DIVINE NAMES (4)
[p. 221] DIVINE NAMES (4)
Genesis 1:1; Genesis 14:18 - 20; Deuteronomy 32:15
JT At our last reading we were dwelling on Genesis 1:1. It is thought we should begin there tonight — considering the names of God in the Old Testament. In the originals of these three scriptures, the first is Elohim, which we have already touched on; the second is El, chapter 14; and the third is Eloah or Elah, the same under two different original words, one Hebrew and the other Chaldee. There are other names of God in the Old Testament, which we may consider at the next meeting. We noticed before that Elohim is God’s creative name; at least, the name by which He is spoken of as Creator. He is the Being with whom men have to do; to whom they are responsible; He is to be worshipped. This is the appellation by which He is most frequently spoken of in the Old Testament. Why there should be so many names of God in Hebrew is a matter to be specially noted, for in the earlier western languages, especially Greek and Latin, there is only one title in each language. It would seem as if faith in its earlier stages laid hold of God in different features, each title conveying some distinctive one, as if love would multiply names. But in general the names in the Old Testament carry the idea of power. So that if we think creationally, faith would, as following the Old Testament custom, think of God under this great general title of Elohim. We have the attributes of God used as names too, such as the Almighty. The pronoun ‘He’ is used to designate the Deity. All these titles culminate in the name Father in which God is revealed to christians. We do well to look into these various designations of God and see whether our minds may not become enlarged as to Him, our affections, too; for the ultimate of all these considerations of the Scriptures should lead to a greater love for God. It is said that in [p. 222] the last days men are lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.
AR In that sense is the last revelation cumulative in relation to all that has preceded — the last revelation of God as Father?
JT Yes. And the accumulative designations largely refer to attributes; that is, God known in various ways, and all brought down in the New Testament as included in the appellation God, whom the only-begotten Son has declared. It is one term, whether it be in the Greek or Latin parts of the western world. Then He says that He has become Father to us: “and I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”, 2 Corinthians 6:18. So all really merge in the great relation in which He stands to christianity as the Father. Of course. He is God — “yet to us there is one God, the Father”, 1 Corinthians 8:6. So our considerations of this great subject ought to lead to increased appreciation of God, and especially as our Father, because all these attributes enter into the name of Father.
APT “We have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father”, John 1:14. Will you just say a word as to what is inferred there?
JT Well it is the idea of a father and an only-begotten son there. It is not the Father but a father. It is a descriptive thought, a thought taken up from ordinary family relationships and applied to Christ seen as man with God. They saw Him, and what did they see? It would not be as Moses was with God, or Enoch, or Noah. It would be in the intimate relation of Father and Son, and that brings the matter down concretely to our own experience.
AMacN Is it of Elohim the apostle speaks when addressing the Athenians? He says, “In him we live and move and exist”, Acts 17:28?
JT The allusion is to that title; it is what God is in [p. 223] creation, only the apostle used the Greek name for God.
Ques The name the Lord God Almighty, what would be the force of that?
JT The living creatures. Revelation 4, address Him thus — as known in Old Testament times. “Who was” comes first there. It is God known historically. In chapter 1 “who is” comes first, Himself being more in mind. We shall come to that later, the compounds of divine names. They begin in Genesis 2. They are quite extensive, more than we can look at now. The wise course now is to take each of these titles and consider it by itself and then we shall see the compounds, how they work out. The first one is in chapter 2 — Jehovah Elohim. That is, the compound is the title of covenant relations with man. We are on a higher level in chapter 2 in that sense, because it is a covenant relation there.
FHL One has noticed that the Spirit of God used the word Elohim some thirty times up to that point. Would that not make it most emphatic at the outset of their operations?
JT That is quite right. It is used more than any other title of God in the Old Testament right through, showing that it is comprehensive as to God coming into His creation.
ANW Should Elohim, being in the plural, lead a godly unprejudiced Hebrew to inquire further as to the other Persons in the Trinity?
JT Well the question is whether it is plurality in the ordinary sense. I think it is generally understood to be more emphasis, as in many other instances. The plural represents emphasis, although the Spirit of God may have in mind that the emphasis in this case involves more, awaiting the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament.
