PRIESTHOOD (2)
[p. 480] PRIESTHOOD (2)
1 Samuel 19:19 - 24; 1 Samuel 23:2 - 12; 1 Samuel 30:7,8
JT It seems as if we should give prominence now to the priesthood as seen in Samuel, and I suggested reading in chapter 19 because it brings out the thought of influence that we touched on this morning. The Spirit of God is mentioned in the passage in chapter 19, and it has an important place in our subject. Samuel was standing over the prophets prophesying. While it is not the exercise of priesthood exactly, it involves it and the Spirit of God is active in relation to it.
In chapter 7 we have priesthood in the discernment of Samuel as to the state of the people. This is implied in Hannah’s case, but here we have a good evidence of priestliness in the full recognition of the state of the people. He says: “Gather all Israel to Mizpah, and I will pray Jehovah for you. And they gathered together to Mizpah, and drew water, and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against Jehovah. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpah” (1 Samuel 7:5,6). Now there is a great deal of practical truth in these verses as to priestly discernment, as to what is to be done in a given circumstance. It was a dark position because the presence of the ark had been lost, and although it is back it is in circumstances unsuited to it. It says in verses 3 and 4: “And Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If ye return to Jehovah with all your heart, put away the strange gods and the Ashtoreths from among you, and apply your hearts unto Jehovah, and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines. And the children of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtoreths and served Jehovah only”. Samuel undertakes nothing as to the ark. He undertakes to deal with the condition of the people, for it is of no avail to bring in symbols of the [p. 481] truth aside from the state of the people. And that is how the priestly power is seen, discerning where they were and influencing them by his ministry to judge themselves. So that “the children of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtoreths and served Jehovah only”. Now he gathers them together. The gathering is consequent on this. So deep is the self-judgment that they “drew water, and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day, and said there ...” — where this power was, where his ministry was.
JD What is the thought in the water here? “And they gathered together to Mizpah, and drew water, and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against Jehovah”. What would be the thought in the drawing of the water and the pouring of it out before Jehovah?
JT I think it was the judgment of themselves. The so-called wise woman later says: “For we ... are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again”, 2 Samuel 14:14. It is a figure of what we are as going into the ground, not to be gathered up again according to her estimate, but that does not appear here. It is before Jehovah here. It is the full acknowledgment of their state. There is no suggestion that it cannot be gathered up. There is the gathering up of the people on Jehovah’s terms through redemption as seen in the sucking-lamb.
JD In a practical way, would it work out as to ourselves in the application of the death of Christ in the way of moral cleansing?
JT Well, if it can be carried to that length. I think the acknowledgment was that water poured out on the ground is not contained in vessels. It is poured out; it disappears, it is absorbed and is never seen again. Elsewhere it “cannot be gathered up again”, but here the acknowledgment implies as before Jehovah that it will be. It would involve resurrection in the full bearing of it.
GAT [p. 482] The water brought to David from the well at Bethlehem by the three mighty men was poured out before Jehovah.
JT That was more as a sacrifice. He would not use it. It was too sacred, too precious. It was from the well of Bethlehem and they had risked their lives to get it.
JB That would be a libation, would it not?
JT It would be. But here the state of the people is in mind. They say, as it were, If we go down into the grave what will become of us? Where is Abraham? Where is Isaac? Even considering Machpelah being a cave, where are they? If they are buried there (and that is the principle of burial in Genesis that they are buried there; they are known to be buried there), they will all come out. Nobody could find them today I am sure, but God knows.
JD Do you think the word ‘there’ has moral significance?
JT I should attach great importance to that word. It is the spot where they are buried.
JB Jacob says, “and there I buried Leah”, Genesis 49:31.
EGMcA The wise woman followed up by saying: “God ... devises means that the banished one be not expelled from him”, 2 Samuel 14:14.
