GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY SEEN IN JUDAH
GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY SEEN IN JUDAH
1 Chronicles 5: 2; Genesis 49: 8 - 12
JT This is a subject that, I am sure, will furnish interest. The gospel of Matthew would be the expansion of these references. It comes in on the side of God’s sovereign election, whereas Luke presents the subject of the Lord’s coming more from the side of faithfulness.
Ques Would Joseph suggest Luke more?
JT Yes. What did you have in mind?
Rem It was only that you were speaking of Matthew on the line of sovereignty. What was seen in Joseph was an answer to the devotedness and pressure and suffering in grace which brought salvation to man, the grace of God, which in the man of that order brought salvation to all men.
JT That is very interesting and would fit in with Luke.
AFM Then royalty comes in in Joseph in that connection.
JT In Luke it begins with Zacharias and Elizabeth, who were blameless before the Lord. That side is enlarged on.
Ques Would Mark suggest Levi and the line of service?
JT Yes, quite. Your thought is that Levi corresponds with Mark?
Rem I thought that the gospel of Mark would correspond with levitical service.
JT Well, I see in Luke that the Holy Spirit introduces certain servants at the beginning and speaks of their blamelessness. More is spoken of Mary in Luke than of Joseph. Judah is said to have prevailed among his brethren.
WR Would you attach importance to the history of Judah, particularly as to the affection that he bestowed on Joseph?
JT He is said to have prevailed among his brethren. That came out in connection with Joseph.
Ques Would the references to the women in the genealogy in Matthew, which was on the line of Judah, bring [p. 283] out the thought of the sovereignty of God? I mean God’s right to take up whom He will, the Moabite, or the Canaanite, or whoever it be; He has got the right to bring whomsoever He will into association with Judah, because he was the one who was to prevail.
JT I am sure that is so.
Rem We would naturally have discarded the women from the line, but there is the majesty of God’s sovereign right; He will take the vilest, and He will bring in the One who was to prevail.
AFM Does this line that you have in your mind suggest the responsible side? It was not his own exercises which led up to this.
JT There was that in him that injected rule. As prevailing among his brethren, he furnishes the occasion for the selection. It is said “Of him was the prince”, 1 Chronicles 5:2.
WR Do you think Jacob would have this in his mind regarding Judah prevailing?
JT I think it is a prophetic utterance. The tribes of Reuben and Simeon and Levi having failed utterly, Judah comes in in view of their breakdown. The breakdown occurs in 1 Samuel, and royalty is in view, that is, the priest was henceforth to be subordinated to the King, he should walk before His anointed for ever, the anointed being the King. Recovery is in the King, so that the reference to the sceptre and lawgiver in connection with Judah in Genesis 49 is a prophetic announcement of the entrance of the King.
We have Reuben failing in corruption, and Simeon and Levi in violence; then there is the scattering, but now they are to be gathered; “The sceptre will not depart from Judah, nor the lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and to him will be the obedience of peoples”.
Rem It tends to unity.
JT I am sure that is the suggestion, hence the prevailing among his brethren furnishes the occasion for royalty. “Judah — as to thee, thy brethren will praise thee”.
Rem In Genesis 37: 21, you find they are about to slay [p. 284] Joseph and cast him into some pit and Reuben steps forward and says, “Let us not take his life”.
JT Judah said, “He is our brother, our flesh”. He claims him as his relative; and later he prevailed over his father. Jacob denied Reuben’s right to Benjamin and refused the offer of his two sons as hostages, but he accepted Judah’s earnest presentation of the case. I think you see how the idea of rule is brought out in the history of God’s ways and how Judah should prevail among his brethren.
AW That throws light on the reference in Judges to there being no king, showing there is a need for a king to come rather than a priest.
AFM And would the reference in Zechariah come in here — “He ... shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both”, Zechariah 6: 13?
JT Quite.
Rem Saul was the people’s choice because of his natural qualities and appearance; he evidently was not the man of God’s choice; he was not of the tribe of Judah, and Judah was to prevail in God’s sovereignty. Is spiritual instinct seen in that Samuel’s heart is burdened in the anointing of Saul, but relieved as he anointed David?
JT You feel that in the anointing of David you are, so to say, in the ‘trade winds’; you are in the current of the Spirit. The anointing of Saul was a very tame affair. There was no affection at all in connection with it and so the thing was done as it were privately, but David was anointed in the midst of his brethren. The Holy Spirit would have it so. You are in the full current of the Holy Spirit in that passage.
