⬇ EPUB

READING (5)

JT This morning we looked at the circumstances that were the occasion of the introduction of Saul, the man after the flesh. There had been dissatisfaction with God’s provision in Samuel, and the people would have a king; they found a convenient excuse for their request in the misconduct of Samuel’s sons, whom he had appointed judges in Israel. So they asked for a king, that they might be like all the nations around.

It was pointed out that Samuel had been asked for from the Lord, as his name indicates; whereas Saul was just ‘asked for’. And it was pointed out, further, that God gave them a king in His anger, and took him away in His wrath; (Hosea 13: 11). David was not asked for, he was God’s own provision, without any solicitations from the people; “Jehovah”, Samuel says, “has sought him a man after his own heart, and Jehovah has appointed him ruler over his people” (1 Samuel 13: 14). So that David is neither the result of spiritual solicitations from any of the people, as was Samuel, nor fleshly solicitations, as was Saul; he is God’s own provision, a man after God’s own heart.

Ques Is he in that way a peculiar type of the Lord?

JT Yes. I think God had His own affection for the people. Samuel was a wonderful provision for them, but he is not said to have been a man after God’s own heart. So in considering this we are in the presence, not of human exercises, whether spiritual or fleshly, but of divine exercise, which lifts the matter to a higher level. Think of divine desires!

Rem You were saying that one of the first things ^[p. 71] recorded in connection with Saul was the lost asses. It is, I think, interesting to notice that David had been minding sheep in the wilderness, but when he left them, he left a keeper in charge of them.

JT Yes. Those are spiritual touches which the natural eye would not observe, but the spiritual eye takes account of them. They mark off a man after God’s own heart. The Lord said, “Those thou hast given me I have guarded, and not one of them has perished, but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17: 12).

In chapter 13 the first great breakdown of Saul was that he could not wait for Jehovah with patience. He said, “I forced myself”. He had been directed to go to Gilgal, and wait there. Saul offered up the burnt-offering, and this brought about the remark of Samuel, “Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God which he commanded thee”. God rejected him; he had proved himself unfit in that he could not wait. But in order to bring out fully what the flesh is, God directed him to exterminate the Amalekites.

SJBC Saul had waited the set time?

JT But Samuel had said to him, Wait until I come to thee. It is “until I come” that tests us.

PL The Psalmist says, “I waited patiently for Jehovah” (Psalm 40:1). One looks to be kept in waiting, and to wait in the Spirit.

JT Quite so. “I waited patiently for Jehovah”.

Ques Would the test in the first case be dependence, and in the second obedience?

JT I think patience enters into both. He had transgressed the word of the Lord in that he did not wait. I think that the first shows the impetuosity of the flesh, which is often apparent in young brethren. Thus we are disqualified; it is in little things one shows where one is spiritually.

Ques. In what ^[p. 72] way?

JT In not being able to wait for the Lord. You take things into your own hands and attempt to settle them yourself. That was what Saul did. He forced himself; he said the Philistines were upon him, and he had no other course. But he was leaving God out, and thus he disqualified himself. The second test is as to whether he can deal with the flesh in its entirety, or whether he discriminates in favour of what he considered good in it. He destroyed everything that was bad or wretched, but he saved what was good in the Amalekites, including the king.

SJBC The first is more in the nature of a secret test. Chapter 15 is more public. He failed in secret. I think there is a principle in it, there is always failure in secret before there is exposure in public.

JT In the introduction of David we are in the presence of divine exercises; and that becomes a theme of great and precious interest. What is going on in the heart of God? What is He thinking about? And now what comes out is that He has not only David in His heart, but He wants to have a feminine response. We have nothing about the female side in Samuel; nothing about his wife, nothing about Saul’s wife; they are not in sight, but a great deal is made of David’s marital relations. So Samuel is to proceed to Bethlehem with a heifer. We are in the presence now of a potential subjective result.

SJBC I think you said at Los Angeles that the heifer signifies what is subjective; it has to do with the female side.

JT I think so, leading up to feminine affection.

Rem Paul’s great exercise was Christ and the assembly.

