READINGS ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER (1)
[p. 107] READINGS ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER (1)
Esther 1:1 - 22; Esther 2:15 - 23
JT There are certain relations between this book and the book of Job which may appear as we proceed. Now it may be stated that the principle of the taking away of the first and the establishing of the second runs through the book. It is in mind that we shall get instruction bearing on present conditions from this book, how God acts for His people without showing Himself, even acting for them when there are circumstances which He cannot approve. Indeed the book throughout contemplates such circumstances. Thus it has a bearing in relation to God’s people whoever they are and wherever they are, not in relations suitable to the law, or His principles, or His system, so that His name is not mentioned in the book, nor is there prayer mentioned. Yet God is seen in it and promoting His people, protecting them, honouring them, not reaching His end as yet but obviously this is in mind. His people are being prepared now for His end in which they would be identified with Him and seen openly as such, honoured as such. In the meanwhile we have to move on in a world that knows us not and with little or no recognition such as Pentecost introduces, but yet God is working and in connection with His own principles — that is to say, setting aside the first and establishing the second. Only now it is not in connection with one man as in Job, but it is in connection with humanity. In Job it is with one family but here it is a great monarch, a great king and in it shines through certain features which are basic and which really have part in God’s own system which will appear in the millennium. So that in order to come into this it is clear that we have to learn to take on [p. 108] the principles that are set out in the setting aside of the first, that we may learn to set aside the first in ourselves and in connection with the divine system see that we gradually come into what is second. Not simply now in one family as in Job, but in one person who is a type of the assembly or of Israel. It is thought that the most of this session could be devoted to the consideration of what is symbolic in the king Ahasuerus — his kingdom is a great and glorious affair, very extensive and resourceful and all under one head.
CHH Is the thought of the book of Esther — suggesting the thought of a star — indicating what is heavenly supplanting what is earthly?
JT Well that is good. The meaning of the word ‘Esther’ signifies star. The stars have a great place throughout Scripture. In the beginning the morning stars sang together — they were there. “Where wast thou when I founded the earth? ... When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4 - 7). So that there is no doubt something in that. Then in Genesis 1:16, “And God made the two great lights ... and the stars”. That is He made them as we see them — the sun, the moon and the stars, conveying as Joseph’s dream indicates, the family thought — the sun, moon and eleven stars.
LES Would Hosea fit in with what you have suggested? “I will go away, I will return to my place, till they acknowledge their trespass, and seek my face; in their affliction they will seek me early” (Hosea 5:15). And then, “We shall know, — we shall follow on to know Jehovah: his going forth is assured as the morning dawn; and he will come unto us as the rain, as the latter rain which watereth the earth” (Hosea 6:3).
JT “I will go away” — would certainly be suggested. God is not in evidence. But certain other [p. 109] things, personages, are in evidence. God sets up the Gentile monarchies when He hides His face from the house of Jacob. He is not ashamed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not ashamed to be called their God, but here God is hiding His face — He is not in evidence at all save in the sense that we can see, by the Spirit of God in our dispensation, He is in the position, but acting in a hidden way.
JD Is it your thought that the principles that obtain in Job in regard of Job and his family are also seen in connection with the monarchies?
JT That is the thought. The monarchies have a time to show themselves. We get the principle in Numbers 7, every man in his day. I believe every monarchy has had its day. God allowed them to parade this glory and power to see what they would do. And nothing more has been accomplished through the four monarchies than through Israel. It has come out. The monarchies have not accomplished divine thoughts any more than Israel. Government in the hands of the Gentile monarchies has done no better than Israel and is not to be compared with government as under David and Solomon. So there is the necessity for the setting aside of the first whether in our own souls or in the monarchies.
JD Would Daniel’s prophecy regarding the monarchies show it?