ANW “Let us make” — would that not suggest something more than emphasis?
JT Well, it is a question of whether you are entitled [p. 224] to put more into it. The Spirit of God is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, and Psalm 2:7 speaks of the Son of God and thus the Trinity is plainly contemplated in the Old Testament, but, that it is in the title Elohim is doubtful. Agur asks, “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?” Proverbs 30:4. Well, he may have had an inkling. Psalm 2 was probably written before his day. He professes to be a very ignorant man, and it is from a man that has a small estimate of himself you might get an inkling of the Trinity.
Ques And the Lord speaks of “My Father worketh hitherto and I work”, John 5:17. Does He infer there that there was only one worker in the Old Testament?
JT He is designating one Person in the Trinity when He says that, and the New Testament shows that that Person is God: “There is one God, the Father”; but when He says, “My Father worketh hitherto” you cannot say that the other Persons of the Deity were not involved in what was done. But the Lord is speaking from the standpoint of the economy into which He had come. In this the Father and the Son are working. I think if we are too literal in these things it would lead us beyond our depth; the Lord speaks and the Holy Spirit speaks in the gospels from the standpoint of revelation, that is, from the standpoint of God as in the christian economy.
ANW Would you care to say that the Person mentioned in Genesis 1:2 is other than the Person mentioned in verse 1 — the Spirit of God?
JT The Spirit of God (Himself a divine Person) is included in the designation ‘God’ in chapter 1. The Spirit in verse 2 is in effect God Himself hovering over the face of the deep. His feelings were expressed there. Jehovah is spoken of as the Creator in the book of Proverbs, but then John 1:3 shows that the Creator really is Christ. Thus, in the light of the revelation of [p. 225] God, we can see that the three divine Persons are in the Old Testament contemplated as operating.
CAM There has been a statement made that one great thing to note in the Old Testament is that there is one God, and the great thing to note in the New Testament is that God is One. The reason I say that is because of what you have said in the matter of revelation if I understood you rightly; you connected that in a special way with the New Testament, is that right?
JT It is. The New Testament says, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”, John 1:18, and “no one knows the Son but the Father, nor does any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son may be pleased to reveal him”, Matthew 11:27. So that revelation properly belongs to the New Testament. It is there we get the whole truth about God. We have the word God in Genesis 1, and it may be said that it is revelation; it is a name used to designate the Supreme Being, but whether it can be called revelation is the question. I think we have to come to the New Testament properly for revelation and declaration and these two thoughts depend on sonship; that is they begin with one of the Persons becoming a Man so as to be apprehended by man. There was no mediator, Job said; he sought a mediator, but there was not one. Of course Moses was one, but he was only a creature; there was no one great enough to lay his hand upon God and upon man until Jesus became a Man, so that it all awaited that great and blessed fact.
JTJr Would the Psalms help us in understanding the thought of God? The psalmist says, ‘My God’ and ‘O God’ etc., and the Lord takes up the strain from Psalm 22 Himself.
JT Well, they do now that we understand, but what could you say more than that? It was Christ in Spirit speaking anticipatively on the cross. It was [p. 226] David who actually used the words at first; they were a prophetic allusion involving the incarnation, but Christ was speaking in Spirit. We can see now that sonship in Christ was anticipated, but how could David understand it? No doubt he inquired like Agur, “What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?” Proverbs 30:4. He had some little inkling but that is all we can say. Psalm 2 speaks about the Son, but where was He? “Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee”, Psalm 2:7. Faith had laid hold of that, but had that day come? It had not come. The New Testament records the great event as having taken place.
CAM Those three men that came to Abraham have been likened, in your ministry, to the Trinity suggestively, is that right?
JT Yes, we can see that now.
CAM Quite so, so that God had given suggestions of what existed.
JHE Would all these titles be cumulative?
JT I think they are; we have already remarked that they entered into the great relation in which God stands to us. Whatever might be said in the Old Testament about God, you can say, He is my Father.
