink any wine, all their days, they nor their sons for ever, not to build houses [p. 375] to dwell in, and not to sow seed nor plant vineyards. Are those things not suggestive to us?
JT Very. He made a heavenly family out of them, so to say. They were to have no earthly joy, not to build houses, and not to have vineyards and fields. In other words, to be pilgrims and strangers on the earth.
GAT The Levitical idea?
JT Very much the position of the Levites in the book of Joshua. And the Lord says here, “Jonadab, the son of Rechab, shall not want a man to stand before me for ever”. That is the heavenly family typically.
W.C.R. The Nazarite?
JT Well, it amounted to that. Whatever it was that led Jonadab to give this commandment, it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit ordered it that there should be such a family in Israel as this. They were a nomadic family. They moved about without houses, dwelling in tents. Their position was therefore a testimony to a heavenly family in the midst of apostate Israel. There is no doubt that Jonadab had some reason for it, as verse 7 shows, and the Lord so ordered that He should give this commandment, in view of testimony, and took account of it in the days of Jeremiah.
GAT You do not object to one owning a house, do you?
JT The thing is to get the spiritual thought, to see what God’s mind is.
WGB It is the spirit of the thing.
GAT If I own a house it is to be no more to me than a tent. I am to be ready to leave it at any moment.
JT You must live in a house, but the idea is that the development of family relationships, affections and instincts are in relation to what is heavenly. The book of Genesis brings that out. Abraham dwelt
[p. 376] in the land of Canaan. That is the first great feature. Now why should Jonadab have given this commandment? It is very striking. What may have been in his mind is one thing, but God so ordered it that a man in the midst of Israel (Jonadab was contemporary with Jehu) should desire that his children should not drink wine, neither build houses, nor plant vineyards. What can we see in it, but that God had it as a testimony. It is also put down as a testimony for us that the family of God is to continue here in heavenly characteristics. There is the testimony that we have no dwelling place. “Here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come”, Hebrews 13:14.
WGR The great witness had broken down, I suppose. Israel was to have been a witness, as those who kept the commandments of God; and now in their midst He has this family, and points to them, to showing how faithful they had been to their father’s commandment.
JT You see how valuable they were as a testimony at this juncture. They were there, and God could bring them forward to show that, at any rate, one family in Israel was marked by obedience to a father.
WGR “To obey is better than sacrifice”, 1 Samuel 15:22.
GAT Are you applying this to show that if there was one family of whom this was true, it ought also to be true of us in connection with the Lord’s supper? Every true Christian ought to respond to His request to partake of the Supper.
JT God had in the Rechabites a remarkable testimony at the end of those days; Jerusalem was about to be destroyed, but God had in them a good witness in regard to what He was about to do. What an advantage it is now, since God is about to come in in judgment on Christendom. He has the [p. 377] sons of the Rechabites, as you might say: those who have returned to the desires of the Lord and adhere to them. God has them. He can call upon them and bring them forward, so to speak, as a witness to obedience.
WCR It was a supreme test to which they were put, as brought into the house of God and wine is set before them. You would think they would drink it because of the conditions and surroundings.
GWH-n Where family relationship is lacking there is the tendency to bad conduct, as in the case of the Galatians.
JT Yes, the enjoyment of family relationship was lacking.
JS I suppose obedience to the father in the Rechabites showed that they had affection and reverence for him. Apart from obedience there is no affection.
JT That is right. They had continued all those years without any attention, apparently, having been paid to them. Now at the end they are there, you see, and God takes account of them, bringing them forward as a witness. He was going to destroy Jerusalem, but He has in them a witness. There is one family at any rate that knows what it is to be obedient to its father. So analogously, at the end of these days God would call attention to some who have regard for the Lord’s wishes, because they love Him.
WCR He says to Philadelphia, “Thou hast kept the word of my patience”, Revelation 3:10.
JT Exactly. Then He says, “I also will keep thee”.
WB-t Your thought is that there are Rechabites upon the earth today: there is that which corresponds to that family?
JT Yes.
WB-t Will you please develop it a [p. 378] little?
JT It refers to the recovery of the truth of the Lord’s supper. We have often dwelt on Acts 20 in that respect, but there is one thing that perhaps may not have been noticed. That is, the apostle at the outset discourses, and after the recovery of Eutychus he “talked” or “conversed”. Instead of a discourse, they converse. In verse 7 it says, He “discoursed to them”. Then in verse 11: “Having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken (or conversed, as the foot-note reads) until daybreak, so he went away”, Acts 20:11. That is, having broken the bread and eaten, there was a conversation in which, of course, Paul led. The recovery of the truth of the Lord’s supper has brought about mutual relations among the saints. There is room for gift, but not only that, we have the mutual side, also the state suggested by conversation between the brethren. As we see in the Rechabites, there is a family marked by adherence to the Lord’s wishes; but then there is amongst the saints that which sustains them; we are kept in the way of spiritual conversation. It says in Malachi 3, “They that feared the Lord spake often one to another”, Malachi 3:16. The mutual relations that have ensued recovery maintain us in family relationships; we are near one another, and have common interests.