JT I would not give that woman credit for much. Still I am not saying a word against what you are saying. “Water ... which cannot be gathered up again”. She is thinking of the banished, that God can devise means whereby His banished can be brought back. But whether or not she understood resurrection, for that is what is in mind here, I do not know. Pouring the water out before the Lord — He knows where His people are. A banished one is of course on earth, but a dead one is another matter.
EGMcA That does involve resurrection and who can find them but [p. 483] God?
WB It is very helpful to bring in resurrection in this scripture.
JT I think it is. A man dead four thousand years — where is he? A man who has his body burned and his ashes scattered to the winds, where is he? God knows.
EGMcA In the pouring out of the water, the children of Israel practically say, ‘We are dead’.
JT I think that is right. It was there that they did it. The thing happened there. They “poured it out ... and said there, We have sinned against Jehovah”.
JWD Is your thought that the teaching of priesthood would bring this kind of thing about on the part of the people of God?
JT It is the power of influence. Samuel had great influence. That goes with the ministry, for it is not only that one can speak well and say good things, but the power that one has in the way of influence is a great matter with God, and it comes out peculiarly in Samuel. It says here, after they had said that: “And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpah”. The position helped him in the judgment. It is said later that he “judged Israel all the days of his life”, even though he was cast off by the people. Saul was king. How did it happen he could judge them all the days of his life? It is to bring out this point — the great influence that he had personally.
EGMcA It says of him in chapter 3, verse 19: “And Samuel grew, and Jehovah was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground. And all Israel, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, knew that Samuel was established a prophet of Jehovah”. That is the basis of all his influence.
JT That is right. It was known; God saw that it was known from Dan to Beer-sheba.
GWH Is there an acknowledgment in the pouring out of the water that they have wandered away from [p. 484] God?
JT There would be that. Now they are pouring it out before Him.
GWH What they did in the pouring out of the water and the offering of the sucking-lamb was very attractive to God.
JT Quite. It was a great day for God, this day at Mizpah, so that He thundered on the enemy. The sucking-lamb is offered, as it says in verses 9 and 10: “And Samuel took a sucking-lamb, and offered it as a whole burnt-offering to Jehovah; and Samuel cried to Jehovah for Israel, and Jehovah answered him. And as Samuel was offering up the burnt-offering, the Philistines advanced to battle against Israel. And Jehovah thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were routed before Israel”. There is the pouring out of the water aid the acknowledgment of the sin by the people. Notice it was their own action. It was not a sacrificial action by the priest, but their own action, this pouring out of the water. Then there was room made for Samuel to judge, because it is not only ministry but the man getting his place. He judged Israel there and then you get the sucking-lamb. Now the enemy cannot afford to let that pass — a state of things like that — so he attacks at once. He hates the gathering of the people under these circumstances.
GAT The enemy is at work on the inside but here he makes an attack on the outside.
JT A self-judged people gathering together under the influence of a Samuel is abhorrent to the devil. Now how is he to be met? The next thing is that it gives Samuel room to judge. He judged Israel there. The circumstances warranted it; the circumstances helped him to do it. He had his first great lesson in judging at Mizpah. It was an auspicious position and he acquired the way. It was a new system inaugurated. We are told at the end of the chapter how he [p. 485] judged.
JD Do the priestly feelings of Samuel come into evidence in that it is a sucking-lamb he takes?
JT That is a beautiful touch. I suppose these small or diminutive thoughts allude not only to smallness in him but to apprehension in the saints, and it is a great tribute to the state of the people that this corresponded with their feelings. A sucking-lamb means a creature in dependence.
EGMcA A burnt-offering of a bullock would not be appropriate here.
JT It was an infantile condition but it was normal. In a state that is normal you can look for growth. It is to bring out Samuel’s position and how successful he was in relation to the state of the people.
EHT Would you connect that with a day of small things?
JT Only a day of small things that can become greater.
GAT What do you mean by a day of small things, not only the material side but the actual meaning of it?
JT The person who uses that expression will have to give his estimate of himself — how small I am myself.
