THE WARS OF THE LORD (2)
[p. 247] THE WARS OF THE LORD (2)
Exodus 17:8 - 16; Numbers 1:1 - 4; Numbers 2:1 - 9
JT It came before us at our last reading that the children of Israel were not called upon to fight in Exodus 14. Jehovah would fight for them. They were to learn war from what they saw, and inasmuch as we learn everything from God in Christ so they would see how God led in war; this is the first great lesson in this respect to be learnt by us. Israel had part in it, in the sense of being present, but the word was, “Jehovah will fight for you”, and they celebrated in their song that He did fight for them.
The thought before us on this occasion is that we should see how the people are brought into the conflict. Moses directed Joshua: “Choose us men, and go out, fight with Amalek”. The people are now brought into conflict formally, although not yet ordered militarily. They are under Joshua, chosen by him, but in Numbers 1:3 we have the statement, “all that go forth to military service;” not all that should go, but all that go; that is, the principle of going forth in military service is now acknowledged. I think that if we keep these thoughts before us we shall see, by the Lord’s help, how the saints come into the conflict and how they are numbered militarily from twenty years old and upward. Each is to take his place, as it says in chapter 2, “every one by his standard, with the ensign of their father’s house; round about the tent of meeting”. Numbers contemplates that we are set in relation to the testimony; not yet in aggressive warfare, but defensive warfare.
JS This position, then, as seen in Numbers is a defensive one.
JT Yes. The attack of Amalek, of course,
[p. 248] required an offensive attitude, but the wilderness attitude in the main is defensive. There is a change in this respect in wilderness warfare in Numbers 21 and onwards. War there begins to result in acquired territory. This comes in after the judgment of the flesh in the brazen serpent and the drinking of the springing well.
ANW Will you place wilderness warfare for us in a New Testament setting?
JT Well, it is seen generally in Romans and in the letters to Corinth. In Romans 13:12 the armour is said to be that of light, and in chapter 8:37 the saints “more than conquer through him that has loved us”; but this is in moral power overcoming every opposing element. Romans is the individual side of the position, but it bears towards the collective side. The letters to Corinth contemplate the position we occupy in defence of the testimony. So that there is a great deal made of order in those epistles.
AFM Would you distinguish for us the difference between warfare inwardly and warfare outwardly?
JT Well, Exodus 17 is inward warfare really. It refers to the presence of the Spirit as typically presented in that chapter, that is, the Spirit is viewed as present, through the sufferings of Christ. Moses was to use the rod and Jehovah was to stand there on the rock. There is nothing said about the water flowing or the people drinking, but the Spirit is in principle seen as present with us. In Numbers 20 we have a like occurrence, only in that instance it is said that the people drank. In Numbers 21, the Spirit is appreciated as the outcome of the flesh being judged in the brazen serpent. Israel sang to the well; and would drink of it according to divine direction: “Assemble the people, and I will give them water”, (Numbers 21:16). Then they moved from point to point, reaching “the top of Pisgah”. But in our chapter the Spirit is just alluded to. What is stressed rather is the smiting of the rock and then the attack of Amalek, which, I think, typically means Satan working through our fleshly propensities as if to set aside and nullify the effect of the Spirit’s presence amongst the people of God, implying that He was not there. Satan would seek to overcome us in this way, and would thus deny the Spirit’s presence, as if there was no power to resist him. Whereas what is clearly seen is that there was power — but power through a certain unique procedure; that is, Moses on high, with the rod of God, supported by Aaron and Hur. It is an inward warfare, warfare that especially refers to young Christians. That is the import of the great battle of Rephidim; the name Rephidim means “plains”; it is a level position, probably implying exposure.
The people are brought into it. “Choose us men”, said Moses to Joshua, who is the general — a man that we have not heard of before, a man of secret history with God, or he would not get an appointment like this. He is here a type of Christ as the spiritual Leader of God’s people. The issue of this war is not manifest, but its continuance is emphasised.