JT Nebuchadnezzar had a great opportunity — “Thou art this head of gold” (Daniel 2:38). That is what he was as head of the system. It had great advantages, but it goes right on to disaster. The first comes out as God hides His face from the house of Jacob and takes nations up. Hundreds of our brethren are directly under their power, in fact this more or less applies to all of us. Governments have more authority in war than in peace. We are made to feel the pressure. And I think all this appears in this book as over against humanity in the book of [p. 110] Job. Great splendour, glory and power and then this woman is in it. That is where we are to learn to take account of the first as its place is taken by the second. There must be something in these monarchies and kingdoms in a feminine sense. The assembly is the divine idea. God intends the assembly to bring out the feminine thought and she is coming out in this way in the millennium. But what is there now in this relation with the monarchies today? The Church of England is the spouse of the State. It would come out in the Roman Empire, too — the church’s place in relation to the empire. And what is coming out here — we have to see and understand what this feminine idea in relation to the four monarchies means, and see how the assembly in measure is seen in connection with God in Esther. Take Vashti; she made her feast in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus. She made her feast in his territory.
JD But then she refuses to consider the king at all, would that be the point brought out here?
JT The whole system has broken down. There has been plenty of opportunity for the Gentile monarchies to show what rule according to God ought to be. The principle of the rule of man over woman begins in the first of Genesis. It failed in Job and his wife and failed in Ahasuerus and his wife.
CHH The act of the church becoming the spouse of the kingdoms would correspond with Babylon. It is displaced from its heavenly setting — cast down to earth.
JT She says, “I sit a queen, and I am not a widow” (Revelation 18:7). There is the complete breakdown in this passage in relation to the monarchies.
FR Would Vashti represent the accredited religion of the world?
JT Yes. The feminine thought alluding to the sympathies, feelings, kindnesses of humanity on the [p. 111] earth. Where can we find it today? Take this country, especially in the East where the Roman Catholic church has the greatest power. What an influence, is it not sinister?
LES Ezra comes up from Babylon four years after this. Is there a link between Ezra and Esther?
JT It is the priestly side in Ezra and Nehemiah. Nehemiah did great things. You may say, How can we do in these circumstances? Nehemiah is what one man can do. Ezra brings the priest into view. It is instructive. We have priesthood in our little meetings; then we have care meetings, too, which would be representative of the authority of the monarchies. Matthew contemplates the authority of God in the assembly. Nehemiah is in relation to the king — it is a responsible matter whereas Ezra is the spiritual side. I think both these things combine in relation to the influence of the brethren throughout the world — the idea of the government of the assembly and priestly service Godward and manward. This book, however, is not Ezra or Nehemiah but contemplates a wide circle of things — takes in Christians wherever they may be found, those not openly identified with the church but taking account of God’s people in the Church of England or wherever they are.
PB We get in this book then what stands in the public eye.
JT You see that. But you see qualities that show that God is in this. God is not identifying Himself with them in their circumstances. No more is He identifying Himself with Esther, yet qualities were there. In the second chapter you find beautiful qualities there and that in the king’s house, not in the temple of God.
RH Would the thought in Revelation of the mystery of God correspond with Esther?
JT Yes. That comes out in Revelation 10 [p. 112] where the Lord is seen with His right foot on the sea and His left on the land. Mystery is mystery and so Rome is mystery — mystery written upon her. And this book is to show how God carries on mysteriously and yet effectually. Not one Christian in Christendom is forgotten of God.
JD God is set aside and refused by the ecclesiastical world, and although Christians walk in that, the door is kept open to them to walk in the truth.
LES And so the service would be filled out in the spirit of suffering in Esther and Mordecai.
JT Yes, we see that in chapters 3 and 4 — the details of the evil scheme which involved even Ahasuerus, the king against Mordecai the Jew.
CCH Although God has for the moment set Israel aside yet He is considering Esther — giving her favour in the eyes of the king.
JT No doubt we shall get much out of this book on those lines. It shows what God can be to us, yet hiding His face from us, not identifying Himself with us openly. The counterpart of this book is certainly Ezra and Nehemiah.
JD How far does what is seen in Esther fit in with the suffering people at the present moment?
JT Well, His people are still under His care. The Lord speaks of a very humbling thing in Luke 21:20,21, “But when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies ... flee to the mountains”. There was never anything like that earlier. In the times of Stephen the apostles had not left Jerusalem, but the Lord says, “when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies ... flee to the mountains”. You cannot conceive of Christianity as it was at Pentecost and the saints fleeing — but the Lord tells them to do that. We have to be prepared to go that way, when we see Jerusalem encompassed with armies. But some may say, But vengeance does not enter into this dispensation. But then in regard of Jerusalem God has [p. 113] given the kingdom to another — Jerusalem is destroyed and the Jews have escaped into the nations.
