BRETHREN
BRETHREN
Genesis 27: 26 - 41; Numbers 20: 14 - 21
JT These passages, the one in Genesis and the other in Numbers, are intended to fill out what came before us this morning as to ministry, especially in its dispensational bearing. What is thought now is that we should be engaged with the idea of brethren, an idea that has a great place in Scripture, working out into eternal relations too, according to John 20. But it is hoped that we shall learn something as to the subject, not only in its local or immediate relation, but its dispensational bearing. Therefore, the passage in Numbers was read as working out what began in Genesis; relations between Jacob and Esau in Genesis were personal, family, purely family at first. But as we see the relation of brethren between Jacob and Esau in Numbers, we have already passed through, we might say, hundreds of years; at least, a considerable time, to require consideration of the relationship between them as of a dispensational character. And so Edom is in mind in Numbers, that is, Esau in Genesis is called Edom in Numbers, so that it has acquired not only a family relation but national, and dispensational. And it is hoped that we shall see how the relation of brethren may be just merely national or dispensational and pass out of the primary thought of brethren; whereas the thought really of brethren, the thought conveyed in the term, runs into eternity. And as in these two men, that is, in the anti-typical meaning or teaching of the passages, the idea runs on. So that the Lord is to have many brethren; Christ is to have many brethren; and all to be of one family.
Now, Genesis shows us how the thought arose as between these two men, and how it entered into their early lives, and how the thought of hatred was developed. It began first as just personal, but it soon entered into the national situation, and I might say, dispensation; and [p. 438] the hope is that we shall learn from the subject in a practical way as to the whole matter; especially as to our personal relations with one another; that is to say, what actually exists today.
JTJr Do our local positions test us in this way especially, what we are in our local settings?
JT That is in mind. In Esau’s history a questionable feature has to be noted, and what gave rise to the hatred, what we may call murderous hatred, which appeared in Esau.
FHL What seemed to underlie the hatred, would you think, was Jacob’s insistence on getting the blessing?
JT Well, quite, arising from the mind of God. The mind of God must have its place in all these matters; what God has in them; what God has in any such circumstances.
GVD Is there involved in Esau’s hatred the inability of the flesh to make way for the sovereignty of God?
JT Just so, and in that he had cultivated merely natural feelings. He did not get beyond the mere natural feature, at that moment, but it soon developed; it soon went beyond the circumstances; and therefore, we have the determination on the one hand to use violence. It says of Esau in chapter 27: 41, “Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him. And Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand, and I will slay my brother Jacob”. There was determination to use violence to the extent of murder.
CAM The prophet Amos says, “His anger did tear continually, and he kept his wrath for ever”, Amos 1: 11.
JT It is remarkable the place that Esau has in this respect in the prophets, and, of course, it is to teach us to be on our guard about this matter of hatred, that we might walk in love.
ANW Would Malachi allow us to say that this [p. 439] hating spirit brings back upon it governmental hatred? It is striking that it should be said of the blessed God Himself, that “Esau have I hated”. Would it be right to say it is governmental in that way?
JT Just so. That was not stated at the outset — that God hated Esau. In fact, Deuteronomy and Numbers, but especially Deuteronomy would show that God was caring for him, and forbad Israel to interfere with him. He is then called Esau.
EAK Had Isaac any part in the matter in gravitating to what was natural and pandering to it, whereas Rebecca shows the greater spirituality?
JT Just so. That will help us — that is, Rebecca coming into this matter. She had gone into the relations between these two brothers, more even than Isaac. She suffered, and had formed a judgment in her sufferings. Her mind was in accord with what ultimately was the mind of God.
RWS Does 1 John bear on it? He writes, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Every one that hates his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him”, chapter 3: 14, 15.
JT That is good; so that the thought of murder between brothers extends back further. It is seen even in Cain.
JTJr It is alluded to in Hebrews as a root of bitterness, “Lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and many be defiled by it;” Hebrews 12: 15.
JT Therefore, we have to watch roots. We have the word ‘root’ attached to love too — “rooted and grounded in love” — but the root of bitterness is to be watched, and it will culminate in murder.