WGT Victory in the conflict depends upon the intercession of the Lord on high.
JT Yes; there are however three figures on the top of the hill. Rephidim means “plains”, but the hill denotes moral elevation. Firstly, Moses is there; he says, “I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand”. Then the passage says, “And Joshua did as Moses had said to him, to fight with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron and Hur went up to the top of the hill”. Aaron and Hur are secondary considerations; Moses does not mention them to Joshua; which indicated that there was more needed [p. 250] than had been anticipated. The conflict was more severe than had been expected.
APT Would you say a word as to why this incident is more amplified in Deuteronomy 25?
JT It is introduced there to call attention to Amalek’s character; the passage shows incidentally that it was the weak ones who were attacked; they are described as “all the feeble that lagged behind thee”. Amalek took advantage of Israel’s weakness for he “feared not God”. The further point there is that Israel were not to forget to blot out his name under the heavens.
CAM You were saying that there is more needed than we might think of in conflict: it is a mistake to underrate the power of the enemy.
JT Yes. Moses mentioned only himself with the rod of Jehovah, but there is more than authority needed in this matter. You might tell young Christians they should not go here or there. We have to be constantly exhorting them as to this; but authority is not enough, and that is what Aaron and Hur signify here. Aaron is the priest, although he is not yet formally designated as such; his inauguration is recorded in chapter 28. Hur is somewhat of a mysterious man. It is a question as to what his name means; the general consensus of scholars is that his name signifies “white” or “white linen”, and hence speaks of purity.
AFM What does Aaron’s name mean?
JT It is said to denote one “enlightened”, “lofty”, “teacher”.
AFM Are these elements requisite for us in addition to Moses as in authority?
JT That is what is to be gathered. Notice that Aaron’s work and Hur’s work are to support the arms of Moses; that is, the action of Moses’ arms would be of an up-and-down movement, which is very characteristic of the experience [p. 251] of young Christians — a bright day today and a dark one tomorrow.
FHL This experience of warfare is necessary before the numbering for war later.
JT Yes, those that go forth to war are thus known; they include young Christians who have confessed the Lord and stand by their confession if attacked. They also have learned or are learning to resist the devil and his temptations.
WFK Would you say that every Christian has to pass through this combat before he can advance?
JT I think so. We should notice the allusion to Rephidim in chapter 19. It says, “In the third month after the departure of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai: they departed from Rephidim, and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and encamped in the wilderness”, (verses 1,2). They thus had come through this great experience before reaching the place of the covenant and the ordering of the camp in relation to the tabernacle.
GA Is it not important to regard this foe as implacable, for every generation has to meet it?
JT That is right; wherever there are young Christians, he will oppose them, even although their parents are most spiritual. The offspring of such are exposed equally as others are. Every successive generation has to deal with Amalek. God has unfurled the standard against him and He will maintain it.
AR What is your thought of Joshua coming forward as leader? The meaning of his name is given as “Jah the Saviour”.
JT He appears in this chapter for the first time. There is comfort in the thought of the Saviour. He answers to the cry, “who shall deliver me out of this body of death?” The answer is, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord”, (Romans 7:24,25).
[p. 252] JS Would Aaron and Hur stand for the priestly element of the meeting that would uphold the authority of the Lord?
JT Yes, that is right — that which has been said in the way of admonition to the young people is supported. Joshua is evidently to be regarded here in the light of the change in his name in Numbers 13. “Jah” enters into this name, and in this connection it is suggestive that Moses says of Amalek, “the hand is on the throne of Jah”, (verse 16).
CAM As this scripture is addressed to us when young in our souls, the way these characteristics come before us is evidently an intimation of what will be. I was thinking of what you said about Aaron. It seems to be the same with Joshua. These things are going to be very great.