JD Does the book of Esther teach us that God is overruling for every Christian today? Dispensationally Esther comes after the church is raptured.
JT There is something in those systems which God is working in relation to — God is hiding His face from the systems. We cannot be identified with the Romish or Anglican system or others. We cannot identify ourselves with such but we do know that He is looking after His people in them. So we have Esther and Mordecai. Why are not Esther and Mordecai going to Jerusalem? They did not go. God has them there where they are bringing out a great principle for us as well as for those of a later date. This book is a great parable!
DR Is the removal of the first then seen in Vashti and Haman and the establishing of the second in Esther and Mordecai?
JT It is worked out in that way and yet God is not owning them. There must be something in this!
JF “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing” (Proverbs 25:2).
JT “But the glory of kings is to search out a thing”. God is concealing certain things.
JD The working of things out in various conditions make for what He is after. He would have us work the principle out.
JT It is a kingly thing and goes on with God concealing things. What an atmosphere for searching things out we are in. Take the book of Esther, why not search it out? It is kings who search things out.
RH Is the thought of vengeance today in relation to Christendom not in relation to Israel?
JT The mystery of iniquity already works and the spiritual form judgments about it, it is only awaiting final execution. And so in the epistle to the Thessalonian assembly, a precious assembly to heaven, “The assembly of Thessalonians in God the Father” — precious to the Father, they are told, “To you that are troubled repose with us” They were troubled. They thought the day of the Lord had come. “At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with the angels of his power, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who know not God, and those who do not obey the glad tidings of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:7,8). The reference is to the present time — the thing is awaiting fulness — but then this thought of rest in the judgment arrived at. The idea of vengeance enters into this dispensation.
LES “For the time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come” (1 Peter 4:17).
JT Peter has it in mind in his second epistle, too, and so has Jude. The idea of vengeance is in the hearts of the brethren — they are not executors of the judgment but in Revelation 18:20 we are told — “God has judged your judgment upon her”.
CCH We have the idea in the beginning of the dispensation in Ananias and Sapphira who were inside, so to speak, and then on the outside in regard of Herod.
JT He was eaten of worms.
JD As things proceed in the ways of God they are all part of a plan.
JT Well, take the Romish system now, it is very anxious to side with what is right publicly, so is Russia. How long for we cannot say. But then their history is not cancelled. It is just that God is pleased to use them for the time being. God prospers Babylon and returns to destroy her. Still we know it is there. And we are reading everything that transpires in the light of the end. The book of Revelation gives us the detail of how everything is completed in connection with the end. We have part in it. We come out of heaven with the Lord Jesus.
PB God’s people are being taken care of by Him whether in the Romish system or in the Church of England. The government of Great Britain preserves the truth of Christianity and outwardly honours the name of God and of the Lord and are thus preserved in relation to His people. Would Esther 1:6, “White, green, and blue hangings, etc”. be God preserving His name in relation to monarchies?
