CHRIST EVERYTHING AND IN ALL
[p. 389] CHRIST EVERYTHING AND IN ALL
Colossians 3: 11; Genesis 25: 28; Genesis 48: 17 - 20; 1 Samuel 15: 35 (last clause); 1 Samuel 16: 1
JT What is in mind is to say something about the new man, particularly how Christ is all, or, as it says in this verse, “everything, and in all”. The scriptures read in the Old Testament are to show how the most spiritual of us may be occupied with the wrong man, with other than Christ; so that we may consider Isaac first, then Joseph and then Samuel. Isaac was head of the house, regarded as a patriarch, and yet he is occupied with another than Christ typically, whereas Rebecca is occupied with Jacob, who may be taken to represent Christ. And, in speaking of Christ thus as everything, we of course have to consider Him personally as in heaven, but also we have to consider Him characteristically as seen in the saints. Although Jacob is said to be a homely man, a man of the home apparently, dwelling in tents, Rebecca loved him, whereas Isaac loved Esau because of natural taste, he had taste for venison, so he serves to illustrate how we may deprive ourselves of the blessedness of the new man and of putting Him on, by indulging natural tastes. To have a taste for venison is, you might say, legitimate, but if natural taste rules one, it shuts out Christ, and if it be in a leading or prominent brother or sister it causes confusion and tends to interfere with the direct work of God. That is the first point. The second is that in Joseph we have preference for nature in the family, for the firstborn, which represents the family according to nature. Then thirdly, in Samuel we have preference in his mourning for one whom God had rejected, for one who is active in the service and may have failed of the power of God in his service. In all these cases confusion is brought [p. 390] in and the work of God directly hindered. Whereas over against that, as we have remarked, in Rebecca, we have one occupied with Christ; she knew about both sons from God and who was to have the lead, and she loved the right person, she loved Jacob. That is what is in mind. You can see how what I am remarking on is practical and affords a lesson as to what brings in confusion and hinders the work of God in our gatherings, and how it may be found in the most spiritual, in the most distinguished leaders, amongst us.
AMH Will you tell us how you are regarding venison?
JT Well, it is spoken of here as ‘loved’. First in the verse read it says, “Isaac loved Esau, because venison was to his taste” — that is the first thing; and then he says later (Genesis 27: 3), “Now, I pray thee, take thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field and hunt me venison, and prepare me a savoury dish such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat”. He is occupied with the venison as loving the venison. The word rather drops from its proper level when applied to mere food. Venison would represent just anything that ministers to our natural taste and influences us in our judgment of the brethren, or even in regard of Christ, blinding our eyes as to Christ. It may be viewed in a wide sense — how many things there are that may be to our natural taste! Venison was to his taste, it suited him, that is, his natural taste.
FI He was more occupied with what was earthly than what was heavenly; whereas Jacob was on the heavenly side more.
JT That is what I was thinking. We have to view the two men as they run through the Old Testament to the last book where it is said that Esau was hated by God and Jacob loved. We see, therefore, that Rebecca was on the divine line, she had selected [p. 391] the right man; that is, she had selected Christ, the Man of promise and purpose. Evidently Isaac had gone back to the natural taste.
Ques Would Romans 13: 14 answer to it, “Do not take forethought for the flesh to fulfil its lusts”? Would taking forethought be ministering to the natural taste?
JT Quite so; we are enjoined against that.
Ques Is the snare all the greater because these men loved the best in regard of the firstborn? A soul despises what is weak but loves the best in nature.
JT Yes. I suppose Esau represents the best in nature too according to what would be regarded as desirable, especially today in the world of sport, for he was a man of the field. It says, “Esau became a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field” — he became that. There perhaps never was a time, even in the Greek days, when sports had such a place amongst men as they have now. They are made almost essential in ordinary employment as qualifying young people for society.
Rem With the end in view of shutting out Christ.
