LEADERSHIP (5)
[p. 184] LEADERSHIP (5)
Exodus 17: 8 - 16; Exodus 33: 11; Numbers 13: 16; Numbers 27: 15 - 23
JT These passages contemplate Joshua before he became an official leader, so that they afford instruction for the younger brethren who as yet may not be definitely recognised in the exercise of what ability they may have. These scriptures indicate how young men qualify for the ministry and in due course become, in part at least, recognised in a spiritual sense. Exodus 17 contains the first mention of Joshua, and it is clear that he had already acquired the confidence of Moses. Moses seemed to have no hesitation in appointing him to the service in mind, leaving it with him to choose the men who were to fight Amalek, an important charge, but only temporary. He was not made commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel. He was selected for this particular battle and obviously was successful; and not only so, but it is indicated that he should have in his mind, permanently, the facts of the battle. Moses was to rehearse it to him. “And Jehovah said to Moses, Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua”. The article being placed before the word ‘book’ shows that it was one already existent. The instruction is for the younger men. In these meetings we have had considerable instruction for the older ones, but Joshua and Eleazar represent younger men acting and serving and even leading whilst their elders were still living. They both became leaders before the more official leaders of Israel died. It is a question of how they qualify in leadership, in such service.
Ques In Numbers 1: 18 where the young men are called up from 20 years old it says, “they declared their pedigrees after their families”. Would that be in line with what you have in mind?
JT The allusion would be to believers who have the Spirit, the time of manhood; not full grown manhood [p. 185] not fully developed, but coming to it. In Numbers 27 Joshua is regarded by Jehovah as a man who has the Spirit characteristically. We hope to come to that because it is the main point. Moses expressed the need of the moment to Jehovah and Jehovah knew the man. Moses knew him too but did not nominate him. He nominated him for the battle of Rephidim, but not here. He himself is about to die. God has told him that he is about to die, and he is concerned about who should take on the work, a matter which is always a concern to any who are in it, because the position of all servants is transitory.
FNW Moses and Aaron, Miriam and Eleazar were of the tribe of Levi. Joshua is from Ephraim. Is that significant?
JT It is not a question of priesthood; he is the successor of Moses in leadership. He is styled the attendant of Moses in his own book at the beginning.
AR I used to think that this conflict was confined to younger men, yet Moses says to Joshua, “Choose us men, and go out, fight”. What do you say about that?
JT Well, it is the first great battle with the Amalekites and it involves the whole position. That is Satan in the flesh, and the older are not any more immune in a sense from his influence than the younger. But clearly it is a battle that affects the young men definitely, though the older ones are essential to the success of the conflict as we see in Moses and Aaron and Hur. It is a sort of battle that is always here, always current, or intermittently current, and the young are especially in mind because, even though they may be able to teach or preach, they are apt to come under the power of Satan and the flesh. It is a most serious matter. They are to understand how this character of satanic power is to be met so that they should always be available in the service.
AEM Would the expression “from generation to generation” imply that every generation would have a kind of crisis, an acute phase of this matter?
JT Mr. Darby used to say that, no matter what scripture was being considered at a Bible reading, they always came to the 7th of Romans. That means that this battle was more continuous in his day than in ours; the instruction is always needed.
JS How are you viewing leadership this afternoon?
JT In a military way, but as just temporary. Joshua is not appointed commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel, but he is selected for the moment. Moses commissions him at once. He says, “Choose us men, and go out, fight with Amalek”. He is quite definite about it, and the inference is that Joshua is a known man.
JD Coming in here consequent upon the smiting of the rock and the gift of the Spirit, would it involve in Joshua a knowledge of the character of the conflict? The passage says, “Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim;” that was consequent upon the gift of the Spirit. Would that involve that the leader puts himself in touch with any soul in whom, in this sense, the enemy has been active?
JT Yes. The thing being rehearsed in his ears by Moses would mean that Joshua would have to do with it again.
CHH Would he have to do with it again in the great occasion recorded in Joshua 10, where Jehovah listened to the voice of a man? That is recorded in the book again.
JT Just so. It was recorded in the book of Jasher. That is a very prominent link with our subject. There it is the voice of a man, not a military leader, but a man. The idea in both involves manhood, only we have youthful manhood here. We do not know how old Joshua was, but he is called a young man later.
LES You referred to the meaning of the name ‘Eleazar’ in relation to the service yesterday. Would the meaning of ‘Joshua’ have a bearing on what you had in mind this afternoon?
