THE REMNANT
[p. 462] THE REMNANT
Isaiah 8: 9 - 22; Isaiah 37: 21 - 23
I have been thinking of the expression, “God is with us”, in this section; it is the meaning of the word “Immanuel”, and it is the name introduced in Matthew, which bears on the testimony of the assembly, especially in remnant days. I trust we may be able to see that the presence of God is as realisable today as it was at the beginning, and that it is dependent on the principles that God introduced being maintained. These principles may be likened to the “little city” in Ecclesiastes. From the very outset of God’s dealings with man He had introduced principles, but these principles have always been attacked by Satan. A great king, we are told, came up against the city, but there was there the poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; Ecclesiastes 9: 14, 15. So I thought that in this section we may see how the presence of the Lord may be realised here in connection with the maintenance of divine principles as already existing — “the law and the testimony”; they were to be bound up and sealed among His disciples.
Ques Are His disciples distinguished there from the rest of the nation?
I thought so; for instance, God hides His face from the house of Jacob, that is, those in responsibility publicly, but the principles were all secured and bound up, as it says, among His disciples; not one of them was lost. It becomes thus a question afterwards as to how to preserve them intact among His disciples, and I think that may introduce the Spirit, for His disciples were the material for the formation of the assembly.
Ques What is the difference between the disciples “and” the children “in this chapter: Be [p. 463] hold I and the children that Jehovah hath given me”?
I suppose “disciples” have learned from a master and have imbibed his teaching. The word “children” would bring in the family thought. These are the recompense of the Messiah, rejected by His earthly people. He had children; God had given them to Him, but here they were to be for signs and wonders in Israel, not only a solace to His own heart.
Ques Would disciples be those who are formed spiritually?
I think so — formed in the principles of the Master. The two disciples who left John and followed Jesus would be formed and instructed by Him; they left John and followed Jesus, and Jesus turned and saw them following, and said, “What seek ye?” And they said, “Master”, that is, they were intimating by the term they used that they were prepared now for other instruction.
It says, “Jesus, having turned and seeing them following” (John 1: 38), that is to say, they were already on the way of discipleship; they were leaving one master for another, and He says to them, “What seek ye?” and they said to Him, “Rabbi”. Then the Holy Spirit tells us what that means, so that we might have no doubt about it; it means “teacher”, showing that this was the point. The passage in John is to that effect. The first followers of Jesus were on the line of instruction. In following they were qualifying to be instructed, to be disciples; they were moved by the effect of John’s testimony. It was when the Lord saw them following that He asked them what they sought, as if there were something there already that qualified them, and they say, “Rabbi ... where abidest thou?” They not only wanted to be instructed, but they wanted to know where He abode, they wanted to learn from Him there, no doubt.
But God gave children. The idea of “children”
is distinct from that of “disciples”; it is not a question of their being taught, but more the thought of a generation — God gives children.
Ques Do the children and disciples stand in contrast to “Many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken”?
I think so; the latter refers to the nation as reprobate. The Lord was to the Jews a stumbling-block: “Unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God”, 1 Corinthians 1: 23, 24. I suppose the disciples stand over against those.
Ques Do you think there is anything for us to learn from the setting of this in Hebrews 2:13, “Behold I and the children which God hath given me”, this quotation coming immediately after “in the midst of the assembly”?
Both quotation there, from Psalm 22 and from this chapter, are to bring out the humanity of Christ; that is the point in Hebrews 2. It goes on to say, “He takes hold of the seed of Abraham (verse 16)”. It is a question of His humanity.
But this section in Isaiah has a particular bearing in our own times because of the question of confederacy. It is to bring out how the testimony is preserved intact in the presence of these influences that are at work. So there are three children here in chapter 7; the first is Isaiah’s son, who is called Shear-Jashub, meaning “a remnant shall return”; the second is Immanuel, and the third is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, meaning “Swift for spoil, hasty for prey”. Those three children imply instruction. The primary thought is, “a remnant shall return”, but the return of the remnant can only be sustained by the presence of Immanuel, and by the kind of food he ate, “butter and honey”, so as to refuse the evil and choose the good. Then the man having that light nourishes “a young cow and two sheep” in order to have such food, for that kind of food is essential in remnant times in order to know how to refuse evil and choose the good, so that there is an abundance of milk, and every one, as it says, eats butter and honey. “Every one that remaineth in the midst of the land shall eat butter and honey”.