GAT Is that what it means?
JT That must be the way it works out.
GAT I had always understood that it meant small in the same sense in which our hymn book used to read, ‘For the poor of the flock’.
JT It is a day of small things in relation to a day of great things — our day in relation to Pentecost. That is what is meant. It is a term used in Zechariah 4:10: “For who hath despised the day of small things?” It is acknowledged to be there but who despises it? If it is a meeting of only three or four, you are not making light of it.
JB This is the burnt-offering and not the sin-offering.
JT And a whole idea, which is another great thought. However small, it is a whole idea. A sucking-lamb [p. 486] is a whole thought but it is capable of becoming much greater, much larger than it is.
GAT Jesus as a babe in the manger would be connected with a day of small things which would become very great.
EHT Small things take in the whole church as a principle.
JT That is one of the most important points to keep before us. The whole thing is there in principle; it is not a fragment, it is a whole idea. Elijah said to the woman: “... make me thereof a little cake first”, 1 Kings 17:13. It is a whole idea, not a piece of bread.
JD Paul says: “Our whole twelve tribes serving incessantly day and night”, Acts 26:7.
EGMcA While we have a very small estimation of ourselves, God gives us the right and joy to entertain great ideas regarding Himself.
JT And what you are going on with here in Chicago — what is it going to eventuate in? It is going to eventuate in the heavenly city, and that is a great support to one.
EGMcA This made room for Samuel to judge, so that the pouring out of the water and the offering of the sucking-lamb makes room for the priestly element to function for the advancement of all in the meeting.
JT God’s idea is taking form. Samuel is judging there. That is the idea in him and the idea must not be lost. It is the state of the people making room for the judge. That is how it will be in the millennium. God “has set a day in which he is going to judge the habitable earth in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed”, Acts 17: 31.
JD We have troubles here and there, but do you not think we can depend on God to set things right if we offer the sucking-lamb? It is God that thundered.
JT I think that is good. The water poured out is the acknowledgment of what we are. The sucking-lamb is a positive thought, small but perfect in itself.
[p. 487] That is what the chapter opens out because one point is to bring out the judgeship of Samuel. It says: “And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpah, and judged Israel in all those places. And his return was to Ramah; for there was his house, and there he judged Israel; and there he built an altar to Jehovah” (verses 15 - 17).
EGMcA How do you use the word ‘judgment’? It is not in a penal sense, is it?
JT No, it is ‘ruling’. Judging is ruling, in the main.
EHT It is connected with discernment.
JT Like Solomon; he can tell who is the mother of the child. You have justice, you know.
WB Does the care meeting come in here?
JT Very much. A very important point in the assembly is the element of discernment; arriving at a right thought in any given matter.
Rem If the judgment is perfect, God will act immediately.
JT He acted against the enemy. Samuel prayed and the offering is in keeping with that. It was small but intrinsically precious — a little sucking-lamb.
Ques Why was it at Mizpah all this occurred?
JT Probably because of the thought of vigilance connected with it. The Lord said, “But what I say to you, I say to all, Watch”, Mark 13:37.
GAT Would Ramah be Samuel’s local meeting?
JT That is where he dwelt. “... for there was his house, and there he judged Israel; and there he built an altar to Jehovah”. He seems to have had great liberty there. In chapter 19 it comes into view again. It refers to elevation. It helps us greatly to see that this is Samuel’s chapter; this is Samuel, the judge. You get the whole history of the man epitomised here: what he did year by year, what Ramah was, and “there he judged Israel; and there he built an altar to Jehovah”.
GAT Do you connect the altar with his house?
JT That is how it stands.
EGMcA This morning it was remarked that the official was not overthrown by the way Hannah moved. Does this indicate that the official was endorsed by God because of the moral power seen in Samuel?
JT The official is come into evidence again based on moral power. His words do not fall to the ground. He judged the children of Israel at Mizpah but he judged them all the days of his life.