JT That is the point. Not that Isaac himself was a man of the field or a sportsman, the point was that he loved venison; he loved Esau because, as it says, venison was to his taste, and Esau could procure it for him having acquired skill in hunting. The apostle said he had espoused the Corinthians to one Man, as a chaste virgin to Christ. We become defective if we set our eyes on the wrong man, that is the man of the field or the man that is naturally attractive, and that brings in confusion. This section (chapter 27) shows what dire confusion would have resulted had God not interposed sovereignly, how serious it is. God was compelled to interpose, and Rebecca and Jacob were forced into doing evil to secure what was right, but the real onus of the matter lay with [p. 392] Isaac.
HH As typically a risen man his taste should have become altered.
JT Exactly. He of all men being a type of Christ risen from the dead should have developed spiritual tastes; but we are dealing now with Isaac, not as a type of Christ, but of a leading or distinguished brother, even a spiritual man, which in truth he was, able to bless when God helps in the matter. The blessing was irrevocable: “Blessed he shall be”, he says. He knew, when brought round to the truth, that Jacob was the right man and supported him afterwards. But see what dire confusion would have resulted had God not come in.
Rem It is remarkable that both Isaac’s taste and his smell were at fault; later on it speaks of the smell of his garments, referring to Jacob.
JT I think he was right there. He says, “The smell of my son is as the smell of a field which Jehovah hath blessed”. God comes in and puts the right man forward and then we begin to see and smell for ourselves. Although he had the smell of his clothes, it was “the smell of my son”, that is, the one that was there.
ESH Would Esau represent that element of obtaining things by natural ability, which ought to be discerned as not of Christ? Colossians brings Christ before us as Head, and thus we discern what is really of Christ.
JT He became a skilled hunter; he was not instinctively that, but he became that; his mind lay in that direction and he acquired the habit or skill of that kind of ability; whereas Jacob made no effort at all to put on anything; he does not need to. A spiritual man is what he is. Jacob was a supplanter of the natural from the start; he was characteristically a spiritual man and reflected Christ, so that he was what he was.
[p. 393] Rem Jacob did not become anything, and he is loved for his own sake — there are no qualifications for loving Jacob.
JT No, he was what he was. We say that brother or sister is lovable; we do not say why, but he or she is that; it is very difficult to describe a lovable person. To see Christ is to see One who is infinitely lovable; no one could describe Christ save one who has seen Him, like the bride in the Song of Songs.
PL So we get Tychicus the beloved brother and Luke the beloved physician — is that the lovability?
JT Quite so. No one could define a man like Tychicus or Luke, but Esau is within the range of anyone: he is just the natural man whatever his skill or acquirements.
FI This confusion you were speaking of came in by Isaac losing his spiritual vigour and sight — his eyes were dim, the result of being held in regard of what is earthly.
JT Quite so, and you see he had the right thought in mind. He had the consciousness of ability to bless, but he was going to bless the wrong man, and how often it is that we elder brethren, prominent brothers maybe, as we are called, lay our hands on the wrong man, perhaps not in persons but in qualities in the saints. There are those who love certain persons because of their natural qualities, real christians, all of them, but loved because of natural qualities; that is a blinding thing and causes confusion. A man who has qualities I do not care for may be more spiritual, and God may be putting him forward, but I may be ignoring him.
Ques Would Rebecca’s choice in chapter 25 be influenced by her choice in chapter 24? She had refused to be held by the claims of nature in chapter 24, and in chapter 25 she loved Jacob.
JT [p. 394] She has no hesitation about it, and she maintains that, so she now has Jacob before her. There is nothing said about his acquirements; it was what the man was; he had from the outset supplanted the man after the flesh. So we have to watch each other as to what our characteristics are, whether we love the new man. The new man is an exclusive thought; the description in Colossians is to make it exclusive: Christ is everything and in all. There is no room for Esau there. So that I think the consideration as to how even these three prominent distinguished servants were diverted from the right man is a solemn matter and should be a lesson to all of us. Jacob made no effort to be anything distinguished; he was just a plain man, but then there were prophecies about him going before. Rebecca had a prophecy about it, and he in time began to show that he was qualified and Rebecca knew it, and she loved him.