Then there is another child of which mention is made, his name meaning that judgment should come, that God would deal governmentally, and the remnant must necessarily share in the governmental dealings of God. That we are not immune from the government of God is a very important thing for Christians to note, but there is a way out of that, and that is in laying hold of the fact that Immanuel has come, that the instrument of God’s judgment can only go so far; it may come up to “the neck”, but it is “Immanuel’s land”. Any one who interferes with God’s rights in His people He will cause to halt; saints see that, and take advantage of it, and say, “God is with us”.
Ques In what way are we subject to the government of God today?
If you think of the public position you see it. We are suffering from the result of the church’s failure, which brings down upon it the governmental dealings of God. We cannot escape them, but they only go so far; God comes in in mercy. So the remnant here say, “Settle a plan, and it shall come to nought; speak a word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us”. It is important for us to recognise that. We cannot escape the governmental dealings of God, but in bowing to them God makes a way out, and in that way affords protection so that we may say, “God is with us”.
Ques Is it well for us to see the difference between a confederacy and “the law and the testimony”?
The confederacy is the kind of movement especially [p. 466] dealt with. In recent times there has been much of this sort of thing, and this scripture shows that the remnant have nothing to do with it; it is a contrary principle that has been brought in. God absolutely refuses it. It goes on to say in verse 11, “Jehovah spoke thus to me with a strong hand, and he instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, Ye shall not say, Conspiracy, of everything of which this people saith, Conspiracy; and fear ye not their fear, and be not in dread ... . And he will be for a sanctuary”, and so on. So that we are warned to have nothing to do with confederacy; we are to avoid it as a poison. It comes very near to us; the Spirit of God warns us against confederacy or amalgamation.
Ques Would party-spirit be on the same principle?
Any drawing together other than as of the assembly and for the testimony of God is that. You see here that God is particularly urgent about this; it says, “Jehovah spoke thus to me with a strong hand”. The thing is urgent. “He instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, Ye shall not say, Confederacy”.
Something will have to be done, unless we have sanctified the Lord God in our hearts; thus saints are drawn into evil. But as sanctifying the Lord in our hearts we are independent of these unholy combinations. Unless there is that the Assyrian will terrorise us.
Ques Is that in accord with the prominence of “the Lord” in 2 Timothy in a day of ruin? You mean to imply that we should look to the Lord as distinct from any agreement or confederacy.
Yes. What comes out is, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2:19. If we name the name of the Lord in this way He comes in for our defence. We have an illustration of it, I suppose, in Acts 9, where the Assyrian came in [p. 467] like a flood. Saul of Tarsus had ravaged the assembly entering into houses, dragging men and women to prison. It seemed as if every vestige of it would be destroyed, such was the threatening attitude of the enemy. Saul left Jerusalem with a mandate from the high priest, breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord; he did not realise what he was contending with, as here the Assyrian did not know what he was contending with; the latter had come up to the neck in the land of Immanuel. He was trenching on the rights of the Lord; and that was what Saul was doing, not the rights of the disciples, but of the Lord, so it is the Lord who deals with him, not the disciples. The issue then is between the Lord and the enemy. Dependence on the Lord is the only way of avoiding the need of a confederacy. Saul was allowed to traverse a long journey before the Lord met him in power, but He met him, and the assembly was then at rest, and was edified and increased. That is the kind of thing we may count on according to 2 Timothy. You name the name of the Lord and He will come in for you. You are prepared to stand alone and the Lord will defend any one that calls upon Him — every one that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved; Romans 10:13.
Now what comes out in 2 Timothy is that, as here, there were certain principles involved; not only does the Lord defend His people, but He defends certain principles that His people hold, so that in Isaiah 37 the daughter of Zion shakes her head at the Assyrian. “The virgin-daughter of Zion” means that she is “unconquered” (for so is the rendering in the footnote of the New Translation with reference to the corresponding passage in 2 Kings 19: 21). Although it is doubtful whether Hezekiah could find riders for two thousand horses (chapter 36: 8), yet he could afford to make light of “the great king” with one [p. 468] hundred and eighty-five thousand in his army, because he knew God was with him.