JHE We have had a little before us, “then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him ... that God may be all in all”, 1 Corinthians 15:28. That is the final thought, is it not?
JT Yes, it is the great ultimate in mind, but it does not set aside the abstract equality of the three Persons in the Trinity, nor the great variety of other thoughts that enter into the eternal state of things.
ANW Referring to Abraham again, while three stood before him, he answered and addressed One in the singular; is that not striking?
JT He did; he discerned Jehovah, and that is what we should discern, that there is one God, the Father,
[p. 227] but there is the Son as well, and the Spirit. I do not say for a moment that the three persons that came to Abraham were the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, because two of them were angels, but there is the suggestion of the Trinity. The idea of the three runs right through Scripture.
RWS In the multiplicity of names in the Hebrew, you mentioned the thought of power running through. Is there a suggestion of love in any of these titles?
JT Well, I suppose Jehovah would be near to that; Jah even more so. These are said to be names that are never pronounced by the godly in the Old Testament; they are too sacred in their minds. Whether that were so or not literally, it would indicate a certain affection developed in some that would lead to worship, not only because of His attributes, but because of what Jehovah Himself was, so that you get the psalmist saying, “I love Jehovah”, Psalm 116:1. There is much said of God’s love for His people, and this of course reflects what He is. You get love for Jehovah in the Psalms, and I suppose that would be the outcome of experience with Him. But I do not know that any of the names convey the idea of love, and yet when we come to the New Testament we are told that God is love; it was there; it must have been in some sense manifested. It most certainly was. He says to Israel, “I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee”, Jeremiah 31:3.
Ques Did not they have some sense of relationship? In Isaiah they say, “thou, Jehovah, art our Father”, Isaiah 63:16.
JT Yes; that would be the spirit of prophecy fully naming what Jehovah had been practically to Israel, but it is not a relationship entered into with them. In John 20 we see that He has formally taken up this relation with christians.
AC I wanted to ask you why in Genesis 1, where [p. 228] the creation is mentioned, Jehovah is omitted, but in chapter 2, we have Jehovah for the first time coupled with ‘Elohim’?
JT That is because Adam is brought in there in covenant relation. It contemplates covenant relationship in chapter 2, so that we have Jehovah frequently throughout the chapter. It is the compound thought we alluded to, which I think will help us when we come to it.
WB-w “The Most High God” — is that an attribute?
JT Yes; although a formal name of God. It is El first. You will notice in the New Translation in the note ‘El Elyon’ is power repeated. The note continues “Elyon is habitually represented by ‘Most High’”, but also carrying the idea of power. ‘El’ separately is God in the sense of power. So it is the idea of power and elevation in Genesis 14, a matter that enters with great instruction into that chapter, because we have Melchisedec there in view of the millennial world.
WB-w In chapter 17, it is Almighty. That is power too. Is that an attribute or a name?
JT It is an attribute, but used as a name of God, as we have been remarking. In the book of Job, it is used frequently. In ‘Almighty God’, Genesis 17: 1, the word God is power; that is, El, the second name we are touching on now; showing that whoever used that title first was impressed with the idea of power. God says to christians, “I will be to you for a Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters”. He says this as Jehovah Almighty, showing that we now have Him in that way. His power being available to us.
AR Was that the same power that was seen in the operations in relation to the creation?
JT Yes; that is the idea of it.
WB-w The word ‘El’ refers to God; and ‘Almighty’ would refer to power.
JT Well, El is power, too, as we have seen. It is [p. 229] the Mighty One; therefore when almightiness is added to that, the speaker must have had a great sense of power. He either knew it or wished to know it, and God says that is how we christians are to know Him. Of course the greatest evidence of that is the resurrection of Christ — the “exceeding greatness of his power”. All these designations of power looked on to that.
JTJr You mean that all awaited the incoming of Christ before there could be any full knowledge of God.
JT Yes. Of course there was some knowledge of Him; because these names indicate knowledge of God but only in a general creative way, and as Creator, power, goodness, mercy and other beneficent things were seen in Him. Indeed the whole system of creation denotes great thoughtfulness on the part of the Creator so as to lead the creature to love Him and worship Him in some sense. “Because what is known of God is manifest among them, for God has manifested it to them — for from the world’s creation the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both His eternal power and divinity”, Romans 1:19,20.