Rem So that the first man has to come in in order that he may be exposed and removed, whereas the second man, the man of purpose, is surrounded with spiritual affection.
JT The bringing in of Saul served as an occasion for man’s exposure, but God has His own man. This is seen when Saul broke down. The choice of Saul at that time was the result of the exercises of the people, but when David appears on the scene, the Holy Spirit says to Samuel,
“This is he”. We are told what he looked like. He was ruddy and of a beautiful countenance, so that we are now in the full current of the Spirit of God and the gospel of Matthew is the opening up of it.
Matthew is a beginning, “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham”. The Holy Spirit proceeds immediately to the point that it is not the generations backward, as in Luke, but forward, showing that God began with them.
WR So that you could say, “Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?”
JT Just so. The book of Chronicles brings it in in that way. We are in the full current of the Spirit from the time David was anointed. The book of Chronicles is from the standpoint of David’s anointing; the Holy Spirit stops to point out this, and that would show that God was working.
Rem The tribe of Judah was the theme in Chronicles.
JT You find the Holy Spirit reaches David very quickly in Chronicles; He reaches him in the second chapter, and his genealogy is in the third.
AFM In Matthew you begin with the Person Himself, but in Luke you go backward. Would you mind explaining this?
JT The Holy Spirit refers to the genealogy in Matthew and Luke; it is the first thing mentioned in the gospel of Matthew, meaning that they were written to a point, that is, there had been a writing; Chronicles had taken up the thread and it was pursued right through. In looking at Chronicles, you will find that it goes past the captivity right on down to persons not otherwise mentioned; the leading thought is the genealogical registration. Now, Matthew takes up that thought, and he begins by saying, “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David” — that is to say, He is of the sovereign line.
AFM Things are left out in Chronicles that would discredit David. What about Luke for a moment?
JT He takes up the genealogy from Christ and goes backward to Adam.
WCR Is that because it is a question of [p. 286] birthright?
JT Just so. Luke would show you that the Lord Jesus Christ has a right to a Chinaman as much as He had to a Jew. He has a right to every child of Adam.
AFM Does it not increase the genealogy somewhat — I mean that these men who preceded brought in such a One?
JT Well, Luke begins with Christ and goes backwards, to show you that His rights extend back to Adam. Every child of Adam comes under Him. Luke would therefore establish the great evangelical line of truth.
Rem In Matthew there is a two-fold testimony, the incoming of light to Israel typified in the two blind men who cry out “Son of David” and the new generation, in children in the temple crying, “Hosanna to the Son of David”.
AW David is but a man, he is one of the generation in Luke, whereas He is the king in Matthew, and as king he begets a son.
WLP I suppose the reason you refer to the thought of sovereignty is because it is vested in Him — “I have set my king ...”.
JT It is God’s right. “I have set my king” — He had the thing in His mind. If the people wanted a king, He would let them have one that suited them. God allows us to have what our exercises call for. He let them have Saul — he fitted the exercises of the people at the time, I am sure, and that brought out how far they were away from God.
Ques I suppose that if you acknowledge that, you come to this, that God’s choice is the best, but God allows you yours.
AFM He even gave him another heart, so that they might look on God’s side.
JT So that it is as if He says, ‘I will help you’. He helped Saul, did He not? But here it is as if He said, ‘Now let Me bring in the Man’. That is the gospel of Matthew.
Rem Once God has brought in the light of what is in His mind, that is to be followed through whether things are propitious or unpropitious. The time came when the line of David seemed unpropitious: the oppression of [p. 287] Rehoboam was a test. So that if God has indicated the line which affects us in Christ, we get into trouble if we depart from it.
JT The kingdom is no sooner set up in Jeroboam than you have open idolatry.
Ques Does not Judah prevail because God was with him?
JT Generally God was with the kings of Judah, whereas there was not one among the kings of Israel that was right with God.
WR Do you think that God would have in view the bringing in of royalty, establishing a kingdom? Was it in any way involved with the priesthood?
JT I think that royalty brought in the idea of the way in which God would subdue. But you must have moral greatness and power underlying royalty. “I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel”, Genesis 49: 7. When God scattered, how could they ever be gathered aside from subjugation? I think one should first of all prevail among his brethren. God would bring in a man like that. David was anointed in the midst of his brethren. I am sure there would be victory. It was a remarkable scene. Here you have one whom his brethren shall praise. You must have moral weight with your brethren.