JT Yes, that is what he had before him. The epistle to the Ephesians presents to us the desires of the heart of God: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us ^[p. 73] with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ; according as he has chosen us in him before the world’s foundation, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love;” and then he goes on to say: “having marked us out beforehand for adoption through Jesus Christ to himself” (Ephesians 1: 3 - 5. We are now in the presence of what God has been thinking about, altogether outside human exercises. No doubt He puts us, in His government, through certain things that would prepare us for this, and I think the lessons in this book would prepare us for what God has in mind and heart. How great a thing that the saints in any locality may be for God to work out what is in His mind! There are few localities that that could be said about. There was Ephesus in Paul’s day.

Ques Would you say it could be worked out now in any way?

JT Well, I do not think there is very much in the way of appreciation of divine thoughts and purposes; we are so necessarily occupied with our own state, and the difficulties that are arising, that there is very little liberty to enter into what God has before Him.

SJBC Is not that brought out in Ephesians, where the apostle writes of the intents and purposes of God? He could say, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, etc., but when he comes to deal with the moral state of the saints, he gets down and prays.

JT I think, however, that at Ephesus there was a state exceeding most other localities. The apostle could speak of the “hidden wisdom which God had predetermined before the ages for our glory: which none of the princes of this age knew (for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory)”. And he goes on to speak about “Things which eye has not seen, and ear not heard, and which have not come into man’s heart, which God has prepared for them that love him, but God has revealed to us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2: 7 - 10). It is no question of meeting their needs, but things prepared for them that love Him, and He has revealed them. So it is a question now of whether we are prepared to face the things from that point of view; what God has in His mind — what He has prepared.

PL In the disciples there was a state capable of entering into these things.

JT Quite so; and I am sure they would be impressed as they listened. After He had spoken to them all that is recorded in John 14, John 15 and John 16, the Lord lifts up His eyes to heaven. They would be prepared for it, and He would occupy them in His prayer with the glory that He had with the Father before the world was.

One feels how great is the incapacity to rise to what is in the divine mind for its own pleasure. And that is what David stands for.

Ques Would you say there is a moral necessity for the earlier chapters?

JT Yes. Now there was in the people a moral state which would enable God to bring out the feminine result. So that you would have a man beautiful in appearance, and all Israel loved him — David.

Rem It is the Amalekite comes into view here, not the Philistine.

JT Yes, in chapter 15 it is the Amalekite; that is, the flesh through which Satan acts.

Rem And God will make war with the flesh from generation to generation.

Ques Would the epistle to the Romans give you the administration of Samuel, to bring the people into line with God’s will? Colossians would be the true David, in the sense of being the head; he ^[p. 75] becomes the loved object of affection. But souls must be brought into subjection first, otherwise they are apt to be diverted in following their own will.

JT So that Romans and Corinthians run together; the first bringing in subjection to Christ. You obey “from the heart the form of teaching into which ye were instructed” (Romans 6: 17). So you find at the end of Romans a list of worthies to confirm that. Then Corinthians is the authority of Christ recognised collectively. We have to learn to obey collectively. And then Colossians, as you say, is Christ as the Object of affection to the saints. Thus His personal greatness is presented.

Rem So that you follow the object you love into the land of promise.

JT Exactly.

Ques Have we to take to heart the length of time necessary to lead us over the necessary details? The Lord would delight to bring us into the richer and fuller things which He has in His heart for us.

JT Yes. Ministry directs you to what is in Him. Deuteronomy is a résumé of all that preceded, only with particular features of personal affection for the people, and motives to lead them to love Jehovah; it is to bring about obedience in the heart, not forced obedience. It is said of Moses that he was “king in Jeshurun” (Deuteronomy 33: 5). That is a remarkable word; it means, I think, that Moses acquired a place in the affections of the people. Although he kept on enforcing the word of God, in time they gave him a place in their affections. You say that Jesus is Lord; but no one can say that truly except by the Spirit. I think it is in that way the Lord is enthroned in the heart. You say, “Lord Jesus” by the Spirit. He is enthroned in the heart; and that prepares us for Colossians, where you see that He is the Son of the Father’s love, who created everything and was before everything. He personally controls you.

^[p. 76] Ques Would on say that the introduction of David would typify the introduction of the Spirit in contrast to the flesh?

JT It is the introduction of what is for God’s own heart. You may have an ideal, and I may too, but think of what God’s ideal is; a man after His heart!

Ques Does the subjective state of the people find its expression in the thought of the woman as suggested by the heifer?