PL She never speaks of Esau as ‘my son’, as if she had in mind repudiated him. When referring to Esau, in speaking to Jacob, she calls him “thy brother;” while she refers constantly to Jacob as “my son”.
JT Yes indeed, and she is ready to take on the curse even, “On me be thy curse, my son!” She is ready to take on any obligation in regard of him, the man after the Spirit. There are a great many of the Esau characteristics about, and they are quite lovable to many of us, but they are causing confusion and interfering with the work of God. It is not the new man, it is just the old, the good side of it of course, but just the old man.
FI Would you say that Rebecca loved Jacob not so much for what he was in himself personally, but for where he stood in relation to the thoughts of God?
JT That is the thought. It is the prophecy going before, as Paul says about Timothy, the mind of [p. 395] God indicated beforehand; but then the traits are coming out too, for even at the outset he supplanted the man after the flesh.
Ques Would the expression, “Your love in the Spirit”, have any bearing on this?
JT I think it would. It is the only time you get the Spirit mentioned in Colossians, love in the Spirit, and that is universal. They had love for all the saints in Colosse, but it was love in the Spirit; that is love for Christ, and the love for Christ is seen in love for His people as well.
Rem In the old man we are told what was there, all the best in nature, but when we have the new man described, it is Christ.
JT Yes, there is only one new man, but it includes all the traits of Christ wherever they are, and Christ is everything; so that, whether it be Himself personally or His characteristics, we make everything of Him, and He is all and in all in that exclusive realm called the new man. In Colossians, as we know, the thought is the fresh new man, which is very delightful, and ought to be attractive, as over against Esau. I have no doubt, as dwelling in the tents, Jacob would retain freshness; he would not have been wasting his time, for it is said that Abraham dwelt in tents with him, with Isaac and Jacob, so the living thing would be there in the tents.
HH If these things are not attended to it would tend to profanity with our leaders or any of us, in contrast to what is holy which should be followed up in a spiritual way.
JT It will certainly lead to profanity to be occupied with the man after the flesh, even though it be, as you say, in a legitimate way. Think of loving Esau in a preferential way, and not being set to love Jacob! But then Isaac was adjustable, which is always an evidence of spirituality underneath; when [p. 396] he reached the right man and blessed him he never turned away again.
Rem So that the lesson is to get adjusted.
Ques Would you say God corrected him and he thanked God for it?
JT I would indeed. We have not the slightest indication that he ever regretted blessing Jacob.
PL The “exceeding great trembling” helped him from the wrong side to God’s side.
JT It says, “Then Isaac trembled with exceeding great trembling, and said, Who was he, then, that hunted venison and brought it to me? And I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him; also blessed he shall be”. He has now reached God’s side. The man is fixed against his will, as it were, but then he is right now, and that is the point, to get to God’s mind about the man even at the expense of great anxiety and exercise, because you come to fixity. “Blessed he shall be”, he says; there is no alteration of it. When we come round to the right man in a characteristic way amongst us there are great prospects. “The smell of my son is as the smell of a field which Jehovah hath blessed”. There are great prospects, great potentialities, in a field.
Then, when we come to Joseph, it is a continuation of that which began with Cain, who made much of his elder son Enoch; it was a family matter on the line of the flesh, another side to our position, and confusion brought in by regarding our children after the flesh as in a preferential way, bringing that in amongst the saints.
EG So that “my son” and “my father” really have no place in the assembly.
JT That is the lesson to be learnt from Joseph. He was a great spiritual man but he was thinking of his eldest son, and, when that is so, it means I am thinking of my family on the line of nature, instead of seeing that God takes away the first to establish [p. 397] the second. That is the point. Jacob was on the line of the mind of God in taking away the first and establishing the second. That is what is to abide.
Rem Christ is said to be the second man.
JT Quite so, the second man is out of heaven: that is the Man.
