SPOIL (5)
[p. 308] SPOIL (5)
Proverbs 31: 10 - 12; Acts 2: 42 - 47; Acts 4: 23 - 37
JT We have in mind to see how the assembly has part in spoil. The woman of worth in Proverbs 31 is a very fitting type of the assembly. The statement that her husband shall have no lack of spoil indicates that there would be abundance of spoil for Christ in the assembly. It is thought that we should consider the assembly’s service in this connection, in the light of what we have read in Acts. There are many other examples which we may look into later, but these two show what the Lord had as from the assembly. He had that to which He could add certain ones who were in the purpose of God for salvation: and then that to which His servants could come as in conflict and service. “They came to their own company”, where they found what they needed in the way of mutual support and sympathy, an important matter as related to the testimony; Barnabas, for example, representing the manner of the extension of this as a son of consolation. Accordingly, the assembly is seen as a place of sympathy for the servants who are in toil and conflict, and where its prayers are available. Later, we have examples of discipline, resulting in the securing of spoil; and the ears of the assembly also being instrumental in the provision of further spoil. The book, indeed, furnishes much that should be helpful to us. The Lord has His part in securing spoil, as we have already had before us, but now may see the assembly’s part in it.
PL Is the settlement of moral questions in Proverbs 30 a prelude to the assurance of spoil for Christ? I was thinking of how Peter took up the matter of Judas in Acts 1, and how that would compare with Proverbs 30, where spiritual discernment [p. 309] has a great place. The settlement of every issue in holy discernment seems to open the door to the assurance of this spoil for Christ from the assembly.
JT Also in the beginning of chapter 31 — the king, alluding to authority as developed under the influence of the mother, is essential to what is before us — the authority of Christ worked out amongst the saints under the influence of the mother. As it is said, “his mother taught him”. The authority, on the masculine side, as seen in the apostles, precedes the working out of these beautiful feminine features. Peter peculiarly asserts the authority of Christ in his address; this is coupled with the Spirit coming from Christ in heaven, so that the idea of authority is worked out among the saints as under the influence of the mother, that is, the assembly being there. They were all together in one place as the Spirit came, and the authority of Christ is now interwoven in the texture of the assembly, which must precede the working out of the feminine side of spoil.
Ques Does the evil in verse 3 of Proverbs 31 work against the oneness of which you are speaking which existed at the beginning of Christianity? Would Solomon’s foreign wives and concubines show that, resulting from the loose way in which authority has been taken up, there has been the development of the divisions of Christendom, the “systems” as seen at Corinth, for instance?
JT That is the way the truth of this matter stands, the darkening influence that is suggested in Proverbs 31: 4, and how it is worked out in the history of Christendom. Authority is now official — man-made officialism, and has been corrupted, so that such conditions preclude the authority that is needed. In verse 4 it is said: “It is not for kings, Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for [p. 310] rulers to say, Where is the strong drink?” Rule is to be free of all such inflating or dulling influences as are indicated in those verses.
CAM So Peter is able to contradict any such suggestion in the beginning of the Acts; that what animated them then was due to this kind of stimulation.
JT Yes. It was early in the day when Peter preached; the saints were not drunk with wine as the mockers stated. Had they been drunk, christianity had been early corrupted, but it was preserved. The power operating was that of the Spirit of God, not the results of human opiates or stimulation.
Rem So that judging without partiality would be a feature of a king, not of one under the influence of strong drink; the latter would be partial and unbalanced.
JT “Lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the children of affliction” (verse 5).
PL The man who buffets his body as Paul did in 1 Corinthians does not forget the law; he is marked by a nazarite’s devotion, abstaining in that way from wine as in contrast to the Corinthian leaders whose judgment was partisan.
JT This is an important point before proceeding to the virtuous woman, who is, as you might say, the wife. Of course it might be thought that Lemuel is Christ figuratively, but it is rather, I think, as we have been pointing out, the authority of Christ as worked out under the influence of the Spirit in the assembly. In that way, the exhortation that we should be kept free from darkening influences is of great importance.
PL So that the shout of a king may be amongst us! Is that Lemuel?
JT That is the idea, I think. It is the power of the Spirit, and the authority of Christ worked out in that way. But alas! the thing that is to be [p. 311] avoided here has been allowed in the history of the assembly, and hence the kind of rule we have today. It is not such as can be trusted.