The altar indicates the place God has in your soul, that you think for God. We have often dwelt upon it. It is a fixed point reached in your soul that you can ever revert to.
EGMcA Do you connect this altar with the altars you often refer to in Genesis. It does not give any specifications, it is “he built”. Is what he built in accord with his own knowledge of God?
JT I think so.
JWD Is the idea of a circuit a right thought in regard to service for those who are qualified?
JT I think it is. If there is ability and influence, God would have it spread abroad. Gift is never local, nor is priesthood ever local. Priesthood is always universal. The more priestly you are, the more universal you will be.
JB The priest, the prophet, and the judge are all in the one man.
JT He is serving as priest. He is properly not a priest, but it is how the Lord’s priesthood came into evidence. Moses had never said anything about it in regard of Judah and yet “it is clear that our Lord has sprung out of Juda”, Hebrews 7:14.
JB God says: “And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest”, 1 Samuel 2:35.
JT It is very good in this book. I think it looks on to Christ. Samuel does not continue, he disappears. All Israel mourned when he died, but the point in this [p. 489] book is the anointed — he is the king. The priesthood becomes subservient to the king hereafter. In the history of Christ, it is the king and then the priest.
SMcC “Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among them that call upon his name”, Psalm 99:6. He is associated with Moses and Aaron.
JT That is right. He did the thing. What can he do but that? What can anybody do but that? He is not thinking of the official. He came in and delivered the children of Israel from the Philistines; he called upon God’s name.
EGMcA You often hear expressions like this: ‘Certain brothers did not take part’, as though the priests were simply identified by sex. Samuel was not merely a priest but he functioned as a priest.
JT There it is. There is no doubt about it being priesthood and the system of things that God has in mind is beyond that. Hannah spoke about the king. David is the idea. He is rejected in chapter 23. Where is his priest? Where is his system? Where are the persons? So that when you come to David you have to wait for the evolving of a great system. Abraham was a priest in that sense and so was Noah; the thing was there but when the official side comes in, we must wait on God for that.
JD Does David, in going to Samuel, recognise the priestly feelings of Samuel?
JT I think so. He recognises that he is now rejected, that there is murderous hatred behind him. There are three or four in the chapter that protected the king — Jonathan, Michal, and then this great system in being at Naioth. They were prophesying and Samuel was president over them. It was a system of things, but informal. It worked out of real power, the Spirit of God was there. That is the point — the Spirit of God is there.
JD Is that the position today?
JT In coming into a meeting where the Spirit of [p. 490] God has scope, what can you say? You come under the power of it and even a person like Saul can come under the power of it.
Ques Does “year by year” suggest the thought of the fulness of the service in connection with his judgeship? It is the fullest complete period of time that we reckon by.
JT Each year was filled out with service in the circuit. He went round and judged Israel — getting to the localities where the people were. If I want to be of any use in Chicago or Vancouver, I go there.
JWD Is the idea of a circuit that the service is taken up definitely according to one’s ability?
JT Yes, I think so.
WB I notice that you make a good deal of ability, leaving the matter of gift in the background. Would you say a little in regard to the difference between ability and gift?
JT Gift is of God; it is from God. The vessel has to be prepared for it; it is fitted beforehand under the superintendence of God. Although He may not show Himself in the superintendence, I think the antecedents of men like Paul, or David, or Moses were watched over so that the vessels should be what He wanted. God would not leave things with loose ends. If He is going to inaugurate a certain service, and He wants certain servants, He watches over them so that when the time comes to give the gift they are fitted for it.
WB I am sure that is very helpful. What would you say about ability?
JT Ability is involved in the gift, I think.
WB Can you have it without the gift?