JT We are coming to that. God is laying the basis of that in the heifer. As having the spirit we may understand what is to be done here. He says, “Fill thy horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite”. But first of all attention is called to Samuel. Great man as he was, he was still clinging to Saul; he was mourning for him. A man so distinguished as Samuel was, so spiritual, yet giving way to the natural-that is noted; and so God says, “How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?” Samuel has to be brought into line with what God was doing. And then God says, “Fill thy horn with oil”. It was Samuel’s horn. When anointing Saul, Samuel “took the vial of oil and poured it upon his head”. Here we see that Samuel had a horn.

SJBC Is there a difference between a horn and a vial? Saul is anointed out of a vial, David out of a horn, and Solomon out of a horn in the tabernacle of the congregation. I suppose the latter would be a universal thought?

JT Yes; here it is, “Take thy horn”.

Ques What is your thought about that?

JT I think it would allude to Samuel’s spirituality. The horn would no doubt be connected with death; it was “thy horn”. As our brother has remarked, the vial was different, it was of human manufacture. The horn was the growth of a beast,

^[p. 77] and possibly implied the death of the beast. For there could be no oil without that for any of us. Then the heifer, as we have remarked, would be the basis for a later development, which chapter 18 indicates. And what we may note is that Jonathan takes the lead in this. God specially mentions him. He was able to take the initiative even in Saul’s day, when Saul reigned, before David was introduced, Jonathan took the initiative, and a great victory followed. He is specially distinguished, I think, by the Spirit, as giving the lead to those who should afterwards love David.

SJBC That is very nice; would you open it up a bit? he gave a lead.

JT Well, it is a help to have someone to do this. It is God’s way in everything to give a lead. I suppose John gave a lead in the way of love for Christ in his day; and Paul in his day.

SJBC Jonathan’s love was personal, was it not? We read that Saul loved David greatly. That is remarkable. I suppose it was the love of selfishness. And then Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him, which would suggest the love of admiration. And all Jerusalem loved him; that is the love of gratitude because he went out and came in before them. But Jonathan’s love seemed to be personal — he loved David for David’s sake.

JT He loved David when he had ended speaking to Saul. His father had spoken to David in a supercilious way: “Whose son art thou, young man?” There was reproach in that, and David made no effort to cover it; he said, “I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite”. And when he had ended speaking to Saul, it says, “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”. It would appear that the grace and humility of David attracted him.

PL Would you say that would be a similar case to the incident recorded in Luke’s gospel, where the Lord addresses the supercilious man, Simon the Pharisee; Luke 7?

JT Yes; I think there is a very good connection there. The woman became a model lover. If the Lord finds a lover He sets him out as a model. He said to Simon, “Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house; thou gavest me not water on my feet, but she has washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with her hair. Thou gavest me not a kiss, but she from the time I came in has not ceased kissing my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint, but she has anointed my feet with myrrh” (Luke 7: 44 - 46). She is free before Him; He could call attention to her; and I believe that is what is so important in localities: the presence of someone who is a model. The Lord could appeal to that. It is the concrete thing before us. At Corinth it does not appear that there was anyone just like that; because the apostle has to speak about it in an abstract way; he does not speak of any person as expressing it there. But he speaks of what it is; lie is forced to do that.

Ques Is it on the line of surrender?

JT That is what comes out in Jonathan; he disrobes himself and gives his robe to David, and his dress, “even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle”. The Lord calls attention to the woman; how humbly, and in such self-sacrifice she expressed her love. It was expressed, too, in an adverse atmosphere; there was nothing to draw it out save Christ, nothing to enhance it. It was His Person that drew it out.

SJBC It was so in Jonathan. It was not the victory that drew out Jonathan’s heart to David; it was when he had finished speaking to Saul. There had been something in the very tone of his voice that drew out Jonathan’s love to him.

JT And then you see the women of Israel come ^[p. 79] out to meet them, and they said, “Saul hath smitten his thousands, and David his ten thousands”. You see how God’s thought is being developed in regard to David; He would have David, but He would have lovers of David, too. Well, that is the thing we ought to see all through, here. There is a mixed following at the outset. It is a transitional period. It was right that Saul should have some place, but the more you advance, the less Saul should be recognised.

Ques Would the bringing in of David suggest the presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel as one of affection?

