READING (1)
READING (1)
Luke 22: 14 - 20; Luke 24: 33 - 35; 1 Chronicles 12:1,2; 1 Chronicles 12:8; 1 Chronicles 12:16-18; 1 Chronicles 12:26-28
JT It may help us at this time to look into the features of the assembly in its public character, as it appeared at the beginning.
What comes out in Chronicles — corresponding, I believe, with Luke — is that there were some who came to David at Ziklag, and some who separated unto him to the stronghold in the wilderness, and a large number from each tribe are also mentioned as coming to him at Hebron; their object, in the latter case, being to transfer the kingdom from Saul to him. The Lord may show us in our consideration of this subject what it is to come to Himself as at Ziklag, when David kept close, as it says, because of Saul; what it is to come to Him in the stronghold in the wilderness, separated to Him; and what it is to come as to Hebron. You will notice that while we have only two distinct names mentioned in the latter case, namely, Jehoiada and Zadok, in the other sections a great many names and exploits are recorded.
Now Luke, I think, presents the subject of gathering from the standpoint of Paul’s ministry; so that it covers our own time.
Ques In what way do you connect Chronicles with Luke?
JT Chronicles traces the testimony from the beginning — from Adam. Luke goes back to Adam. He presents the public assembly in its component parts; if we take his gospel and the Acts, he presents the public body.
Ques Do you mean by the ‘public body’ what is seen existing outwardly now?
JT What existed at the beginning, when every member of the body was actuated, or influenced, by Christ.
Rem As we have it in the end of Luke’s gospel — the disciples were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
JT Chapter 24 shows that the Lord was gathering. Two of them were straying, and that chapter shows how they were gathered; returning to Jerusalem they found the eleven and those that were with them — the fruit of Christ’s earlier work. And the fact that they found the eleven gathered together, and were able to take part immediately in what was proceeding, goes to show that those two were truly gathered. They had thought that all was lost. Ziklag, I think, stands for that principle. It had been burned with fire, and all that was of David had been carried away. But then Ziklag also stands for recovery. Where defeat had been, recovery and victory are seen.
Ques What does Hebron stand for?
JT Colossians and Ephesians; Colossians particularly. There are very few who stand out distinguished there.
PL Would Ziklag suggest Romans; and the separation to David in the stronghold in the wilderness, Corinthians; and Hebron, Colossians and Ephesians?
JT Yes; Romans shows that where the defeat occurred victory is brought in; and in Corinthians separation is called for (the Gadites separated themselves to David in the stronghold in the wilderness); but in Hebron you may count a large number, but practically no distinguished names are mentioned — there are only two.
Ques Why are so many names recorded at [p. 3] Ziklag?
JT I think it is like Romans, where you have a long list of worthies at the end. It was a great matter that there were so many at Rome who were personally distinguished. The assembly at Rome was not Paul’s building. It is a notable fact that he was there as a prisoner. He was not the founder of the assembly at Rome; there were very notable persons there before he arrived, who had held the ground in the midst of the greatest opposition; because, I suppose, Rome would be regarded in that light. So we are encouraged to individual efforts in the absence of the apostle.
I think that all these names mentioned in the earlier part of the chapter have reference to those who are distinguished in the presence of fierce opposition; because David was still kept close on account of Saul. Their exploits all come out in that connection. At Hebron Saul is dead. There the power of God is evident. It is a question of resurrection — the operation of God that wrought in Christ, and not a question of individual exploits. Two priests are named — Jehoiada and Zadok. That is to say, there is prayer; that which brings in the power of God, which is now known.
Rem So while there may have been notable individuals present, when it comes to what was taking place at Hebron, as such they disappear.
JT When it is a question of God’s world, and the resurrection, what is priestly is in evidence; the priest brings in God’s power — he prays. You need that to be maintained in the new order of things. Hebron is looking into a new world altogether.
Rem God’s work is carried on on the principles of death and resurrection. God is gathering on those principles.
