SPOIL (2)
[p. 235] SPOIL (2)
Hebrews 7: 4; Genesis 14: 13 - 24; Exodus 12: 35, 36
JT As most are aware, our subject for these readings is spoil. At the first meeting we spoke of what is called David’s spoil, in 1 Samuel 30. We now propose to look at Abram’s spoils, as they are called in Hebrews 7, referring to Genesis 14; then to look at how the Egyptians were despoiled by Israel in leaving Egypt.
It was remarked last time that 1 Samuel 30 furnishes the most concrete example of our subject, in that a certain number of the cattle secured by David were formally called “David’s spoil”. The Spirit of God, in that way, furnishes us with the divine thought in our subject; David being typical of Christ. Then David sent presents or gifts from Ziklag, where the disaster had occurred, to his friends in the places in which he and his men had gone about. So that those who afford Christ shelter, accommodation, and friendliness generally, in the time of His rejection, come in for their share, as He apportions His spoil. The verse read in Hebrews 7, in speaking of Melchisedec, to bring out his greatness, says: “Consider how great this personage was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the spoils”. It is the kind of spoil that is linked up with tithing — tithing to the Great Priest; so that His greatness comes before us. The epistle to the Hebrews is to bring forward the greatness of the High Priest. It does not stress the priesthood of the saints. In order to understand our own priesthood, we must understand the office of Christ personally — the kind of priesthood that is exclusive to Himself, for Melchisedec is not spoken of as having sons, as Aaron had. It is the priesthood in an exclusive way as applied to Christ, in which no one else shares. We [p. 236] should be impressed with His personal greatness, which is deserving of our recognition whoever we may be. Even a great man like Abram is presented as giving to Melchisedec tithes of all.
JC-S In speaking of the distinction that marks Abram, were you thinking of the fact that he was said to be the “father of the faithful”, and that the idea of spoil comes in under that heading?
JT That is right; the word “patriarch” being used, is to call attention to him in that way. All that attaches to him in the book of Genesis would enter into this. The greater Abram is, the greater Melchisedec becomes to faith, in that he tithed him. And therefore the inquiry comes up, What are these spoils, a tenth of which is given to the priest?
JC-S Viewing the priesthood of Melchisedec as being Christ’s exclusively, as bringing out His own greatness, is very important.
JT Yes; God foresaw the need of that; that we should not allow our own association with Him to minimise the greatness of His Person. I think that is one of the thoughts presented in Melchisedec.
WR Would you say in John 12 that Mary comes into the sense of the greatness of the Lord’s Person, when she anointed Him?
JT Yes; she would not associate any one with Him in her mind. He would be exclusively there. If we link that scene with Mark 14, the house of Simon the leper, it stands out all the more. There, the woman anointed His head. His official dignity is contemplated in Mark, I think. In John, Mary anointed His feet.
ANW Is the link between the Lord and His people seen, as well as the distinction between them, in Hebrews 2, as the Sanctifier and the sanctified?
JT Just so; the Sanctifier is not quite so great a thought as the Priest. Of course, it is the same Person,
[p. 237] but the Sanctifier is just the One that sanctifies; it is not a title. Melchisedec is distinctly and formally brought into this epistle as representing the exclusive greatness of Christ, leaving out all others for the moment. Abram is brought in as rendering him tithes of his spoils, to show how great Melchisedec was.
JC-S Thus even the Aaronic priesthood, which had an important place in the old economy and carried over into the new in a way, is overshadowed by the greatness of this Person seen in the Melchisedec order.
JT Yes; “consider how great this personage was”. The Spirit is formally calling attention to it — “without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God, abides a priest continually”.
Ques Is it because of what Abram represented typically that Melchisedec comes in at this point rather than in connection with Jacob or other types?
JT Well, I think Abram is seen in moral greatness here as one who put everything on the altar of love to rescue his brother. I suppose this is one of the most beautiful touches in Abraham’s history; that he lays himself out to sacrifice everything, to contend with a great combination — including four victorious kings; they had not only overcome the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, but a wide range of territory with its kings had previously been conquered by them. And then there were five kings in the Sodom and Gomorrah alliance which they had overcome; so that Abram was facing mighty foes. Naturally speaking, the risk was great, but he laid everything on the altar of self-sacrifice to rescue his brother, for that is the point that is made. “Abram heard that his brother was taken captive” — his brother, not his nephew here. Lot has the rank of a brother in the [p. 238] mind of the Spirit, as reflecting what was in Abram’s mind.