JAP Does this feature have to be watched in cases of discipline amongst us? God took it up with Esau in Obadiah, that when Jacob was under discipline Esau [p. 440] despised him. Should there be respect with us for those under discipline, right feelings amongst us?
JT That is, we are to take account of each other as under discipline, and not to take any advantage, is that your meaning?
JAP Obadiah brings out just that, that right feelings should have marked Esau as a brother. He says, “Thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day of his disaster”, verse 12.
JT Quite so. If God sees the need of discipline in us, He would not encourage any advantage being taken of that between us, lest personal feeling might enter into it, and the discipline would be annulled in that sense; He would take away the feelings of enmity or pride that might lead to the discipline being aggravated and extended. It is clear that, if discipline has to be executed, it is to be left with God, because it is said in 1 Corinthians that the incestuous man that was put under discipline, put away, indeed — what is said in that respect, what qualifies the whole matter is that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. He was to be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. The matter is to be kept unto the Lord and not to be used for natural feelings or vengeance.
GAT Would that be why in connection with the two blessings, that heaven comes first in connection with Jacob and the earth first in connection with Esau?
JT “God give thee of the dew of heaven”, and what is said in Esau’s case is, “Behold, thy dwelling shall be of the fatness of the earth”.
GAT Heaven is referred to three times, I believe, before this — in connection with the creation, and the flood, and Abraham returning from the slaughter. In “God possessor of heavens and earth;” he refers first to heaven, where love would originate. That [p. 441] would fit in with what you were saying as to love, where love comes from.
JT Yes.
WRS The dew of heaven is connected with the blessing of Esau too, is it not?
JT It is, but it is in the second place. I think that is what was meant. It comes in after the idea of the earth. James links up the earth with a sensual condition, “earthly, sensual, devilish”. I mean we begin there.
TEH Would Jephthah be a man who came to appreciate the brotherhood? He was expelled by his brethren and went and dwelt in a place, and then later on Israel took him back in an emergency, and in his outline of the history of the people of God, he speaks about how they dwelt at Kadesh and went by Edom because Edom would not let them go through. Do you think his appreciation of the brotherhood was a help to him in his own soul through his isolation from his brethren?
JT Quite so; very good; a man that had such a life too, an early experience; that he should outline the testimony of God at a certain stage of it is very striking, and that is what you get in that judge.
TEH I thought, too, that the basis of his operations was due to his appreciation of the worth of a sacrifice. He may not have counted the full cost but he could see that the principle of sacrifice had to be carried along with the brotherly covenant.
JT Well, this matter of the brotherly spirit — the endeavour now is to connect it with what is local both in time and in place; and then to see in Numbers how the thing is extended dispensationally. So that the time and the place are far removed from the beginning, showing that unless we watch our beginnings and keep off the spirit of revenge or enmity, we shall increase in hatefulness to God. We have to watch that, because when we [p. 442] come to Numbers we have moved away from the beginning of the subject, and we just may get help, each and all of us, as to guarding ourselves from envy or hatred, and maintaining love, “walking in love”, as it is said.
ETP Would you say David was one who maintained suitable feelings throughout his relationships with Saul and at the time of Saul’s death?
JT Well, quite. He did not allow his feelings to arise. He spoke as beautifully as he could, as graciously as one could in the circumstances when Saul died. How beautiful both he and Jonathan were! You marvel at the beautiful words he uses, and I think he may be taken as a typical person. David was a typical brother. His love for Jonathan was striking, and Jonathan’s love for him too; but it continued to the end of their days, and that is what God would help us in: that our love should continue and increase more and more.
WWM It says in the book of Proverbs, “Keep thy heart more than anything that is guarded; for out of it are the issues of life”, chapter 4: 23. It says here, “And Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand, and I will slay my brother Jacob”. We have to watch our hearts.
JT Just so. He did not guard it. He allowed murder to come into it. It says, “Esau hated Jacob”, and then, “Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand, and I will slay my brother Jacob”. Terrible! All this is worked out really in the New Testament in John’s epistle, as we have been reminded.
RWS There seems a very choice allusion in Paul’s letter to Philemon in regard to Onesimus — in view of the possible rift which might come in with Onesimus coming back — Paul in addressing Philemon says, “We have great thankfulness and encouragement through thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother”, verse 7. I thought of the way he brings ‘brother’ in here alluding to Philemon, as if to say the local Colossian position must be kept up to the standard of love.
