THE SIGNS OF THE COVENANT
[p. 125] THE SIGNS OF THE COVENANT
Genesis 9: 8 - 17; Genesis 17: 7 - 14; Genesis 21: 28 - 32; Genesis 31: 44 - 53
JT The first two scriptures we read refer to covenant relations on the part of God; and the last two on the part of men. The idea of covenant relations between God and His creation and with His people is a subject that runs through Scripture; and I thought the signs attaching to this in Genesis would occasion inquiry that may be helpful. And then covenant relations between men and men and between brethren is also a theme in the Scriptures; so I thought these two instances in Genesis would also help in that relation.
AFM How do you understand the term ‘covenant’?
JT Well, on God’s part, as in Genesis, it is One entering into an engagement, having blessing in mind.
JS An engagement on God’s part?
JT Yes, involving His faithfulness; and with regard to the new covenant, involving His love. It is entirely dependent upon Himself, and so the covenant in Genesis 9 is perhaps the widest we have. It is a great public matter, the sign being visible in the creation during all these centuries.
CAM Why is the covenant accompanied by a sign?
JT I think it shows God’s consideration for us, to keep the thing before us that we should know we are under that covenant. It should increase in value to us. It wears well. We find an allusion to it in Revelation 4: 3, where it speaks of the appearance of the rainbow like unto an emerald. That would indicate that it wears well, retaining its freshness.
CAM Being preserved in heaven after all [p. 126] the history?
JT That is the idea in Revelation 4. It is what God has there that John saw as he was caught up into heaven.
CAM Would it refer to life, being like an emerald?
JT I thought that. I suppose green would mean that it has not grown old or faded or lost its value.
JS Would it, as seen in heaven around the throne, be a testimony to the faithfulness of God in government?
JT Just so. John, the prophet, saw an order of things in heaven by which God will fulfil His engagement; that He is the covenant-God of the creation. Creation itself is to be delivered; because the covenant was not only with Noah and his sons, but with the earth.
JS Is that why the throne comes into view at that juncture?
JT I think so; also all that goes with it. There is also a collateral idea in the elders in connection with the throne, God carrying down from the earliest days the idea of His relations with men themselves; now He is about to fulfil His engagement.
CAM Would you say that whatever God had in history, whatever He set forth, would be preserved in heaven?
JT Yes; what is in heaven from the created things, intimates that God has preserved the thing.
JS And this sign, the rainbow, has been witnessed by men right down through the ages.
JT Yes; everywhere, in every clime, it has been a universal witness.
AFM The testimony of the rainbow around the throne would have reference to the world to come; that that blessing will be fulfilled; life is to be behind everything on earth, vegetation, and everything. Is that your thought?
JT Yes, death will be annulled for [p. 127] the moment.
ARS Every time the rainbow appears, it is really God speaking to men, reminding them of this covenant; but they do not regard that apparently.
JT It is not a cloud, not what might portend evil, but a bow. There it is; you see it.
ARS I notice God makes a covenant not only with men but with the beasts as well. His whole creation, every creature, came in.
JT That is what I was saying; the whole creation is to be delivered from the bondage of corruption. This is a very important matter, because we, ourselves, have the firstfruits of the Spirit, but we anticipate the deliverance of the creation. The gospel, according to Mark, is to be preached unto all the creation. I think that links on with the thought of the covenant in Genesis 9.
FHL With men a covenant means an undertaking between two parties, but the divine thought is a little different: it is what God undertakes.
JT God proposed the thing. This covenant was certainly not proposed by Noah. Genesis always presents the great initial thought of things, God acting of Himself, and, here, in relation to creation; so that, on the basis of Noah’s altar and what he offered upon it the relations of God with the creation henceforth are enhanced, because it is not merely in creatorial relations, but in deep redemptive relations. He smelled a sweet odour and on account of that He would not again cause a flood to come upon the earth, or curse the creation.
GMacP The covenant, as established for creatures, is redemptive?
JT On the basis of the altar, the offering of Noah.
JS The covenant begins with Noah and with all those who went out of the ark; I suppose with creation.
JT That is what it is. It is man and beast and the earth; the whole creation is affected. It is a great matter. If we are with God, we cannot help but [p. 128] feel the groans, and this bow is to remind us of coming deliverance.