Ques Would you say that the virgin-daughter of Zion represents principles — principles that were being held?
Yes. Zion itself is a principle, and stands for the sovereignty of God, which is a great principle; we are said to have come to it in Hebrews 12. It is here “the virgin-daughter” of Zion; it is not simply the principle, but the result of that principle in souls; the effect begotten of that principle. “The virgin-daughter” refers to the thing in its results as a testimony in souls; that is to say, there is that in the saints that by itself is invulnerable. There may be modifying things, but the thing itself is invulnerable.
Ques Would the thought of the virgin refer to the saints as being prepared to hold those principles inviolate?
That is the idea; they would be maintained in martyrdom, if need be. If you die for a principle, that principle is more firmly established.
Then you have this great principle of God in your soul. The idea of a virgin-daughter is that there is a result; it is the subjective result of a principle; God would maintain you in that. The thing itself is invulnerable. If you die holding it, it remains; the thing stands; in fact, martyrdom tends to make it stand. It becomes a testimony to the value of the principle. Divine principles will never die; they go right through. Martyrdom is a testimony to that — you die rather than surrender the principle.
Ques What do you mean by Zion being a principle?
It was literally a hill in Palestine, but it is a principle. God loves Zion. If you were to look at the hill, geographically it might be of little account. It is not a question of what is material; it is a question [p. 469] of God selecting a spot; that is the idea. He does it sovereignly — “Here will I dwell, for I have desired it”, Psalm 132:14. We are said to have come to mount Zion. In the New Testament it means you have come to that principle. The city we come to is the heavenly Jerusalem; that is the kind of thing that you come to. Then there are many other principles equally indestructible; they must go through; God would see to that.
Ques Will you mention others? You have mentioned one?
God at the very beginning introduced principles. Immediately sin came in He introduced the idea of clothing through death, that is, using skins for clothing. That met the incoming of sin, and the principle holds — the clothing through death. Then when the earth becomes corrupt He says to Noah, “Make thee an ark of gopher wood ... and pitch it within and without with pitch”, Genesis 6:14. It goes on to say that he was to finish it on the top by a certain measure; it was to be a certain depth, height, and length. He brought in there the principle of a vessel that should be immune from death, so that every thought of God should be preserved, nothing should be lost. That is something for faith to lay hold of.
Ques What answers to the vessel now?
The assembly; there is that here which is invulnerable, unconquerable. The Lord says, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, Matthew 16:18.
Ques Is that what we get developed in the early chapters of Acts?
That is what I thought we might come to. After the Holy Spirit comes down, there is Peter preaching, and three thousand souls were added that day. Then the Holy Spirit tells us that they “continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”, Acts 2:42 and goes on to give a description of the thing. Now that description [p. 470] does not apply merely to that day alone, but covers a considerable period of time, and then it tells us the Lord added each day to that. You get the thing before you get the addition. First you get simply the fact of all the saints maintaining the things mentioned, and then “such as should be saved” are said to be added by the Lord, Acts 2:47. That is, the thing was there that He could use for salvation; before it is said that He added, we have outlined, as in the saints forming the assembly, features that answer to Christ.
Ques Would “the children” (Isaiah 8:18) represent those in whom the principles are set forth?
Children move in the way of affection, but “disciples” (verse 16) move in connection with the mind. It is one thing to learn the thing at school — that is for the mind — but the children learn at home; which is more the affections.
Rem Paul addressed Timothy as “Timothy, my true child”, 1 Timothy 1:2.
It shows he could trust him. He was his own child in the faith.
Ques Does “the daughter of Jerusalem” convey another thought?
I was thinking of that — “The daughter of Jerusalem shaketh her head at thee”. Jerusalem is a city; the idea of a city in Scripture is a place where there is light and rule; that is another great principle with God, the assembly viewed as a centre of light and rule. We ought to hold to that; it shuts out independency. There can be no light or rule according to God save as we hold to that which was set up at Jerusalem.
If you have these principles you must not move from them. The daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem answer to that. So that whilst we say “God with us” there is on our part the distinct result of the testimony — the principles that we hold; there is formation in relation to the principles that [p. 471] are held. That is, I think, what is meant by the “daughters” — the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem.