JT Yes; Philemon is a good example of how things may be kept locally, using the word ‘locally’ in a more extended way than a mere village or town. He was adjacent to Colosse, and was in fact, in principle a Colossian brother. Then he was adjacent to the last assembly that the Lord writes to: Laodicea. It is all a matter of immediate locality in that district, and Philemon and Onesimus, of course, enter into it; and I think, therefore, they would help us. And Paul’s letter to Philemon would help us as to this matter of personal love to the brethren, to one another.
EAL I would like help, please, with regard to what Esau says in verse 32. “And Isaac his father said to him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn, Esau”. That is the order in which he puts those two things, “I am thy son, thy firstborn, Esau”. But when Jacob is speaking to his father in verse 18, it says, “And he came to his father, and said, My father! And he said, Here am I: who art thou, my son? And Jacob said to his father, I am Esau, thy firstborn”. He puts the personality first, as if Esau would go more by the place he had and would not really recognize his place as a son.
JT It was the natural; the cultivation of the natural, the firstborn.
CN According to chapter 25, the sovereignty of God seemed to underlie this matter, and I am just wondering whether it is not true that most of the disruptions that happen amongst us as brethren, come because we do not recognise the sovereignty of God in the way He arranges our affairs in our localities. Does that help?
JT Yes; especially where not only two brothers, but two races come into touch in the testimony. We are tested in these [p. 444] matters.
CN That is what chapter 25, verses 22 - 24 bring in, two peoples.
JT Yes; if a racial divergence tends to promote feelings then we are at a great disadvantage, especially if there are a good number involved. I believe that is one point that should be before us; that love should prevail, arising from what God is, because that is the ground that is taken in John’s epistle. He that loves is born of God. It is a question of God, and what flows out from God in those epistles.
SF The apostle Paul before his conversion was on the Esau line in persecuting the assembly, but then Ananias comes to him and says, “Saul, brother”.
JT He gave him a good start; that is what I would say. What a thing it was to be able to develop the thought of the brother in those extraordinary circumstances — Paul just converted in the extraordinary sense in which he was converted by the Lord, and then Ananias being able to say, “Saul, brother”. I am sure that is an important point, the elements that tend to promote the brotherly spirit, and tend to prevent the unbrotherly spirit, that is, the Esau spirit.
JTJr Would Romans 12 enter into what you are saying in this regard, that it is a question of presenting our bodies a living sacrifice, and then in the same chapter he speaks about brotherly love, “kindly affectioned towards one another”. That is one of the features of the presentation of the body.
JT Very good. I think there is a word in Hebrews, “Let brotherly love continue”. It is the continuance of the thing that tests us, because the dispensational and historic side is bound to work out in what we are saying. We begin with brotherly feelings between two brothers, but then the dispensation is involved, and it is sure to bring out certain things that are dispensational. So we have persons who are known as brethren. I had a call yesterday to find out what religious associations [p. 445] I maintained, and immediately the question was asked as to whether I belonged to the Plymouth Brethren. If we get on to that line, we have moved off from the mere personal thought. It is a question of what has come up in the dispensation, in the sense of the differences of religion. The number of religions would probably exceed one hundred, and when we are on those lines we are just on that broad line of religious differentiation, and we are glorying in the differentiation. Maybe we have something to glory in, whereas the whole matter is wrong. The whole matter dispensationally, the whole use of the word ‘brethren’ and names attached to it, designations attached to it — the whole matter is wrong. So that what we are to learn now is the thought of brethren. It is a thought that goes through to eternity, and we are to learn now how to maintain it.
DP In Genesis 13 the issue between Abraham and Lot was on account of their cattle. But Abraham instructed him that there should be no strife between them. Would that bear on what you are speaking of?
JT Yes; they were brethren. Just so. How easily the matter would extend. And they separated one from the other. The brotherly spirit remained in Abraham, and of course, it was used of God to save Lot. But the difference that arose through the herdsmen is to be noted, because it worked out in separation between Lot and his uncle; that is to say, separation between two persons who should be actively engaged in brotherly love.
