THE SERVICE OF GOD IN A REMNANT
[p. 402] THE SERVICE OF GOD IN A REMNANT
Judges 9: 7 - 13; 1 Samuel 23: 6 - 12; Leviticus 10: 12 - 15
JT It will be observed that in each of these scriptures, we have one person or persons spoken of whose relatives have just been slain. The whole family of Jotham’s father had just been slain ruthlessly; Abiathar’s father and family had just been slain similarly; and Nadab and Abihu, the priestly sons of Aaron, had been slain by Jehovah. There is that link between these scriptures; and then there is the teaching in Leviticus 10: 12 - 15 leading up to priesthood, so as to ensure that those who have part in the service of God should function according to what He may have designed for them. Jotham’s remarks have that in mind, that we are to function according to what God has intended for us; and in functioning, to be conscious that we are according to what God intended us to be, refusing to be influenced otherwise. Then, in the case of Abiathar, we have an allusion to priesthood as governed by the directions intended for it, the ephod being the priestly garment that denotes what is required by God in His priests. Then, finally, in the priests that were left — for it is a remnant in each case — the food that sustains them in freedom from what is natural. Those are the thoughts I had, and the Lord may use them to help us.
LDM Is your thought that there is a remnant in keeping with the present day?
JT Yes. In Jotham’s case, the family of his father had been ruthlessly slain, and so with Abiathar; but with Jotham we see superiority to the circumstances, that he is not under the power of them. He is on the top of mount Gerizim, that is in victory. He is not occupied with the calamity, nor with the fact that he was the only one left; he makes no allusion to that, but to what should continue for the service of God [p. 403] and man.
FJF Is your thought that things should go on just as though there had been no failure?
JT Yes. Whilst feeling things, we are occupied with what is to continue, according to divine appointment; that is not to be interfered with. There is no disaster from God’s side, there is that which continues according to His appointment. The olive tree, the fig tree, and the vine think only of functioning, and refuse to be influenced otherwise.
DLH So that in priestly power we are to rise above what is natural and what would naturally affect us.
JT That is what stamps the three passages. The Lord Himself alludes to this passage in Samuel, and calls Abiathar the “high priest”; “in the section of Abiathar the high priest”, Mark 2:26. We should view the section from that standpoint; and so the suggestion is, that in such apparently calamitous circumstances there is to be no diminution of priestly intelligence and order.
PL We get it in the scripture: “Ye are sons of Jehovah your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for a dead person. For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God”, Deuteronomy 14: 1, 2.
JT That is another passage that corresponds. “Abiathar the high priest”, the Lord calls him, and our attention is therefore directed to priesthood of the highest order. He is alluded to here as having brought the ephod with him; 1 Samuel 23: 6.
Ques Would not the history of Abimelech show that what is not by divine appointment cannot last long? I was thinking of it in contrast to the fruitfulness of the olive, and the fig, and the vine. A history like Abimelech’s might cause much in the way of tears amongst the saints, but faith would be comforted that it can only last a short time.
JT That is what the passage would teach. Alluding to him in verse 14 it is said, “Then said all the trees [p. 404] to the thorn-bush, Come thou, reign over us. And the thorn-bush said to the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, come, put confidence in my shadow; but if not, fire shall come out of the thorn-bush and devour the cedars of Lebanon”. Abimelech’s conduct brought him quickly to an end. There was no substance there; no honour for God — a little for himself, perhaps, in his own way of thinking, but none for God and none for men.
Ques What would the trees represent in our day?
JT The olive represents the believer honouring God instead of having himself before him — honouring God and man. You think of God and of your brethren in your service, instead of thinking of yourself.
NKM Is that true fatness according to God? It says, “Should I leave my fatness?”
JT “Then Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked”, Deuteronomy 32:15 — he became rebellious, but the olive retains its place, and refuses to be influenced otherwise. Although prospering, the believer is thinking of God, and men — for you do not ignore the brethren; they are in view.
FWK Is that why Jotham stands on mount Gerizim, and not on mount Ebal?
JT Yes, it is the mount of blessing. The position denotes superiority to the circumstances, that he is occupied not with himself, or like Elijah, saying, “I am left, I alone” 1 Kings 19:10. That was a poor thing, he was in the wilderness on the way to Horeb, a man giving up his service. Jotham has no thought like that! The service of God is to go on as heretofore.
PL So that the one who says, “I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God”, immediately says “I will praise thee for ever”, and then, “I will wait on thy name, before thy godly ones, for it is good”, Psalm 52:8, 9. Is that honouring God and man?