JT They are going to become great in our souls; for all of them typically refer to Christ, in one way or another; as we progress He advances in importance in our spiritual vision; the thought of His authority is the first thing to take into account here.
APf What about the older Christians — the fathers, for instance?
JT Exposure to Amalek’s attacks exists while we are down here; the flesh is in us always; but the allusion here, I think, is to this early stage of our history as having just come out of the world. We shall have warfare forty years later, so to say, which is more a question of older Christians, but this is like the letters to the Corinthians. At Corinth the believers were only young Christians, not more than eighteen months or two years old when the apostle wrote to them.
ANW What does the blotting out of the remembrance of Amalek mean?
JT God will do that, although it will take centuries of time. He has been at it for nineteen centuries now. We are responsible to do it, as we [p. 253] see in Deuteronomy, as already stated. As long as there are young Christians, Amalek will have special opportunity of opposing them, but that will not go on for ever. We shall reach a perfect state presently when Amalek will be no more. Balaam speaks about him as “the first of the nations, but his latter end shall be for destruction”, (Numbers 24:20).
AP Tell us the difference between what we are naturally and what we are as in the flesh.
JT We have to use these words as they appear in Scripture — that which is first was not spiritual but natural. The natural in that sense may be regarded as legitimate, but it is the first; afterwards that which is spiritual. The spiritual supersedes the natural. But the flesh in the sense in which we are speaking of it now is evil. The word, however, is also used as expressing physical condition, which is of God. The Lord was here in the flesh, and Paul speaks of himself as being in the flesh, but what is before us is flesh in a moral sense as that on which Satan operates in us. We are told what the works of the flesh are. There are sixteen of them mentioned in Galatians 5:19 - 21; there are ten kinds of wicked persons mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9 - 11, and there are thirteen “wicked things” going out of the heart of men, mentioned by the Lord Himself in Mark 7:21 - 23. Romans 1 gives a terrible description of the flesh — man after the flesh given up to vile lusts, and 2 Timothy 3 gives a like list, as appearing in the sphere of Christian profession. If we carefully read all these scriptures, we shall see portrayed what the flesh is.
AP In Romans 7:18 Paul makes no allowance for good in the flesh at all. He says, “For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, good does not dwell”.
JT That is flesh in the moral sense, and of course the relation between it and the literal flesh is very intimate (except in Christ here), because that [p. 254] which is born of flesh is flesh. We cannot make anything else out of it.
AP Relations in the flesh in a literal sense, such as children, husband and wife, etc., are of God.
JT “But in that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the faith of the Son of God”, (Galatians 2:20). That shuts out the flesh in a moral sense altogether.
WGT It is viewed here as antagonistic to what is of God.
JT That is the ground on which it is dealt with in our chapter. Amalek is typically Satan working through it.
WGT “The hand” is said to be “on the throne of Jah”. Would that refer to Amalek?
JT I think so. It alludes to Satan’s power which may control the Christian. The throne alludes to God’s place in the Christian. God has rights in him, and these are acknowledged at the end of Romans 7: “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”.
WB-w The flesh acts in older Christians, too. What feature of the flesh is that?
JT It is the same flesh. Normally, the older Christian is less exposed to Amalek; Satan would attack him through other means. Of course, if an older Christian weakens spiritually and lags behind, he also is exposed to Amalek. There are the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit — one fruit. The fruit of the Spirit is the beautiful growth in the Christian that God would have unmarred. It is a combination of nine different features of fruit on one stem. “The works of the flesh” are enumerated; then “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, self-control”, (Galatians 5:19 - 23). That is the beautiful growth that God would preserve and nourish in every Christian from the very outset.
[p. 255] NMcC You spoke of warfare with Amalek. What is the character of this warfare in us?