JT I do not think so — not to do anything for God. The vessel is the thing — a man’s formation physically and morally, his mind, his affections — all that would be in mind so as to qualify him for the kind of gift he is to have and the service he is to render. In chapter 19 you get great spiritual power. Although [p. 491] rejected, he is occupied in this great service. He is occupied in prophesying, as it says in verse 20: “Then Saul sent messengers to take David; and they saw a company of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as president over them”. Is this a mere school or college of prophets set up by Samuel now that he is out of office? Is he carrying on in that way? Ordinary unspiritual comments would just be that, that it is just a college. But what do these men say? The Spirit of God came upon them. There is real power there, the development of Samuel’s ministry. He is not hampered because he is rejected. He goes on all the same.
JD Holding to the thought of the assembly, and as you are held under the eye of God in the present day, you are kept in power.
JT That is the idea. However we may be treated, we go on. That is what Samuel represents. He goes on and increases in power. You do not get anything like this even earlier in his history.
GAT Although persecuted by Saul, he went on.
JT He went on and what these emissaries of Saul see is a company of prophets prophesying. They are doing the thing. Samuel is there and the Spirit of God is there. Beautiful combination!
GAT If the enemy attacks on account of your faithfulness, you go on with God and you get power as you go on.
JT Suppose persons come to a meeting like this. What do they see? That is the thing we ought to be concerned about. What is to be seen? What is to be heard? Is it a sect, devised by certain leaders? Is this matter of Samuel’s some side-line that he started himself? He is now out of office and has nothing to do; has he started this? It is the service of God, that is what it is. In spite of the fact he was set aside, he was the man to judge Israel, and he was judging. He was going on in power. It says: “and the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul”. The Spirit of God was not tied up there, he could even take hold of these messengers. It brings out the liberty the Spirit of God had there. These men came in and then the Spirit of God came on them and took charge of them.
FRA “And thus, falling upon his face, he will do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed amongst you”, 1 Corinthians 14: 23.
JT He falls down and acknowledges that God is indeed among you. He says, as it were, ‘It has been told me that He is among you, but now I know it, I am sure of it’.
GAT Would these prophets become followers of Samuel?
JT What power there is with him! These messengers come and three times they all come under the influence. What is that? The Spirit of God.
SWP Paul speaks of the “demonstration of the Spirit and of power”, 1 Corinthians 2: 4.
JT That is greatly evidenced in the two letters — the power of the Spirit of God in Corinth.
JWD Is this idea of the president on spiritual lines?
JT He was recognised spiritually.
Ques Is it of significance that David is here, showing the completeness of the position?
JT Christ is rejected abroad in the profession; there is not a spot where there is a haven for Him. Saul asks: “Where are Samuel and David?” That is the paint. Samuel is still first, showing that the Spirit of God is keeping this man before us. What for? To see that we might come into the light of this sort of thing — to carry on however the brethren treat you; carry on and God will be with you and the time will come when nobody can lift a finger at you.
EGMcA Does the secret of all this power lie in the fact that the interests of God’s king are maintained and protected [p. 493] here?
JT That is what comes out. David was rejected, murderously so, and Samuel had been cast off too. Are they both going to fall into the ditch? A real servant goes on. Whatever people think of you, go on with your work. You protect Christ there. It is the protection that David had there. Saul sent messengers to David’s house to kill him and Michal protected him there, but she could not protect him here when Saul himself came. There is this that protects him.
EGMcA It says: “And David fled, and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah”. That is what we have today in the way we come together. Christ has been rejected but in a company like this where the Spirit of God is recognised, the interests of Christ are safe. The one who comes in sees that, so that Saul has to submit to the thing.
JT And in submitting he is exposed. The messengers were not exposed, but he was. He is the originator of the opposition so that you might say the opposition is exposed in this.
GAT What you say is very important for both old and young. We shall know what opposition is if we are going to be here for the Lord.
JT “All who are in Asia ... have turned away from me”, 2 Timothy 1: 15, but he went on: “But the Lord stood with me, and gave me power, that through me the proclamation might be fully made”, 2 Timothy 4: 17. It is to encourage us to keep on, whatever treatment we get. Keep on in the service and God will honour it.