JT Well, that is worth looking into. These things are important and show what an immense empire it was. God gives the second monarchy its place as is seen here. This is all God’s property but He is allowing the Gentile monarchies to use it. You are struck with the grandeur. First the extent of the kingdom. “That is, the Ahasuerus that reigned from India even to Ethiopia, over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces”. And then it goes on, “In those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the fortress, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast to all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of the provinces being before him; when he showed the glorious wealth of his kingdom and the splendid magnificence of his grandeur many days, a hundred and eighty days”. The Spirit of God writes this matter in detail. It is a question of the resources of this world, what God has given to the Gentile monarchies and God did not give it to them without giving them the power to make use of it. This book shows the co-ordination in grandeur and how there is such a heart in the monarch to make a good time for his servants for a hundred and eighty days. Is there not something in this hidden from view? How much is made possible to the four monarchies. This is the great system of government that God has ordained — the extent of it and all divinely ordained! “And when these days were expired, the king made a feast to all the people that [p. 116] were present in Shushan the fortress, both to great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace”. It is a capital matter now, those present in Shushan the fortress. What grandeur, power and refinement! What will the heavenly city be if such is the earthly? But still God has a great day in these monarchies. He has given them these resources and they are making the most of them. So we have here, “White, green, and blue hangings were fastened with cords of byssus and purple to silver rings and pillars of white marble; couches of gold and silver lay upon a pavement of red and white marble, and alabaster, and black marble. And they gave drink in vessels of gold (the vessels being diverse one from another), and royal wine in abundance, according to the king’s bounty. And the drinking was, according to commandment, without constraint; for so the king had appointed to all the magnates of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure”. What a scene that is! And this all from God. God has given the Gentile monarchies such resources and such skill as to co-ordinate all this. What a king is Ahasuerus! He is not condemned but is here as king to bring out feminine conditions. That is the point. How do the feminine conditions here correspond to Genesis 1? God has never lost sight of that. He has in mind humanity in relation to the bearing of the male and female. Vashti is the female side of all this. “Also the queen Vashti made a feast for the women of the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus”. That is, she has no rights of her own. It is the male side. Not democracy — it is the grandeur of the monarchies under God in their place on earth.
LES Is the thought carried through of the head of fine gold in Daniel?
JT There is something of a deterioration but the principle remains more or less. This begins with Adam and Eve, “Male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). The point is to expose what is there. The king was one of the worst men alive we learn from history, and you may say that Vashti did nothing much out of the way in refusing to obey his command but the point is to bring out the female side, what it is in relation to the masculine, to bring out the feminine side not only in relation to the assembly but in humanity. It must show itself — in Rome or in Greece or here in the Medo-Persian empire.
AP Man living to himself in revelry only brings out rebellion in the feminine.
JT In Belshazzar’s time the queen mother comes into evidence. It was a scene of debauchery — drinking with a thousand of his lords. The exposure of Belshazzar thus is allowed to bring out the feminine side — what it was. The queen-mother is there. She was not in the time of debauchery, she came in when the fingers were seen on the wall. She was in her right place. She says to her grandson, or whatever relation he was, There is a man in your kingdom. It is the idea of the feminine, coming in to the man and revealing the mind of God.
CCH Christ is head of every man — that is basic. God has given resources to the assembly as she recognises headship. It is a principle not generally recognised.
JT The assembly is the setting forth of the final thought of God. But then God has not lost sight of man and woman in humanity — what part each plays in his place, thus bringing out what is seen in the monarchies, what part the woman has in it.
LES Even Haman’s wife speaks what is right.
JT She tells Haman, If the Jew is making headway, you are going to fall before him. What is seen here is the whole idea of womanhood in the Gentile monarchies. Then Memucan makes his little speech: “The queen Vashti has not done wrong to the king [p. 118] only, but also to all the princes, and to all the peoples that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus. For the act of the queen will come abroad to all women, so as to render their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when they shall say, The king Ahasuerus commanded the queen Vashti to be brought in before him, and she came not”. The whole feminine side is in mind. God has never let it out of His mind. It applies not simply to every sister but to every woman.
JD That is interesting, as speaking of the service of the woman. Pilate’s wife says, Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man. God uses the feminine side there.
JT She is fully in accord with the book — Have nothing to do with that righteous man — the subject of Matthew — she has some idea of it.
JD God gives women a marvellous part in the working out of His thoughts as they maintain their place.
JT In Acts 1:14 we have the women mentioned. “These gave themselves all with one accord to continual prayer, with several women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren”. Mary — blessed among women — a great place. These are wonderful features coming down from Genesis 1.
RH The place woman has taken, particularly in Christendom, is wrong.
JT The thing is turned upside down. Women becoming members of parliament, etc. — what are they not doing that man should do? We have to have a judgment of this.
Rem Femininity before God is the thought and women have lost it today.