JT It is defensive. It is on a plain, according to the meaning of Rephidim. “Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim”. He takes the initiative; it illustrates a Christian just come out of the world, having gone thus far comfortably; then God allows Amalek to come up at a certain point. He specially sheltered the believer at the outset. But now he has been through the Red Sea and has drunk of the bitter waters of Marah; he has had part in the refreshment afforded by the twelve wells of water, and the seventy palm trees; and further he has eaten the manna; that is, God has taken good care of him. Up to this, he has been wonderfully protected and nourished. The idea associated with manna in the previous chapter is rest, that is, God has brought the Christian into the sabbath; Christ has been brought vividly before him in the manna; he has had occasion to prove that God is for him, and now he is at this place, signifying plains, where Satan has a point of attack. What has been alluded to in Deuteronomy shows to us what really the difficulty here was, that some had waned; some had grown feeble in the three months. They had come out of Egypt in strength. When they came out of Egypt every one was baptised to Moses in the cloud and in the sea, but some had waned in endurance, so there were weak ones and stragglers, and God allowed that to be brought to light. These were smitten, according to Deuteronomy 25. God is really in charge of all this. He allowed the exposure and Satan took advantage of it. It is a painful and, in a sense, an uncertain struggle at the outset, but God through an extraordinary combination of exercises gives final victory. At the beginning things are not going well; we have to learn the character of the flesh. Satan gets in and that exposes where we are.
[p. 256] It sometimes occurs that young people turn away and walk no more with us on this account.
CAM It is a great encouragement that God is not taken by surprise by this oncoming of the enemy. It may be a surprise to us.
JT Let anyone read chapters 12 - 17, and he will see what wonderful provision has been made for the believer; Christ is touchingly before us in chapter 16 in the manna. It is a wonderful manifestation of Christ, and the sabbath is associated with it; for the first time the Christian is brought into rest. Well, how is he getting on? Possibly he is thinking of the world; it may be he is secretly allowing the flesh, and God exposes that; since it will be for his salvation. Thus the enemy attacks.
Ques How do you account for the fact that Moses was not instructed to go against Amalek? He takes the initiative.
JT I think it shows that Moses had been learning. He knew what to do, and the fact that Aaron and Hur are brought to light shows he has learned to meet an emergency. It is a great evidence of experience that Aaron and Hur are brought in to augment the position.
ARS Do you not think Amalek found this a very good time to make an attack? Israel had just been murmuring.
JT The murmuring here explains the weakness spoken of in Deuteronomy 25.
AC In this remarkable conflict there is an allusion to writing. What is the suggestion in this?
JT It is the first mention of writing in Scripture. It is Jehovah who says, “Write this for a memorial in the book”. The book is already there. Persons and things needed are seen here peculiarly as existing — as if the result of normal experience. It is a great thought to grasp, that in the divine system of things, everything is ready.
[p. 257] Apparent emergencies and crises serve to bring this out. The writing was for Joshua; we are to keep our eyes on him from this point onward.
FHL The secret history with God which Joshua must have had was open to all Israel, was it not?
JT Yes. Exodus stresses this great principle of secret history. You get it in Aaron as one who was not brought forward until he was eighty years old. Miriam is another. She was even older before her name is mentioned. Now we have Joshua brought forward. We learn later that he was a young man, but this is not stated here. As to secret history with God, the Lord says, “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret”, (Matthew 6:6).
JJJ Do these four — Moses, Aaron, Hur, and Joshua — represent the Lord, or elements amongst the saints?
JT They represent elements amongst us. Secret relations with God are much wanting in the Lord’s people. Meetings like this are most essential, but we do not get much out of them unless we have personal history with God.
WGT Is it not remarkable that Moses left Joshua to make the choice of the army?
JT It shows there was experience with God with him. The fact that a young man is put in charge of an army, and the selection left to him, shows how fully he is trusted. One has to be with God to be trustworthy. We must be in the divine school.
FNW James 4:7,8 says, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you”.
JT A man who knows how to draw near to God in secret will resist the devil.