ARS Would you connect these three hundred and eighteen men that Abram had, with Gideon’s three hundred men?
JT Well, Abram had eighteen more, which is recorded to bring out the detail. Scripture does not deal with round numbers. Gideon’s three hundred were tested to emphasise the value of negativing nature. This was to shine out in them; they thought only of the testimony. Gideon is not credited with that; it was not his own thought but Jehovah’s. God knew that there were three hundred in that large number of thirty-two thousand that would shine in this way, and desired to display what He had. Typically they were spiritual men. It is always to be remembered that however many we may have, God knows how many there are that can be trusted, and has pleasure in bringing them out. He had also in Midian’s camp two men that could convey His mind. In the midst of that numerous host there were two men who knew His mind. But here the credit belongs to Abram. The three hundred and eighteen were trained, born in his house; and he led them out for the conflict. All this points to the preparedness of love.
ARS God brought the spiritual element to light.
JT Here particularly, the trained element comes to light. The word “trained” is connected with the word “Enoch”; an element in Genesis that runs through, marking those in the school of God.
Ques Would it compare with the three score mighty men about the couch of Solomon — all expert in war, fitting in with men like Titus and Timothy? They seem to be trained men.
JT They are experts in war. The credit is due to each of them. Here, the credit is due to Abram.
[p. 239] These three hundred and eighteen men were not only born in his house, but they were trained men; Abram saw to that.
JC-S In regard to Abram’s willingness to put everything on the altar in order to recover his brother, he had prepared these men for such a service; his assurance of their ability to cope with the situation would be in the training he had given them.
JT Quite so; he has ready men that can help; it is always needful to have love, but then you want to add love to many things; so that having love you might be able to do something to make your love effectual, and I think that is what is brought out. Abram is morally great, not only as loving his brother, but also because he has what is needed for the emergency and is prepared to use it.
JC-S You are suggesting that that is the divine way to the acquiring of spoil?
JT Yes. It is to bring out love, and that it has the means of meeting the emergency. It is not beating the air; having just what is needed, you are efficient in the undertaking in hand.
ANW Would you mind explaining why the patriarch, a father, is ready to fight?
TT I think that is because of the family link there. Lot was not Abram’s son, but he was very near it. And I think the Spirit of God in using the, word “patriarch” in Hebrews clothes Abram with the glory that attaches to him in Genesis. Although much of it came in later, it is, I think, all attached to him. The word is used of David, too. It covers a peculiar glory; John, in his first epistle, presents it in himself for he speaks to the saints as his children.
AFM Would you speak of skill in Abram in leading out these three hundred and eighteen men? It says “he divided himself against them by night,
[p. 240] he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them as far as Hobah”. Would that not also add to what you were saying, that not only was there love and power in this small army, but there was military skill in Abram so that victory was obtained?
JT Quite so; showing that he had ability to lead. Really, skill has its root in love in the things of God. Abram is not simply a man trained in a military way, but he has love; that is really the secret. “Jehovah is a man of war” is a great thought, but the secret of it is love. Love never fails.
ARS He smote them by night. I suppose he was in the light himself, but they were in the dark.
JT Quite so. He had that advantage. I think we should pursue the subject as indicating love; that Abraham is a patriarch and that the root of love is there. In the divine sense love toward the family is implied in the word; in the true sense it extends back to God. Christ says, “I am the root and off-spring of David”. Genesis brings out patriarchal qualities that are of God, seen especially in Abraham.
AR Do “Abram’s allies” support what you are saying about love? The footnote says they were “masters of covenant”; they were linked by a covenant.
JT They may be regarded in a typical way, I suppose. It was a fellowship. We know what they were personally, but we have this shadow of a bond of fellowship. They were masters of covenant with Abram and fought with him, and we see in the end of the chapter that he makes provision for them — Aner, Eschol, and Mamre.
