HEADSHIP
[p. 195] HEADSHIP
Notes of Reading with Mr. J. Taylor at Dundee - April 17, 1932 2 Chronicles 35:1 - 19 I thought it would be helpful to us to consider this revival under Josiah and how he had recourse to “the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son;” corresponding, as I think we shall see, with the present revival. That is what God has brought about during the past century or two; all that is according to the ministry of Paul. The writing of David and the writing of Solomon bring in headship. There can be no right understanding of the assembly and of the order and the service of it aside from the ministry of Paul, aside from headship. So as we were remarking yesterday, the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to attend to the things spoken by Paul (Acts 16:14), and then in Acts 20 the breaking of bread in Troas is in the light of Paul’s long discourse. Before the breaking of bread can be understood and enjoyed we must understand Paul. Taking the passover here is suggestive of the Lord’s supper, because it was out of it the Lord’s supper developed. Then the order that follows in this chapter involves headship. The contributions, as will be observed, are in keeping with 1 Chronicles, what came in under [p. 196] David earlier. In 2 Chronicles it is not so much what the people give but what the king and princes give. In Exodus it is the people - what everyone gives; no one is distinguished personally there and it is not a question of whether the things are given by certain persons, but all are brought into it.
RW The writing of David and Solomon would correspond with the writing of Paul and John.
JT Yes, but I think the use of the word “writing” is that it is brought down, so that although we have not the apostles we have their writings. This chapter is notably a revival because the ark is to be set in place, as if it had been removed. “Put the holy ark in the house that Solomon the son David, king of Israel, built”. It is Christ viewed in that light and regarded in that way, not everywhere or any place but His own place. Christendom would indicate that He can be taken anywhere, but instruction implies that you cannot do that. He must be in His own place - the house that Solomon had built.
RW The ark is put to rest in the house of God.
JT The staves were taken out, meaning that they were not to be used again. The division in Christendom would indicate that the ark can be carried anywhere, but that is simply lawless.
You cannot do what you like with the Lord.
FFR They were doing that in [p. 197] Corinth,
connecting the Lord with a party.
JT Paul will not agree to that.
RW We see here that all Israel had gone wrong; they had departed from the writings.
JT It was in Josiah’s day that the law was found in the temple, and he learned out of it what the mind of God was. Authority comes in first in this record in 2 Chronicles 34: 31 - 33, “the king stood in his place”. That is, you have to get the apprehension of Christ standing “in His place”. You cannot make Him stand anywhere! That would mean for us then that Christ has His place in heaven. Authority is in its own position. Recovery would mean that Christ is not in Presbyterianism or in Anglicism or in Roman Catholicism but in His place. Authority belongs to a particular place, and as standing in His place He has got moral weight, so that it says, he made a covenant before Jehovah (chapter 34:31). That is what underlies chapter 35, thus the service was authoritative, and every one in Israel was subject to it. There can be no possibility of any part in the assembly, any service, aside from subjection.
AP So that they went back to David’s ministry for this recovery and it would correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah.
JT Yes, it does. This runs parallel with Ezra’s recovery. It is a question of the temple with him. They began with the altar in Ezra, and Nehemiah treats of the walls, that is, fellowship. Ezra deals with the house and the [p. 198] altar set up on its base. Everything is brought back to its place. The king was in his place and the altar was in its place. We must have things in their position according to God. That sets aside the whole position of Christendom. The assumption is that you can put these things anywhere, the king anywhere, the ark anywhere; it will not do. Josiah directs that each should have its place.
RW There was no passover like Josiah’s from the days of Samuel the prophet (chapter 35:18).
JT That is what you want today. You want things here in Dundee as you never had them before. We must keep right all the time and improve.
RW Josiah could not keep the passover apart from the writings, and we could not keep the supper apart from the writings of Paul and John.
JT No, and we want to increase more and more.
WH In 1 Corinthians 11, God is seen in His place and Christ in His, and the matter is one of working out from subjection and affection.
JT That is very appropriate here, everything denoting authority in its place. We cannot have the Lord’s supper, coming together in assembly, according to God, aside from that. Things must be right in our homes, the One in whom authority is vested recognized - God as source of all, Christ as the Mediator - [p. 199] the order that God has set up in Christ in creation.
JMcL Would that be the same as when David stayed the plague?
JT I thought so; the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite you mean. That is an important word here because today Christians ought to see that there is a place for the king, and a place for the holy ark and a place for the altar. That sets aside all man’s devices which assume that you can have Christ here and everywhere.
JMcL In Ezra, you were saying, the altar is set up on its base.
JT God must protect that. As soon as you reach the point of His will He will stand by that.
RW The ark was placed in the temple by Solomon. The Levites carried it. If you have not got the ark then God is not there.