Ques You were referring to the matter of the cloud signifying trouble. It says in Psalm 77: “The thick clouds poured out water; the skies sent out a sound, yea, thine arrows went abroad” (verse 17). Would that indicate that the idea of trouble lies behind the thought of the cloud?
JT Yes; therefore the bow is all the more encouraging to man.
Ques The covenant would be unconditional here?
JT Yes; it is God engaging Himself and furnishing the sign that He will carry out His obligation; and so the bow appearing in Revelation 4 is, of course, the confirmation that God is coming in to fulfil His engagement.
RWS This covenant is with the fowl, the cattle, the beasts, and all that came out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Is there any force in the fact that this covenant does not include the fish of the sea?
JT Well, the deluge did not affect the fish of the sea but only what breathed. I suppose the fish of the sea would be the element of the work of God that is underneath, going right through in all weathers. It is an abstract idea of the work of God.
Ques Might it have reference to the thought of heaven coming in, in contrast to the ordered sphere in which Noah had principal control?
JT The fish of the sea are indeterminable to man; no census can be made of them. But the Lord knew about them; He could command the fish.
CAM I suppose the signs God gives us correspond with the things He is giving. The impressive nature of the signs themselves shows how immense is this covenant. Only God could give such a suitable sign.
JT Yes, you have seen rainbows on the ocean sometimes. The bow makes a complete semi-circle, a [p. 129] very fine sight! It is like God Himself, like the creation itself. It is correlative with the creation.
JS Does not the value of it lie as coming in subsequent to judgment?
JT I think so.
AR It is when God brings clouds over the earth that the bow is seen; so that in Revelation 4, the bow is seen around the throne, as if to show that God was remembering His covenant in the midst of judgment. I thought Revelation 4 would suggest God taking up again His relations with the earth; and, of course, judgment must precede His setting up of the kingdom; but it is suggested there that you have the idea of God being true to His word.
JT He is bringing thick clouds now; they are already visible, you might say. Terrible things are coming in; but, to faith, this bow is the guarantee that God is behind all that.
JEH “On account of the elect those days shall be cut short”, Matthew 24: 22.
JS The moment the church is taken out of the world, the whole heavens will become overcast; impending judgment is imminent.
JT When the Lord upbraided the scribes for being able to read the face of the sky, He did not allude to the rainbow; but the faithful, the remnant, would understand. “On account of the elect those days shall be cut short”; that is, God is behind the scenes, and the bow is visible on the face of the cloud; hence, faith is sustained by the thought of God. This is a very great matter with the saints today because we are in the presence of such extraordinary exigencies arising in national, social, and economic affairs; and it is well for the saints to be intelligent as to this great thought of God for His creation, how He is behind everything.
CAM We can commit ourselves to God as the faithful Creator. I was wondering whether the rainbow [p. 130] in Revelation 4 would be of special interest to the living creatures. I suppose you would say that they would be sympathetic with what was going to follow.
JT I think they would; that is the idea, life in the creation. The element of life is sympathetic with all that; and so, also, the element of experience in the twenty-four elders. That is the point for us today: to come into accord with the elders and the living creatures, indeed, into accord with the whole scene.
CAM Do you not think that the idea of the covenant and the rainbow, being unconditional on God’s part towards man, would be emphasised in a very peculiar way? The attitude of man would be so terrible and so opposed to God in every way, but God remains true to His covenant in spite of what men are and will be in the coming day.
JT John is caught up into heaven and saw it up there, which is very comforting; and it is for us to understand that whatever clouds we may see, the bow is there.
WC Is not the sun shining somewhere, when the bow is seen?
JT I suppose that is the idea, something like a prism, the rays of the sun form it. The sun is always shining; even if there are clouds, the sun is always behind.
WC I was thinking that the bow could not be seen were the sun not shining.
Ques Would you say being “in the Spirit” (Revelation 4) is like being behind the clouds, in a sense, with God, having an inside view of things?
JT So the light involved in the bow is from the Father of lights; all light comes from that direction.
JTJr The elders are sitting in white. Would this answer to the position of the saints today?
JT Well, you are restful in the knowledge of what is there. The means that God has of carrying [p. 131] out His thoughts and effecting His will makes us restful; but then they cast their crowns before the throne. They are very reverential and worshipful. All that involves what we are going on with now. All those interested by the Spirit, are brought into the secret of all that.