JT That is what you come to at Hebron particularly. But we have to begin at Ziklag, where there was public defeat. It is no small matter to join the Lord when things outwardly are against Him — public [p. 4] defeat — but then it is defeat changed into victory, and you come to the light of that; David recovered everything!
Ques Do you think that Ziklag suggests the kingdom side of things?
JT Yes; as has been remarked, it corresponds with the epistle to the Romans; where defeat occurred, victory occurred. But Saul is still reigning. In the first verse of chapter 12 they go to David to Ziklag, while he kept still close because of Saul the son of Kish. Then, in verse 8, you have the strong-hold in the wilderness; that is to say, there is protection there.
Rem Our brother connected that with Corinthians.
JT I think that is right; the assembly is treated of in 1 Corinthians. It runs parallel with Romans.
Ques Where does Matthew come in?
JT Matthew 18 is the kingdom, and the assembly is brought in as a support of the kingdom; it is that to which appeal may be made.
Ques Why are Saul’s brethren brought in?
JT To show that those who came to David had overcome natural feelings and preferences. Where natural preferences are allowed to exist you cannot have the assembly. The Colossians were separated in their affections, and so were the Ephesians. In 1 Chronicles 12 there is a list of mighty men, and the first mentioned are the Benjamites, Saul’s brethren. They are put at the top, I think, to show that they had overcome natural family affections. Later we are told most of them followed Saul; but there were those who did not, and they are specially distinguished.
Ques Hebron suggests Colossians; what does Ephesians suggest?
JT Colossians is a crucial epistle, and it is a great test.
Rem I thought that in Hebron you get the [p. 5] full purpose of God, which would be portrayed in Ephesians.
JT David’s history extends to Ephesians. He reigned seven years in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.
Rem Of course Jerusalem had to be taken.
JT That is so, but it is really a detail; the battle was already won. All the tribes of Israel, it says, came to Hebron to transfer the kingdom from Saul to David. That is to say, at Hebron Saul is left for ever. He is no longer administering. Whilst Saul is administering, you cannot have the assembly functioning.
Ques You would attribute importance to the fact that those who came to David to Ziklag, while he yet kept himself close because of Saul, were armed with bows and arrows and could hurl stones with both the right hand and the left, and could handle the shield and buckler; it would suggest a greater form of offensive and defensive equipment than those who were armed with staves and spears?
JT I think so; and when you come to Hebron, you see, they know now what is needed in the way of weapons and armour; they were ready “armed for war”.
Ques What would answer to Saul today?
JT The will of the flesh in persons who are in office, and are influential.
Rem The bows and stones would indicate that the conflict is carried on by combatants at a distance from each other.
JT It is artillery warfare.
Then in verse 16 we have a combination of Benjamites and men of Judah; these came of the children of Benjamin and Judah to the hold unto David. This is a remarkable combination, because one section of it would be affiliated with Saul in their natural feelings, and the other with David. So it is very [p. 6] interesting to see that these are the only ones that David challenges. Persons who are in outward relation with Christ through their parents, or other natural influence, are ever liable to be unreal; moreover they are liable to be influenced by externals. Children of the Lord’s people are already in relation with Christ; they are of His brethren, in this sense, and He challenges them, for they are likely to be unreal, governed by externals, and so untrustworthy if admitted on these grounds. So David challenges them, Why did they come? “Then the Spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee”. (verse 18).
Rem Amasai first came to David, and then the Spirit came upon him.
JT Yes; the Spirit shows Himself in the children of the Lord’s people on such occasions. Amasai is distinguished here as the leader of this group, and the Spirit comes upon him, and he speaks to David. That is the answer to any doubt we might have about anybody — the presence of the Spirit.
Rem I suppose anyone who can truly confess Jesus as Lord would have the Spirit.
JT That is right. That is what comes out in 1 Corinthians 12, where the proof, or test, is, whether one can confess Jesus as Lord. It would be by the Spirit he could do it.
Rem It is encouraging that these people proved to be real.