GAT It was a wonderful conversation the Lord had with Cleopas and his companion in Luke 24, at the end of which they were restored.
JT Yes.
WB-t Your thought is that the young man being asleep and falling down from the third loft corresponds to a period in the history of the Rechabites when they were unknown?
JT The family was there from Jonadab’s time undoubtedly. They retained their nomadic character, but Nebuchadnezzar’s army coming into the land they were forced into the city, and God says as it [p. 379] were, Here is a witness in the very midst of the city to obedience of children to a father. He says in Malachi: “A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour?”(Malachi 1:6) He was a Father to Israel, and the presence of the Rechabites in Jerusalem at this juncture afforded Him a witness to what Israel should have been to Him. How great a thing, therefore, it is to be in obedience! Such are a witness to what the church should be to God and to Christ, and I think, as has been remarked, Philadelphia is just that. The Lord says, “Behold, I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee”, Revelation 3:9. What a thing that is! A witness in the midst of corruption to what the assembly should have been is thus honoured.
GAT No doubt the Spirit of God has wrought in the hearts of a few today, and these are a sample of what the whole church should be. They seek to maintain the true principles of the assembly.
JT That is it.
GWH-n A Philadelphian holds and cherishes every divine thought of the assembly.
JT Yes. The overcomer there is made a pillar in the temple of God.
RSS What you have drawn our attention to is of the utmost importance; we find such as you are speaking of, who are endeavouring to walk in the truth according to their measure. They have some devotion, know what to do, and how to occupy themselves. This in contrast with, not only the world, but Christians generally. You will find that these, unless they are really devoted, do not know what to do with themselves, even on the Lord’s day; whereas, having the Lord’s mind and having guidance, we are not at a loss. We have purpose in connection with our lives. I have thought of that a [p. 380] great deal, and really pity people in that they are at a loss to know what to do with themselves.
JT To know what one is about, as you say, is a matter of great importance. The time is then rightly occupied. Speaking for oneself, I do not know of anything more scarce than time. When you think of the vastness of the things of God, the thought that you have scarcely touched them is forced upon you; and yet you have to admit that there are many who do not occupy themselves rightly.
GWH-n You lay great stress on the Supper: do you think family relationships could be known where the Supper is lost?
JT I think the Lord’s supper develops them. In the Lord personally we have the thought of father presented to us. He was for the moment Head of the family, the disciples would understand that, and would regard Him in that light. James and John were there, they were not in the house of their own father. It was the Lord’s sphere in which they were, so the institution of the Supper would carry with it the family thought.
GAT It has often been remarked that we are a testimony to the ruin. I have never been clear as to that remark. I feel in connection with what we are reading we ought to be a testimony to what can never be ruined.
JT The Rechabites, you see, witnessed to one thing — to their affection for a father. That is the one point, and it seems to me it is what the Lord values now.
RLC They dwelt in tents until Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem; then for fear they went into Jerusalem. It is very beautiful that they were so obedient to their father’s instructions.
JT They are a ready witness for God to what Israel ought to have been at that time. Well, how great a thing for us that a few brethren in a locality [p. 381] may be a present witness for God of what the church ought to be. It dignifies the position they occupy, and the thought should greatly encourage devotedness and discourage disobedience and worldliness.
RSS You drew attention to Acts 20 and the difference between discoursing and conversing. Now this was in connection with the observance of the Supper, was it not? You would not exactly converse at the Supper, would you?
JT I think we do afterwards. Our history, as in the assembly period, is composed of weeks.
RSS You are not confining it to the time we are convened?
JT No, we must include all that follows during the week. We are set in family relationships. I do not know of anything that needs emphasis more than that, that we are set in family relationships. Families converse together. It is well known all over the world that what marks a family at the table is happy; free converse. That is what should mark us.
RSS What you say now makes it perfectly clear to me. I thought it was a question of when we are convened. Perhaps it was the case in Acts 20.
JT It was no doubt, but all our meetings through the week are a continuation of the assembly meeting of the Lord’s day.
RSS Quite so — such a meeting as this, for instance.