AMH How is it that Jacob speaks so emphatically here, “I know ... I know”?
JT That is an element needed in our gatherings; not simply that I know the meaning of Scripture or am able to expound it, but I know the mind of God and who is in His mind for the first place. I see how He has given Christ the first place in raising Him from the dead and giving Him glory, but I want to see the traits of Christ in the brethren and give them the first place.
Ques Would it be right to say that God helped Isaac to cross his hands, but Jacob did it intelligently?
JT I think that is right. Isaac was controlled externally in what he was doing, but when he came to the real man, to Jacob, he knew him and he smelt him and spoke of him as being like a field which Jehovah had blessed.
EG Could you open out that thought?
JT It is a potentiality; what every person is who is the subject of the work of God, so we acquire smell to discern who is who. It is a question of smell, “See, the smell of my son”, that is the one right before me. He was mistaken as to his mind but not as to his instincts, not as to his smell. One’s smell may be safer than one’s knowledge. Smell is a sense I have which belongs to me constitutionally.
EG Did Paul have a good sense of smell when he wrote the last chapter to the Romans?
JT Yes, what a fine list he had; it was what he discerned in these people he salutes, the traits of Christ were there.
PL [p. 398] Would the sense of smell develop at the golden altar in the presence of the incense, the spirit of prayer as seen in Epaphras and Paul in the Colossian epistle?
JT That is right; it is a principle running through Scripture especially from Exodus, the idea of odour, and we often notice the sisters have more instinct in that way than the brothers, who know the history of a case. They discern the thing; that is the development of that sense of smell, so that you can tell who is who, not simply by history but by what is before you. Isaac’s mind was on Esau, but if Esau had been there he would not have had that smell; it is a question of spirituality, of potentiality in the field, that there is wealth there, wealth for a yield for God in due time. It may take centuries to work out, as it did, but it was there. You could not have acquired that from the mere history of Jacob; it was there before Isaac’s nostrils. Our minds based on history may be different from our sense of smell — there is something — the feeling: I have not a thing against that brother, but he is not just right to me; it is spiritual instinct.
Ques Did Paul have that when he refused to take Mark and chose Silas (Acts 15)?
JT I think that is the thought, although he gives a reason for it, but that is the idea. I have not a thing against the brother or sister historically, but somehow there is something there that repels me.
Rem One of the features of the body, according to 1 Corinthians 12: 17, is smell. The apostle says, “Where the smelling?” in connection with the body of Christ.
JT Quite so.
ESH I suppose the full-grown man would have all his senses exercised.
JT That fits in with what we are saying. It is what is so needed so that we might be guided aright.
[p. 399] One often says he has a judgment about everyone he knows. We are not to be critical about our brethren, but to know where they are with God. It is not simply history you go by, but what they are. “The smell of my son”, Isaac says, although he thought he was somebody else; the smell was right and Isaac’s power of discernment was right, although his mind was wrong.
Rem Jehovah is the first one of whom this feature is recorded, in Genesis 8: He “smelled the sweet odour” — do we acquire the feature that He Himself has found pleasure in?
JT So that we develop on those lines. It is a quality of God, you might say; it alludes to God’s nostrils.
HH The wealth of the inheritance was lying behind all this. Jacob was a single man at the time, but he had regard for the great inheritance that was coming in in his family.
JT That is the idea, what would be for God in that one man and what is developed out of him in the twelve tribes of Israel. Now in Genesis 48, he is cutting across the family feeling, the family thoughts, in Joseph. The elder is the idea of the family after the flesh, but the setting aside of that is to bring in the spiritual side. Jacob himself opens it up in the next chapter. The principle had to be established if we are to work out intelligently the great thoughts of God in the twelve tribes; the great principle of setting aside the first must be established, and that is what chapter 48 brings out; it leaves room for chapter 49, where it is said that Jacob called his sons and said, “Assemble yourselves, and hear, ye sons of Jacob, And listen to Israel your father”. It is in the light really of what he had established in chapter 48, he had set aside the first. That is confirmed when he speaks about Reuben; he says, “Impetuous as the waters, thou shalt have no pre-eminence”;
[p. 400] that is the principle, the first is set aside morally in chapter 48. Not that Reuben is not to be blessed, but it is not as the firstborn but as one of the tribes.