AR Would chapter 42 of Job confirm what you are saying — “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”, Job 42:5, 6; as if he had heard of God in some way through the creation, do you think?
JT Just so. Elihu first spoke to Job and evidently helped him, but all on the line of creation, bringing in the thunder, rain, hail, snow, and the clouds. Elihu used all these things in creation to affect Job, and he evidently succeeded to some extent, but not entirely; so that in chapter 38, God takes him on. And He says, “Gird up now thy loins like a man”, verse 3; as if God would say, You are making some headway, and answer me if you can. And then God proceeds with the creation — Where was he “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 42:7. That is very touching, that there were persons affected by God as Creator. And God proceeds, calling his attention to the sea, light, darkness, snow, hail, constellations, birds, land and sea animals, especially behemoth, the chief of the ways of God, and leviathan, king over all proud beasts. And now Job says, “I will lay my hand upon my mouth”, Job 40:4. First, his “words” were ended, but now he says, “I will lay my hand upon my mouth”, as if to say, lest I should speak at all, I am so affected. And then finally, he judges himself — “now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself”. He saw Him as known in creation, not in His essential Being, because no one sees Him in His essential Being, but in the way He created and what He created. And Job repented “in dust and ashes”.
FHL In Psalm 19, David speaks of the declaration of the glory of God in the heavens, and he closes with “Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer”, Psalm 19:14. I thought that followed your thought in regard to Job.
JT I think Job and the Psalms run together. Job is the gentile working something out with God in the creation. The Psalms are the Jews working things out; not only in the creation but through certain communications, the oracles of God, and therefore in the Old Testament they come nearer to God than others.
RWS Would you just say how “the invisible things of him are perceived, being apprehended by the mind through the things that are made, both his eternal power and divinity — so as to render them inexcusable”, Romans 1:20?
JT That would be in creation. It is His power and divinity there; it is not His Deity. It is a word of less value or character than deity, so that it is what God is more in His attributes that is in mind, but when you come to Colossians, we have another word. It is not divinity but Godhead: “in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”, Colossians 2:9. That is actually His essential Being.
RWS The comparison of divinity and Deity helps.
AAT I notice in the book of Job that the title Jehovah is used much. Did Job have the light of God as Jehovah?
JT Well, it is mainly by the writer, whoever the author of the book is. Job himself is quoted as using the name Jehovah only in Job 1:21 and Job 12:9. The use of the title ‘Jehovah’ extends back to Eve; she was the first to use it, but that does not mean that she understood it any more than she understood the appellation ‘God’. We understand the word ‘God’ now, but did the saints of the Old Testament? ‘Jehovah’ was not understood until Moses, although it had been used. God, as it were, made it new; He says, My new name, Jehovah. He formally says to Moses, that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did not know Him by this name, but that they knew Him as Almighty God.
CAM Would you say that what we are considering tonight, the name of God as expressed in these three scriptures, is to be fundamental in our souls, in an initial way as to the recognition of God — His mightiness?
JT I think so; I think it is most important that we should look into these matters. It is a question of how many of us have thought of them, and if we have not it is well worth our while to stop and consider what is for us in these names that were used by Old Testament believers. We want to get the good of them.
APT Moses being the writer of these books, is it not important to note that in Exodus 3 he speaks of God saying, “I am the God of thy father?”
JT I think He alluded to Abraham. I think it is the general allusion to the beginning of that line, that God began with Abraham. He is the father of us all; he is the father of all believers. So that it is well to begin with [p. 232] that.
AR Luke in his gospel goes back to Adam, does he not?
JT He does; he says that Adam was of God. He traces the line of Christ through Adam to God.
AC The reference a moment ago to Job was interesting as to the creational aspect; in Exodus 24 Moses and Aaron and the seventy elders ascended the mountain and they saw the God of Israel and ate and drank. Now ‘Jehovah’ is not mentioned there.