AFM Was it not also true that Judah as a whole tribe came to Hebron to anoint David there; he was really crowned in the affections of that tribe, and later, in the affections of all the nation.
Rem So the introduction of David is interesting in that before his personal characteristics are noted, that which is characteristic of Christ is named, “He is feeding the sheep”.
That is really greater than overcoming the lion and the bear; so the word comes to Samuel, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he”, 1 Samuel 16: 12.
JT So throughout his career his personal characteristics are very prominent. It is recorded that Jonathan’s soul was knit to David, that is David acquired a place in his affections; he had acquired a place in the affections of the people, he was accepted in the eyes of all the people:
“[p. 288] Saul hath smitten his thousands, and David his ten thousands”. And then, Saul himself showed remarkable grace to David. His last words to David were, “Thou shalt certainly do great things, and shalt certainly prevail”, 1 Samuel 26: 25. David overcame through moral greatness.
BF Is your thought that Judah and David each foreshadowed that which speaks of the moral greatness and glory of Christ?
JT I was thinking that. The narrative goes on to say that when Saul was slain, there was one who thought the incident would appeal to David’s natural feelings and that it would be an occasion for satisfaction and that David would commend him, but David thought of the oil with which Saul was anointed. He lamented for Saul and Jonathan. He says, “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their lives, even in their death were not divided”, 2 Samuel 1: 23. In that way he acquired a place among the brethren that was indisputable.
AW Is the thought of headship held more strongly than that of kingship or lordship?
JT It was then, but it is so much easier to submit to one who has acquired a place in your affections. David was anointed at Hebron in the midst of his brethren and later by all the tribes. He had already acquired this place, and hence his rule was all the more to be desired. He acquired his place.
AFM Therefore he was really anointed in affection.
Ques Is headship not intrinsically a higher thought than lordship? Headship is proven in moral qualities first; then lordship comes in in administrative power and when the need for lordship is over, the qualities of headship will for ever abide.
JT Just so. When scattering takes place (and it has taken place) the gathering must be through the king. “Judah — as to thee, thy brethren will praise thee”, and then he says, “The sceptre will not depart ... nor the lawgiver ... until Shiloh come”, so that we have the thought of lordship in the sceptre and the thought of headship in the lawgiver. The sceptre brings down all, but [p. 289] then the lawgiver makes it obvious that that sceptre is right.
Rem “The sceptre of righteousness”.
AFM The principle of lawgiving is found in Judah, would you say?
JT That is how it is put. It was a remarkable place that Judah had when Israel came out of Egypt. Judah was the sanctuary.
BP It says, “May his hands strive for them”, Deuteronomy 33: 7.
JT That means that Judah’s hands strive for his brethren. They work for others. Moses gives us the genealogy of Jacob’s sons until he arrives at Levi, because everything centred in the priesthood. In the wilderness it was not royalty, it was the sanctuary; the genealogy in Exodus 6 does not go beyond Levi, showing that the point was the priesthood, whereas the Psalmist says, “When Israel went out of Egypt, ... Judah was his sanctuary”. He would look backwards; he was looking at Solomon and saw that the sanctuary would be brought in and set up permanently by Judah.
Rem Psalm 60 says, “Judah is my law-giver”.
Rem So that it is of the deepest interest to see that Christ absorbs not only the royalty, but also the priesthood — “Thou art priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek”, so that He had done everything that would cause Him to prevail amongst His brethren.
JT Quite. He sprang from Judah. The priesthood is set up in Christ in a heavenly manner. Judah is the sanctuary. It is the purpose of God that all shall emanate from Christ.
AFM I suppose as to temple services and that kind of thing, it advances upon what Moses brought forward. I was thinking of what Moses says, and what the Lord says in Matthew — “But I say unto you ...”. Is that parentally?
JT I think so. There are several statutes that stand out prominently in David, and one of them is that those that remain behind, and those that go down to the battle shall share alike (1 Samuel 30: 24), but particularly the regime [p. 290] set up in connection with the Ark in Zion. David virtually, ‘I am not setting aside anything previous’. He meant by that that he recognized sovereignty in Moses, but then he had a new idea. Everything is taken up now David. Levitical service is also emphasized.
AW He did not set aside Moses, did he? The Lord in Matthew 6 does not set aside the law of Moses but rather enforces it.
Rem He emphasizes the law and makes it honourable; that is, you have the sceptre and the lawgiver fully owned.