Ques So does guiding his hands wittingly show that he had Christ before him?
JT Yes, the whole history of the tribes must hang on this great decision, it is a question of setting aside the first; there can be no blessing apart from that principle.
Ques Does it mean that spiritual affections should take precedence of natural affections?
JT Exactly. Jacob knew what he was doing.
Rem And he set Ephraim, which means fruitfulness, before Manasseh, which means forgetfulness.
JT So “he blessed them that day, saying, In thee will Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and Manasseh! And he set Ephraim before Manasseh”. There would be a great result.
Dr. R. Would you say Joseph is one of the most spiritual men in the Scripture, but yet he failed here?
JT That is what I had in mind, that those who are more prominent amongst us are to observe these things. We are so apt to be diverted for personal reasons or considerations, and confusion in every case is the result. The work of God will not proceed or the traits of Christ be developed amongst us save as we see these things and recognise that He establishes the second, setting aside the first.
PL Would Paul illustrate this in Acts 20, the result maybe of not crossing his hands; but when he gets into prison, the prisoner of the Lord, and the great truths of Colossians and Ephesians are unfolded, is he adjusted rightly with his hands crossed?
JT Yes, quite so. I have no doubt in going up to Jerusalem he had somewhat the first before him. Why was he going up? What was there to attract [p. 401] him? He was determined to go, although the Spirit testified to him that in every city bonds and afflictions awaited him. Why did he go? One would not discredit the great apostle; but it is not at Jerusalem that he gets any Ephesian light. You would not expect the Colossian epistle from Jerusalem. He is shaving his head and paying expenses for others in the temple, coming under the power of that which was now to be set aside publicly; you could not expect great Ephesian light under those circumstances. But in Rome you get these wonderful epistles, and what exercises the apostle would have gone through in the meantime so as to arrive at the great thought of Christ in heaven and His body down here. I think if we see this great principle in Genesis 48 we shall understand what Jacob has to say about the tribes in chapter 49, and how every one of them is blessed. The person who had the place of the first is also blessed, but he only comes into it on the line of the second. So that the persons who are occupied with the first, as they understand the position, come into the blessing; but they are standing in their own way till they do acknowledge the second. It is said, “All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them; and he blessed them: every one according to his blessing he blessed them”. Morally you could not have chapter 49 except in the recognition of this great principle in chapter 48 — so that every one of us gets blessing, but it is on this line of the recognition of the second instead of the first.
AMH You spoke of the discipline of the beloved apostle; are we helped of God in that way through discipline?
JT Quite so. He was a man like ourselves and had to go through discipline to reach the divine end.
WP In 1 Chronicles you get an explicit statement as to the birthright being taken from the firstborn,
[p. 402] would that be significant in view of the development of the service of God in that book?
JT You can understand that. Chronicles gives the direct line of the testimony from Adam down, as you might say, to the end of the Acts. It is really from Adam to Paul, Paul in prison writing Ephesians, for Luke links on with the writing of the Chronicles. He links on with it directly in quoting the course of the priests and carries the thought right down to Paul in prison at Rome. Chronicles begins with Adam, and Luke takes on the book of Chronicles and carries the thread down to Paul in prison at Rome.
Ques Would you say he had Christ characteristically before him when Paul could say that “Luke alone is with me”?
JT You can understand how the apostle would have that in mind; the man who gathered up the thread of the testimony and carried it right through Chronicles to Paul in Rome in the prison.
Ques Is it interesting to note that in chapter 48 the blessing is attributable to God, whereas in chapter 27 the blessing is attributable to the satisfaction of Isaac — “A savoury dish such as I love”, he says, “before I die”. But in chapter 48 Jacob attributes the blessing to God Himself and his own experiences with Him?