JT Well, that is a further advance on what we are speaking of now. It is not a question of the God of creation; it is the God of Israel. That is the covenant idea; they are on narrower ground, but spiritual ground. But we ought to dwell on the title ‘Elohim’, because it is His creative name. What can I get out of this name? We shall come to the God of Israel and to Jehovah later, God willing. Jehovah is not mentioned in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2. It is God’s relationship with man. But now we are dealing with God in creation and man included. Chapter 2 is man in relation to God not the cattle, although they are mentioned there as named by Adam. It is man set up in the garden on the principle of covenant and a wife given him there.
AC Well, then, we understand that in each mention of the names and titles of God there is a certain specific line of teaching or education for us.
JT Certainly; that is the point we are seeking to get at; young people here are enjoined: “Remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth”, Ecclesiastes 12:1. That is important — your Creator. Who gave you your spirit? It was God. “And the spirit return unto God who gave it”, Ecclesiastes 12:7. There is a direct link in that sense between God and every man, woman and child — “in him we live and move and exist”, Acts 17:28. It is well to begin there. Every moment, every breath I breathe affects me. God gave me my spirit, involving my individuality and responsible link [p. 233] with Him.
CAM I suppose it is on that ground that you would have an appeal to anybody and everybody — in God’s creation.
JT That is the ground upon which the gospel goes out in Mark; it fits in here. The Lord Jesus says, “Go into all the world”, Mark 16:15. That is the moral side in which men are living in, lawlessness; but He says, “and preach the glad tidings to all the creation”; the creation; that is, men looked on in a different way. We may go out in the street and speak to men who are passing and call them wicked sinners and that sort of thing, and you may cause indignation, but if you speak to them as God’s creatures, their attitude will be different; and you will say, I have a link with you, because I am a man, as Peter said to Cornelius, “I myself also am a man”, Acts 10:26.
WB-w Let us get it clear in our minds as to whether Elohim refers to Deity, or whether it refers to His creative power, or both.
JT It is both; it is certainly His Deity, but then did they have an apprehension of God as we have? They did not. Even in His relation to Israel. He said, “Lo, I will come to thee in the cloud’s thick darkness”, Exodus 19:9. There were no lights in the holiest. God said He would dwell in the thick darkness, 1 Kings 8:12. Now “he is in the light”, 1 John 1:17.
WB-w Is there any name for God in the Scriptures that covers His deity only?
JT Elohim expresses His deity, only it is relative to creation. El is Deity too, only expressing power. Elohim is the plural of Eloah. It is power, but there is more in it. It is the supreme God in His creation, an Object of worship. But Jehovah and Jah, are nearer to absoluteness, as I hope we shall see when we come to these titles.
Ques Can we have the apprehension of God apart from revelation?
JT I think so. The creation testifies to that, but I [p. 234] do not think there would be any result to Him from it if the Holy Spirit was not operating. Left to himself, man would not arrive at it, though actually the testimony was there and that ought to lead him to it. The opportunity was there. But the Spirit was operating. It says immediately that He was brooding over the face of the deep and that is the secret really of men turning to God. In Adam’s case God took pains with him, so that he might know Him — according to Genesis 2.
EEH What was it that affected the men in the city of Nineveh?
JT Jonah’s preaching — “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” Jonah 3:4. That affected them. It is the preaching that brought about the repentance — the goodness of God.
APT In that way, Paul apparently uses Genesis 1, he says, “The God who has made the world”, Acts 17:24. If he was not in the good of revelation, he would not be able to preach, would he? Is that how you are seeking to help on the line of the glad tidings?
JT In going about, he observed the shrine “to the unknown God”. That is his text. Well the word ‘God’ is on the shrine. Who put it there? Some one with some exercise must have put it there. It was not idolatry. It was an unknown God that he had in mind. And Paul says, “Whom therefore ye reverence, not knowing him, him I announce to you”, Acts 17:23. So he goes on to preach the gospel. He carried on from this. And so the angel that preaches the everlasting gospel begins with Genesis, Revelation 14:6,7 — “Fear God and give him glory ... do homage to him who has made the heaven and the earth and the sea and fountains of waters”.