CAM These princely men of Acts 3 can go up and open their mouth for the dumb.
JT That is the thought. We have the features of Christ now — that which is in keeping with Him: “Open thy mouth for the dumb, for the cause of all those that are left desolate. Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and minister justice to the afflicted and needy” (verses 8 and 9). That all enters into the government of the assembly.
Ques Jehovah said to Solomon in 1 Kings 3: “And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will prolong thy days” (verse 14). Then it says of Solomon: “And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, and offered up burnt-offerings, and offered peace-offerings, and made a feast to all his servants. Then came two women, harlots, to the king, and stood before him”, (verses 15, 16). Then at the end of the paragraph, “And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do justice”, (verse 28). Does that refer to what transpires in the assembly from this masculine point of view?
JT It marked the beginning; then you find later in Solomon, alas! that his wives turned away his heart and he lost his discernment and power, which of course is typically the history of the assembly.
PL Would Paul in saying, “Quit yourselves like men; be strong”, (1 Corinthians 16: 13), fear that this masculine feature would surrender to what is effeminate?
JT Quite so. “Let your women be silent in the assemblies”, (1 Corinthians 14: 34), is not a question of discrediting the sisters, but to bring out the two sides of the position, the masculine and the feminine. It is not simply what is abstractly in Christ — that would hardly fit here; He was not exposed to these temptations. It is the rule of Christ mediately in the assembly through elders and others, as the apostle says to the elders of Ephesus: “The Holy Spirit has set you as overseers ...” (Acts 20: 28), and then he says, “and from among your own selves shall rise” (verse 30). These are the things to be watched, the influences that are spoken of here, lest we become besotted and unable to judge righteous judgment.
You can see in these early chapters in Acts how Lemuel, under the right influence, is doing his work. The judgment rendered as to Ananias and Sapphira was faithful according to God. Peter is rewarded immediately, for the succeeding part of the chapter greatly stresses Peter, his very shadow being of importance. God was honouring that feature in the assembly.
AFM Would the exhortation of Paul to the Ephesians fit in here? “And be not drunk with wine, in which is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit” (chapter 5: 18). No doubt that had application in Ephesus, and in the early history of the assembly.
JT “Be filled with the Spirit”. The mockers said that the saints were affected by wine, but it was the Spirit they were affected by. Peter’s address was to make that clear, that it was the Spirit of God. “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, ... he has poured out this” (that is the point, it is authority come down from Christ) “which ye behold and hear” (verse 33).
ABP What is the thought in finding [p. 313] the woman?
JT It was the need that existed in the Old Testament. Solomon said, “One man among a thousand have I found, but a woman among all those have I not found”, Ecclesiastes 7: 28. But still, the concept of the woman is here, as though she is to be found. There is no doubt about her being found. She is accurately described, and by means of an acrostic, too, for it is an acrostic part of Scripture. The language is so employed to emphasise accuracy, I think. She is the product of real exercise. There was great need of her, and she is spoken of as one about to appear. It alludes prophetically to the assembly.
PL After kingly authority is established at Corinth, would the Lord’s supper suggest the woman coming to light and spoil for Christ?
JT I think that is the way it is worked out. The meaning of the Lord’s supper is made clear in 1 Corinthians, and the new covenant in the second epistle; filling out what is meant in response to God from the assembly. So that in 2 Corinthians the apostle says, “I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ” (chapter 11: 2). That is the Man that is to be known in the gates; not those rivals of Paul. They are not to be known in the gates. The assembly characteristically would make no room for them. It makes room for Christ; He is to be known in the gates; not the rivals of Paul who were aspiring for place.
JS Do you regard the three thousand recovered from judaism in Acts 2 as spoil for the assembly?
JT I think that is the way it stands; that is the great result, and then they came under rule. They came under what was there, the kingly thought, I think; they persevered “in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles”; that is, the apostles representing Lemuel — the authority of Christ worked out in the assembly. They came under that and [p. 314] immediately recognised it and persevered in it. Then the Spirit of God goes on to describe not only what marked the three thousand, but all. As it says, “And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all, according as any one might have need” (verses 44, 45). And then we have the thought that the Lord added. There was something there that He could add to. So I think in order to get this clearly, we must see what king Lemuel represents, and the coming under the influence of his mother. It was a prophecy that she taught him. It was God brought in, in that way, prophetically; and then all who were added afterwards came under that. They persevered in that as represented in the apostles’ teaching.