GA Is it lack of secret history in Christians that [p. 258] accounts for their breaking down the hedge and so getting bitten by the serpent; (Ecclesiastes 10:8).
JT Yes. Young Christians will do things slyly which they should not do, and Satan has thus opportunity to damage them.
C.A.M. What is the hedge?
JT A legitimate limitation which I should not break down.
ANW This matter of learning is very important. I suppose we are to detect the failure in the drooping hand, and the victory in the uplifted hand. Moses, Aaron, and Hur were discovering it.
JT It almost suggests the idea of “the body”. That hand being lifted up, Israel prevailed, as if it was moving Israel. It is a mysterious allusion, having the state of Israel in mind. Joshua’s outstretched hand with the javelin at Ai (Joshua 8:18) may be compared with this chapter; there no support of the hand is mentioned; it was stretched out by divine direction. In our chapter it is an undulating state of things that God would bring to light, and then the necessity for the other two men is evident. We have a stone, too, which “they took” and put under Moses — an additional thought. There is the suggestion of solidity in it.
AFM What is the meaning of the staff? In chapter 17 Moses was commanded of God: “Take with thee of the elders of Israel, and thy staff with which thou didst smite the river, take in thy hand, and go”. In the next section Moses says, “tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand”.
JT It is divine authority. The smiting of the river proved the efficiency of the staff; it had history, too. It denotes the history of Moses. When it was cast on the ground it became a serpent. Then when he took it in his hand by the tail, it became a rod again. It is thus typical of humanity according [p. 259] to God — Christ abstractly. Moses says, here, “Choose us men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand”. The staff signifies the authority of God. But then we have hands later. The staff in the hand is not enough; Moses must bring in the other hand. The whole man is to be brought into this exercise; the two hands are to be supported, the one by Aaron and the other by Hur. I think it is important to see the value of this position on the hill-top. It is well to exercise authority — to say to one, you should not do this or that; that is illustrative of one hand with the staff of God in it, but you need the other hand. The latter implies that you seek to support and help the Christian to judge and avoid evil things.
JEH I suppose Eli (1 Samuel 2) used the one hand with his sons — he said, You should not do thus.
JT Quite so. But they continued their evil course. He did not influence them to judge and forsake it. For this, priestly grace and power is needed.
Rem How would you apply the holding up of the hands in order that Amalek might be defeated?
JT You can see that everything here depended on Moses; he began with one hand and the staff of God in it, but as you proceed in this chapter, exigencies arise; the situation is more difficult than it appeared to be; but it is met by an Aaron and a Hur — who were not mentioned at first — and by the two hands, which were not mentioned at first, either; that is, the idea of meeting the emergencies, so that although the thing is more difficult than we expected, it is fully met nevertheless.
This serves to bring out latent conditions showing that everything is ready, but ready on the principle of experience, that these men all had to do with God beforehand. The idea is that there is latent experience [p. 260] that God will bring out by this attack. There is weakness which He brings out and exposes, but He also makes manifest what He has effected in His people. That is what a battle always evidences — what God has effected and what the enemy has effected.
JHE Would this latent experience lead on to “present your bodies a living sacrifice”, in Romans 12:1?
JT Yes; first it is the believer’s body, then it runs on to the saints viewed as “one body in Christ”. The apostle says, “For I say, through the grace which has been given to me, to every one that is among you, not to have high thoughts above what he should think”, (chapter 12:3). It is, “through the grace which has been given to me”, he says this. What he is bringing us to in the epistle is: that the work of God should come out and that we should not go beyond it; each should think according to the measure of faith God has given him.
WGT Would it be further developed in 1 Corinthians 12, where you get the members of the body? Do you think the Corinthians were leaving out this matter of the hands?
JT The foot says, “Because I am not a hand I am not of the body”. That is an independent attitude. It would be seen in a brother who would withdraw from us because he is not getting the place he thought he should have. He thinks he is doing the drudgery of the meeting. The hand is an honourable member. Well, the eye says to the ear, I do not need you. That is like a brother who would refuse another because he does not like him. These features come out in wilderness experience.