Ques How far back would the idea of the twenty-four elders go?
JT I think back to Abel.
AR This covenant was made with Noah and his sons. He spoke to them as if they were with Him in that. Would not the elders represent that, that they are with God in it?
JT Just so; the twenty-four elders and the living creatures denote the result of the testimony in men. The elders have experience with God, and the four living creatures would be the testimony that God has life in creation. They were reverential and worshipful. That is what God is doing now; He is forming the elders and the living creatures.
There would be enough in these scriptures for three or four days’ meetings, but it is just to get a cursory view here. We shall have to go on to Abraham, where the believer has the sign in himself. The covenant is carried down to a person.
JS Is that how we would couple the two covenants together?
JT Yes, I thought so. Now God is dealing with one man; and, in a way, any of us might say, God is dealing with me. It is a covenant between “me and thee”; so there is a sign in yourself; you do not have to go far. “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh”. That is the idea; it is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer that is a sign. God has entered into a covenant with him.
JS Would this be in keeping with Genesis, “The end of all flesh is come before me” (chapter 6: [p. 132] 13)?
JT Exactly; and the sign is in the believer. The Holy Spirit enables him to terminate the activity of the flesh in himself. That is a very important sign because it looks on to the day, of which we have already spoken, when all flesh will be brought down.
AFM It is elective in that way; whereas, the first sign was universal. The second sign is personal and to a limited number.
JT That is how it stands. The bow is for the whole creation; circumcision, for the person that has it.
ANW Has it a negative rather than a positive bearing?
JT I think so. Romans 8 is the power to put to death.
ANW Worshipping by the Spirit of God would be positive.
JT I think the general thought is that we are to control the flesh; you have the power to control it. What legislators have been unable to do in all ages, the believer has the power to do.
JS “Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth”, Colossians 3: 5.
JT That is right, putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ. The death of Christ gives you the power to do it.
WB-w Philippians 3: 10 says, “To know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death”. Is that the idea, that we might be able to walk before God in perfection?
JT That is the thought. He is giving this to Abraham on the principle of covenant and intimating that it is to be held on this principle; that is, what we are coming into is to be held on this principle, the disallowance of the flesh.
Ques Is Romans 7 entirely individual, like this [p. 133] covenant?
JT Quite so; it is a covenant matter, one going through the experience by which he arrives, through analysis, of what he is inwardly, disallowing the flesh and maintaining the good. That is the principle, and the Holy Spirit enables you to do it. You cannot do that without circumcision, that is, aside from the Spirit, which enables the believer to maintain what is effected in the death of Christ.
Rem Romans 7 is the struggle, and Romans 8 is the enjoyment.
JT Yes, the victory, the power to overcome.
AFM Where does Gilgal come in? Many important things were brought about there.
JT That is the putting off, the rolling away of the reproach of Egypt. They were circumcised a second time. It is the application of death. The principle is there, but the Spirit recognises and implies that it is confirmed; so that there is a rolling away. The sharpness of the knife means that the thing is thoroughly done. It is not concision, but circumcision. That shows the thing is thoroughly done.
CAM The difference of the signs is very impressive. We had nothing to do with that marvellous rainbow, but this thing has severity in it. There is intensiveness; it is an individual thing. You feel how perfectly God makes the sign according to the end He has in His mind.
TH It is a sign of righteousness to Abraham. How do you account for righteousness?
JT It is the seal of righteousness there, which he had on the principle of faith. The point is that he had righteousness on the principle of faith, and the seal was to confirm it to him, which would be this circumcision.
ANW Would you say how it stands in relation to baptism?
JT Well, there is a very close relation with circumcision, involving the Spirit. There is no way [p. 134] by which I can control the flesh and hold it in the place where the judgment of God has put it, save by the Spirit.
Ques Does baptism involve the thought of leaving the world, whereas circumcision has to do with ourselves in the flesh?
JT Yes, the first scriptures in Genesis 7 and 8 involve baptism; and circumcision is in Genesis 17. The covenant is the ground on which the inheritance is to be held. The inheritance promised is to be held in relation to the judgment of the flesh. God is not giving the inheritance to Ishmael, a man after the flesh; He is giving it to the child of promise, to those who are heirs according to promise: but then that is objective. Circumcision is the subjective answer, that I am disallowing the flesh daily.