JAC In Peter’s 2nd epistle he says, “in godliness brotherly love”, chapter 1: 7. Is that the practical working out of it?
JT That is it. There are certain things we are to have, and other things in them. That is the passage you are alluding to, and amongst these are, “In brotherly love love”, which is a thing we have not come to.
[p. 446] We are so far only dealing with brotherly love, but there is such a thing as love to be added to that in the passage.
FHL Did the apostle have this line in mind in addressing the Philippians? — the unusual opening: “To all the saints ... with the overseers and ministers”, and then in chapter 2, that beautiful opening there, “that ye may think the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, thinking one thing;” the practical working out of love among old and young.
JT That leads up to one of the greatest things in the Scriptures, namely, the mind of Christ. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”.
Ques Would you say then that, Joseph as a type of Christ, had what was necessary for brotherly love when he had his brethren come in before him and he wept?
JT Quite so. He waited his time. That is another point that we ought to touch on too: the wisdom or skill that enters into brotherly love, the skill by which Joseph concealed himself until the time came, the proper time came, the time that he decided should come to reveal himself in his brethren. That is, we are to consider how things are going and await our time, await a given time, a needed time to approach, to bring out something in relation to the brethren.
Rem It says the spirit of Cain was manifest in Esau.
JT Just so; the spirit of a murderer. We may as well just use that word because it is the word that scripture uses.
RWS Is it fair to limit the word ‘brother’ to those walking in fellowship, or is that too narrow a view of the word ‘brother’?
JT That is another important consideration. That is to say, as to vocabulary. If there is any place for the word it is among christians; the vocabulary that is [p. 447] proper amongst christians. And I would say that if we are to work accurately and spiritually as to this matter of brethren we should consult John’s writings, and particularly John’s epistle. It is a better standard than any we can find, as far as I know, because the word is being let loose. It has got loose and has acquired too much place in christian language.
RWS There is the word ‘believer’ — such a person might be a believer, or a christian. But is there not, as you are presenting it, a certain holy dignity about the word ‘brother’?
JT I think that is right; in view of the great place it has in the idea of religious profession, which is so extensive, it requires that we should be very careful as to how we use the word, what place it has in our vocabulary as to love, what relation brotherly love has with us.
Ques I would like to get a little help on this locally before we go on to the universal aspect. In almost every instance in Scripture where a brother has hatred, it seems as though there is some qualification that one possesses that the other is envious of; whether it be in Cain and Abel, or Joseph and his brethren, or Jacob and Esau, or Abraham and Lot, or Christ and His brethren. There seems to be some qualification that one has that the other is envious of.
JT What we have been saying as to Genesis, I think, fits in there. We have to go back to the beginning as to what is proper between brothers or brethren. And then we may have to move further into the religious realm and see whether the word ‘brother’ has a place in mere profession; although the apostle says, “one called brother” is so-and-so. That is, the word is recognized in a religious relation, but it would seem even there that it is limited in the mind of the apostle to what is genuine; that the word ‘brother’ should refer to what is genuine. Anyone that is called a brother should be genuine, genuinely a brother in the Lord.
Ques “Whosoever shall do the will of my Father”, the Lord says, “is my brother, and sister and mother”, Matthew 12: 50. Would that help?
JT Exactly; so in the gospels the Lord develops His own relations with His disciples under that very head, whether it is birth or whether it is that he is doing the will of His Father. The Lord is excluding from the word ‘brother’ mere natural relations, and He is saying that one who does the will of His Father is His brother and sister and mother.
TEH Would Judah be a brother that could be trusted because he draws near to Joseph? There seemed to be a link with the Lord that helps me in my relations with the brethren. I am seeking help as to how we may maintain the brotherly spirit. Judah seemed to have the qualifications. He draws near to Joseph, and what he secures is really ultimate blessing in the presence of Joseph.