JT It is delightful! How pleasing it must have been to David when Amasai came forward and said, “Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers”.
Ques Would not that be practically confessing David as [p. 7] Lord?
JT Yes; and you do that by the Spirit. It is not simply a form of speech, parrot-like.
Rem Not only were their hearts completely won over to David, but they also went to those who helped him.
JT Quite so. They were not going to claim anything on natural lines from David; they recognised those who were there before them. But David was not slow to recognise what they were fit for; he made them captains of the band.
SJBC And while all may not be like David’s mighty men, we can all be helpers of the Lord.
JT Quite so, they would be sons of peace, and an immense accession to the ranks of David.
PL If we are in a spirit that is foreign to peace, we might betray Him to His enemies.
JT Yes; I think that is pretty sure to happen if we come in under any natural influence; we shall be tested, and will give way. If one cannot say by the Spirit, Jesus is Lord (and of course it is for the saints to discern that it is by the Spirit), he is not qualified for the assembly.
Then you have others coming to David. In verse 19 we read, “There fell some of Manasseh to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle: but they helped them not; for the lords of the Philistines upon deliberation sent him away, saying, He will fall to his master Saul at the peril of our heads”. These would typify people coming into fellowship when things were not clear. Though David was going to battle with the Philistines, yet he had accessions. It shows what an attraction David was. Outwardly there was not much to attract, but still they came. One has often heard of undesirable local conditions, and yet gathering went on; showing what an attraction the Lord is. Where God is working all difficulties are overcome.
[p. 8] Ques Do we become equipped by being brought into association with Christ?
JT Yes; one learns by following the Lord what equipment is needed if you would have part in His war.
Ques What might we look for in a person who has the Spirit? How can we know?
JT Well, you see they have confessed Jesus as Lord; and you hear how they speak to God. It is a wise thing to have people pray when you go to see them on such an errand. There may be a number of things which would indicate they had the Spirit; for example, you get a list in Galatians 5. You would look for these things.
Ques Would you say it is by the Spirit that Christ becomes attractive to us?
JT The Spirit would lead one to Him. It is for the priest to discern whether one has the Spirit.
Ques So that part of it is left with the saints?
JT Certainly. We may be able to tell who has the Spirit.
SJBC What you say is true; the great test is prayer. When a man opens his lips in prayer he usually shows his spiritual whereabouts.
Ques Is it spiritual material that is built into the assembly?
JT Yes; I think that Luke 24 shows that though the Lord had said much to the two on the road to Emmaus in the way of expounding Scripture, and their hearts burned in them as He spoke to them, the definite spiritual touch is that they recognised Him in the breaking of bread; that was what moved them, and showed that they were a spiritual element. And when they went back to Jerusalem it was of that they spoke, not the exposition of the Scriptures, although of course this helped them also. At Jerusalem they found the eleven and those with them gathered together and that brings in what I had in mind in regard to chapter 22. The Lord having [p. 9] received a cup at the passover, when He had given thanks said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” — that cup, I apprehend, was, so to say, the essence of what God was to Israel. Now when those two came back to the eleven and those that were with them, they were in possession, as we may say, of the thoughts of God in the Old Testament. It was all there in principle; every divine thought was there, as I may say, livingly.
Ques And would you say then that every thought of God in connection with Israel has been handed over to the assembly?
JT Well, I think that is what is meant. The Lord took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves”. All that God was to Israel was brought near to them in Christ, and it was for them to enjoy it. The cup was there, and the Lord received it. It was a convenient means for Him to express all that was of God for Israel; and He gave it to them and said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come”. It was passed on to them.
SJBC In Matthew and Mark He does not say of the passover cup, Take this and divide it among yourselves.
JT No, but He does in Luke 22. Then we have the cup that is for us, for it says, “Likewise also the cup, after supper”. And again in 1 Corinthians 11 we read the same words — meaning that it was wholly separate from the passover.
Rem The passover cup would connect with what the Lord said to the two on the way to Emmaus:
“Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded [p. 10] unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” Luke 24: 26, 27.