WCR You were saying the Supper brings in adjustment and the brotherly spirit.
JT It does, and I think the fatherly spirit, too. I am not now speaking of our relationship to the Father, as in John 20, but rather of that care which the Lord manifested towards His disciples. He is “the everlasting Father”, Isaiah 9:6. All that Abraham was in this respect is presented fully to the saints in Christ; it comes out where the family celebration is; so that our relations with one another [p. 382] through the week take character from that and are on mutual lines.
WB-t Will you say a little about verse 9: “Nor to build houses for us to dwell in; neither have we vineyard, nor field, or seed, but we have dwelt in tents”.
JT The rest of verse 10 should be added: “And have obeyed and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us”.
WB-t I had in mind more particularly that they had no vineyard, nor field, nor seed. They did not seem to cultivate land.
JT They were a witness to what is heavenly.
WHF The Rechabites were marked by faithfulness in that condition of things; at the present time faithful men, going down to the end, who shall be able to teach others also, would correspond. It would indicate an overcomer in Philadelphia. Philadelphia today is not in evidence like Thyatira or Sardis, etc., it is hidden. I suppose there is a time coming when the Lord will make manifest Philadelphia’s faithfulness.
JT Just so, and I think He does it now. The Lord has His own way of showing His approval.
GAT Do you think Philadelphia can be located; is it hidden now to the spiritual?
JT I do not think it is. The Lord says, “He that hath, to him shall be given”. The Lord, it seems to me, is indicating those that have by giving them more. “And he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath”, Mark 4:25. I do not know that I am exactly right, but I think what is spoken of as evangelical Christendom is being withered up. Those responsible had much that they borrowed, and the Lord wrought through them, but that which they had is being taken away. There is very little now outside of those that have.
GAT Did you say what-they had was [p. 383] borrowed?
JT Very largely. The Lord says, “Whosoever has to him shall be given”, Mark 4:25. The Rechabites represent those that keep the commandment of the Lord; to such He manifests Himself, which involves that they receive light and blessing. They have. The apostle says, “That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Spirit”, 2 Timothy 1:14. I do not think anyone has anything that he has not got by the Holy Spirit. It is by Him you have divine things.
The five wise virgins had something — the oil. The recognition of the Holy Spirit implies that the saints have something, and the Lord gives to those.
WB-t The recognition by God of the obedience and faithfulness of the Rechabites is very comforting. He is going to perpetuate that family.
JT He is not going to want a man to stand before the Lord. That is the great thing — to stand before the Lord.
WB-t How do you understand that?
JT Their correspondence with Philadelphia is striking. The Philadelphian overcomers have a peculiar place in that way. Their rewards are in connection with what is precious to Christ: “The temple of my God, ... the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my new name”, Revelation 3:12.
RSS I was wondering why Jonadab is brought to light. Jehu had bidden him come up into his chariot in order that he might see his zeal for the Lord. Is there any connection between that and what we have before us?
JT I think he was a fellowship-man.
Ques The question is asked, “Is thy heart right?”(2 Kings 10:15) What is there in that?
JT That is just the point. Jehu says, “Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? And Jonadab said, It is”. That is the basis of fellowship.
“[p. 384] And he gave him his hand, and he took him up to him into the chariot”, 2 Kings 10:15. That is, he is in complete identification with a man God is using.
GAT What do you mean by a fellowship-man?
JT Well, one that has committed himself to what is of God in connection with others. In giving Jonadab his hand and taking him into his chariot, Jehu, as it were, recognised him as in fellowship.
GAT Both walking together.
JT Yes, they are on the same errand now. Their hearts are right. Fellowship is a heart matter. It is not simply that I am breaking bread. It is a question of my heart. If anyone wishes to break bread, the question is, is his heart right? The Lord’s heart is right. The Lord’s supper is the disclosure of what is there. He says, This is what my heart is — what about yours?
GAT That solves a number of questions as to people who wish to break bread; are their hearts right?
JT It is a question of the state of heart, and, as one has often remarked, in breaking bread, there should be a link established, that of affection with the brethren. You come and are one of them. The loops and clasps of the tabernacle suggest that.
Rem The Psalmist says, “I will run the way of thy commandments when thou shalt enlarge my heart”, Psalm 119: 32.
JT Just so. Jonadab being the progenitor of these men, and being a fellowship-man, it is all the more noteworthy. It is the more striking because the Holy Spirit puts these things together for us.
HWD Paul’s instructions to Timothy were to the end that he should take account of those that called on the Lord out of a pure heart.
JT Yes, to “Follow righteousness, ... with them” (2 Timothy 2:22)