JT I think Judah covers the whole matter in view of what we have already remarked as to Joseph making himself known to his brethren; that we have in Judah a brother, a man, who is wide in his view. One of the things that one constantly asks the Lord is for a mind, an extended mind, taking view of a thing and a deep view and a broad view, whatever a thing may be. And so it was that, I think, Judah was such a man as that. He was able to cope with the matter; the matter of the family of Jacob; how they were to become acquainted with one another, and how love was to have a place with them. Judah is the one that prevailed above his brethren; he prevailed amongst them or above them. He led them and influenced them all at a critical point, because he stated the truth in regard of Benjamin; not Joseph but Benjamin. He stated the truth to Joseph, but he enlarged on Benjamin, the little brother, the young brother. He enlarged on him, and how anything that affected Benjamin would affect his father. So that we [p. 449] have to learn to have a wide view of a thing, which Judah did at the critical moment.
CAM He understood a father’s heart and a mother’s heart, and you have stressed the great value of fatherhood, etc, being recognized among the brethren, and all this is really linked up with it, is it not?
JT I think it will help us to enter on the dispensational side. We have it in Numbers 20. This chapter that we had this morning. It is said, “Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom”. That is, we have now emerged from the mere primary relation between Israel and Esau; it is the king of Edom. Verse 14 says, “Thus says thy brother Israel:” He approaches Edom on those lines and clearly to bring out love. “Thou knowest all the trouble that hath befallen us”. That is to say, the brethren are always in affliction; more or less in affliction; constantly something comes up to affect us, and then the question is how we go through it. And so he says, “Thou knowest all the trouble that hath befallen us, how our fathers went down to Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and the Egyptians evil entreated us and our fathers; and when we cried to Jehovah, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and behold, we are at Kadesh”. Now this speech shows that a brother is speaking to another, but it is a dispensational brother speaking to one in the same dispensation, and his address is that he is a brother, although it is long since they were actually brothers, yet he still retains the idea of a brother. And he says, “And the Egyptians evil entreated us and our fathers; and when we cried to Jehovah, he heard our voice, and sent an angel, and brought us forth out of Egypt; and behold, we are at Kadesh, a city at the extremity of thy border”. So that now Esau is in a fixed place, but Israel is not. We are still afflicted. The real brethren are still afflicted, when those that may be professedly real brothers are [p. 450] not. They are in a fixed position. They are kings. As Paul said, “Ye have reigned as kings without us”, 1 Corinthians 4: 8. Esau is reigning as king; Edom is reigning as king without Israel.
AR Is it like a system in Numbers? In Genesis it is just two brothers.
JT We can see at the present time the word ‘brethren’ applies to a set of people who are known in christendom and have a status in christendom. They are known in the rules of the government. We cannot help that, because it is a question of the government. We did not do that. But at the same time, there are those who do that and think nothing of it. They want to be known as a religious body with certain characteristics and tenets, whereas the real brethren are on the way to heaven and their traits are derived from Christ, because we are His brethren.
GH John says in Revelation, “I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation”, chapter 1: 9.
JT Just so; that shows he is in tribulation. It is a question for each of us as to whether we are in tribulation, because if we are not it is time to wake up.
ANW Is our lesson in it not to combat it, but the matter finally issues in Israel turning away from him. Is that what we have to do?
JT Well, Edom has to turn away from the brother. It is what he is doing. It is not what Israel is doing. Israel is maintaining the right standard; what was at the beginning; the same as Abraham. Abraham asserted that they were brethren.
SF Was it calculated to touch Edom? “When we cried to Jehovah, he heard our voice”.
JT Quite so. The real brethren have all these features, all these traits, and, therefore, we can easily identify where our brethren are.
RDG Is there a particular skill in the way the message is sent to the king of Edom; not that he is [p. 451] addressed as a brother, but it is “thy brother. Israel”. Now are you prepared to be a brother?
JT Well, as you say, Edom is addressed as a king; I mean to say, he is regarded as a king, but Israel has not that status and is content not to have it. He is in affliction, so that we have to avoid, it seems to me, as entering on this lesson now, all these features, features that have their place in the world as ordinary, and yet the word ‘brother’ may be used.
AAT In regard to the word ‘brother’ is it not sometimes so that you could address a brother as a brother in the Lord, a brother in Christ, or simply as a brother? I mean these distinctions should have some meaning?