CAM I think the fact that the trained servants were born in Abram’s house would give a significance to the christian household; that while there is love, there is also preparedness for conflict. It might come at any time.
JT Yes; Psalm 127 says, “As arrows in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of youth ... They shall not be ashamed when they speak with enemies in the gate”. Those that are in the family relationship are trained militarily; for while we are here; we may expect opposition and conflict. All these qualities that develop in us spring out of love. Military tactics, unless they spring out of love, are merely destructive; but love will not destroy unnecessarily. All these things really spring out from God. He is a Man of war, and this is seen here in Abram.
Rem In connection with the disposition of God in the covenant, we are told that He proclaimed, “Jehovah God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy unto thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but by no means clearing the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation”, Exodus 34: 6, 7. Both sides of the covenant spring from the same disposition, is that right?
JT Yes, you must go back to God for everything.
AFM Was Peter’s action in cutting off the ear of the high priest’s servant the fruit of love?
JT It was misguided. It was not controlled by wisdom, and the Lord had to repair Peter’s error. Evidently he did not understand the Lord’s earlier remarks as to swords. Very often with honest intent we make mistakes and give the enemy a handle. The Lord told him to put his sword into the sheath.
Ques Was it not just as much love on the part Paul in speaking about delivering the man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, as it was to enjoin them in the second epistle to [p. 242] receive him back?
JT Quite so; it was love in both cases.
WFK Should we look at Lot as a brother in the religious organisations around, and does this instruct us how to save such?
JT Just so; he is called here, “Abram’s brother”. “Abram heard that his brother” — that is how we must look at them. A true believer is our brother, whatever his associations; and like Abram, our efforts should be to rescue him.
EEH Lot had previously separated from Abram; his love was all the more emphasised on that account.
JT He did not deserve it, as we might say, but love does not speak that way at all; you want to save your brother.
Rem Abram was not governed by resentful feelings arising from the separation.
JT From Abram’s side it was a separation to avoid a quarrel. He left the choice of position to Lot, saying to him, “We are brethren”. To remain together in a state of strife would be dishonouring to them both; but Lot went beyond that: he lifted up his eyes and saw the well-watered plains of Sodom, and moved in that direction, finally reaching it, showing that the quarrel of the herdsmen really had a root in Lot. He wanted to get away from Abram; thus he became identified with Sodom, and would be so regarded in the sight of these kings; a very disgraceful thing, and that was his status in a way.
JCS Love would make us free from self-consideration in such a crisis as this. Very often we take up a militant attitude in difficulties because of some personal interest. Love would free us from all that, would it not?
JT Abram had no personal interest in the matter. It was self-sacrifice. I think that is one of [p. 243] the greatest things running through Scripture; that is, the sacrificial thought. If Christ dwells in me sacrificially, I shall be sacrificing myself; and that is the principle of Abram, he sacrificed everything, you might say. He was laying down his life for the brethren.
JS These servants that were born in his house and trained would know his will. How different that would be from conscription!
JT They would have a link with him. Every one of them would have a personal link with his master; we are taught in 2 Timothy to please Him who has called us to be soldiers — to please Him. That principle would no doubt be in Abram’s house.
JC-S They would be prepared to jeopardise their lives.
JT This was a very big undertaking, to pursue these five victorious kings with such a small army. It was an act of faith, but it was sacrificial. That is the point to get at; he was morally great here in laying down his life for his brother.
AC Do you not think that this instance was allowed that Lot might see the moral greatness of Abram; that his heart was for him notwithstanding the earlier painful experience of Lot’s departure?
JT Quite so; he would possibly see in Abram a reflection of Christ that he had not seen before. Now he is laying down his life for him; Abram comes into the position as a type of Christ in the highest aspect. “Hereby we have known love, because he has laid down his life for us”, 1 John 3: 16. Perhaps Lot never understood love, nor does it seem that he was affected at this time. He evidently went back to his old setting in the world — a very distressing thought.
JTJr Does the fact that one escapes show God’s mercy in moving to rescue [p. 244] Lot?