Ques “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me”. Is that what we should get into our hearts (Luke 4:18)?
JT That is it. That is how the Lord began His ministry.
WB It speaks of the “great well” in verse 22. In John 4 we have a deep well but here it is a “great well”.
JT Which may be taken to symbolise the power of the Spirit. A great well is something of God. The [p. 494] water is of God springing up — the power of the Spirit in that connection.
JB Very different from the water that was cast upon the ground.
JT Very different.
Now coming on to David’s position in chapter 21, it behoves us to remember that the Lord, in alluding to this section of the book, calls it that of Abiathar the high priest. The principle of the high priest is there. Abiathar is called a high priest only by the Lord Himself and he certainly could not be called a high priest here. The Lord, in using the term, must have had in mind the place that the priesthood is now acquiring as we proceed in this book. “In the section of Abiathar the high priest” (Mark 2: 26), as if the idea of the high-priestly thought is to dominate this section. Abiathar is a remnant of the household of priests but David was already acting in relation to the house of God. The Lord says: “He entered into the house of God, in the section of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the shew-bread, which it is not lawful unless for the priests to eat”. He was acting as a priest, according to the Lord’s own remarks. That is, he was eating priestly food. To develop into priests, we must learn to eat priestly food. Even if the official class denies us, we get it anyway. He overcame the difficulties of the priest and got the bread. No one ever got bread to eat under more difficulty than David did at this time.
EHT Would you say a word about the priesthood at this point?
JT I was remarking on the Lord’s comment on Abiathar. He was a remnant of the priests who were slain. It says: “And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped”. There is no suggestion of his being the high priest here. He is named Abiathar, but the Lord used him and calls him the high priest. Why did the Lord say that? Because the great idea of a high priest fits in here — the thought [p. 495] of priesthood. Of course you have to go back to Exodus for the types. I believe the root of priesthood is in the Hebrew servant. He says, “I love my master, my wife, and my children”, Exodus 21: 5. The root of it is love; that you love God, that you love the saints. No one is a priest except he loves — the great thought of his life is that he loves. All his actions are the working out of love. He is just a slave to everybody. But while we may regard the Lord Jesus as seen in the Hebrew servant, the priest’s dress is described in Exodus 28 where it is dignified. The great thought in the chapter is garments which bring out dignity. There is no thought of that in the slave. He is a slave because he loves, a bondman because he loves. God would say, That is what he is doing, serving everybody; doing whatever, is necessary to do, but I want you to understand what is necessary to do. He does everything in love and the clothes indicate the person.
JD The principle of it roots itself in God Himself for “God is love”. They were garments “for glory and for ornament”.
JT It is to balance that, that we might have right thoughts about the persons. It is a chapter of garments. Love will do anything that is to be done, and in serving in love you are really great because God is said to be love.
GAT Does that refer to old brethren only?
JT Wherever love is active, it would stop at nothing to serve. He will not go out free because of love. He is the first one to say, “I love”.
WB Phoebe would be a great priest.
JT Quite so. That chapter is a chapter of dignity, a chapter of garments, of salutations. And Phoebe heads the list. You look at the saints and what impresses you is that they love.
JD In Acts 20 where Eutychus fell from the third story, it says that Paul descended and enfolded him [p. 496] in his arms.
JT Very beautiful, that word ‘descended’.
SMcC In connection with this, why does the Lord refer to it as the section of Abiathar when it was Ahimelech who gave him the food?
JT That is the point, not only Ahimelech but Abiathar the high priest. He is a young man here. He is just named Abiathar. He has no distinction yet, w that the Lord must have in mind the thought of priesthood. It is stamped on this section — David entering the house of God and eating the shew-bread. It is God, I believe, putting it to us — Why do you not do that? Why should you hang back if David did that? All this is to bring out high priesthood, that we might learn priesthood from the high priest.
SMcC It stands connected with going through the corn fields.