Ques In Matthew 13, would the virtuous woman be suggested in the kingdom of the heavens being likened to a pearl of great price; and in Matthew 16, authority is brought in under Peter?
JT Quite so. The pearl of great price would allude to the assembly according to what she is in intrinsic value in the Lord’s eye, for which He gave everything He had.
CAM I would like to ask about this “prophecy that his mother taught him”, and also the prophecy of Agur.
JT The latter is by a man. Undoubtedly Agur and Lemuel would be symbolical names of Solomon, and therefore of Christ, but viewed as being worked out in the assembly authoritatively. So chapter 30 deals with moral questions; works out the answers to questions. It is a matter of dealing with these questions in wisdom by a very humble man, because he says, “uttered by the man unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal: Truly I am more stupid than any one; and I have not a man’s intelligence. I have neither learned wisdom, nor have I the knowledge of the Holy” (verse 3). And then he begins to ask questions. He asks questions as to the Deity. Then he goes on to say in verse 5: “Every word of God is pure”. That is the kind of man to settle moral questions. In chapter 31 you have another symbolical name — Lemuel — alluding doubtless to Solomon or Christ, but alluding, as already said, to what is in the assembly, known and worked out there, and hence the thought of the mother, and all who come in are affected. They continue and persevere in that: in the teaching of the apostles. The point is the teaching of the apostles. It is authoritative teaching.
AR Is that why it says, “Those then who had accepted his word” (verse 41)? The three thousand, it says, accepted his word and were baptised.
JT That is the idea. “What shall we do, brethren?” they said to Peter and the other apostles. Peter had stood up with the eleven because that is the point, to bring out that side, this apostolic testimony and power, so the affected ones asked Peter and the others. They recognised the eleven as well as Peter. The point is to bring that out, the authority that is there, and then how they persevered. They said, “What shall we do, brethren?” Peter told them what to do, and there were added that day three thousand, and they persevered in the apostles’ teaching. That is the thing to notice.
FHL The fourth chapter shows that the three thousand became five thousand men.
JT You mean they are men now. That is what is needed in the assembly.
ANW Would you mind saying a word as to the teaching of the prophecy? The prophetic word has its own point, but the mother teaches it.
JT I thought, as already intimated, that the mother is the assembly; for authority is vested there. “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of [p. 316] God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear ... Let the whole house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, this Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (verses 33, 36). It was authoritative, and I believe that is what is alluded to here, that kind of authority, kept free from corrupting influences. Alas! it has not been kept free, and hence the hierarchical conditions around us that are utterly untrustworthy, and therefore we have to dismiss all these darkening things from our minds, and judge righteous judgment.
PL Does chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians link up with chapter 13 in that way; the authoritative prophetic word flows from the maternal influence of love in chapter 13?
JT Quite so; the way the assembly is brought in right through supports what we are saying; it is the mother’s influence. The authority of chapter 5, for instance, in dealing with the incestuous person. And then “when ye come together in assembly”, the apostle says, “it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” (chapter 11: 18, 20). He also says, “do ye despise the assembly of God?” (verse 22). Earlier he had said that even the least in the assembly had sufficient ability to judge in matters financial or temporal; showing what the assembly is authoritatively. It is a question of what works out through the mother, and yet it works out in men. It is kingly.
Ques The angel said to Hagar, “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands”, Genesis 16: 9. Does not Sarai represent the mother side of the assembly, Jerusalem above?
JT Yes; she would honour Abram; yet it is Abram’s authority working out through her. So, as has been pointed out in chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians, the mother side is in love, but then the man is stressed in chapter 14. “Brethren, be not children [p. 317] in your minds, but in malice be babes; but in your minds be grown men” (verse 20). “If therefore the whole assembly come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and simple persons enter in, or unbelievers, will not they say ye are mad?” (verse 23). The man side is gone! The man is balanced, and he represents the higher thought spiritually. For instance, the birth of a male in the types, causes less uncleanness than the birth of a female child, but all that is to show that what represents authority is more balanced; whether it be in man or woman as to actual fact; it is what these things mean spiritually, that the man side is the balanced governmental side, and in the assembly this is maintained. In chapter 14 the prophet brings God in; a man standing up in the assembly prophesying, and an unconverted man, or an exercised person that comes in falls down and worships; he is affected. But then the same chapter says, “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment” (verse 37); that is, it is the authority of Christ working out that way. He says, “Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak” (verse 34). That has a wider bearing than simply the thought of women speaking. It is to bring out the masculine and feminine features of the truth.