JT That brings up the whole point as to the use of the word. ‘Brother’ has a place in our vocabulary. Who can you call a brother? You say, ‘a brother in the Lord’. Very well. The word ‘Lord’ should govern that word there; a brother in the Lord. A brother in Christ: in Christ should govern the position too.
WWM Would you say in Hebrews 2 it is made very clear? “For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”, verse 11.
JT Just so. There is the test. There are people I was just referring to a moment ago. A person says you are a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Well, you have to say this and that about it to explain that, but then it discloses how the matter stands and that we have to guard the use of words, and ask people to let you explain what your position really is. You are obliged to do it, to set out the truth. You are obliged to ask people’s pardon for time and words so that you can say things to explain the position.
ANW Was it safe for Abraham to call Sarah his sister when he was denying that she was his wife?
JT Quite so. She was really his sister.
ANW I only meant that the term ‘brother’ is very [p. 452] freely used. Across the street we are hailed as brother, but what about the church position?
JT Of course, what we are aiming at is to get the truth of the assembly, to bring that in. We are obliged to ask people to give time, to give opportunity to say certain things so as to make it plain.
JTJr Does what the apostle says in Romans 16 help? He says, “But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those who create divisions and occasions of falling, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them”, verse 17. He salutes them as brethren, that is, those at Rome, but he says “turn away from them”.
JT Yes.
CN Does the message in verse 14 show the retention of the integrity of the brethren, whether the opposite side refuses it or not? The truth of brethren remains.
JT It does. It is Moses, of course, but it is Israel. Moses is on the true line. The element entering into the thought of brethren is the element that was there at the start. And so he says here in speaking about how God had come in for them, and where they were, “We are at Kadesh”, meaning they were journeying. They were not stationary. They were going to a certain place. That is our position. We are going to a certain place. We are going to heaven really. So he says, “Let us pass”, meaning we are not going to stay around here. We are not stationary; we are not set up in this world as of it, even although we are brethren. We use the word according to its original meaning. “Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country;” meaning that Esau had a country; he was settled here. “We will not pass through fields, or through vineyards, neither will we drink water out of the wells: we will go by the king’s road”; meaning that they recognized the idea of a king, one in government. “We will not turn to the right hand nor to the left, until we have passed thy border”. But it says, “But Edom said to him, Thou shalt not pass by me”.
[p. 453] So you can see that the spirit of opposition and, you might say, murder is there. You bring it out if you state the truth.
TEH He still has the sword. He said, “Lest I come out against thee with the sword”, verse 18. He has not got rid of the sword yet.
JT Quite.
Rem Is what we have before us brought out in Psalm 133 — brethren dwelling together in unity, comparable to the dew of Hermon where the blessing is? God commanded the blessing.
JT That, of course, comes into what we are speaking of; what belonged to Israel. The twelve tribes belonged to Israel. They are journeying. They are not settling down in this world. So it says, as has already been remarked, “Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword”. He is exposed; a person assuming to be a brother is exposed if he has the sword and is going to use it. “And the children of Israel said to him, We will go by the high way;” now notice, it is the children of Israel; not simply the brother. That is dropped apparently. It is “the children of Israel said” now. And they said to him, “We will go by the high way; and if we drink of thy water, I and my cattle”, the pronoun is brought in here as if there is a real sense of responsibility in this matter, and someone is accepting it. Then it says, “then I will pay for it”. That is, we are honest people. I mean to say, the brethren characteristically are honest. They pay their debts. “I will only, without anything else, go through on my feet”. That is another good point; “go through on my feet. And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory; and Israel turned away from him”. So that we are forced away, if we are true to the Lord and the truth. We are [p. 454] forced away by this spirit. Whatever the professions may be, we are forced to turn away. They will not allow a true christian a passage.
EAK Is the spirit fully exposed in Amos where it says he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity? Is not that feature of implacability seen today in those who take the place of brother, but do not show the character of it?
JT Quite so. One has often noticed that. You happen to know people personally in a business way; they are friendly. But when the truth comes up they dissemble and deceive. I am not accusing anyone but stating facts. The truth will not be accepted by the persons we are speaking of. They turned away, it says. At least, “Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his territory; and Israel turned away from him”. That is, he had to do it, because he would not allow him to go through. It is to remind us that if we maintain christianity in its parts in the truth, we will not be allowed to go through.