AR He will go further in his testimony?
JT No doubt, but he got back to it. It is a testimony of God for all times, and we should go back to it. Young people are enjoined to “remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth”.
CAM Creation has a voice, as you say; men are responsible to acknowledge God’s divinity and power to which it testifies. The Holy Spirit was active to bring all into the light of it.
JT That is right; if the Spirit of God had not been active in this chaotic condition, there would be no results for God at all. The Spirit of God is the means of subjective result and that begins with faith and repentance, and that accounts for Abel’s sacrifice. The Holy Spirit helped him to bring a suitable sacrifice; he brought his offering “of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat”, Genesis 4:4; he knew that was suitable to God.
ABP Does Romans 1 apply to all men, whether they have faith or not? They are inexcusable because it is possible to apprehend God in the things that He has made.
JT Psalm 19 is based on that, as was remarked a moment ago: “yet their voice is heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their language to the extremity of the world”, Psalm 19:3,4. So that Paul brings that very thing in; he says they are without excuse.
ABP In our thanksgiving now, as knowing the declared name of the Father and it may be far beyond our apprehension of God, may it not? But in Genesis, the names, the titles you referred to, do you imply that they were an expression of the measure of the apprehension of some person?
JT Quite so; that is what we were speaking of lately, how the Old Testament merges with the New, how one dispensation merges into another; how all the testimony from Adam down was cumulative so that all that they had in Genesis came into the book of Exodus. In chapter 17 God said to Moses “Write this for a memorial in the book”, Genesis 17:14; that is, the book already had been started; that suggests that the truth as it came out was cumulative, that there is nothing lost. So that the writing of Moses in the five books is the gathering [p. 236] up of everything from Adam down to his own time.
Ques You referred to the sacrifice that Abel brought; was that not what God had in view, that all should do that?
JT Quite so; God Himself gave the idea in that he made coats of skin for Adam and Eve; that is the basis. We often go back to Genesis 3 for the gospel; it is there in the principle of it.
AC Is it not remarkable that in the kind of gospel when Paul and Barnabas preach to the heathen audiences in Lystra they bring in the creational setting, referring to the creation of the heaven and the earth, Acts 14:15?
JT Yes. He adds the thought of filling their hearts with “food and gladness”, bringing in not only the creation but the fruit of it.
AC And further confirming what you were saying as to the various titles the Spirit of God brings to us as to the Godhead, that we should be educated through it.
JT Well, that is what is in mind tonight, to try and get the brethren, the young ones especially, to look into this, to look into their Bibles. You see what a range of things is there.
Now leaving Genesis 1 and going on to chapter 14, we get the priest and it is in connection with moral elevation and power; “the Most High God”, coming in after Noah, after the flood, after Babel and the scattering of the race. Abraham is taken up and God is starting anew in him. The idea of father is stressed in Abraham, clearly pointing to the fatherhood of God, which had not yet been disclosed. It underlies the stress laid on the name ‘Abram’ which is ‘high father’ and then Abraham, an enlargement upon it, which is ‘father of a multitude’; that is. God is taking him up upon the ground of fatherhood, as if to intimate to him, I am to be that, but you are to set it out. Abraham is to set out the idea — a fresh testimony brought in, and now he is met by this [p. 237] great person called Melchisedec. Who is he? The writer to the Hebrews, says, “without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life”, Hebrews 7:3. And his name means “king of righteousness”, and he is “king of peace” as well, being king of Salem. So that we have a great setting now, a family setting, and a new name of God, it is the first time the word ‘El’ is used. The Spirit of God went through fourteen chapters before this title of God is brought in. It is a family idea, and God is saying, There must be great elevation. Abraham is ‘high father’; that is elevation, and now we have the ‘Most High’, and He is most powerful, so that we are in the presence of a divine setting of things, which enters into christianity, or, as we noted before, Abraham is the father of us all, Romans 4:16.
CAM The light that the New Testament gives us would show that inasmuch as Melchisedec was “made like unto the Son of God” this must have been a very wonderful epoch in the ways of God in regard to fatherhood and sonship.