AR Does not circumcision come in in the light of Isaac’s being promised; that is, Christ coming into view, the heavenly Man? If I am a christian, I make myself a sharp knife.
JT Quite; the chapter is very instructive in that Abram carries it out immediately. God had come down to speak to him about it, and then breaks off the conversation and goes up. Abram applied it at once; there is no delay; and then God comes again and resumes the conversation; so that God honours us in that way, as we maintain this sign. You look at a brother and say, That man has the sign that he is walking in the Spirit; he is not walking after the flesh. You do not have to put a sign on him to show he is not buried, as in Ezekiel 39: 15, “And the passers-by shall pass through the land, and when any seeth a man’s bone, he shall set up a sign by it”. He has a sign that ennobles him; he is an heir according to promise.
JEH What about the monks in monasteries? What are they [p. 135] doing?
JT That is not controlling the flesh. You do not need to go into a monastery for that; the Spirit of God enables you to control the flesh. “Since then ye should go out of the world”, 1 Corinthians 5: 10. They assume to go out of the world, but circumcision does not involve that; it implies that you are here where evil is and that you stand against it; you disallow it in yourself; and that is by the power of the Spirit.
CAM The epistle to the Colossians refers to that monastic situation; whereas this is the genuine thing.
JT That is right. Monastic orders are condemned absolutely in chapter a, the very chapter in which it is said that it is the circumcision of Christ, “in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ” (verse ii). The putting off of the flesh in its totality is done by the Spirit.
WB-w The Philistines are called uncircumcised Philistines.
JT Constantly.
AFM I suppose the monastic orders would be connected with the expression ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch’. That is putting oneself under the bondage of the flesh.
JT It is the gratification of the flesh, really, in these orders; it is the flesh in another form, the flesh fed in another form; whereas christianity is great enough to enable the believer to face the evil as it is and overcome it. He overcomes it in himself by the power of the Spirit.
Ques This was illustrated in what David called Goliath. The sign about Goliath was that he was not circumcised. David called him an uncircumcised Philistine because he defied the armies of the living God. Would he be a type of flesh in activity?
JT He is a full expression of it. David was nothing but a stripling, and Goliath looked upon him with the utmost disdain, but David was in the power of the Spirit typically.
WB-[p. 136] w David used a stone.
JT I think the idea of the five smooth stones that he used would emphasise the action of the brook or valley. The action of the word on a soul makes it living and operative.
Rem The idea of sanctification, too, would come in. It is not a promiscuous use of the Scriptures.
JT No, it is five smooth stones.
Rem I was thinking of Paul at Corinth: “And my word and my preaching, not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith might not stand in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power”, 1 Corinthians 2: 4, 5. He had to do with an uncircumcised state there.
JT He was distinctly a circumcised man, moving in the power of the Spirit of God.
WB-w Among the Philistines?
JT He said so, “For I think that God has set us the apostles for the last, as appointed to death”,
1 Corinthians 4: 9. God set him in that relation-”appointed to death”.
CAM That is a remarkable allusion to a practical matter among us. If a brother evidences the sign, I suppose it would give you confidence in him. He would bear some feature of this thing.
JT I think that is the point in the sign. A sign is something that can be seen.
RAL What are the brands of the Lord Jesus?
JT That is in Galatians. The judaisers were insisting on literal circumcision, but the apostle Paul’s body was covered over with marks and scars indicating what he suffered for the Lord Jesus. The Lord says, “For I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name”, Acts 9: 16. If you looked at that body, you would see the marks. He said, “From the Jews five times have I received forty stripes, save one”,
2 Corinthians 11: 24. Five times forty would be two hundred. What a terrible state his body must have been in!
[p. 137] That is what he means when he speaks of the brands of the Lord Jesus, over against the judaisers who were insisting on circumcision literally.
AFM Was it not an honour to be linked with the apostle, according to the verse in Philippians “We are the circumcision”? It is an honour to be linked up with such a servant. I was wondering as to the practical results; that is, whether we take that position and can say “We”.
JT That is the point. If I look at you and you look at me, we say, We have the sign; we have the evidence of the Spirit. That is the thought, that you have no confidence in the flesh. The worshipper must serve God by the Spirit, boasting in the Lord Jesus. In any brother or sister marked by these things, there is a sign that they belong to those who are under covenant with God, in connection with whom God has entered into a covenant.