JT It is very beautiful to see how Josiah read his Bible. It was in his days the covenant was found and the book of the law. He read it and was affected by it. Josiah is a great model for us. He read his Bible and got instruction, and it is very spiritual, so that he directs the priests and the Levites to pay attention to what David said. Moses is more Romans and David and Solomon Colossians and Ephesians, the highest, the greatest place of wealth. If we take up the history of David in this connection, beginning at 1 Chronicles 22, the instruction is simply [p. 200] wonderful. There was a wealth of all kinds of things, inclusive of one hundred thousand talents of gold. That was a lot of gold. It would cover the English budget for a year anyway (1932). God has the idea of a standard.
JMcL The price of the threshing floor was in silver.
JT If it is the purchase of the threshing floor, it is silver in Samuel and gold in Chronicles, and the amount was much greater in Chronicles. In 2 Samuel 24:24 it says, “And David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver”. Here it is a question of the threshing floor and the oxen, a separate transaction, but in 1 Chronicles 21 it is more than that, it says, “And David gave to Ornan for the place in shekels of gold the weight of six hundred shekels”, verse 25. It was a big piece of property, and the large area no doubt was prophetic. It applies today to the large area which Christ has acquired, wide enough in which to operate. In 1 Chronicles you have typically a large area in which Christ would operate and set out all He had in mind as to Solomon.
JMcL Things seemed to enlarge as they went on, as Psalm 18 shows: “I will love thee, O Jehovah, my strength”, verse 1.
JT Chronicles has a large idea in view. What I am speaking of is the immensity of the wealth David provides. Six hundred shekels of gold is comparatively small in contrast with [p. 201] one hundred thousand talents. It is the idea of the unsearchable riches of Christ. That is Ephesians, what we come into if we recognize headship in the morning meeting, it is not in our hands in that sense.
DMcI It is important that the ark should be in its place.
JT The ark in its place.
AP David speaks of all that he had provided in his affliction.
JT It was in his affliction, which would include the death and resurrection of Christ. In the last chapter, 1 Chronicles 29, he provides in his affection for the house and you get the smaller amount of gold, but better quality (gold of Ophir), referring to what Christ is in the assembly and also the immensity of the wealth, what he gives in his affection for the house.
JMcL Even his affliction did not hinder his devotedness.
JT In all his sorrows he was able to provide for the house. It was the one thing before him. The Lord remembered David in all his affliction. “I will not give sleep to mine eyes, slumber to mine eyelids, until I find out a place for Jehovah”, Psalm 132:4,5. That is what was in his mind at the outset of his life, and at the end of his life he provides one hundred thousand talents of gold in his affliction. The idea of Chronicles is Josiah acting in the light of that; he goes back to David’s writings.
AP That was a fine [p. 202] finish.
JT A wonderful finish! In 1 Kings it is sorrowful to see David, a chilly old man, but in Chronicles he is in power - another David.
WH In reference to the supper in 1 Corinthians would that lie at the threshold of the assembly?
JT Exactly. That is a good point, because at the beginning they had it in their houses; Corinthians emphasizes it belongs to the assembly. The other side of that is Christ dwelling in the heart by faith; that is Ephesians.
JMcL In Acts God allowed it to overlap gradually into the temple and then the house.
JT All the conditions required that, but when they met at Troas Paul discoursed a long time. The idea of the long discourse was that all that should be done in the breaking of bread in the assembly should be in the light of his ministry. Where are all the “isms” of Christendom?
JMcL Is that the idea of the long discourse, how we should come into the good of Paul’s ministry?
JT That was what I was thinking. They came together to break bread; that would include Paul himself. Why should Paul speak so long? It is not a model breaking of bread, it is to remind us that before we break bread we must listen to Paul. Better not do it at all than not do it rightly. Hence we ought to listen to Paul.
WH So that Paul’s writings would set us free from sectarianism and bring us into [p. 203] the divine thought.
JT That is recovery. This chapter, 2 Chronicles 35, would tell us that it must be the best; it is a high standard.
JT-n What would you look for in the young people coming to break?
JT We would not expect them to go to sleep like Eutychus. He was one of the young people. He is the model specially mentioned on that occasion when Paul spoke so long. The long speaking put him off to sleep and the next thing was that he fell. A terrible situation! When a young man or woman is sitting in a window it is liable to happen. He fell down and when he is brought up again he is called a boy. They took the boy away, which means, I think, a potential brother. ‘Boy’ denotes a certain growth. It is the word applied to the Lord Jesus Himself, a dignified word. That it is potential means that the boy is coming to be a brother.
WH Paul embraced him, which would emphasize the need for Paul’s ministry. He would come in on that line.