JJJ Is there anything suggestive in the expression, “Joshua broke the power of Amalek and his people”?
JT When we come to 1 Samuel we see that Saul [p. 261] was directed to destroy Amalek; but he reserved the best. The king himself a delicate, cultured man, with the best of the cattle, was reserved. Joshua made no reserves here; he broke the power of Amalek and his people.
ANW Referring to vacillation, one would ask for the benefit of the young here, if you are suggesting that it is legitimate to vacillate to a certain extent?
JT It is the effect of one’s spiritual state. It is not that we should be vacillating. Moses’ hands were held up, as if his actual physical condition reflected this state in the people — an undulating condition; but that up-and-down condition does not continue; it ceases by another provision, that of a stone provided for him to sit on and Aaron and Hur holding up his hands so that he did not need to let them down again. Hence it is the steady condition that triumphs, and the victory is attributed to Joshua.
ABP Would you say that Peter in Matthew 16 has his ups and downs? He confesses, “Thou art the Christ”, but later rebukes the Lord for what He said about His sufferings. The Lord met the Amalek state in Peter by saying, “Get away behind me, Satan”; but He also brought in adjustment by saying, “thy mind is not on the things that are of God, but on the things that are of men”, (Matthew 16:23).
JT That is suggestive. In his confession, Peter, you might say, is in full strength “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. You can hardly look for anything better in a Christian than that. He is addressed as Peter; he is material for the building. But presently he says, “God be favourable to thee, Lord”, (Matthew 16:22). That is like a brother who says, It is raining tonight and I am not going to the meeting, or I am tired, I will not go to the meeting, not minding what the brethren will suffer, in that there are only two or three there, so long as [p. 262] he does not go. He is thinking of himself only. That is what the flesh in us is capable of.
CAM Moses’ hands became steady until the going down of the sun; they were steady to the end.
JT Yes; the service of Aaron and Hur in supporting them is remarkable. There is no command as to this; their position and service on the hill seems to emanate from themselves, as the outcome of interest and experience, manifesting ability to meet the exigency. “Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on this side, and one on that side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun”. That is the end of the exercise, in relation to which it is said, “Joshua broke the power of Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword”. That is, he did it in a truly military fashion. He finished his work excellently, and there is not a word to be said against Joshua.
JS It was with the edge of the sword.
JT Yes; in the antitype it is the word of God.
FHL Had you any thought about Moses saying, “To-morrow I will stand on the top of the hill”?
JT “To-morrow” usually alludes, I think, to an exercise that should ensue, in view of what is going to happen. We have to go through the night before it happens. Thus we have the “evening” and the “morning”, (Genesis 1). Scope must be made for “the night seasons”.
AP What about the altar and the name of it — Jehovah-nissi?
JT It is Moses moving in response to the victory vouchsafed — his contribution to Jehovah. The altar signifies that there is actual gain, and that this is to return to God in worship. It is a landmark in this sense, showing that the service of God is enriched through the conflict.
It says further that “Moses built an altar” — it was of his own accord, and not as being told to do it.
[p. 263] It would mean that he would think for God now, that a definite point in this respect had been reached through the pressure and victory. One has noticed in conflicts, whether great or small, that if we all go through the exercise with God, there is more for Him in result. I think that is what the altar means here. Moses names it Jehovah-nissi; and he says further, “for the hand is on the throne of Jah; Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”. That is, you have an altar which signifies what is for God, and then what He is going to be for us in the further exercises that lie before us.
JTJr Do David’s psalms illustrate that — what he had to say to God after the exercise he went through?
JT Yes. The historical psalms signify what God got out of the crises mentioned in them. There is always something for God from pressure, so that after his great sin, David waited until the child died, and then he washed himself and anointed himself and went into the house of Jehovah. It resulted in what is for God.