JT The position is terrible and many of our young brothers and sisters are being called into it — trained for government services — but we are with them in sympathies, sentiments and feelings — Rachel [p. 119] weeping for her children. We should have right feelings about everything. The feminine side is thus seen in Genesis. We cannot say much of Eve or any woman of the antediluvian world, nor of Noah’s wife or his daughters but when we come to Abraham and the span of human life reduced to 180 years we have much more of the sisters. He says of Sarah, She is my sister. And Sarah was his sister. With Rebecca, too — she was Isaac’s cousin. The thought is also with Jacob and then we have it carried through — Rachel weeping for her children because they were not. It is not simply sister but the feminine idea which God keeps before us.
DR In the mind of Ahasuerus the whole scene of glory would be completed in the bringing in of the queen.
JT Well, it is unanswered. Vashti was marked as deficient in answering to the mind of God.
DR This would carry out the thought that woman was created for the man — his glory.
JT Everything is working to the prophetic plan, given to His servants the prophets, the ministry of God being definite. Certain things come out to expose as we see with Vashti here, and the real principle of God will be shown. It is to this end that we need Esther. It is a question of quality with her — what she is as chapter 2 brings out, the kind of person she was. We are to learn these qualities. We are not told here but the priests of God like Ezra were contemporary with Esther. Only we see here in Esther, the Jewess, the heavenly qualities.
PB Why is the idea of seven brought in here?
JT Well, there are two sevens. The seven chamberlains. “On the seventh day, when the king’s heart was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of king Ahasuerus, to bring [p. 120] Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown to show the peoples and the princes her beauty; for she was of beautiful countenance. But the queen Vashti refused”. Well, here it is just seven chamberlains, not princes. Is it pride here? Were they not dignified enough? Why not send his princes? But it is all designed to bring out this great test for womankind. It is not a matter here of what the king is morally. But here he is a king, the great divine thought of God given for the moment to the Gentiles and the book shows how Vashti disregarded it. Well, you say, She had good reason to, if I had been in her place I would have done the same thing. But then God says that is not right. The king is the king and in his word is power. The book of Proverbs tells us what the king is, what power God gives him. This queen while she is having a great time with the women is leaving out the man. But it is all in the house of the king — “Also the queen Vashti made a feast for the women of the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus”. Although humbled by the message from the chamberlains her wisdom would have been to bow. Obedience is the word for the feminine side, so the assembly is subjected to Christ.
CHH She was deficient in having this feast?
JT We would not have sisters have meetings by themselves. They will never get on. I have known of such. The idea is a system of things where the women are to be silent in the assemblies and are not permitted to speak. It is not your own will, it is God’s. Paul says, I suffer not. It is the Spirit of God stressing that they should keep their place in the divine thought.
CHH Would that be the moral reason why she is found deficient in obedience? There must be a moral reason for it.
JT She was a very fine looking person and would make much of that no doubt but the statement of the [p. 121] the Spirit of God in verse 9 is “Also the queen Vashti made a feast for the women of the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus”. It was his property. They were going on on their own.
JC The word of the king here as being merry with wine is not to be disregarded?
JT It is right that he was a man personally without one moral quality at all. But this book is not that. You may say that Vashti was goaded into it, but then she belied the divine position.
CB Vashti really makes a direct challenge to what God says in Genesis 3:16, “And to thy husband shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee”. And it is what many women are doing today.
JT That is not said before sin came in. “Male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27). But after sin came in, “he shall rule over thee”. And thus God is not forgetting His words and His thoughts and that is what we have here.
Rem The wife of Manoah brings the man into it.
JT Quite so. The angel made more of her than he did of him but she kept her place.
AP The end of verse 20 would bring in the thought of obedience.