JT That is what we all need, brothers and sisters. Why do I not do that, eat that kind of food and take that liberty? if liberty is given to me of God, why do I not use it?
GAT Is the food there whether I eat it or not?
JT The food is there and David knew it was there, and the Lord says he ate it.
Rem He got Goliath’s sword too.
JT He got the military side too. He is robbing Saul’s kingdom of all that was of any value in it. Those that love the Lord Jesus Christ are robbing it of all that it has — all the precious things that they arrogate to themselves.
EGMcA Abiathar had an ephod in his hand and by it David inquires of God.
JT That is a necessary thing for us to think of. Samuel was girded with a linen ephod when he was a boy. That is the significance of the Lord’s remark, he is the one that has it. The ephod is the priestly robe par excellence. It is the first one made. The breastplate is mentioned first but the ephod is made first. It signifies real priesthood that God can own.
[p. 497] So that David asks God before it comes but now that it comes (Abiathar brings it), he asks with it. That is an important point in the understanding of our subject.
JD What would be the bearing of the fact that Doeg was there that day? Had God appointed him to be there, and would that emphasise the Lord’s remark that the priesthood in spite of all opposition is being carried through?
JT Quite so. David knew he was there. For the moment he was there to inquire of the Lord.
GAT David said, “I knew it that day”, 1 Samuel 22: 22.
JT He knew, quite.
EGMcA Will you say some more about the ephod? Abiathar was the only priest left. There must be something in it for us today.
JT He is high priest in the Lord’s mind — he brings the priestly garment with him. He has it. He is the remnant of the priests but he has the garment and the garment denotes the priesthood in God’s mind.
JB Would that also include the breastplate?
JT It would. It was put into the ephod, and the shoulder-pieces too. This garment has all the great thoughts; the names of the people, the names of the tribes, are engraved there.
JD You were remarking in Vancouver that up to a certain point God bore with David apart from the ephod. As you get on in your soul God raises the question sooner or later, and so David says to Abiathar, before he enquired of God, “Bring the ephod”.
JT God listens to the young christian lisping out his needs, but the time comes when he should know how to pray. It says, “Teach us to pray”. The high priest teaches us how to pray. That is the force of the priesthood, that the ephod was brought down and constituted David a real priest.
JD Teaching us to pray by example, would John 17 [p. 498] help?
JT Why not. Should we say the Lord’s prayer, so-called? “Our Father who art in the heavens, let thy name be sanctified, let thy kingdom come, let thy will be done as in heaven so upon the earth; give us today our needed bread”, Matthew 6: 9 - 11. That was a priestly prayer at one time, and is yet, and will be by and by because the priesthood is graded you know. Israel will not have access inside. They will be on earth and God will be in heaven. In Luke when the disciple says to the Lord, “Teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1), the Lord says, “When ye pray, say, Father, thy name be hallowed”. He does not say, “Father who art in the heavens”. That is prayer any christian can use. If I talk about the prayer in Matthew, why do I not ask a question about John 17? That is the prayer for me. The Lord said, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee”, John 17:1. I am let into that.
GAT That is the Lord’s prayer.
JT That is the Lord’s prayer. What we call the Lord’s prayer is in Matthew 6, but it does not say He prayed it for Himself — it is what He taught them to pray. About ten times in Luke we are told that He was a whole night in prayer. You would like to have heard what He said!
Ques In the difficulties of the present moment, when we acquire light for our souls, which in principle is asking for the ephod, do we approach the Lord Jesus Christ in prayer?
JT If you come to the Lord and speak to Him as you did when you were first converted, the Lord would say: ‘You should know better than to use those words’. To use what we call the Lord’s prayer in the assembly is unintelligent; the Lord would say; ‘You should know better than that’. Paul said, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, 1 Corinthians 10:15. I believe that is what the ephod means. It is the priestly garment above [p. 499] all others.
GAT I do not see why we do not say, ‘Heavenly Father’.