CAM Perhaps that is emphasised in Matthew’s gospel, which has been referred to as the assembly gospel; the princely side and the authority side, and really the worship side are emphasised there.
JT Yes; it is that side in Matthew, the man side; Joseph is made more of in Matthew than Mary, and that supports what you say.
Ques At the beginning of Acts 2, the apostle Peter seems to fit in with the epistle to Corinthians, inasmuch as he confirms the prophetic word. Do you not think that has a bearing on the authoritative [p. 318] side of the assembly? He begins by confirming the prophetic word in the prophet Joel.
JT Quite so; and David too. He also says in his opening words as he is standing up with the eleven (that is the authoritative position): “Men of Judaea, and all ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give heed to my words” (verse 14). Give heed to my words. It is a man speaking with authority.
WB-w Would you say a little about the woman representing the feminine feature of the truth in 1 Corinthians 14?
JT Well, she is not permitted to speak. “Let your women be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak”. They have their place, of course, in spiritual contribution, but the speaking is to be by the men, to maintain the distinction between the masculine and feminine features of the truth. It is more that, than that we should be occupied with the individual speaking of women, although that is stated, but it brings out the masculine and feminine features of the truth.
PL So that the woman who is drunk with the blood of the martyrs sits as a queen and is no widow. The feminine idea is wrongly bound up with authority in Rome.
ABP Would you link up the woman of Luke 15 who sweeps the house? I was wondering whether you would speak of this as suggesting authority feminine-wise in the assembly?
JT Quite so; you have many illustrations of it throughout Scripture. She is sweeping the house; she is not under orders from anybody. She is looking for the lost piece of silver. You can see she expresses authority in what she is doing.
AFM A great point in Proverbs 31 is that the assembly expresses the man, Christ. It says in verse 23: “Her husband is known in the gates, when he [p. 319] sitteth among the elders of the land”. Is not that the great idea of the assembly, that the husband is known by her actions and by all that she does? He is known in the gates, the place of public authority. She makes way for the man.
JT I think that is the point. First in chapter 2 of the Acts, the converts are persevering in the teaching of the apostles, the representatives of Christ; chapter 2 is to bring that out. Christ is exalted on high, but they are representing Him here, so that Peter stood up with the eleven, and those affected by his address, address him and the others of the apostles, as if to make that plain. Then in chapter 4 the burden of the prayer of the assembly, the company, is Christ. The persons who are praying are speaking to One who is a Despot (the word used here for Lord). He is their Master and they are His bondmen. The assembly takes that attitude and makes everything of “thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed” (verse 27). How He was treated by those persons, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the nations! They quote the second psalm, which gives a great place to God’s King, that is, Christ the anointed; that is the burden of their prayer. The treatment Jesus was subjected to occurred “in this city”, they say. “And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to thy bondmen with all boldness to speak thy word, in that thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders take place through the name of thy holy servant Jesus” (verses 29, 30). That is the burden of their prayer. The husband is to be known in the gates. It is not like the drunken woman that has just been spoken of, who sits as a queen and is no widow. She is known in the gates.
JS There is no element of subjection seen in the one who sits as a queen, whereas the feature of subjection is seen in the woman of worth.
[p. 320] JT It is very striking. The prayer is not addressed to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; it is to One who is regarded as Master. Peter and John told them what the chief priests and elders had said to them, and then it says, “And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord, thou art the God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them; who hast said by the mouth of thy servant David, Why have the nations raged haughtily and the peoples meditated vain things? The kings of the earth were there, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord [that is the ordinary word for Lord, which here would be Jehovah] and against his Christ. For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and peoples of Israel, have been gathered together in this city to do whatever thy hand and thy counsel had determined before should come to pass. And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings and give to thy bondmen ...” (verses 24 - 29). I just wanted to point that out; they address Him as Despot, and refer to themselves as “thy bondmen”. It is the lowliness of the assembly; its humility and subjection; the whole point of the prayer is to make much of “thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed”.