FSC When Moses records in Deuteronomy this introduction he does not speak of the wickedness of Edom at all. Why is that?
JT God recognises him. That is what I was thinking. We have to differentiate between the passages. Deuteronomy treats of mount Seir. “And we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea, as Jehovah had said unto me; and we went round mount Seir many days. And Jehovah spoke to me, saying, Ye have gone round this mountain long enough: turn you northward. And command the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the border of your brethren the children of Esau, who dwell in Seir; and they will be afraid of you”, Deuteronomy 2: 1 - 4. That is to say, they are weak at this point. They do not come out in strength against Israel here, “They will be afraid of you; and ye shall be very guarded, attack them [p. 455] not; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot-breadth; for I have given mount Seir as a possession unto Esau. Ye shall buy of them food for money, that ye may eat; and water shall ye also buy of them for money, that ye may drink; for Jehovah thy God hath blessed thee in all the work of thy hand. He hath known thy walking through this great wilderness: these forty years hath Jehovah thy God been with thee — thou hast lacked nothing”, verses 5 - 7. God is casting a favourable eye toward Esau; and He calls him Esau. So that we are not in the same position in Deuteronomy, and we have to learn these different positions and know how to act in them. At one time we have to regard them and say, ‘We know these are brethren; we know they had the characteristics of brethren, even if they have not them now, and we must respect them because of that’.
ANW Later on dealing with them governmentally God reminds them of it, does He not? It is all recalled then, this very incident.
JT Yes. I think we, perhaps, have come now to the point of critical importance at which we may, perhaps, rest. We have to consider such persons as we are treating of and know what to do when occasion arises; know what to do; what names to use; what terms to use; what actions or attitudes to assume.
FW Does the true brother hold the title in the dignity of the divine thought as going on himself towards the land, but he says to the other, ‘I have come to the extremity of thy border’?
JT Quite so. We have to say that we know so-and-so is true; but then you are settling down here; you have a status in this world, and you have a name and a place, and we are going somewhere else. I mean to say the position of the saints, our position — we do not need to hesitate to say it, our position is that we are in fellowship, and that fellowship is a protection, but it is a [p. 456] provisional thing for the moment. We are not going to be in fellowship forever in that sense. We are going to be in family relations forever with our brethren; family relations forever. Whereas these Edomites even in Deuteronomy have a status, they have a place, and we have just come to where they are fixed, where they, as it were, meet and carry on and have principles that are inimical to christianity.
AR Is there anything in the fact that Esau’s territory is in the wilderness?
JT Just so; whereas we are going to Canaan.
AR We are going to heaven.
CAM They really do not want eternal life and they do not want sonship.
JT Very good. These are the two great features that have come to us in recent times.
JS Do the conditions of Moab seem to hold them entangled here?
JT Quite so. That was another matter. Of course, we are dealing with Esau now. They may soon settle down into Moabitish conditions.
FNW Would Ahab indicate to us that if we do not discriminate as to this matter of the brother we may promote the spirit of murder? He succumbs when Ben-Hadad says, “Thy brother, Ben-Hadad”, but in the next chapter he is in this matter of Naboth’s killing — a real brother.
JT Very solemn.
RDG You emphasized that they were going through on their feet. Had you something more you intended saying about that?
JT I think that would raise the question of fellowship. We are not in a fixed position. We are going somewhere. As we have already said, we are going to heaven; we are going to the land. We are going to Canaan, and the principles of Canaan are gone into and we are constantly speaking about them, so as to be [p. 457] characteristically what they convey. That is our position.
ANW And in that sense independent?
JT We go through on our feet. We use our feet. We do not ask them for their feet; we are using our own. It is a question of walking through.
EAL This morning you mentioned in prayer that the disciples were first called christians at Antioch. To deserve the name of christian would not one have to be a disciplined person as under God’s hand?
JT Quite so. We are in principle, because Hebrews says, “Whom the Lord loves he chastens”. We are under discipline; we are a disciplined people. That would recall the idea of Enoch. He was a disciplined man; but then we have in mind going through, and walking in fellowship with one another. If we walk in the light as God is in the light we have fellowship with one another. We are in fellowship and we are going by our own feet. Of course, what that would mean today would be the Spirit, “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall no way fulfil flesh’s lust”, Galatians 5: 16.