AC Would Moses be somewhat akin to Noah? After the flood he built an altar and offered of every clean animal.
JT That is the idea; he is unselfish. All the altars reared up without any direction from God would mean that His work is showing itself and resulting in something for God. As to worship issuing from God’s work in His people: Abraham plants a grove and calls on the name of the eternal God. The Philistine king sought a covenant with him to include himself, his son, and grandson. Abraham could accept the obligation desired of him as a worshipper of the eternal God who would sustain him in righteousness throughout all generations. So here, “Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”. That is the light [p. 264] Moses had, as representing the intelligence of the position.
JS I suppose we see how the Lord consolidates the position by defeating the effort of Satan to discourage the believer, and now there is a real forward movement.
JT That is right. The altar and banner denote that a point had been reached in wilderness history from which we are not to go back. We are to go on to something in addition to this, and we can reckon on God to be with us.
RWS What does the first part of verse 16 mean, “For the hand is on the throne of Jah”?
JT I think it refers to God’s rights in your soul. Your soul is like a throne, and Satan would get there. Romans 7, I think, works this out. It works out the problem as to who is going to have the right of way in your soul; who is going to have place there. The apostle says, “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law”, (verse 25). That is, the throne is there, God’s right to it is recognised. Now when you come on to Horeb, it is specially stated there that they “departed from Rephidim”, (Exodus 19:2). This is a great landmark in the history of the believer; the battle with Satan acting in the flesh has been experienced and in result God has His place in the believer’s heart, and He will have war against Amalek from generation to generation. I have no doubt that these things were all segregated later and put into the book of the wars of the Lord, but this is “the book”, as if God had begun the history of His people. This war with Amalek could be regarded as an item in it.
AR We really can never be organised in the light of Numbers unless we have gone this way.
JT As already said, the persons numbered are those who go forth to war. They are known in that way. The verb is in the present and the past tenses in the New Translation. There are those who go
[p. 265] forth — that is characteristic — and there are those who went forth; (Numbers 1:3,20).
APT Does not this victory at Rephidim make us good soldiers? We are ready to go on now as seeing the victory — “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord”, (Romans 7:25).
JT That is the idea. Then you come to Horeb, where the covenant is made. You are now to listen to God at Horeb, where He discloses His great thoughts of love to His people.
JS Not now merely on the principle of conscription, but having a desire to go forward with Him.
AP Would you say that such a person is twenty years old?
JT That is exactly what is meant. That is what is alluded to in Numbers 1: he has taken his sword and has gone forth.
AP Does not the idea of fellowship come in at Horeb? So that at twenty years of age one would be ready for fellowship.
JT Yes. Fellowship involves the covenant.
AFM These believers as seen in Numbers are comparatively young, they are only thirteen months out of Egypt; it is not a very long time in which to come into the good of the gospel. They have moved on in a remarkable way, so that they are able to declare their pedigrees in view of being numbered for military service.
JT I think what we have said helps; that they go forth to war. This experience will be known immediately after conversion to God, as the converts are true to the Lord. They go whenever there is a battle, because they are ready.
AP Would attendance at the care meetings include this?
JT Yes, in the sense that counsel is there taken to meet Satan’s efforts against the truth. Of course there should be no war in the care meetings.
[p. 266] APf Would defensive warfare in the wilderness fit us for offensive warfare later on?
JT I think so. After the flesh is exposed in its true character as prefigured in the brazen serpent and judged, and the Spirit is experienced as seen typically in the springing well, we are led on to aggressive warfare. The springing well is upward. This thought enters into later wars; warfare in the wilderness is on the plain, as it were. It is not aggressive, but just going through. If you are attacked, you defend yourself. But the Spirit in the Christian, according to John 4, springs up into everlasting life. It is an upward movement, and I think it means that I have to dislodge the inhabitants of the land. Eternal life belongs to the land, and as soon as the Holy Spirit begins to move in that direction, then I begin to attack, because that territory is occupied by the devil.