JT That is very good. There are those who may say that they are thinking only of God, but we must think of the brethren also in our service, for we are [p. 405] their servants too. It is much easier to say that I am a servant of God, than to say I am a servant of the brethren.
LDM It is not only a question as to functioning, but whether we are functioning according to God.
JT According to God’s design or intention. Jotham’s remarks would show that no calamity interferes with that, but that God’s service goes on.
ELM Would you see the same thing with Paul in Romans 11? There was breakdown, the people cast away, but the root and the fatness of the olive tree were there, which he would draw upon?
JT You mean it was carried on by the Gentiles? In any little service that is going on today, that is the public testimony; we are partaking of the root and the fatness of the olive tree. That is, God’s service goes on. He has appointed that the gentiles should come in, and we are not assuming anything, but are carrying on on those lines in a public way, hoping that there is some fruit.
ELM I wondered whether the breakdown in the two sons of Aaron would be the result of their not feeding on that food.
JT We shall come to that, but what a food indeed, to sustain us in the priesthood! We are to continue, according to Romans 11, to stand by faith, to continue in God’s goodness on that principle. Jotham represents the superiority of those who might be overwhelmed with calamity. He is “on the top of mount Gerizim”, and, whilst he points out the end of Abimelech, he is occupied with what is for God in blessing, which is the mark of our dispensation. Things are to go on, as the Lord said; He told His disciples He would meet them in Galilee, and He came up to them, it says, “but some doubted”. Then He says, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”, Matthew 28:18. He is not hindered by the unbelief of some, but just goes on, and enjoins them to baptise and make disciples of [p. 406] all the nations — a very positive thing. Jotham’s position and remarks show that there is no cessation of the service of God; God is to be honoured and cheered, and man is to be honoured and cheered.
Rem There is not much for God in simply waving over the trees.
JT Nothing at all. It is just the ambition of the flesh to rule, as we see it around today in christendom. Man really would wave over the trees, but there is nothing for God in that. The passage would teach us that, and preserve us from any thought of ruling amongst the brethren.
NKM Would there be feelings according to God in what Jotham says, and in the way he says it? It says, “he ... lifted up his voice, and cried”: would that indicate right feelings? Then, does he speak with authority? “Hearken to me, ye citizens of Shechem, that God may hearken to you”. Would that enter into his service?
JT He really inherits his father’s spirit. His father had experienced his brethren being slain; Judges 8:19. These are things that we ought to take note of — the enemy’s power in slaying, whether it be one’s brethren or one’s sons. Gideon’s brethren were slain, and now Jotham’s brethren are slain; that is, we have to accept that sort of thing, but still we must go on, and go on in what is positive. That is, God has His means of going on, and that is what He asserts.
JOS Would 1 Corinthians 4 bear on this subject? Paul speaks to the Corinthians of their reigning as kings without us, and then he speaks of the extreme sufferings that he endured, and then how things were carried on: “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power”, 1 Corinthians 4:20.
JT The apostle has no thought of giving up, nor has he the slightest intention of copying what they were doing; they were reigning as kings. He said, “I would that ye reigned” 1 Corinthians 4:8, but in the true sense, which [p. 407] would be a millennial thought in the kingdom. He says, “God has set us the apostles for the last, as appointed to death ... . To the present hour we both hunger and thirst”, 1 Corinthians 4: 8,11. But then, see the fruitfulness there was for God and for man! The apostles themselves are the best evidence you can get of that principle of honouring God and man. You see the spiritual fatness of the apostle in his second letter to the Corinthians, and all to the end that God might be honoured; and yet that man also might be honoured, for they were not ready to honour the poor man that had sinned. The time had come to honour him, for after all, a leper is to be restored and beautified and dignified, according to the type of the cleansing of leprosy, in Leviticus 14. The Corinthians were not ready for that, but Paul was — that the man should be restored; 2 Corinthians 2:7.
Ques Is it significant that, when supremacy over the trees is in view, Jotham twice puts God first: “God and man”?
JT That is a word for us at this present time. Our brethren have been slain, and we may expect that, but the service of God must go on. We may say, Where is the means for it? Where are those to carry on? But Jotham has no question about that at all. It is going on, and it goes on on this principle that each retains the place that God assigns to him and fits him for. God has thought out everything, and made preparation for every contingency right to the end, and it works out in each functioning according to the divine thought of him. If each functions according to what God intends him to do, the service of God will go on.
FJF So would the scripture in James come in there, that man should reflect God and be His image: “made after the likeness of God”, James 3:9? Is it so that if each one is drawing from the fatness of the olive, there will be something of God seen about him?