AAT Do I understand there is no fellowship in heaven? I understood you to say that fellowship is a temporary thought and that the family thought is eternal.
JT That is right. We have in a hymn the expression ‘fellowship divine’ (270:3). That has to be read with intelligence, but fellowship is partnership. It belongs to our present position down here; so that 1 Corinthians, as we have already quoted today, says we are called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. The Lord’s supper bears on that. It is used to develop the truth of fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, but particularly chapter 10. The idea of fellowship is developed in that chapter, and it is centred in the Lord’s supper. The cup is mentioned first in chapter 10: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ?” It is a question of fellowship. That is to say, we are moving in relation to one another in fellowship.
CFE Is there something in the thought of the high way? They were very particular about which way they took.
JT We had that this morning, to show there was such a thing as that; and the idea of the way of God is treated of in 1 Corinthians and in the Acts too. There is a way and it suggests we are on that way. We are not stationary. Fellowship really is not stationary.
TNW In Acts 13 there is the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch and other elements. Does that show there is room for such a brother, in a christian assembly?
JT Just so.
SW According to the scripture that we referred to in Deuteronomy it would appear that, as we draw nearer the land, the full force of the envy of the brother would diminish and in that way we are able to add to brotherly love, love.
JT Quite, the nearer we come to Canaan; and we have come very near to it. Now when I say, the nearer we come to Canaan, I am speaking dispensationally; that we have come to the end of the dispensation. There are two ways we can speak of a given thing, Canaan, for instance; we have access to Canaan, that is, to heaven, at any time, but that is because of the Spirit being here; but going to Canaan definitely is another matter. It is a question of the Lord coming for us. If we go into Canaan now — we spoke of it this morning — we have access to Canaan now, as the spies had, and got the fruit of the land. But what we are speaking of now is dispensational, that there is an end to this dispensation and the Lord comes down from heaven Himself to take us out of this place. That is to say, going to heaven then is a literal matter. The Spirit does not come for us; the Spirit does not take us there. The [p. 459] Lord Himself takes us there, but in the interim and in regard of privilege the Spirit helps us. He enables us to enter into heavenly places; and so it is in other matters, that the Spirit serves us down here, whereas the Lord will serve us Himself when it comes to literality, and our going into heaven finally; the Lord comes for us.
APT Why is the blood of Jesus Christ connected with the fellowship in John’s epistle?
JT I think just to preserve us in it. But if anything happens in the way of sin we can confess it so that the fellowship goes on. It is a provisional thing, that God has provided for us in the meantime in the wilderness. It is called “the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord” in 1 Corinthians 1. It is a dignified thought, but it is a provisional thought. It is needed while we are down here.
CN It is a protection for us. Hence we have in Revelation the city with the exceeding great and high wall.
JT Quite so. That is what it is. And so the idea of fellowship, as we already touched on it in 1 Corinthians 10, the cup in the Lord’s supper is mentioned before the bread. That shows it is a special thing; fellowship is a special thing, because in the ordinary service of the Lord’s supper, the ordinance as we call it, or should call it, the bread is the first part mentioned. The cup is mentioned second.
Ques Can you give us a name for what we shall enjoy when we are in heaven with the Lord?
JT There will be no need of fellowship there.
Ques. What will it be?
JT Family relationship. Every family in heaven and on the earth is named of the Father. It is a question of family. For us it is not simply the ordinary thought down here; the family thought is in the Spirit; the Spirit of adoption; the Spirit of sonship. That is what enters into the family we [p. 460] are in.
APT You mentioned John 20. The thought of fellowship hardly enters into that idea; when the Lord is in the midst and leading us on to the Father’s presence, you hardly need the idea of fellowship, do you?
JT Well, we go beyond that, you know. It is a question of the Spirit, the power of the Spirit really lifting us into heavenly places. But that is possible even while we are down here. But when the literality of the thing, the actual permanent literality of the thing comes, then it is the Lord’s doing; He comes for us.