JT Yes, I think so. And when they came back to the gathered ones — notice the words “gathered together”, which is peculiar to Luke’s record — they would find these elements, because the eleven had all drunk into the passover cup. The Lord would bring the spirit of the Old Testament livingly before them. There never had been such a passover as this. In Acts 7 Stephen went over the ground, and traced the divine thoughts — what God had been to Israel.
PL And I suppose that in his shining countenance there is evidence that his heart was knit to David. He had the spiritual touch.
JT Yes; what is heavenly is already reflected in him; and his message was all the more painful because he had to announce what was coming: “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers, ye also”, (Acts 7: 51). The Holy Spirit had been speaking to them all the time. And I believe all that enters into the cup.
I think this chapter in Chronicles greatly helps. In the presence of it you find out where you are; whether in Ziklag, or in the stronghold in the wilderness, or at Hebron; and then there is feasting. You want to know, if you have carried over what was in the passover cup, whether you cherish the thoughts of God for His ancient people. Paul had such love for them, he says, I could wish I had been cut off for them. The Lord wept over them, and He actually was cut off because of them. One who is with God cherishes the thoughts of God in regard to His earthly people.
I believe the Lord’s supper is entirely for the assembly. It is “for you”, He says. He is giving it to them.
Ques The Supper was a new institution.
JT Yes, an entirely new thing that He was bringing in Himself. The passover was not His [p. 11] institution; He had part in it. I do not think the Lord’s supper is carried over; it does not, I think, extend beyond the assembly.
Rem It is “until he come”.
JT As far as we are concerned that is the light in which we view it.
Rem You would not link the new covenant with the Lord’s supper in a day to come?
JT No. “This cup is the new covenant”, He says, “in my blood, which is poured out for you”.
Ques In what way would the passover have an application to us now?
JT Only in the sense in which it is dealt with in 1 Corinthians 5, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, etc. That is the typical teaching. So you find in that section in 1 Corinthians that all these things happened to them as types, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. That is, all the dispensations of God converge on us; so we cherish them. The passover (including the unleavened bread) means that we deal with sin in ourselves.
Ques How is He made known to us in the breaking of bread?
JT Well, that brings in the spiritual element that we have been speaking of. Unless I discern Himself in the memorial, I have lost the spiritual touch.
SJBC I was thinking that the cup, in Corinthians, might reach wider than the loaf. It is one loaf, one body; but the cup, according to what the Lord said to Paul, is the new testament in His blood. He does not add, “shed for you”.
JT It is the love of God, and of course that does go beyond us necessarily. The new covenant was made “as regards” Israel, but we come into it; thus its bearing in the Lord’s supper is towards us.
Ques “Poured out for you;” would that suggest the fulness of God’s love to us?
JT I think it gives point and application to it. It is “poured out for you;” not ‘for many’, as in the other gospels, but “for you”. It is the love of God in its application to those who form the assembly. Luke undoubtedly wrote to confirm Paul’s ministry. The new covenant is not made with the assembly, but we come into it.
Ques Is the thought that what is connected with the assembly must be greater than the love of God known in an individual way?
JT Well, I think it is greater in its bearing towards us. One can understand that, because of the greatness of the assembly.
SJBC We are all baptised into one body, we have all been made to drink into one cup. That is drinking into the love of God.
JT Yes; and it is remarkable that it is presented to us in such a small vessel; that what is so infinitely great should be presented to us in what is externally so small. But there is enough there for the saints to drink into. We have the greatest possible thing brought near to us in what is outwardly small.
Here the Lord had the cup in His hand, and He says: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”. I think it has a bearing on the present time — the greatest thing presented within a small compass. The word to the shepherds is, “ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger” (Luke 2: 12). Now think of that! That was the wisdom of God speaking. And then Simeon takes Him in his arms while He is yet small, and he speaks of the greatest things; he says, “mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (verse 30). In the Babe he saw “a light for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel” (verse 32).