JT That is right, and the woman’s place also in [p. 408] 1 Corinthians is made very plain. The order of God is plainly marked out for us: “But I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God”, 1 Corinthians 11:3. All are to function, each in his place according to divine appointment.
DLH There is a scripture that has struck me very forcibly of late in 1 Corinthians 12, that every member of the body is necessary. Each one is necessary and should function according to the place in which we are set in the body, whatever it is — sisters as well as brothers; 1 Corinthians 12:18.
JT So that you have the organism maintained in that way in the priest; and, as regards gift, it is said, “God has set certain in the assembly” (1 Corinthians 12:28), not in the body. The organism goes on in each one functioning in his place in the organism; but the gifts are set in the assembly, that is, they are the same persons, but the saints viewed as an assembly.
DLH What I have noticed in one’s own local meeting is, that a good many of the dear saints of God come and take their place in the meeting rather as expecting that other people will do something, than that they should function themselves; whereas I suppose each one ought to bring his or her spiritual quota to the meeting, which would certainly be filled up by those who were spiritual. Do you go with that?
JT I do, indeed . You find in regard to gifts, that many complain they do not get visits from those who are gifted, and overlook that the principle is, “what hast thou in the house?” 2 Kings 4:2 What are you doing with what you have? Then, another thing — indeed, it comes out here in Abimelech, he bases his claim to leadership on his relations with the citizens of Shechem. That is, he is making gift, as we may say, a sectional matter, and a matter of natural family links, whereas God sets the gifts “in the assembly” — never in a locality, never in a country, always in the assembly. It is a matter to [p. 409] be noted, because we are apt to think more of persons who are gifted because they are in our locality, than we do of those who are not, but to be truly assembly men and women we should regard them as in the assembly, wherever they may be geographically. That is where Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem failed. Jotham is concerned about the fact — at least, in his remarks it is implied — that there is the olive tree, and the fig tree, and the vine, God’s creatures intended for a certain specific purpose, and each of them says, I am not going to be influenced away from that.
JHT It is said of Jotham that he was the youngest son of Gideon: would that correspond with the little power in Philadelphia in which things are continued? Then the reward to the overcomer as having honoured God is, “I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven, from my God, and my new name”, Revelation 3:12?
JT That is confirmed by the allusion to “little Benjamin”, and he who is their ruler without aspiring to it.
PL So “If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place” (Ecclesiastes 10:4) — is that what these trees do?
JT Each retained his place, which was a profitable one. That is the point to notice, that each is functioning profitably, first for God, and then for men.
LM Does not Malachi raise this question in a broken day? “If then I be a father, where is mine honour?” (Malachi 1:6); and then, “Will a man rob God?” (Malachi 3:8), and then God shows how He would “spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him”, Malachi 3:17. Would the prophetic word encourage us to go on in the service in a broken day?
JT Quite so.
PL So that in the presence of brethren who are morally slain, as in the division under Jeroboam, you get the answer of Abijah, “But as for us, Jehovah is our God, and we have not forsaken him; and the priests that serve Jehovah are the sons of Aaron, and the Levites are at their work” (2 Chronicles 13:10), and then at the end, “we have God with us at our head, and his priests, and the loud-sounding trumpets to sound an alarm”, 2 Chronicles 13:12.
JT You see it carried forward in Josiah’s day in a striking way. It says that the king stood in his place, and the priests were in their place, and the Levites and the singers. These are suggestions, if we carry them out and observe them, that the service of God will go on whoever may be removed or fail.
Ques Is it significant that in verse 21 it says that “Jotham ran away, and fled, and went to Beer, and dwelt there”? Is it not the faithfulness of God that will sustain us all in times of difficulty? The thought of the well comes in early in the Scriptures, and at Beersheba you learn the faithfulness of God.
JT You learn it at Beersheba, but Beer is just the well, the refreshment that you stand by and which will keep you fresh.
Now Abiathar, being a remnant of the priests, bringing the ephod is very remarkable, that the priesthood is to go on according to God, and not to be reduced in its quality, but maintained at the height of Exodus 28. David had been exercising the priesthood without the ephod, and God heard him, too, before Abiathar came. In fact, the Lord Jesus says of him that he went into the house of God. He actually did that under terrible pressure — the murderous enmity of Saul. He went into the house of God, and obtained the shewbread, the food for the priests; showing that in his need, as the Lord says, in his hunger he went into the house of God. Our need often sends us into the house, and it is well that it does. He got what he needed, but now he prays to Jehovah, and God answers him, but then he prays by the ephod as soon as it comes to him.
[p. 411] That is to say, we are reminded of what is suitable to God; we have recourse to that.