JT Yes. This fourteenth chapter of Genesis is a remarkable chapter because we are introduced into the divine family setting involving elevation and power. So that we need not be afraid of current happenings. The Lord says, “And when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified”, Luke 21: 9. There is power on our side, and there is elevation on our side; let us therefore not get down to the level of men and what they are doing. Here a world war had just happened, four kings with five, and this great personage comes in and blesses Abraham.
Rem The Most High God would be the One who overrules the outcome of the nations in conflict, and the High Priest would be the one who intercedes to help the saints from being affected by the conflict.
JT That is right; He is the Most High, meaning [p. 238] that He is above the level of all that is going on. God is not affected by the things that are happening, and lest Abraham should be affected by the things that are happening, God’s priest meets him and brings out bread and wine to support him above the pressure and influence of war conditions.
CAM I suppose in that way we should recognise that in this tremendous conflict, four against five, our brethren would be recovered that are apparently lost.
JT That is what comes out, the recovery of Lot is the one thing that concerns Abraham, it is when he comes back after the slaughter of the kings that he meets this great personage, and I think it points very peculiarly to our own times. It points to power in God, and elevation in God and priesthood on His side on our account.
FHL The great contrast to the slime pits, Genesis 14:10.
AR Is there now power to enable Abraham to refuse the king of Sodom when he comes to him afterwards?
JT He does refuse him; he does not come under the influence of the warring powers.
JTJr Does he maintain the separation that God brought in in chapter 11? Is that maintained in Abraham’s life?
JT Exactly. Where did he dwell here at the beginning of the war? I was thinking of that. It gives us a clue as to our own position now. It is said, “Then Abram moved his tents, and came and dwelt by the oaks of Mamre, which are in Hebron. And he built there an altar to Jehovah”, Genesis 13:18. And then we have this war started. That gives us a corresponding position, I think; that is, we are to be dwelling outside the world in connection with the purposes of God, at Hebron. That saves us from taking sides merely because of nations. It elevates us above all that, a very important matter,
[p. 239] because we are sure to be defiled if we take sides with nations as nations; at the same time taking sides with right against wrong.
ANW So the supremacy in Elohim would suggest supremacy in majesty; whereas the supremacy in El would suggest infinite might, is that the thought?
JT That is the idea, and that God has a system, although the divine system did not fully develop until Exodus, but still we have a priest of the Most High God here, and that involves a system, to some extent. It is not the service of God that is in mind here. Melchisedec does not represent that side, Aaron does. Service Godward is seen in Aaron in type, but Melchisedec is from God towards the saints.
ABP Is the place of peace important, too? He is King of Salem as well as King of righteousness. A place of peace would that be?
JT That is what it is; by interpretation, the writer to the Hebrews says, “also King of Salem, which is King of peace”.
ABP Does it anticipate Jerusalem?
JT It does.
ARS What have you to say about Lot? It says in this chapter that Lot was taken captive. He gets recovered and then goes right back into what he was recovered from — a solemn matter.
JT Just so. He went back into Sodom.
AR It says in this chapter, Lot was taken captive. I suppose he represents those who come under the thing and are affected by it, affected by the darkness.
JT Yes; it is significantly stated, “For he dwelt in Sodom”, Genesis 14:12. He came under the influence of the warring nations. As possessed of faith, the saints are living in the light of the Most High God, we are outside of that — living in Hebron; that is, in relation to God’s counsels which were before the world.
APT Verse 13 in this chapter indicates that [p. 240] the war does not change the heavenly position. Abraham is still dwelling in the same place at the end of chapter 13.
JT Just so. “And one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew”, Genesis 14:13. I suppose this is the first time the word ‘Hebrew’ is mentioned. It marked them off as the people of God. They came from another place across the Euphrates. “And he dwelt by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eschol, and the brother of Aner. And these were Abram’s allies” (meaning, ‘masters of covenant’). Whatever they represent, they would be men in a corresponding status. They were not among the warring nations.
CAM It is a very searching thing about the warring nations. I suppose the reason John could write in The Revelation about things that should be “after these” is that he was taken up into heaven at the beginning of chapter 4.