JT I think that is right — “one who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew”. Notice that it is “Abram the Hebrew”; he is not one of the ordinary people. I think the word here occurs in a distinctive sense; he is a stranger in a strange land, and yet with great power in spite of the strangership, the non-politics, the avoidance of society, and all that. He had these confederates; that is, persons who evidently valued him. We have to regard these men mentioned by name as different morally from the inhabitants of the land. They are men who are linked up in covenant with this spiritually great man. Why do they value him?
JHE The man who escaped knew where to go.
JT Exactly. “One who had escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew”. This is the first mention of the designation “Hebrew” in Scripture, and no doubt the meaning of the word is here. It is a spiritual allusion to Abram in this setting. It is like any one of us if we are true to our calling; we do not belong to this world. We are strangers, having left it.
JTJr The footnote says the name might be derived from Eber.
JT Yes; it is much debated, but I believe Hebrews 11: 13 - 16 gives the explanation spiritually: Abram had answered to the divine call and was a stranger and sojourner on the earth. The position is amplified in Balaam’s prophecy: “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations”, Numbers 23: 9. And in all the subsequent prophecies, we have the reference to Israel’s power. “There cometh a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and he shall cut in pieces the corners of Moab, and destroy all the sons of tumult” (chapter 24: 17). It is the military principle allied with separation from the world in which we have no part.
[p. 245] CAM That is a very interesting thing; so that this power is set against all this combination of the kings of the world.
JT Quite so; the victorious kings were four in number, and they did great exploits before the battle of the Vale of Siddim. They conquered several nations; that is, they are in a general way world conquerors; and over against them is Abram — one man, but having trusted allies and trained servants born in his house. The opposition seems very great, as it is today against the saints of God who are separate, but “greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world”. The ultimate result is complete triumph.
RWS Would it be like Paul’s securing spoil in Onesimus at Rome, so that he goes back to the brethren at Colosse?
JT Quite so. Caesar with all his legions could not make Onesimus what he was as sent back by Paul, who calls him a “beloved brother”. What spoil is such a product of the gospel! A runaway slave is sent back a beloved brother, a product of heaven via Rome!
JHE Ananias came to value Saul. He could say, “Saul, brother”.
JT Quite so — as rescued from the enemy’s power.
JC-S Referring to the freedom of Abram from worldly association, do you not think that is often where we are hampered as seeking the recovery of our brother? We are often so involved in our spirits in what is earthly and worldly that we cannot rise to the occasion.
JT I am sure that is right. A true witness delivers souls, and that involves separation from the world, particularly from the circumstances in which the person may be, who [p. 246] is to be delivered.
AFM Is that why Melchisedec comes out to sustain Abram returning with the spoils after the battle?
JT Yes; that is the thing to see, so that he should be kept on the spiritual level on which he had delivered his brother. Notice that he brought back all the property. One might ask, Why is the property before the persons? “He brought back all the property, and brought again his brother Lot and his property, and the women also, and the people”. The idea of “property” here is striking; the word occurs five times in the chapter.
ANW It seems to be out of the property that the spoils are forthcoming, is it not?
JT That is what I thought; Melchisedec brought out bread and wine to Abram and blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heavens and earth. And blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered thine enemies into thine hand. And he gave him the tenth of all”. He is the representative of the great divine Property-owner, the Possessor of the heavens and the earth; and yet he is ready to receive what Abram gives — this kind of property rescued out of the enemy’s hand on this principle of love. It is the kind of spoil that accrues to God through the self-sacrificing atoning love of Christ. It is secured by the love of Christ in that way; and the great divine Owner of everything is ready to receive that, however small.
JC-S Conflict in the testimony now would be productive to that end; we should really have true assembly property in that way?
JT Yes. Think of the water brought to David from the well at the gate of Bethlehem — what property that was! It is that sort of thing; literally, it was water, but it was from that well, brought at such [p. 247] cost.
AR If we go through assembly conflicts with God, do we acquire such property?
JT That is the idea in this passage. It is spoil coming in in this way. It might be the same kind of property that ungodly people have, but it is coming this way, and God looks at it from this point of view, and accepts it.
ANW Will you say a little more as to why the brother sought is not secured for God, but the property is?