JT Yes; I think the apostle Paul had that in his mind in all his preaching. He knew what was in the mind of God; he had knowledge of the mystery, and the saints were to understand this. He had the mind and the heart of God before him in his preaching. We have in Abigail the full development of this typically. But there is a good way to travel. We have to see now that love is progressing, first in Jonathan, then in the women, and then in all Israel. We see how Saul’s hatred is aroused, and the extraordinary course he pursued to harm David. He proposes two wives for him, as if he would forestall the divine thought: first Merab, and then Michal who had a certain love for him. But in all his thoughts Saul has only hatred for David.

Ques And does he not outwit himself? for Michal becomes in effect the saying of David.

JT She does; but nevertheless, as regards Saul, his object was to destroy David; and I think that it must allude to the public history of the church. The enemy saw that the thought of God was a bride for Christ. That came out in the mystery which was by revelation; and Paul had great combat for the Colossians that they might know the mystery; showing what opposition there was to it. And Satan, seeing that Paul’s ministry was blessed, and the church coming into being, devised, I believe, the Romish system and the Anglican system. The object of all this is to do harm to Christ.

Ques You spoke of Samuel giving the lead; would you suggest that, following on that line, we should be separated from the house of Saul?

JT Yes. I think that Jonathan, though he loved David, yet later on really furnished material for what we are speaking of; he was really identified with that which would damage David, which is a very serious thing. I may be a lover of Christ, and yet be identified with that which is damaging to Christ. There are thousands in systems which are calculated to damage Christ, and they are strengthening them.

Ques In what way would lovers of Christ move today?

JT Oh, we want to get back to the primary thought that we are to be identified with what is in the heart of God, namely, the mystery, the great thought of God; and that came in by revelation. That is the greatest thing in the dispensation. The epistles to Colossians and Ephesians are mainly occupied with it. Satan is ever against that. Every lover of Christ will give up everything that is damaging to Christ, however antiquated those things may be, for they were first of all intended to damage Christ.

Ques What would you say about the women and their song here?

JT They would suggest to one the authors of some of the hymns. There is a great deal of Christ in them, but also a great deal of man after the flesh. There must be a pruning of all that is according to Saul. To have spiritual songs, that which appertains to Saul must be eliminated.

Ques How do you account for lovers of Christ being in the systems and not knowing ^[p. 81] it?

JT There are a good many reasons. You see how, for instance, Jonathan was held by natural affections.

SJBC He was very slow to believe that Saul was as bad as he was; he spoke about sounding his father; chapter 20: 12. And I suppose some of us have sounded man in the flesh, to see if there was any good in him towards David.

JT Saul had already been well sounded; and Jonathan himself had said, “My father has troubled the land”, and yet he clung to him.

Rem Hannah had outlined all this in her song.

JT Yes; so that when you come to chapter 25 you have not a Merab nor a Michal, but a woman of a good understanding and of a beautiful countenance. And although related to Nabal by marriage, and a true wife as far as things went, she had a true judgment about him. That is where Jonathan missed it; he was related to Saul, but he did not judge Saul truly; whereas Abigail had true judgment about her husband Nabal, and his nature.

SJBC As regards Jonathan, I think perhaps he had thrown in his lot for a moment with David, until Saul cast a javelin at him. If we truly identify ourselves with David, we must expect to get what he got.

PL If David has left, let us go unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. Jonathan stood up beside his father and spoke good of David. It is not enough to stand up. One would sit down again, I suppose.

JT And then, finally, his attachment to David was marked by artillery, he shot three arrows on the side of the stone Ezel. He intended to love him at a distance, which is the case with many.

SJBC Jonathan returned to Saul’s table, and then he went to the city, and finally David went to the cave of Adullam.

^[p. 82] Rem With regard to chapter 25, the first verse states that Samuel died. What you said about Abigail followed on that.

JT I think it would signify that the prophetic ministry is followed by the assembly. The assembly typically takes up that position. Everything is found there; and what is called attention to is her appearance, and her understanding, because she answered to the mind of God. David was a man after God’s own heart, and she is a suitable companion, because she is of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance. And then also she has judgment about that to which she had been related; she also had a right judgment of Saul. There are thousands of Christians related to that which hates Christ, and yet they have no judgment about it.

← Previous Article 9 of 30 Next →