JS They recognise the Lord as in supreme authority.
JT Things are to be done in His name, not in their names.
JTJr The prayer meeting, therefore, becomes a very feeling meeting. It reflects the true attitude of the assembly towards God and Christ.
JT It reflects, too, the place the servants have in the hearts of the brethren; here they came to their own company; although “company” is not in the original, the thought is there. The servants [p. 321] have a circle to which they can come, where they are at home, and where they can unburden their hearts. And then this wonderful prayer on their behalf follows.
PL Is that enhanced by the fact that He who has secured that circle, came back to a sleeping company when He was in Gethsemane, and felt it? The Lord has suffered to furnish, among other things, such a company to His servants.
JT You mean that people sometimes go to sleep in the prayer meetings. Is that not so? Is not that just what they do? When the Lord asked the disciples to watch, they went to sleep.
ANW The place shook here, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.
JT Heaven hears it and answers it in power — power on their behalf is what is in mind, in referring to this passage; what the Lord had for His servants, these two men, Peter and John, who represented the company. They came to “their own”, and told all that had happened to them and what was said to them. And now this prayer, all in relation to Christ, “thy holy servant Jesus”, that healing signs and wonders should take place through His name.
CAM The fact that it was in that city seems to be emphasized in this translation. Would you connect that in your mind with what had taken place there in the gate of that city, that it was in that place that the victory was to be?
JT That is another point of importance. The authorised version does not read “in this city”, but it is evidently in the original; it is in the Revised Authorised and it is in the New Translation too. The point is, what is in any city. Take this city: in our prayer meetings our burden is largely this city — what we have to contend with in it, and what the history of the testimony is in [p. 322] it, because in our chapter they go back over the history of what had happened. Then they come in verse 29 to now: “And now, Lord”. Can we go back in history to what has happened, as applying to “this city”? And what are we praying about? The point is, what is going to happen today and tomorrow. “And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings ...”. It is that things are to be done through the name of “thy holy servant Jesus”.
In chapter 2, the point is what Jesus could use as the nucleus to add to. Persons who were the subjects of divine counsel were to be saved; they were being brought to light. The spoil was coming in, but also, the Lord had that to which He could add them; but now in chapter 4 it is a place where His servants can find support and sympathy, and this leads to prayer; for after all, what can we do, or what can any assembly do for the servants? Their sympathy is valuable, but God alone can really help. And so they pray, but they pray in a proper seemly attitude and in seemly terms.
Ques And also as understanding the enemy. Can we really pray intelligently about the enemy that is gathering, unless we know that he is gathering?
JT They knew exactly the position of what was in that city. That is an important thing in our prayers, that we know what means the enemy has of attacking.
Rem In chapter 4 the enemy was attacking the outward testimony, but in chapter 5 he seems to be attacking inwardly.
JT You mean in Ananias and Sapphira.
RWS Is a decline in power seen in Acts 12, where they meet for prayer and pray unbelievingly?
JT Peter did not have so much in that company. The only one seemingly who understood him was Rhoda. It was nothing like this prayer [p. 323] meeting — there was no shaking from heaven in what happened in the prison, but there was something in answer to the prayers. But the facts given show that there was deterioration.
PL Would you say that the expression, “The kings of the earth were there ...” implies their exposure? Would it mean that there is kingship of another kind now, authority in the assembly and not in the kings of the earth?
JT Quite so. And such kingship can take a low place. We can call God, Master, taking the place of bondmen. How becoming that is under these circumstances! The need is so great that we do not use the terms of exalted relationship, but of humility. Heaven answers that; it is suitability of address in the prayer.
ABP There seems to be perfect harmony between the state inside and the ministry outside. I was thinking particularly of verse 19: “But Peter and John answering said to them, If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge ye”. Is not that the recognition of God’s authority linking on with the idea of Despot?
JT Quite so. One is very much impressed with the humility that is expressed. We never use this title in speaking to God. I have never heard it used, but it is very striking and impressive to me that this is the title they use. They know they are speaking to God, because it says definitely, “And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God, and said, Lord ...” That is, Thou art our Master; we are Thy slaves, and we are urgent about this.
ANW The evidence of the divine pleasure is seen in the next verse, which precisely answers what they asked for, you will notice. “The place in which they were assembled shook, and they were [p. 324] all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness” (verse 31).