JT I think it is a sorrowful reflection upon Lot. There is no indication that he rightly appreciated the great service rendered to him; still he was a brother for whom Christ died. We have to follow the testimony in the New Testament as to how Lot was regarded in heaven. He is called “righteous Lot”. Although in Sodom, he was not a Sodomite; on the contrary, the abandoned conversation of the godless distressed him daily. Thus as recovered by Abram he must not be undervalued. But our chapter furnishes no indication that he truly valued what was done for him or that he joined with Abram in paying tithes to the Priest of the Most High God.
Rem Verse 16 makes much of the property; first, “all the property”, then Lot, and then his property; as if the property was of more value than the brother.
JT The light governing this, I think, is in the use of the word. It is substance, gathered or acquired. God is the Possessor of heaven and earth; these are the property of the Creator; but property secured this way, that is, through redemption and self-sacrificing love, is what is so valuable, and that is what is given to the great Priest.
Ques Is there any point in the fact that the place whence this property was obtained is in the Canaan area? “Abram ... pursued them as far as Dan”.
JT The pursuit and conflict have, I suppose, the character of heavenly warfare. The scenes of the victory are a very long distance from Hebron, which was the starting point — another important point. The starting point would allude to another world, and the idea is in securing property in that connection — love’s triumphs. This section of the chapter is full of rich spiritual thoughts.
AR So that as having gone through a conflict, we should be different from what we were before?
JT I think that is the idea here. Those sharing in the victory are enhanced. Abram himself is enhanced, also Melchisedec; and the three hundred and eighteen men, and Lot, too, that is, at least, the abstract position. But what God gets from all this transaction has to be wrought out. He is to have a greater Abram as a result, and a greater Lot. I think it is taken account of in that way — what is brought in on those lines, that is, love’s sacrifice. The cross of Christ is the full thought of it, and the result of it is what is in mind here.
JHE In gathering for the temple, David could give to Solomon what he had acquired in his affliction.
JT That is just the thought, and then he speaks later of his “own property”. “In my affection”, he says, “for the house of my God I have given of my own property”. Not only did he provide in his office as king, and he provided immensely; but personal affection for “the house of my God” prompted gifts, though not so large: “three thousand talents of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver”.
RAL Is Abram enhanced by the fact that Melchisedec who met him was king of Salem?
JT The Spirit of God in Hebrews called Abraham a patriarch, as the Lord called Abiathar a high priest when he was only a young man fleeing [p. 249] for his life. It is potential. Abraham is clothed in Hebrews 7 with the fatherly glory of Genesis; and this is one of the items of it, for Lot was one of his family.
FNW You were speaking recently about what is seen in these patriarchs in Genesis being recorded later by Jehovah, in the law. This thought of the tithes is later taken up in the law.
JT It is important to get that thought — how the patriarchs in Genesis were honoured in that things that came out through them were incorporated in the law. The names Adam called the lower creatures God accepted; He honours man in that way. And so what these men of faith did in this sense was accepted. Jacob also proposed tithing, and, as remarked, it was made part of the law in the later books.
AFM Would you regard these matters of spoil as devotional, such as Abram gave to Melchisedec, and also such as others gave? David has been brought before us, but there are others, such as Samuel, Saul, Abner, and Joab. Certain things dedicated were employed for the maintenance of the house of Jehovah. Do you regard Abram here as a pattern of the rest?
JT Yes. And certain Levites took care of them (1 Chronicles 26: 26 - 28). From the wars and out of the spoils had they dedicated them; all were put in careful hands to be kept as treasures. Later, Timothy was enjoined to “keep, by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us, the good deposit entrusted”, 2 Timothy 1: 14. What accrues in this way is all for the house, but not to be held loosely; they are kept as treasures for the maintenance of the house of God. So I think these evidences of love that come out in Genesis correspond with and culminate in Christ; what He was on the cross. The full thought was there, but it took time to come out in detail;
[p. 250] in due time each feature developed and was placed in its own position; we have them set out in the ministry of the apostles. The ministry of the apostles is like the ministerial books — Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers particularly, to segregate and put in its own setting every gem of Genesis — and more, too, of course: but the great divine principles thus brought out are the outcome of the work of God in Genesis, brought into the ministerial books, each feature shining in its own place. So that christianity is the development of what came out in Christ: His body, the assembly, is the fulness of Christ.