JT Take the epistle to the Hebrews: “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”, Hebrews 3:1. Partakers of it — we belong to heaven; we do not belong to earth at all.
GAT I am still not clear on that.
JT Properly speaking, christians are in heaven too. They are made to sit down in the heavenlies.
GAT So we do not pray as those at a distance from the Father?
JT No, as sons there.
SMcC In connection with the addressing of the Father, because of what is conventional there seems to be a lack of liberty. Would the taking of the ephod help in connection with it?
JT It involves the intelligence of the priest. He knows how to speak to God, he is taught it. The high priest teaches. David uses the ephod, why should I not use it? He took liberties because he was in the liberty. He went into the house of God and tarried there and ate the bread. He had liberty in his soul. Why do I not take that liberty?
JD So here, when Abiathar brings the ephod, David addresses God most intelligently in regard of the situation. He says: “Jehovah, God of Israel”.
JT There was intelligence in the way he addressed God. So with ourselves, we learn how to say “Father” if we are moving with the ephod. If we are moving in priestly feelings, the Lord would instruct us how to say “Father”.
EGMcA You have spoken of the garment in other connections as indicating atmosphere. When the ephod is present in a meeting, do you have an atmosphere so that every christian in the liberty of priesthood can address God or the Lord, according to intelligence by the Spirit?
JT That is right. The apostle is dealing [p. 500] with the subject in 1 Corinthians 14:15: “I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding”. That is what he is aiming at. He says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”, 1 Corinthians 10:15. If it is clear that we are worshipping the Father at a given point in the meeting, the thing is to proceed with that and not go back. If we begin with the Lord’s supper we do not finish with it. We finish with God — He is the end of all.
Ques Is that the reason that in Ezra they could not discern the right genealogy because there was not a priest with Urim and Thummim?
JT That is right. God has brought some of His people back to priesthood and that is the thing to keep to.
SWP Why do you say we finish with God?
JT Because “of him, and through him, and for him are all things”, Romans 11: 36. It is God. And so it is that God should be “all in all”, 1 Corinthians 15: 28. God ‘all in all’, not ‘all and in all’. God is all but He is in all, as God. That is eternity. He is God objectively but He is in all as well, subjectively. God fills the scene. Do you not think that is right? I believe God is helping us on that line.
SMcC When it says: “That ye may be filled even to all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:19), does God there imply the Deity in connection with the revelation, or what is distinctive of God as Father?
JT I think it is God in revelation when we are “filled even to all the fulness”. Mark you, it is not into God but to the fulness of the thing; the fulness of a thing or a person is what is shining out.
SMcC Would it link with John 20: “My God and your God” (verse 17)?
JT Quite so. Fulness is the word there in Ephesians. The fulness of a person is what is known or shines out. If you think of Him essentially, He dwells [p. 501] in light unapproachable, but fulness is what is brought out or revealed.
SMcC “My God and your God”, does not involve what He is essentially?
JT When you think of Christ’s God, it is what God is in His infinite Being. That is the great thing — to get alongside of Christ — to know Christ’s God. If you heard the Lord Jesus speak to God, you would get some idea of what God is. “My Father and your Father”, is God objectively in Christ. It is God “all in all” which involves the revelation of Himself. “God is love, and he that abides in love abides in God, and God in him”, 1 John 4:16. That is God in His fulness. I think we have to keep that before us — the distinction between the fulness and what He is abstractly in His essential Being. He is unapproachable in that.
JD The one involving revelation and the other what He is in absolute deity.
JT We know it is there. It is before us; it is such a wonderful thing as that, an inscrutable God, but He has come near to us as well.
JB The fulness has all come out in Christ.
JT There it is — God near to us in a man bodily.
GWH “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, Ephesians 1: 3. Is God there inscrutable and unknowable and the Father of revelation?
JT The Father conveys the idea of revelation. It is God taking a relationship that is intelligible to us — the Father and Son — He has entered into that relationship so that He might be known by us.