JT They spoke the word of God, which carried with it the idea of moral authority.
WB-w Do you think this prayer was voiced by one brother in the company, or does it combine the exercises of all, but put together by the Spirit?
JT It would not matter whether it were the one or the other, so long as it was uttered. It is the way the Spirit of God records it, what they said: “And they, having heard it, lifted up their voice ...” or literally, “lifted up voice”, but they did it. It was a collective thought, and I suppose any brother praying carries the amens of the brethren; it is a united thing.
Ques Is there a recognition of the enemy in this prayer?
JT I think so, but it is the peculiar attitude of Master and slave that strikes me. How that suited heaven! It is not that they did not know God as Father, because they did, as we learn elsewhere, but the suitability of the address strikes you.
TEH Would a good Roman saint be a bondman to God? “Having become bondmen to God”, Romans 6: 22. Would that suggest the idea of slave?
JT That is the thought exactly. And the Lord has led the way in that; He took a bondman’s form, showing us the way of it.
WS If a brother in the meeting did not carry the amens of the brethren, what would you say in regard of that?
JT That is, of course, another matter. What I observe is that there are very few amens amongst us, except at the end of a prayer. We are told in the Scriptures, “Let all the people say. Amen!” Psalm 106: 48. If the brethren do it generally, but at some particular time they do it not, then the [p. 325] brother praying ought to question it — why has he not the amens of the brethren?
Ques In a practical way; what about sisters in connection with that — “Let all the people say, Amen”?
JT I am glad to hear them say it at any time. Why should they not say it? The word that sisters should be silent, means that a sister is not to discourse or speak as a brother or as men would do; but she can sing and join in saying, Amen.
JS She voices her accord with what has been said.
JT “All the people” certainly includes the sisters.
Rem Does verse 17 of Proverbs 31 indicate the strength of prayer? “She girdeth her loins with strength, and maketh strong her arms”. The strength of this prayer meeting is indicated in this woman who “girdeth her loins with strength, and maketh strong her arms”. The idea is of such arms being lifted up.
JT Quite so; the loins would be the seat of the lower affections; so that girding them with strength would mean that there is self-denial, fasting; and we shall see later in Antioch that they were fasting. I think that is the idea. “This kind does not go out but by prayer and fasting”, Matthew 17: 21.
FHL Do you think the character of the attack is the same today against “thy holy servant Jesus” (verse 27)?
JT It is. The second psalm which they quote brings the position clearly into view — “against the Lord and against his Christ. For in truth against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou hadst anointed” (verses 26, 27). That is where the attack always is, that is, against Jehovah and against His Christ.
[p. 326] ABP Does that not show the utter breakdown of authority in the world as over against the authority that is set up in the assembly?
JT You can see here the world is represented in Jerusalem and it brings out what Jerusalem really is, and was capable of, and what any city in which we may be set is capable of. Some may say, Well, our city is not so bad. Sometimes even the Lord’s people say “our city”. I think it ought to be remembered where that is said, in chapter 16 of this book, that they were about to put Paul and Silas into prison: so it is better for us to say, This city. We are in the place, and it is well to see what its capabilities are, when it is put to the test in regard to God and His Christ.
Rem They did not run away from the difficulty here; there was terrible influence at work, but they stood their ground.
JT They gauged the actual capabilities of Jerusalem. Now it was an historic fact as to what had happened there; and as you say, they did not run away from the opposition in it. They asked God to support them in the midst of it, which He did.
Rem All conflict should be linked up with the cross, dating it back to the cross. I was thinking of the question of Pilate and all those gathered against the Lord at that time; so the apostle at Corinth links the thing up with “Jesus Christ, and him crucified”.
JT Exactly; that is what every city is, whether it is big or little. If it is examined, and the spirit of it tested, it will be found to be what Jerusalem was: “spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified”, Revelation 11: 8.
Rem Lot wanted to go to a little city. It would have the features of Sodom.
[p. 327] Ques Is the result of this seen in spoil characteristically in Barnabas?