AR And what you are saying is very interesting in that the persons with whom Abram was dealing were kings; and over against that, this great person comes before him as king of Salem?
JT He represents what there is on God’s side. This great personage is to take on all these things, as it were — the idea of kingship coming in on God’s side, the great Creator God that possesses heaven and earth has a man like this. We get his titles; typically he is king of righteousness. Morally that is the man that is needed. Of these nine kings — there were four and five — not one of them was marked by righteousness; but this man is king of righteousness, and he was in their midst; also designated king of Salem, which is king of peace. But he is first by interpretation “king of righteousness”. How essential that is to kingship!
CAM Referring to what you said about the first five books of the Bible, did you say there was development afterwards in what was brought out?
JT That is right. Genesis bears to the ministerial books the same relation as the gospels bear to the Acts and the epistles. The Acts and the epistles take up what came out in Christ as here, including it in what He is now in heavenly glory. The Lord empowered the apostles and others for this purpose.
[p. 251] Having ascended up on high. He has given gifts to men.
CAM Are the five books of the Psalms connected with the five books of the Pentateuch?
JT Yes; I think there is a link in the numeral five.
CAM Well, I wondered whether the psalms would not be the emotional outcome of what we have in the early books of the Bible.
JT Yes, and what is experimental. Psalm 105 is remarkable in that way. The Lord would help us on this line to see what came out in Himself. “God has been manifested in flesh, has been justified in the Spirit, has appeared to angels, has been preached among the nations, has been believed on in the world, has been received up in glory”, 1 Timothy 3: 16. That is the whole matter; it is the mystery of piety. That is what came out in Christ set out in detail, so as to become effective in the working out of the house of God.
JS So that features seen in Christ in the four gospels are set out in the apostles and their ministries.
JT The gospels were written comparatively late, when many of the epistles had already been written, and the work of the twelve and Paul had gone on and had been effective; the gospels were confirmatory, showing how in keeping all was with the original. But it is to be kept in mind that the testimony of the twelve did not begin properly until Christ was glorified and the Spirit was here; and Paul’s testimony is the setting out of what He is up there, and the assembly derived from Him.
CAM One thing that would be indicated in the gospels is that things are arrived at by way of conflict; I mean, connecting the line of thought we have here, we see what an immense place conflict has in securing possession of all [p. 252] this.
JT Quite so; hence the Lord says of Paul, “I will shew to him how much he must suffer for my name”, Acts 9: 16.
Rem The Lord’s statement, “I am not of the world”, fits in with Abram’s position here.
JT Quite so; the Lord tells His Father that the disciples are not of the world even as He is not of the world.
ANW What the apostle Paul received from the Lord of glory, then, was not different from what the twelve ministered.
JT No; I think the principle of everything was in Christ’s ministry here on earth. The principle was there and required only to be enlarged upon and to be worked out, Paul ever representing the heavenly aspect of the truth.
JTJr “All the words of this life” (Acts 5: 20) would include everything.
JC-S Referring again to David and what he provided as king officially and also of his own property, would you say that the first idea would work out in the twelve, and the private property would be developed more fully in the assembly in relation to Paul’s teaching?
JT One great principle in the twelve is authority — to effect subjection. They continued stedfastly in the apostles’ teaching. It is that kind of teaching — it is authoritative, but when we come to Paul, we are told that he remained eighteen months at Corinth teaching the word of God. It was not simply authoritative but the mind of God brought in. The idea of teaching is subservient to the thought of the word of God made effective in the saints, so that we normally come under headship.
JS In Corinth, things are set forth in law and order.
JT Well, he stressed that idea — the idea of commandment: “Let him recognise”, he says, “the [p. 253] things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14: 37.
CAM Do I understand that personal property such as David speaks of refers distinctively to the assembly, I mean to the ministry of Paul in connection with the assembly?