NMcC Romans 8 speaks of the flesh and the Spirit, and Galatians 5 refers to warfare between the flesh and the Spirit. In view of this, I am not to be a silent partner, so to speak, but I should have part in this conflict.
JT It is important to see that we are brought to the side of the Spirit. The passage you quoted from Galatians speaks of an abnormal condition; and such condition is to be done with in principle. The victory at Rephidim leads to this, and Numbers 21 points to complete deliverance. The victory at Rephidim is attributed to Moses and Joshua, the behaviour of the people is not stressed, whereas in Numbers 21 Israel sang to the well. In Galatians there is this constant conflict — the flesh against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, but Romans teaches that we overcome: “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. I am on the side of God and the teaching following shows that the Spirit comes in to support me in that position, in that I give God His place in [p. 267] me. The mind is the greatest faculty the Christian has — it is the intelligent faculty, and by it you see it is right that God should assume full control over you. In Romans the believer is viewed as an institution, and the mind determines that the law of God must rule there. When we take that attitude, God will support us to the utmost. He comes in for us to this end by the Spirit; chapter 8 develops this support in those who give themselves up to Him. The “I myself” of chapter 7 implies that I have got my footing; I have reached solid ground. As to my responsibility, “I myself with the mind serve God’s law; but with the flesh sin’s law”. This latter clause does not mean that I am going to serve sin’s law. Sin is served by the flesh characteristically, and I have thus judged it, for God has condemned it: “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh”, (Romans 8:3). It has thus no right to act at all. It has no right to a voice in me, and I maintain this, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death”, (verse 2). That is the position of the believer. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set him free.
APT Romans 8:9 says, “if any one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not of him”.
JT That is a hypothetical “if”, used there in a negative sense, but also used positively in the same verse: “if ... God’s Spirit dwell in you”; certain things mark those who have the Spirit.
WGT You linked John 4 with Romans 7.
JT Rather with Romans 8. Romans 8 is the springing up, so that we are regarded as sons of God. God is bringing many sons to glory. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”,
([p. 268] verse 14). It is an upward movement. The top of Pisgah is reached in Romans 8. After singing to the well Israel reached this point.
NP “But if, by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live”, (verse 13). Has that reference to conflict?
JT Yes. It is by the Spirit not merely an effort of the mind or legal restrictions. It is calling attention to the Spirit, as we were saying, showing that it is the great power that God furnishes. It does not say here, If ye put to death the deeds of the body, but “if, by the Spirit”, ye do it. I think if we reach the platform of “I myself”, resolving to serve the law of God with the mind, we shall then see that Romans 8 is God’s side in the way of furnishing us, so that we are always conquerors.
APT Is the teaching of Romans entirely connected with the wilderness setting?
JT Yes; but we must remember that Romans 7 and 8 apply to a later type than Exodus 17; that is, chapter 8 contemplates the uplifted serpent of brass, the condemning of sin in the flesh, and the Spirit not only received but owned — given full place, as superseding the flesh. Hence the ground is laid for Ephesians. Romans links on directly with Ephesians. Colossians is really a corrective epistle, although in advance of Romans.
AFM The point of Romans 8 is living in the sense of power; it is exactly what we get in Numbers 21, resulting in a regulated and victorious life.
JT Israel sang this song, “Rise up, well! sing unto it”. It has the dignity of a song, i.e., deliberately composed, implying full recognition of the Spirit.
JS Springing up would be an evidence of the Spirit in the believer to turn our thoughts and minds heavenward, as wholly for God.
JT As soon as you look heavenward, there are [p. 269] enemies. It is no longer Amalek, but spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies.
AR Romans 8 says, we cry “Abba, Father”. Is that what you mean by Romans linking with Ephesians?
JT Quite so; it takes you directly on to Ephesians.