Ques Are persons greater than principles?
Well, they go together. Persons who have no divine principles are of no moral value; and there is no safety for persons without principles. Take for instance the physical system; unless there are principles or laws the component parts cannot hold together. What benefit can you get from the heavenly bodies unless they are held by the laws that God has established for them? These laws are never violated. It says, “By faith we apprehend that the worlds were framed by the word of God”, Hebrews 11:1 We all have to recognise that, but what about the moral system? God has introduced laws in connection with it, and unless these be observed there can be no possible benefit from the component parts; unless we look after principles there can be nothing but disintegration.
Ques What is the meaning of the Lord’s words: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” Mark 2:27?
The Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath. He necessarily was greater than all principles or institutions. All proceed from God.
Ques Would you say it is God’s way to maintain the principles in persons?
They must be connected with persons; it is said of Israel, “a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations”, Numbers 23:9. That would appear to indicate that Israel would be very small, but instead of that we read: “Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel?” (verse 10). If we look after the principles, we may count on God to bring the people, for we cannot move together or have any blessing apart from divine principles. Wherever there is a work of God, God’s principles are recognised, so that “by faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”, Hebrews 11:4. How did he do that? He recognised the principle God had brought in in clothing Adam. God introduced another principle in Enoch; he walked with God. That was already there, and Enoch laid hold of it. And so with Noah. All men of faith recognise principles, really people are of no moral value otherwise.
Ques Are the principles indicated in 2 Timothy 2 righteousness, faith, love, peace?
You have here in 2 Timothy 2, “The Lord knoweth them that are his”, and “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts; but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart”, 2 Timothy 2:19 - 22. Now are you prepared to say that that applies to every Christian on earth, that every Christian on earth is calling on the name of the Lord out of a pure heart?
Ques You would include every Christian in “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity” 2 Timothy 2:19?
Yes, quite, “Let every one”, but does he do it? In Corinthians with reference to calling upon the Lord the phrase, “out of a pure heart”, is omitted: “All that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”, 1 Corinthians 1:2. There you have all Christians; that was applicable at the beginning, but in Timothy there is a difference; it is not simply a question of calling on the Lord, but calling upon Him out of a pure heart.
God is with those who call upon the Lord out of a pure heart, and are following righteousness, faith, love, peace.
[p. 473] Rem It is an important work spoken to Asa after the immense confederation that came against him had been defeated; the prophet Azariah came out to meet him and said, “Jehovah is with you while ye are with him; and if ye seek him he will be found of you, but if ye forsake him he will forsake you”, 2 Chronicles 15: 2.
Ques You suggest that the daughters of Zion and of Jerusalem are not really principles, but they represent persons formed by them.
That is the idea; the word “daughter” suggests that there is formation there. They cannot be overcome; you die before you give up the principles.
Ques Would Zion and Jerusalem represent the two main principles on which everything is based?
Pretty much; Zion is the sovereign rights of God; Jerusalem is connected more with responsibility; it is the place where the government of God and the light of God are.
Ques Why did you mention the “poor wise man” who delivered the city Ecclesiastes 9:15?
To call attention to the fact that divine principles are all one piece, not so many isolated things; they go together in the mind of the poor wise man. I think the “city” in Ecclesiastes may be taken to represent the whole. The Lord found these things; He took account of what was there; but they were threatened with extinction; there were very few formed by them — just a handful; but He was found in the midst of these things; and they were carried through and delivered — fully expressed and maintained in Him. He died to this end. They were thus entrusted to His disciples. He was ignored through taking up these principles; and so shall we be as we are true to them.
Ques Could you say in a few words what you had before you in suggesting these scriptures?
That the principles go right through, and that in [p. 474] connection with them God is known as with us, and that they have a formative effect, so that they result in the daughters of Zion and of Jerusalem. They are unconquerable — I understand that to be the meaning of the word “virgin”, as I said. You thus get an idea of what is according to God in remnant times; you do not have a show outwardly; the point is that you are going on with the great principles of God, although in obscurity. The things are carried right through, not to be conquered. There is the system of principles that is invulnerable, and in the measure in which I am formed by it I am invulnerable.