JT That is what seems to be the truth. Allusion was made to 1 Chronicles 29. David says, “I have prepared according to all my power for the house of my God gold for things of gold, and silver for things of silver, and brass for things of brass, iron for things of iron, and wood for things of wood; onyx stones, and stones to be set, glistering stones, and of divers colours, and all manner of precious stones, and white marble in abundance. And moreover, in my affection for the house of my God I have given of my own property of gold and silver, for the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the house of the sanctuary: three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses; gold for things of gold, and silver for things of silver, and for all manner of work by the hands of artificers. And who is willing to offer to Jehovah this day?” (verses 2 - 5). That is a very fine statement.
WFK Abram refused to take spoil from the king of Sodom. Was that wrong property?
JT Well, now it is segregated. The first thought is property, without saying what it was. The light is in the word, I think, and how Abram regarded it. Hebrews 7 says he gave to Melchisedec one-tenth of the spoils, quoting what we have here: “he gave him the tenth of all”. And the subsequent reference to property that he refused to take, of course, would be what belonged to the king of Sodom: but all the spoil was evidently included in what was tithed. This refusal to accept anything from the king of Sodom is in keeping with Abram’s name, “the Hebrew”; he lives with God, and derives all his resources in that way. He is a great man entirely separate from this world.
Rem There are really two battles that Abraham fought: one against the four kings, and the other against the king of Sodom.
JT This was a moral victory, refusing worldly influence. He says to the king of Sodom, “That thou mayest not say, I have made Abram rich” (verse 23). He mentions his own name, Abram.
JS He is moving and acting true to his name.
JT I think so — “great father”. In view of the great parental place he was to have, this is an important victory. “For the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children”, 2 Corinthians 12: 14. He is true to his designation as the “Hebrew”, but he is true to his own personal name, Abram. He is not going to be made rich by the king of Sodom. And another thing that comes out is what God was here. Melchisedec is said to be king of Salem, and he was priest of the Most High God; and he blessed Abram: “Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heavens and earth. And blessed be the Most High God, who has delivered thine enemies into thy hand” (verses 19, 20); the service of God enters into this. Exodus opens up this great subject, only in connection with Aaron; Melchisedec’s priesthood is millennial, “Blessed be the Most High God”, he says, “who has delivered thine enemies into thy hand”.
ARS What do you make of the bread and the wine that Melchisedec brought out?
JT I think it would be what is needed. I suppose taken together they represent the whole idea of meat and drink according to God. Psalm 104 helps us as to bread that strengthens man’s heart,
[p. 255] and wine that makes his heart glad. The heavenly man is thus maintained in independency of the world and its resources — even though offered by one whom he has befriended.
ARS The king of Sodom did not want the property; he wanted the persons. He got what he wanted, did he not?
JT He got Lot, alas! But nothing is said here of this. The idea of property is stressed, for it was Abram’s. God’s part in it is secured by Abram, and the young men’s food, as was also the portion of Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre. For himself, Abram would take nothing.
JS I think that is good, because in the profession, we see Rome in possession of a great amount of property, but nothing real.
JT Is it not characteristic of them that they want this worldly property? Whereas what Abram spoke of and what the Spirit of God refers to is property that can be tithed, that God can accept; and that must be property that we have on the principle of love’s sacrifice.
Ques Will you help us in connection with the spoils of Exodus?
JT Well, the thought was to show the spoliation of the world; the release of what the world has that belongs to God. God makes it a point in Exodus, that through His people this may be acquired; He went so far as to give them favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, that special spoil might be acquired; that is, we are able to take away from the world what belongs to God and put it in its own setting: for that is what is in mind in the ministerial books — to take what is of God out of the false setting. Take the Lord’s supper; it had been captivated in the world, but it has been brought back. It is one of the greatest of the spoils. We have spoiled the world in maintaining the true thought of the Lord’s supper and matters of the testimony associated with it until He come.
JHE When the bread and the wine were brought forward by Melchisedec, the true priest, Abram had overcome the world and in giving His supper to the disciples, Christ says, “I have overcome the world”.
JT Just so. The Lord’s supper, I think, is one of the spoils that recovery has brought about in the last days. It is taken out of its false setting and put in the assembly, to which it rightly belongs.