EJMcB Is your thought that we are not only to be profitable, but we are to have the liberty of priestly access to God with us in this ephod, in spite of eighty-five persons being killed?
JT That is the thing to note. He brought that with him in his calamity; and that is what the Lord Jesus had in mind in alluding to this. It was in “the section of Abiathar the high priest” Mark 2:26, doubtless alluding to the priestly service in bringing the ephod, in spite of the calamity, that the service of God must go on on the highest level that God intended for it, according to Exodus 28. You get more about the ephod in 1 and 2 Samuel than anywhere else outside of Exodus, and it is just to show us that in times of public disorder, the service of God must and will go on — and the saints come to it.
FJF Would the presence of the ephod suggest that God would come in and answer petitions?
JT He answered the petitions before. That is, God will answer the petition of a christian, however uninstructed he may be, if it is a petition of need. But then, you come again and again, and God says, Well, there is something suitable to Me in all these questionings. I am ready to answer your need, but I want you to understand that I have My order in My house, and it is to your profit that you should know that and keep to it. I believe that is what the ephod means.
Ques What did you mean when you said that the people of God come to it?
JT David came to it, and throughout his history he does not lose sight of the ephod. No doubt many of our brethren today get answers from God, but they have no thought of what is suitable to God in the way they approach Him and speak to Him. He answers them, no doubt, but at any time He may raise the question as to order, and what is becoming [p. 412] to Him.
NKM Would the ephod have in mind God’s requirements rather than ours?
JT It is a question of God’s requirements. I have two things in mind; there are my needs which God respects, but then there is what God requires; this is what the ephod suggests.
DLH David put it on on a very remarkable occasion when he conducted the ark to its rest.
JT That is very suggestive, because it was a linen one then, showing that, although he had everything under his hand and could do as he wished, he was marked by sobriety.
LDM He speaks of the way it was done at the first, as not after the due order.
JT The linen would mean that he had been irregular.
LDM Is that borne out in Philippians 3, where the apostle says, “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh”, Philippians 3:3?
JT Yes. I think the ephod means priesthood par excellence. There were other priestly garments, but more attached to the ephod than to the others. The onyx stones on the shoulders of the priest, and the breastplate, and the other things were attached to the ephod of the high priest — of Christ Himself. The garment denotes what is priestly, what God requires in His people as they draw near to Him, and no one can disregard this with impunity. We may get answers, but in due time God will raise this question with us.
Ques What would you say as to the different character of the exercises that turn David to God on those two occasions?
JT The second is the treachery of the citizens of Keilah, persons you have served. That is another matter you have to face. We may serve people, and they may turn against us. The citizens of Keilah would deliver [p. 413] him up.
DLH We have said a good deal about the olive tree, is anything to be said as to the fig tree and the vine?
JT There is a good deal, of course. The fig is sweetness. It comes in between the olive and the vine, and there is a good deal in Scripture about that. The vine is the cheer that God has in His people, and that the saints have too in any one that answers to the vine. What a great thing it is in our day, when everything is so dark outwardly, and broken, that there is some little bit of cheer for God. Of old it was said that He was refreshed. He has cheer in His people, and men have that too.
Ques Why is God not mentioned in relation to the fig tree?
JT It is a general thought that would enter into all that you have in the way of refreshment. “The bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother”, Philemon 7. “For he has often refreshed me”, 2 Timothy 1:16. And so the drink offerings of God were to be offered in their place.
JHT Does Peter refresh the Lord’s heart in the presence of one who would deliver Him up in John 6, when he says to Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that thou art the holy one of God”, John 6:68?
JT I am sure he does. It is remarkable that the idea of the drink offering comes in with Jacob. It is in connection with recovered persons. We do not read of it in Genesis 28, but we do in chapter 35:14.
NKM What have you in mind in the last scripture we read?
JT It was just to call attention to the food that supports the priesthood, in circumstances that might overcome them, bearing in mind that it is still a remnant. It says, “And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the oblation that is left of Jehovah’s offerings by fire, and eat it with unleavened bread beside the altar; for it is most holy”, Leviticus 10:12. The oblation is a question of Christ’s humanity, and they were to eat it beside the altar as most holy. To sustain the priesthood, we have to keep to that food above all other, for it is a question of that kind of Man. The Lord Himself never was overcome by natural influences. Then it says, “And ye shall eat, it in a holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of Jehovah’s offerings by fire; for so I am commanded. And the breast of the wave-offering, and the shoulder of the heave-offering shall ye eat in a clean place”, verses 13,14. That is a wider thought. The holy humanity of Christ is the food sustaining us inside, but there is that which is to be eaten in a clean place, which would be wider. And then, it is “thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee”. That is the saints viewed as a household, as a family, sons and daughters; we are maintained in the fellowship by this food.