JT They were to be written from a heavenly point of view.
Rem I was thinking of the three hundred and eighteen servants born in Abraham’s house. That would correspond to the assembly’s position today, it is not systematically organised as the nations are.
JT That brings up a very important distinction; that christians are warriors or soldiers, trained. He had three hundred and eighteen, we are told in Genesis 14:14. “He led out his trained servants, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them”, meaning that it was a household matter. Christianity is a household matter. It is the household of God, and the saints are trained servants in it, but we are warriors of a heavenly kind. “For the arms of our warfare are not fleshly”, 2 Corinthians 10:4 — “not against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against authorities, against the universal lords of this darkness, against spiritual power of wickedness in the heavenlies”, Ephesians 6:12. We are [p. 241] warriors but not of the ordinary kind. But then we must not despise the ordinary kind because they belong to the four monarchies which God uses provisionally for our protection, and therefore we are not to despise them as if they were just the world, because they are essential to government. Governments must have soldiers, they must have police, etc.; we do not belong to that side at all, but we do not despise them. We pay for them from that point of view. I believe that is what Abraham represents. He is here a characteristic believer. He used what he had to rescue his brother.
ARS What is the meaning of the word “the Hebrew”?
JT It is not clear, but what is stated in the note in the New Translation furnishes some light. It is implied that Abram came from across the Euphrates. It is a term applied particularly in Exodus. The Hebrews were despised. It would look as if the term might bear on the children of God. “For this reason the world knows us not, because it knew him not”, 1 John 3:1.
ABP Does that emphasise our heavenly position?
JT It corresponds with it; that you are under reproach here, so we are to accept the reproach of Christ, “Let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach”, Hebrews 13:13.
AR What have you got to say about the scripture in Deuteronomy?
JT There is not much time now, but just to add that Eloah (Chaldee, Elah) is a term used much in the book of Job, also Ezra and Daniel; and I suppose it would mean God known in foreign or captive conditions. The Jews were there but God had not forsaken them. He puts His people into conditions, in discipline, that are hard, but He has not forsaken us. So that it is a Chaldean title in Ezra and Daniel. The name of God was known there, too. Wherever you go, you will find God; I think that is the idea of it. Job found Him, and [p. 242] those who were captives among the gentiles found Him. You will never lose God if you are right with Him. Although He hid His face from the Jews nationally, wherever there was love for God as in Daniel, God was there.
CAM Would you say the second book of Psalms illustrates that? They are outside the place of the ordinary current of blessing, and the name of God changes in that book characteristically. It is more God than Jehovah.
JT It is very comforting that no matter where we are placed under the government of God in discipline, if we cry to God we shall find Him. We may not be able to use the Hebrew title so to speak, but I can use the title in the language of the country where I have gone. If I love Him, I will find a name for Him.
WB-w Even when Israel had given Him up. He could be found. Is that the idea?
JT That is how it reads: “Then Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked — Thou art waxen fat. Thou art grown thick, And thou art covered with fatness; — He gave up God who made him”, Deuteronomy 32:15. If you will look at the notes, you will see that it is Eloah, the first occurrence. “He gave up God who made him”. The word ‘God’ is used, thus, in rebellious conditions. “And lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation”, Deuteronomy 32:15. That is, they had given Him up, but why should they have given up such a God?
W.B-w. Like Romans 1?
JT It corresponds with Romans 1. They did not like to retain Him in their knowledge.
ABP When God spoke to Job’s comforters. He did not excuse them for not knowing Him. They had not spoken of Him as His servant Job had, and therefore they had to sacrifice, and Job had to pray for them. There is no excuse in that sense for not knowing God.
AR How does Psalm 139 fit in: “take the wings [p. 243] of the dawn and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea”, Psalm 139:9. Is that the same idea here?
JT Quite so; God will be there; He is not far from any of us, no matter where we are.
JTJr It is a remarkable thing in verse 39 you have another name — “I am HE”, which means ‘The Same’. If we do get away and come back, we find that He is the same.