Ques Do you think it is possible for us to miss in discerning? It says in effect here that God and the individual are together, because the covenant is between “me and thee”; as if to say, God is able to detect the measure in which circumcision is carried out.
Rem Moses’s wife was getting some help on this matter.
JT Well, she was when it was applied. She said, “A bloody husband indeed art thou to me!”, Exodus 4: 25. That is what the Lord is to us. He understands all this. It is remarkable that God was about to kill Moses. He meant to do it unless circumcision was there.
JS Does this show the wisdom of the ways of God; that the inheritance is not to be had on the line of flesh, but in those that disallow the flesh?
JT God is not giving the inheritance to a man after the flesh. He would put the heir to death, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours”, Mark 12: 7. God is giving [p. 138] the inheritance on the principle of sovereignty to those who disallow the flesh.
WB-w Do you think Moses fully understood after the circumcision of his sons, for he was going to be used in going back into Egypt and delivering the people?
JT That is what God is insisting on. It is a family matter really. That is how it is introduced here. Abraham was to do that and his whole house was circumcised.
Ques Does the eighth day suggest a new beginning-from eight days old?
JT That gives a person individuality. It typifies the ego inherent in the person. Spiritually, you come to yourself, “I myself”; that is the sense. You accept that this must mark you. “So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law”, Romans 7: 25.
Rem A person eight days old can hardly circumcise himself.
JT That is not the idea. Eight days old spiritually is that you have come to the idea of personality.
TH Does Peter arrive at it when he says, “I am a sinful man”?
JT Quite; he saw how sinful he was. He was the circumcision. The sign stands connected with the Spirit as judging the flesh.
AR Is it not remarkable that the Spirit of God puts on record that Ishmael was taken first, and he was thirteen years of age?
JT That is to bring out the completeness of Abraham’s obedience; that the thing is brought in on everyone in his house, from himself down.
Ques Is the next visit based upon his obedience here?
JT Quite so; God breaks off the conversation here, and Abraham obeys, then God comes back to him.
RDG Would it appear that even such a servant [p. 139] as Moses was lax with regard to the covenant, so that God had to call it to his attention?
JT It shows how every one of us in the Lord’s service needs to have it called to our attention. The reproach of Egypt rolls away when you apply it a second time. It is a very drastic thing. It remains as a sign. The person is marked off by this sign, which means that he is disallowing the flesh; he is walking in the Spirit, not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.
AFM I was thinking of this visit to Abraham.
He gets his name changed, in this connection. It is a remarkable visitation. Is not a lot in the way of light and blessing missed because we are not circumcised the second time? I think the thing is not carried out; it is accepted as a principle but not carried out.
Galatians insists on things being carried out. “For we, by the Spirit, on the principle of faith, await the hope of righteousness”.
JEH Would it correspond to going back to Gilgal?
JT Yes; that is the idea. One very interesting thing about Gilgal is that Judah and Joseph got their inheritance there. The others got theirs from Moses and at Shiloh, but Judah and Joseph got theirs at Gilgal, meaning that it is in that connection that the people are laying hold of the inheritance, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit; so in both these types you get persons that value the inheritance themselves, Caleb and the daughters of Zelophehad.
Now as regards the other two scriptures. The first relates to a beautiful feature of circumcision; that is, we have a circumcised man, and he sets seven ewe lambs by themselves in the presence of a Philistine, this big man that trusted to the flesh; and Abimelech says, What do you mean by these lambs? Well, Abraham says, I want them to be a witness with you that I dug this well. These ewe lambs would typify [p. 140] the moral greatness in Abraham. It is a question of the Spirit.
JEH Tell us about the significance of the ewe lamb.
JT I think the female usually stands for affection in the believer; that is, you serve by love. They do not represent the military, fleshly, energetic, aggressive spirit in us. The Philistine means that, a big man, a forceful man, a man that will take every opportunity to reach his ends. That is what he is; but a godly man, a believer in Christ that accepts the death of Christ in spirit is not that. He is of another spirit, but he is gaining on the Philistine. The Philistine has to come to that. What is the explanation of these seven ewe lambs; how do you account for them? Abraham says, That is my witness. They are not pugnacious; they are rather sensitive, retiring, and mild. It is the meekness of Christ. The apostle says, “But I myself, Paul, entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of the Christ”, 2 Corinthians 10: 1. It is the power of God, but in that aspect.