JT And the next thing is the gathering of the people until Shiloh comes. But gathering without the sceptre and without the law is sure to result in disintegration. It is not simply an agreement to differ but gathering on the principle of the sceptre and the law. There is a difference between the thing written down and being spoken, hence we have “The law of thy mouth”, Psalm 119: 72, that is, the lawgiver, and then the law.
AFM The living thing. Would you say that the two thoughts you suggest are in Romans and Corinthians; the law of the mouth in Romans, and then the lawgiving in Corinthians?
JT There can be no gathering according to God except on those principles. Building material must be put together with cement and according to line, with plumb and rule and level, otherwise it is sure quickly to fall to pieces.
So that assembly on the line of the sceptre and the lawgiver is according to the rule, and plumb, and cement — a very different thing to coming together as a rough mass of building material.
WR The fulfilment of it is seen in the gospel of Matthew. It says that when the Lord was set His disciples came to Him, and He said, “But I say unto you”.
JT Yes, the 5th, 6th and 7th of Matthew are introduced, in that way. What is so beautiful about it is the Lawgiver and Shiloh — you have the living Person speaking to you. Now it is Christ.
Rem In Matthew 16, Christ is Shiloh, and the assembling is to be to Him. “On this rock I will build my assembly”,
[p. 291] and then there is the kingdom, glory and power on the mount of transfiguration. This is the lawgiving. I think that Matthew 16 and 17 bring things to a culmination.
JT That is very beautiful. Matthew is the great elective gospel, Luke is the evangelical. It tests the brethren in view of the assembly.
Rem The principle of the kingdom would be lawgiving, would it not? The believer is in connection with the mount of Transfiguration and the assembling in connection with the Person of Christ.
JT We are set up in the light of Matthew. The saints are set up in complete independence of the world. We do not need the support of the state, we have everything in the assembly.
AFM The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
JT Yes: if anything occurs, you are to tell it to the assembly.
AW Do you intend to pass over the couching of the lion? Historically it would come after the stooping down.
JT You mean His death? Yes, I am sure, and then all would hinge on that. In Revelation, where the prophet is concerned about the sealed book, one of the elders said, “Do not weep. Behold, the lion which is of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, has overcome so as to open the book”. There you get it again; then he sees a Lamb in the midst of the throne as slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, and He prevails through redemption. He takes up the right to open the book and open its seals.
AFM What is the difference between the allusion to the lion and Balaam’s similar allusion in his prophecy Well, it was in Balaam’s prophecy; but the underlying power of Christ works out through the suggestion of a lamb; it is a Lamb slain. There is complete spiritual power there. It has not, as you will observe, twelve horns, which would be administration, but the Lamb has complete spiritual power, that is what you need — complete spiritual perception, because the opening of the books was introductory of the kingdom publicly.
BF Would you say that the Lamb was in any [p. 292] way converted into the Lion of the tribe of Juda which prevailed?
JT Yes, I think so. He took the character of a Lamb, “He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and was as a sheep dumb before her shearers, and he opened not his mouth”, Isaiah 53: 7.
This gathering is so important as following upon the sceptre and the lawgiver. All gathering without these is futile.
Rem “According to this rule”. This is the only point of gathering I can see.
JT “If any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom”, 1 Corinthians 11: 16.
WR Would you say that the lawgiver goes beyond Moses?
JT Well, I think the reference is to David. Of course, Deuteronomy is the spirit of the law working out through Moses’ affection. The Lord reduces the ten commandments to two; that is, it works out through Him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with, all thy soul, and with all thy understanding”, and “Thou, shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law and the prophets hang”. Thus He brings the thing to you as it is. I think that the lawgiving in Judah is in David. It is the wonderful system in connection with the Ark.
Rem So that Judah prevails. The time comes when it has to be narrowed down to one house; the house of Jesse; and the sovereignty is vested in David, the eighth and youngest. Henceforward there is never any deviation from that house. In Revelation 5 He is the Root of David and He sits upon the throne, as the throne of David.
JT Right.
AFM And a word about praise — it all refers to Christ.
JT No doubt. He is praised by His brethren.
JS Is that what is meant in the end of Matthew 23 where it says: “For I say unto you, Ye shall in no wise see me henceforth until ye say, Blessed be he that comes in the name of the Lord”?
JT Yes. That is [p. 293] so.
BF Matthew brings out that Judah was the sovereign choice of God, does it not?
JT Because it refers to David “Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David”. He was God’s sovereign choice. He chose Judah. He chose David.
JS David, the son of Jesse; he had no claim to the throne; he was God’s sovereign choice.