Ques What does “beside the altar” suggest?
JT It is a reminder of the lengths to which Christ went. He went into death and suffered. He is seen sacrificially from the outset, as for instance in John’s gospel: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, John 1:29. That means that He is there sacrificially; He came in in that way to die.
FJF Was it their due because of God’s thought concerning them, and they were entitled to it? They do not give up the divine thought.
JT It is put in that way; it is their due.
JHT Do the four gospels suggest this kind of food for the saints?
JT They do. The humanity of Christ is seen in each, and John specially stresses the sacrificial side. He has a way of introducing things informally, so that he presents Christ in service before John the baptist was cast into prison. That was the time of Jesus taking up His service, but the apostle John speaks of Him in service [p. 415] before that.
FWW Would all this be suggestive of the way in which we should meet crises in our assemblies, when they come along?
JT I think so, to keep the balance. We are so easily influenced by things that happen, and it is an important matter to have the right food, so as to be balanced and to stand immune from all natural influences, whatever they may be.
FWW You mentioned at the outset that death had come in in regard of each case; there had been a definite attack of the enemy. Would all this help us as to the way in which we are to meet such a position?
JT Quite so; these efforts of the enemy are apt to affect us unduly. If we review the state of things in christendom today it has that tendency. The drift of apostasy is so great that it is calculated to stagger us, but these scriptures ought to teach us that the service of God goes on, whatever happens.
FWW I suppose that outwardly the cross was a great disaster according to men, but God’s work went on.
JT You can see that in the two going to Emmaus. It was disaster to them, but they soon became occupied in the service of God; returning to Jerusalem, they “found the eleven, and those with them” Luke 24:33. They were gathered together, the service going on.
RDS “If I will that he abide until I come” (John 21:22) — would that apply?
JT Quite so; the Lord will have some one. John represents the continuation of the testimony.
ELM Putting the three scriptures together, would we find power in them to carry on the service? There is the refusal, suggested in the trees, to exaltation, which the Corinthians fell under the power of; and then, in the second, bringing in the ephod; and the third being nourished by the proper priestly food. Would those things enable us to carry on?
JT That is the point, that the service is to go [p. 416] on. There is no other thought in the mind of God. What these scriptures present guarantees the continuance of the service, and ought to be a great encouragement to us all, especially to young believers. You will notice that the priest’s daughters are brought in. You cannot have an assembly, according to 1 Corinthians, without sisters.
LDM You get the breast and the shoulder in connection with the clean place: does that suggest how things are carried sympathetically and feelingly in households?
JT It is a question of love and strength.
LDM The testimony is supported by households.
JT That is how the truth stands in connection with Paul’s service. One has often said it, and others, but I do not know if it is taken in much, that the sisters are not doing much; matters are too much left to the brothers. “I sent before thee”, God says, “Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” Micah 6:4.
DLH Does that not correspond with the words that every member of the body is necessary?
JT Yes, whether brothers or sisters. Miriam represents a secret formation in view of the time when she would be needed. Undoubtedly it was she who did the service for her mother when Moses was in the ark, of bulrushes. She served then, but her name is not given in Scripture, as far as we can see, until she was over ninety years of age, meaning that she had a long secret history, and I believe God would remind the sisters of this, so that they may be equal to their calling. They are essential to the public testimony, as 1 Timothy shows; and the elder women are to teach and be examples to the younger ones.
Rem In regard to Micah 6, from which you are quoting, it was a question of the controversy the Lord had with His people as to His own strength and righteousness.
JOS Does not Paul emphasise what you are saying [p. 417] in 1 Corinthians 11, when he says, “However, neither is woman without man, nor man without woman, in the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 1:11? He would give each a particular place in the public testimony?
JT Then he shows in chapter 7:35 how a sister is to wait on the Lord “without distraction”. How many of our sisters think of that? How can sisters serve the saints like Miriam, save as waiting on Him and formed accordingly?
Rem Psalm 68: 11 says, “The Lord gives the word: great the host of the publishers”, and J.N.D. has a footnote, “i.e., women publishing victory, like Miriam: the word is feminine”.
JT That is good, indicating how sisters may serve.
LDM Phoebe, a “helper of many” (Romans 16:2), would be a good example.
JT Just so. That chapter is very apropos of what we are saying, for sisters have a prominent place in it. The first two mentioned are sisters, Phoebe and Priscilla, and there are many others.