JT I think he comes in as showing the extension of what we are now speaking of. It is further spoil. He is in entire keeping with what is described in the chapter. He is not an extraneous element, and that is an important thing with persons coming in amongst us; that they are in keeping with what is there. The chapter describes what there was, what Christ had, the place where His servants could come to obtain sympathy and support and intelligent prayer, so that God might support them; and then there was addition which was quite in keeping with what was there. It is said, “neither was there any one in want among them; for as many as were owners of lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold and laid it at the feet of the apostles; and distribution was made to each according as any one might have need”, (verses 34, 35). The Lord had all this. It was spoil for Him — the outcome of complete unselfishness. The enemy was robbed of men who were selfish; they were made unselfish, and the Lord has them for His service for the need among His people.
JS Barnabas was very appropriate spoil, a son of consolation.
JT That is the point; he comes in, in keeping with what is described. “And Joseph, who had been surnamed Barnabas by the apostles (which is, being interpreted, Son of consolation), a Levite, Cyprian by birth, being possessed of land, having sold it, brought the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles”, (verses 36, 37). Now he is spoil in the most remarkable way, for he had been on wrong lines: as a Levite, he should not have had land; but now he sells the land and is in keeping with what God has.
PL So his name is Joseph — “God will add”.
[p. 328] Rem The money was laid at the feet of the apostles; at the feet of those who know something about distribution.
JT And had authority, too; so that the thought of king Lemuel is running along here; whereas the virtuous woman is seen in all these qualities. The Lord had no lack of spoil; He had abundance of it through the assembly.
AFM The virtuous woman thus seen in these qualities secures spoil for king Lemuel. The initial Hebrew letter of each verse (from verse 10) follows the alphabetical order, as taxing language in describing the virtuous woman’s worth.
PL Would you say the enemy discerns, so to speak, the danger to his realm of this perfectly balanced character of things of the man and woman in the assembly, that he at once moves imitatively with a man and woman to corrupt this — Ananias and Sapphira; it says she was privy to it.
JT I thought we might look at that and other features of discipline, if the Lord permit, in the following chapters, so that we may see how extensive this thought is — that the Lord does not lack spoil; He has it through the assembly.
Ques Is the thought of the heave-offering the negating of what is selfish in regard to us?
JT Quite. It is a spontaneous movement of the heart Godward. That is the idea of the heave-offering, and of course Joseph here, surnamed Barnabas, son of consolation, had that; but the fact that he had lands shows that he is now spoil. He is taken out of that setting. A Levite was not to have that; his portion was always in the city. Now he is coming into the city; he is spoil in a very striking way, adding to what was already there.
Ques In the working out of this matter of actually having possessions today, what is your explanation of [p. 329] the position?
JT The point is unselfishness. When we come to Paul’s ministry, provision is made for persons to have material things, that they use them under the Lord for the promotion of His interests. So that we should not trust in the uncertainty of riches, but should be liberal and give. One is really regarded as a steward, and we are to use what we have for the promotion of the Lord’s interests. The point is unselfishness, that if a man is converted, comes in amongst us, and has some means, and holds them in relation to the Lord’s interests, he is really doing the same thing, in principle, as Barnabas did. There are no apostles at whose feet we may lay these material things, but one is really responsible to the Lord to administer it himself. Of course, he can give through the assembly, too.
WR “Knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the encouragement”, 2 Corinthians 1: 7.
JT Quite so. At Antioch the word was: “according as any one of the disciples was well off”, Acts 11: 29. They are contemplated as having means and they gave for the need in Jerusalem. They used what they had.
RWS Why is the birthplace of Barnabas at Cyprus called attention to?
JT It is used rather sorrowfully later. He was a Cyprian by birth. He had difficulty later, as of course a man like this may have, even the most spiritual. It says, “and Barnabas taking Mark sailed away to Cyprus” (Acts 15: 39), as if earlier links had been a snare. He and Mark went off for the moment on natural lines.
CAM Perhaps as a Levite he had overreached himself in going so far afield as that originally.
JT Quite so. It was far away from where a Levite should be — in the land, in relation to the [p. 330] temple of God. I think that in our chapter he is showing that he is a true Levite, a man that is unselfish.
PL It says in regard of Cyprus: “and having sighted Cyprus, and left it on the left hand, we sailed to Syria”, Acts 21: 3. Then there was the brother Mnason, who had come from Cyprus. It seems that he had left it, and would now entertain Paul.
JT He had a setting in Jerusalem. He was to lodge Paul there.