CAM You might take it for granted that God would take everything belonging to Himself out of the world. That must be so in an abstract way, but the remarkable thing is the way He acquires it.
JT Quite so; what pains He went to, the great God doing wonders for His people, that He gave them favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, by whom they were captivated, so that they might give them these things. It is not made a matter of conflict; the Israelites did not have to fight for these things. Notice the three things specified: utensils of silver, utensils of gold, and clothing. There is no conflict, for Israel at that stage was not ready for war.
JC-S But what thy obtain from Egypt really becomes assembly property.
JT That is right. It is taken away from the Egyptians and entrusted with the Israelites.
Rem The gospel preaching would depend upon favour given of God.
JT If God will not give you favour in men’s eyes, they will not listen to you.
ANW Does this material finally find its place in the tabernacle system?
JT That is right. As you follow the line of the truth that is given it will be seen that God had that in mind. It says, “And the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they [p. 257] had asked of the Egyptians utensils of silver, and utensils of gold, and clothing” (verse 35). Notice the word “utensils” in the New Translation. It is not merely silver and gold, but in usable form; in other words, it would be persons who are the subjects of the work of God, taken over in usable form.
JS As we see in Saul. He is a “chosen vessel unto me”. And the fact that utensils of silver are mentioned first, would suggest that the spoil is recovered on the ground of redemption?
JT Just so.
CAM That is a very noticeable thing — Saul’s being given as a vessel to the saints at Damascus.
JT So all converts, you might say, in the gospels or the Acts are utensils; they are for use, it is not simply that they are saved.
ANW Cornelius would look well as transferred from where he was, into the assembly!
JT The Holy Spirit takes him on. As they were listening, He fell upon Cornelius and those with him. They were thus ready for use.
JHE Could we not apply this to our children as coming into fellowship?
JT Yes; in the sense that they are utensils; not simply raw material, but already usable. Take the jailer at Philippi, he was ready to serve immediately. He laid the table and entertained the Lord’s servants at once.
WB-w I was wondering whether the property that Barnabas sold, the proceeds of which he laid at the apostles’ feet, would link on with this. The money was in usable form.
JT Quite so; he receives honourable mention on account of it. He was a “son of consolation”, a man that could be utilised. He knew the kind of service that was needed at the moment. And the fact that he laid it at the apostles’ feet shows that [p. 258] it was a love matter — now at the disposal of those who represented Christ.
AR Would you think that all of us here this afternoon represent the spoiling of the Egyptians?
JT I think so. I think every one of us represents spoil carried over.
CAM The world would gladly retain us.
JT They would be glad to have you if you would stay on their terms.
WB-w Referring to our previous reading, 1 Samuel 30, what is meant by some cattle driven before others as “David’s spoil”? I was wondering whether they might refer to the assembly’s coming in before Israel.
JT That is a good suggestion; evidently they were distinctive. David’s stamp, as it were, was on them.
AR Does this idea of utensils of silver, as applying to one leaving the world, suggest that I recognise the rights of Christ over me?
JT That would be the thought — redemptive rights.
AR And what is the gold?
JT I think it would be any Christian, as representative of what is of God, material for “the assembly of God”. One has seen men held in business associations having manifest qualifications for the assembly and has wished to see them completely delivered. As we pray for such, God gives them to us.
RAL What about the clothing?
JT It is dress or covering, marking external characteristics. Features of Christ in this sense may be seen in persons linked with the world. They adorn the world, but belong to the assembly. It is the idea of clothing in a wrong setting; it should not be there. You want it to be where it [p. 259] should be. In this way, when the assembly is taken away, the world will be greatly impoverished.
WR Would you say the secret of the development of all this was attending to the things spoken by Moses as in Exodus 12: 35?
JT It is the moral element of obedience here. The children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses.
AR The world really little understands how wealthy it is in having Christians in it.
JT It values them, if it can get them on its own terms, but God says, They are mine, and He makes it easier, so to speak, for us to obtain the utensils from the Egyptians, by giving us favour in their eyes.
WB-w It says in verse 39 that the children of Israel “were driven out of Egypt”.
JT You do not want to leave anything of God there.