JT Paul comes down and embraces him, enfolding him in his arms. That is to get him into the warmth of his embrace. So that if the people do not listen to the word of God we must embrace them. They are called ‘boys’. ‘Boy’ is growth; the boy Samuel, the boy Jesus, and the boy at Troas, a potential brother. They took him away as if he were of great value, and were not a little [p. 204] comforted.
AP So it would teach us that Paul’s ministry always comes before the Supper. He preached the Gospel first.
JT We do not ordinarily expect a long discourse before we break bread now. The principle is that we should understand Paul. It was said of old, “Arise, shine! for thy light is come”, Isaiah 60:1. Surely that would mean, “Wake up, thou that sleepest, and arise up from among the dead, and the Christ shall shine upon thee”, Ephesians 5:14 - Paul’s ministry.
JMcL It seems to be so difficult to get away from the aspect of the death of Christ as penalty.
JT That comes out here in a very striking manner. You will notice in verse 13, first “they roasted the passover”, then boiling has to come in, the death of Christ, and that is not the penalty side exactly it is the indirect action of fire. It is modified. We do not emphasize the forsaking at the Lord’s supper. It is the testimony of the love of Christ that we are engaged with.
JMcL Would the roasting be more direct, suggesting God’s judgment on sin?
JT That is right. That belongs to 1 Corinthians 5 where Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. That is not the Supper, that precedes the Supper - the judgment of God. In 1 Corinthians 11 it is the love of Christ, My body for you, without bringing in penalty. If you are in the enjoyment of the love of Christ you do not need much testimony. Love itself is the [p. 205] testimony. You do not want to keep the sufferings out of sight; the atoning sufferings of Christ are the foundation of everything. It is hardly respectful to the love of Christ when you want a lot of things to prove His love. When we are at the Lord’s supper it is a question of His love.
SE In the sufferings of Christ do you not find that which touches the heart?
JT We keep the passover, the feast of unleavened bread every day.
AP Then, I suppose, in the assembly it is not the consideration of His atoning work which is before us on that occasion.
JT It is more the boiling aspect. The boiling is to prepare the food for the priests. In our priestly capacity we do not need much testimony to love because we are enjoying it.
WH Would that open up the thought in connection with the headship of Christ in the assembly in its spiritual setting?
JT That is what I was thinking that we might reach. Josiah’s instruction here would help us to reach the assembly, the sphere in which the headship of Christ is known. So that you have the ark put in its place and the order of the priests and Levites according to the writing of David and Solomon. Then it says, verse 7, “And Josiah gave for the children of the people ... these were of the king’s substance”. That is a good thought and shows you the gain of headship; “to the number of thirty thousand,
[p. 206] and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king’s substance”. There is nothing said about the people really, it is for all that were present.
So that we are reminded of being present. There were many Israelites not present. There are many not present, alas! Those that are present have all the wealth; it is worthwhile being present. This is one of the most interesting parts of scripture, on which I think the brethren, including myself, are very defective - the laying hold of the principle of headship and the wealth that comes in in that way.
SE That would carry us to His side, and in that way we should get the gain of it.
JT Yes. In verse 8 the princes, that is to say, the persons who were wealthy, because people who understand the headship of Christ and move under it have the wealth, these princes gave a voluntary heave-offering for the people, for the priests and for the Levites, and “Hilkijah and Zechariah and Jehiel, rulers of the house of God”. There is a principle in all these things. The princes, the rulers of the house of God and the chief of the Levites, these are the people who had the wealth. You get wealth not only directly from Christ as head but from the most spiritual. It opens the door for all the wealth that there is.
WB You contrasted Exodus, where all the people gave, with this passage.
JT That ought to come in at the beginning of the meeting when we come together. Exodus [p. 207] places us all on the same footing. As regards the silver, the rich were not to give more and the poor were not to give less than half a shekel. They were all on the same footing in redemption. That is the foundation. In Exodus 35 we have goats’ hair and precious stones and numerous other things gave everyone whose heart was willing. We sit down in the assembly on the same ground. W e cost the Lord the same, everyone the same as the other. “Everyone whose heart is willing, let him bring it”, Exodus 35:5. If I have got a willing heart I will bring something. It is not only the princes, it is a question of willing heartedness; “gold, and silver, and copper, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and byssus, and goats’ hair”.
AP Would this be a pattern?
JT It would show what they were. We all cost the Lord the same and I am what I am, as Paul said. It is not what I know but what I am. In the assembly, that is where we come out. Is that right Mr. H?
WH I think so.
JT The radical spirit would set that aside. Man is what he is.
DMcI Regarding your thought that the Lord was Head, Josiah used what the Levites had really.
JT Yes, but Josiah here gave offerings “to the number of thirty thousand”. Where did he get that? It is the idea of the wealth of Christ. Hence Ephesians speaks [p. 208] of the unsearchable riches of the Christ.
AP I was wondering in what way we could bring that in, all that the king gave. Is that typical of the Lord Himself?