JT Just a word on the princes before we come to that. We have had the seven chamberlains and now in verse 13, “And the king said to the wise men who knew the times (for so was the king’s business conducted before all that knew law and judgment; and the next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, who saw the king’s face, and who sat first in the kingdom)”. I think these seven princes bring out the position, not only the king but what there was, in the way of government and counsel and wisdom. Well, so far so good. We are thankful for that. We are thankful for the parliament at Ottawa, and the Governor-General and [p. 122] the king of England — the matter is worked out here. So the Spirit of God goes on, “Then said Memucan before the king and the princes, The queen Vashti has not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the peoples that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus. For the act of the queen will come abroad to all women, so as to render their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when they shall say, The king Ahasuerus commanded the queen Vashti to be brought in before him, and she came not! And the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s act, will say it this day to all the king’s princes, and there will be contempt and anger enough. If it please the king, let a royal order go forth from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it may not pass, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate to another that is better than she; and when the king’s edict which he shall make shall be heard throughout his realm — for it is great — all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, from the greatest to the least”. So that the book is showing that the Gentile monarchy is still holding government and recognising counsel. The circumstances force the bringing of woman into her place and the maintaining of man in his place. So that necessitates the change in the female side. I think we shall see that the assembly as under the rule of Christ will maintain the position. The assembly is subjected, it is the divine vessel. So we have to learn that now — it is the learning time for us. In circumstances, in such conditions, with the Gentile monarchies at war we are learning what the mind of God is in being under rule — subjection to Christ. That is the present position — to maintain subjection to Christ in all these terrible conditions.
JD It is moral qualifications in the princes that is needed. And would you say that those qualifications [p. 123] are seen in the assembly at the present time in connection with rule and government?
JT I would. It is a matter of princes. Take the Pope in the Vatican. It is the claim of the Vatican — equality with all princes — and yet a false position. She sits a queen.
Rem Have you in mind that this equality with princes was in Vashti’s mind and that is necessitating the setting aside of the first?
JT It shows what is hidden in the book by the Spirit of God is that Esther is in mind. Take the words of this wise man — he speaks wisely. So his speech necessitates Esther. It is instructive for us as we look at Esther — what she had on. Are we accepting the clothing that Hegai gives — content with that?
PB God works bringing in the true feminine side — our young men have a conscience regarding the truth of the mind of God.
JT I think that is right — the feminine idea. Our young men are subject. Obedience is their way. The only safe way is to be subject, not rebellious.
CHH I would like more help as to the qualifications. In Titus with the elders great moral qualifications are necessary.
JT The epistles to Timothy and Titus help as to the feminine side. How much is brought in in relation to government in the assembly. The sisters have part in the administration, the qualities are to be in them, too.
JG The willingness to suffer is seen in Esther.
JT She certainly represents the second. This man Memucan exposes the first and shows the way of preservation.
PB Why is he mentioned the last of the seven princes?
JT He is one of them and is the man with the word of wisdom. It would be spoken in parliament — the way of truth is given out most intelligently — God [p. 124] is over it, and it comes out. It is there. That is the idea here.
PB Would it mean that God has the last word?
JD These princes considered according to law. “What shall be done to the queen Vashti according to law”. The princes sit down together to consider the evidence governmentally in connection with law.
JT You cannot help but observe that in this country the law does not seem to have full force in regard to the recognition of conscience. The law of the land has not full play as in Great Britain. Why is it? Is not God going to raise this issue if we keep on praying? These seven princes are concerned about the law. This man makes a good speech. And there are such speeches nowadays. What is right is being furnished by persons who hardly know what they are saying.
Rem “And the saying pleased the king”.
JT So we hear of young men being hailed to the tribunals — judgment is passed and his conscience rebels and he suffers. He is penalised, but is it the law? That is the question. And will not God give someone to say something? These seven men are concerned about the law. Who made the law? It is a matter of the principle of law.
RH Later on Mordecai refuses to bow to what assumes to be law and is not.
JT That the Spirit of God could write a book — write ten chapters without mentioning God, or the house of God, or the assembly, or the priest or prayer, or prophecy — that God can write a book like this is remarkable. And we by the Spirit of God as kings can look into what is hidden in it.
LES Would you say that if the priestly side is maintained today God will maintain what refers to His own rights?
JT In spite of man God’s mind comes out. He [p. 125] will see to it that there will be someone who will say the truth.
JD Would not something of this be seen in the corps being formed of three hundred young men who do not have to take military training? An answer to the prayers of the saints perhaps.
JT Is there not some power at work in exercising some sinister influence against the law, but the princes keep on bringing forward the law. And so, “The saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan. And he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof and to every people according to their language, That every man should bear rule in his own house, and should speak according to the language of his people”.