Rem “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit”, Zechariah 4: 6.
CAM The very thing about the people of God is the sign. If we think of that, we will be nothing.
JT That is where our victory lies. ‘Through weakness and defeat He won the meed and crown’. He was victorious, and that is what Abraham says he meant by the ewe lambs, and he gave them to Abimelech. That begins the history of Beersheba, the place of the oath.
GMacP Would it be the Spirit of Christ reflected in Abraham?
JT That is the idea; it is written for us. It is a very beautiful suggestion, these seven ewe lambs put by themselves in the presence of that big man and his captain. What would they be in the field of battle; what would they be in the mind of this Philistine?
[p. 141] Well, Abraham says, That is my thought; that is the secret of my power, and you are coming to me as captain.
JS “When I am weak, then I am powerful”, 2 Corinthians 12: 10.
JTJr Would that come out in the Lord’s testimony before Pilate?
JT That is where you see this fully exemplified.
Pilate says, “Behold the man!”. He was affected himself by it.
And now in connection with the last scripture, here we have two brothers, two difficult brothers these are. The subject begins in chapter 31: 44: “And now, come, let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be a witness between me and thee. And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. And Jacob said to his brethren, Gather stones. And they took stones, and made a heap, and ate there upon the heap”. Now what is to be noticed is that Laban began the thought and Jacob took a stone and set it up for a pillar; that is, he is acting in a dignified way in taking a stone. He had done it before in a more exalted place, that is, at Bethel. But then he asks his brethren to gather stones. “And they took stones, and made a heap”. I think this second movement of taking the stones and making a heap is a very discreditable thing. There should be nothing of this sort between brethren. The idea of a pillar set up is really a dignified thing, but there is nothing dignified about a heap of stones.
JTJr It says they ate over it.
JT It is not like the christian altar.
TH In Ecclesiastes it says, there is “a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together” (chapter 3: 5).
JT What I think we might notice is not to dwell too much on the discreditable side, but on the spiritual side. It is honourable and dignified enough as Jacob begins, setting up a pillar. That had been done [p. 142] before, and later on in chapter 35, in a most dignified way; but this heap of stones is what is undignified.
ARS Why is it that Jacob falls down in telling them to gather these stones?
JT He told them to gather the stones, but they made a heap. He did not tell them to make the heap. The Holy Spirit says they gathered stones and made a heap.
ARS What would they do with them when they gathered them?
JT Well, it does not seem that they waited to ask Jacob what he had in his mind. Why did they not follow the lead he set?
WB-w There was a great distance between Laban and Jacob because Jacob had fled from Syria and Laban had followed.
JT Yes, there was. It was mutually understood that the distance was to be permanent, which is a most sorrowful thing. How poor this is! But Jacob gives a lead, and they do not take any notice. The important thing is if you get a lead, take notice of it. You may not have to do the same thing, but there is something that would be in keeping with it, and certainly a heap is not. “For the time shall be when they will not bear sound teaching; but according to their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear”, 2 Timothy 4: 3.
JS There is nothing of any intelligence in a heap.
JT No; there is something in a pillar, something signified.
WB-w It says Jacob took a stone, and said to his brethren, Gather stones.
JT Well, you give a suggestion and this is what you get.
AFM Why a covenant at all under such conditions? It looks as though Laban started it, not Jacob.
JT Well, if we have to make an engagement, well and good, such as Abraham and Abimelech did. And [p. 143] so the importance of calling attention to this heap and how unbecoming it is amongst brethren. We want something distinguished, according to God, something that has some form, some symmetry, something that indicates pattern or definite thought. There is nothing at all in a heap.
JS Laban gives a good lead, “Come, let us make a covenant”, and Jacob gives a good lead, but there is a complete falling down.
JT It is the brethren that are at fault, the ones that gathered the stones. The Holy Spirit says they made a heap, and that word runs through all that is said afterwards. They descend to the level of the heap. The whole scene is on very low ground. It is only to avoid the thing that one draws attention to it.