JT Typically the Lord Himself corresponding with David.
RW I was wondering where Josiah got all this wealth. The king prior was wicked and poor, but when we get right with the Lord we get wealth.
JT Yes, that is right. It is here, I think, a type of the Lord Himself. The idea is immensity. Solomon offered one hundred and twenty thousand small cattle. The idea is to impress upon us the unsearchable riches of Christ.
RW The two great thoughts in Ephesians are the love of Christ and the riches of Christ - happy and wealthy.
JT That is right. That is Ephesians, just what we are at now, the unlimitedness of it. The princes come to light.
WH Paul would come in on that line. He writes to the Ephesians of the mystery.
JT That is what he speaks of in Ephesians 3. Paul is one of the princes, but he did not have unsearchable riches; only Christ has that!
WB Is there any point in the fact that the people got Josiah’s portion? Others gave to the priests and Levites.
JT Yes. It would be, I suppose, to strengthen that side; the priests and Levites are the [p. 209] officiating ones, those directly under regulation according to the writing of David and Solomon. The writing referred to them.
WH We would come together in the appreciation of Christ, each as having something.
JT Then these givings of the princes, of the rulers of the house and chief of the Levites would have to deal with the chosen; they must be specially nourished. When you apply that spiritually all the saints are that. It is a question of the mind being able to follow - the position changes.
AP In Numbers did all the princes give the same thing?
JT Yes, all the princes gave alike. Here you have the king’s giving for all the people that were present. Then, after that, the princes gave a voluntary heave-offering for the people. The priests offered for the people. The offering of the princes, I suppose, would mean that they are representative, so that the priestly and levitical side should be thoroughly set up as the personnel. They are the ones that are active. Spiritually that means all of us.
WH You get the same thought in the warriors, do you not? All this is to support us in our priestly and levitical service.
JT There is so much truth in headship that you want the personnel supported. You want the priests and Levites potent - all of us viewed in that light. If the wealth is there the next thing [p. 210] is to have it rightly used, but in its place, so to speak.
WB Would, in that way, a brother getting up to address God be supported as recognizing headship?
JT That is what I was thinking. When you get up in the morning meeting, all the spiritual saints present coming into the idea and the wealth of headship, you are sustained, not only by the power in yourself but by their support.
AP In one sense are we not Levites and priests too?
JT We merge from one to the other. The people are represented, those that officiate, those that take part. That ought to include each one of us, even although we may not speak; everyone is a priest.
JT-n The apostle speaks in 1 Corinthians of the wealth that was in Corinth.
JT Exactly, and in 2 Corinthians the thing is beginning to show itself.
DMcI The Levites taught all Israel to come into the thought of Levitical service.
JT Well, just so, “The Levites, that taught all Israel”. In verse 10 the service was prepared, and then you get the idea of each being in his place, according to the king’s commandment. That is very important, each in his place.
JMcL The priests carried the ark and the Levites are called into it.
JT That is peculiar to Joshua. The Levites are priests as carrying the ark, merged into [p. 211] priests. It refers really to the Lord’s own state as entering into death - priestly holiness. Then “the singers, the sons of Asaph, were in their place, according to the commandment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, ... according to the commandment of king Josiah”. “And the children of Israel that were present held the passover”. Those that were present, that is the point. No one would be absent from this great affair. At Pentecost they all came together in one place. “And there was no passover like to that holden in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet ... In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover holden”. So that we want each occasion to exceed the past. That is the principle.
FFR Would that ‘present’ mean intelligently present? Eutychus was not present, was he?
JT Well, quite, he was asleep. You will notice how they were differentiated here in these last verses. “The priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem”. The last mentioned are the inhabitants of Jerusalem, they have to be noted.
F.F.R. Who are they?
JT They are the people who are in the light of the heavenly city, the idea of government. That is how I would read it, seeing they are put down as this. I suppose the inhabitants of Judah would include them in another sense, the [p. 212] men of Judah. We want to understand that, I think; we are inhabitants of Jerusalem, that is our place. We do not want to leave it.
AP There were certain men chosen out to go to Jerusalem in Jeremiah’s time.
JT Some of them did not want to, and there were numerous inducements to get people to go. Here they are dignified inhabitants of Jerusalem. The city was large; inhabitants would suggest the idea of living there - the most privileged people in the world at that time - to live in Jerusalem. An old man who maintained David beyond the Jordan did not feel able to go to Jerusalem!
FFR You get the spirit of it in Psalm 122, “Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem”.
JT It is a great objective to getup to the city.
RW “I rejoiced when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of Jehovah”, Psalm 122:1.
JT It is all in keeping. The apostle in writing to the Corinthians speaks about the order he had given them and then what he would do when he came there, all showing the importance of order.
SE Would the service being prepared suggest moral suitability?
JT I think it would.