JT Yes, it is interesting. How often Isaac refers to himself, as we were saying — “Hunt me venison”, “Prepare me a savoury dish, such as I love, and bring it to me”, it is himself; but then beneath all that he has the thought of blessing, so that it shows how a man may be diverted and yet the real thing be there. He needs adjustment, and when he is adjusted the thing is fixed. It is very fine to see an old brother brought round to that, to fixity.
Rem Thinking of ‘me’ is all foreign to the new [p. 403] man.
JT Quite so. He is making himself an object; you will notice that if you look at the passage, how much he makes of himself. Jacob is not thinking of that at all in his blessing; he is thinking of God; he knows what he is doing. So now we have a state of things, applying it to any gathering where there may have been confusion, that is according to the mind of God; the whole outlook is clear, all the tribes are blessed.
Ques Would the Psalms indicate that David appreciated what was said to king Saul, “Thou ... shalt be turned into another man”?
JT You mean that with David there was another man? It is a different man from Saul, that is the point, so that 1 Samuel 16 brings out that, although Samuel was right as to principles, for he lays down the principles in regard of Saul and chapter 15 brings out in the plainest way the principles governing the position, yet, as regards his own feelings, he is not with the principles. He can say much more as to the truth than he is with in his own mind and affections; and that is often seen amongst us. So God says, I am sorry I ever made him king. But Samuel is mourning for him and continuing to mourn for him, and God does not like that. He says, “How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him?” That is, I am not in accord with the mind of God, my principles are right, but my feelings and affections are not right. I should be glad if it were somebody else.
Rem The sense of smell is lacking.
JT Quite so.
PL Is our refuge from this to fill our horn with oil and go and anoint David? Does Paul, in the Philippians, do that in the presentation of the descent of the Lord Jesus in chapter 2, and then has he not done with the tribe of Benjamin, which Saul represents, [p. 404] in chapter 3?
JT Very good. You mean that in chapter 2 he comes to the mind that is in Christ Jesus, and goes on to show how that worked out, how God exalted that Man. Whereas in chapter 3 he was of the tribe of Benjamin, with all the qualities that would make him acceptable to the first order of things, but he renounced it all. Is that your thought?
PL Yes.
FI You say we may be right in our principles and wrong in our feelings; what brings that about?
JT One often wonders. There are those who value the principles, but somehow they would rather somebody else was putting them out; they do not care for the persons. For instance, Paul said, “All who are in Asia ... have turned away from me” (2 Timothy 1: 15). It does not say they had turned away from what Paul taught; it was personal feeling. And so pronounced was it in Samuel’s case that God says, ‘I will go with you to Jesse’s house and name the man’, as if He did not trust him; the sequel shows he was not to be trusted, for he would have anointed Eliab; his personal feelings were not right.
PL Must we have the blend of Luke and Matthew, the principles in Matthew and the spiritual feelings in Luke, to be churchmen?
JT Very good. Great feelings come out in Luke. The multitude of the heavenly host came down to celebrate what was there, delight in the man Christ had brought in — “good pleasure in men” — not only Christ, but the kind of man that Christ brings in.
Ques Does 1 Samuel 16: 18 show the kind of man that God is bringing in?
JT I should take up an earlier verse for the kind of man; that verse gives his attainments, that is, he “is skilled in playing, and he is a valiant man and a man of war, and skilled in speech, and of good presence, and Jehovah is with him”. But the kind of man that he was is in verse 12, “He was ruddy, and besides of a [p. 405] lovely countenance and beautiful appearance. And Jehovah said, Arise, anoint him; for this is he”. That is the real man; it is the living man, what he was personally; his attainments come after that.
Rem It was so with Abigail, the first thing said about her is the same as is said of David, she was of a beautiful countenance.
JT It is a question of the kind of man. Jacob was lovable in himself.
Ques Have you the same thought in regard of Moses; they viewed him as a beautiful child?
JT That is the thought exactly — fair to God.