It is in keeping with the whole circumstance. They are going to be separate, and they are complaining against one another.
WB-w Apparently there was no brother there to right the situation.
JT There was no one there to do it. The thing is just accepted. These things drag along, and everybody knows that there is nothing in it, and that it is not according to God, and yet they act as if it were, the word ‘heap’ running right through.
Ques Would Laban’s past history with Jacob enter into that?
JT I suppose the whole circumstance is linked with it. Things happen in our histories that indicate what is underneath. This public testimony, as a witness to a covenant, is just a heap. If you ask somebody to go and see it, well, what is there in it? If I go to see Solomon’s temple, I would see something, or the tabernacle: but there is nothing here but a heap. Certainly it is a sign, but it is no credit to either, as far as I see. It is called “Jegar-sahadutha”, which is said to mean the same as “Galeed”, a heap [p. 144] of witness. The Spirit of God lets us have it, and then the word is used right down through the passage.
Ques Would you say that there may appear to be a settlement in a locality, and it may be spoken of as a settlement, but still it may be a settlement on the basis of a heap rather than on a divine basis?
JT That is the idea, I think. We can learn something from this. It is not just what should be found among the people of God. It denotes a very low state of things; Jacob gives a good lead, and these brethren heap the stones together. Jacob does not take action, nor do they ask him or say, What is in your mind? Stones are very suggestive as types.
They are used in Peter as types of christians. The Lord uses them, too, as types of christians.
Alec R. Would that show the significance that when a brother gives a good lead, others should be prepared to follow instead of acting on different lines, as the heap would suggest?
JT That is what I was thinking. If you give a lead by a remark in a care meeting, a word that strikes me, I would want to follow that up. Perhaps you have more in your mind, and I would want to follow that up and have you say something more about it. It seems to me these brethren would have done well to say, Jacob, ‘What have you got in mind? You have something on your mind’. They did not say that; they just made the heap.
ANW Jacob’s pillar remains distinct from the heap, throughout.
JT Jacob’s act stands.
JTJr There is a distinction between what is right and what is wrong.
JT You feel there is nothing in a heap, no wisdom, skill, ornamentation, architecture, or anything.
AR It is there because two brothers are not [p. 145] reconciled.
JT It is God allowing the thing to happen as permanent testimony of what existed between these two brothers. There is no change at all.
AFM Laban denoted the terms of his covenant and said, “Behold this heap, and behold the pillar which I have set up between me and thee: let this heap be witness, and the pillar a witness, that neither I pass this heap to go to thee, nor thou pass this heap and this pillar to come to me, for harm” (verses 51, 52).
Is that the secret of it? Would you say Laban was not reconciled?
JT It really was a testimony to what had gone between them.
AR The matter was not properly settled.
JT That is what I thought.
AR There was a tendency to compromise.
Rem The heap had two names. It is rather poor business to have two names for a place.
JT Well, there is a further thought, watchfulness “Let Jehovah watch between me and thee, when we shall be hidden one from another” (verse 49). That is a poor thing. Why should we be hidden from one another? We want to see each other’s faces.
JS Should not this have a direct application to our local meetings?
JT It is the sort of thing to be avoided; it is not an example.
CAM Otherwise you will have an ungainly sort of sign.
JT Whenever you see it, it is a heap, a heap of witness.
Rem A witness that keeps the brethren separate, keeping them apart.
JT “When we shall be hidden one from another”.
Rem The highest thought would be endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit.
JT Quite so; that is, face to face. John talked about the face. He said, “I would not write with [p. 146] paper and ink; but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full”, 2 John 12. Even writing is not so good as seeing a man’s face.
NW Is there any record that this was straightened out?
JT No, it is never straightened out. There it is between Laban and Jacob.
Ques Do you think there are things in our local meetings that never get straightened out?
JT It is just a suggestion, and we want something more dignified. The pillar is dignified, but the heap is nothing at all. That is where they ate, on the heap.
That is a poor thing. It is an agreement to differ.
Rem The brethren at Antioch would not have a heap. They looked into the matter and sent Paul to Jerusalem to get the matter straight.
Rem When Peter came down, there was no heap there.
WB-w In 1 Corinthians Paul was not allowing a heap. He brought the matter before the brethren to put away that wicked person.
JT All to the end that there might be the unity of the Spirit.