JT I thought it would come up in relation to Numbers 13, but of course he is given his full name here; he did not have this name actually when he fought this battle, but this is Moses writing about the matter later, giving him the full name. ‘Jehoshua’ means ‘Jehovah is Saviour’. He gets it at the time Israel should have entered into Canaan, as if Moses connects this first battle with the many battles in which he would have to lead in the land. The new name is in view of the land. There it is ‘Jehovah is Saviour’, but here it is the beginning of his service and his name would be just Hoshea — meaning ‘deliverance’.
CAM Moses, Aaron and Hur — do you look at them subjectively or objectively?
JT Aaron and Hur represent certain elements, not simply objective, but operative in us; priestly grace and purity. The intercession on high is in the Lord Himself; Moses really is in an intercessory position on high, only that he has the staff of God. He says, “I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand”. So that it is more than priesthood; the kind of service involved is from above, and is more than priesthood. At this stage in the believer’s history, that is in young people, there is usually the danger of independency. In this conflict the secret is often the want of subjection. Moses here taking the rod of God would mean that we must be subject, if we are to be victorious. We must have the element of subjection or the enemy will triumph. The conflict refers to Romans 7; the flesh in us, if undetected and unjudged, allows Satan to work through it; we have to judge it. That is what is in mind. As young people we are apt to be more or less independent, and the enemy gets advantage over us. The flesh gets power because [p. 188] of that.
LES Referring to his name again, it is significant that the name Hoshea means ‘deliverance’, which would fit in with Romans 7.
JT Yes, “who shall deliver me?” But Joshua is a greater thought — ‘Jehovah is Saviour’. “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord” brings in God Himself. The Spirit of liberty as seen in chapter 8 is God seen in the believer in this very connection. It is a question of the power of the Spirit.
JS Do you think we have two special features of the testimony introduced here?
JT I think Aaron and Hur are just elements in the position; priestly race and purity are in view, particularly the element of purity. It is a question of the flesh and its lust, as the apostle says, “the commandment having come, sin revived, but I died”. The “commandment” referred to lust. “Sin, getting a point of attack by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me”.
GAT Would Joshua’s success depend on Moses’ attitude?
JT That is exactly what is stated, but he is weak himself. The whole position is to create a state of dependence on God. First of all we are told, “Moses, Aaron and Hur went up to the top of the hill”. There is no earlier instruction about that. “And it came to pass when Moses raised his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed. And Moses’ hands were heavy; then they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat on it; and Aaron and Hur supported his hands, one on this side, and one on that side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun”. So that it is a very delicate and critical situation. It is intended to create a certain state in us that is to be permanent. This sort of thing is going on from generation to generation, and we must not lose the advantage of Joshua’s experience. Every [p. 189] day brings its own advantage. You overcome today better than you did yesterday, that is, if you are truly in the conflict. So that Joshua represents the kind of military power that is needed to face the enemy in his attacks through the flesh in us; we must not be discouraged with the character of our experience. We are to go on. Thus the victory is assured. God is not giving up. “And he said, For the hand is on the throne of Jah; Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”. I would take it that the hand would be the enemy’s hand. The throne of Jah would point to how fully God is entering into this matter on account of His people. He is not giving up, and we are not to be discouraged by the incessant character of this opposition. Joshua, although a type of Christ here, also in a sense represents the believer in this conflict, and he is not to give up because of difficulties. It is a most critical time. But Moses’ “hands were steady until the going down of the sun”. The day was won!
JS Would the end of Luke fit in here where the Lord’s hands were lifted up?
JT Well, that is the sort of thing, but there is no weakness there. It is a question of the state of things existent in the saints in these men being brought forward in this way. We have no high priest in Israel yet but we are looking toward it. No doubt the secret of deflections of many young people turning away is that they get overcome with the power of the flesh. They do not face the thing. They make up their minds it is not worth while going through with the matter and they turn away. It is worth while to face the matter and not give way to it.
WL Would you say that Amalek would have the whole position in mind?
JT The attack was really a challenge to the whole divine position. “Choose us men”. It was the whole [p. 190] position, and Moses understood that, and that the conflict would go on. According to Moses, Jehovah said it would be a continuous thing, so that the present battle would be of great advantage to us in the way of experience in a future day. The lesson for us today is that Joshua is a trustworthy man, a successful man; and that he is susceptible to support coming in from other sources. He is dependent upon others. He cannot stand by himself. The position is peculiar and must be understood spiritually. The names of the different persons mentioned must be kept in view as entering into the whole combination. Each one represents an element entering into this most important exercise. Evidently Moses trusted Joshua and that he would know the kind of men capable of military service at that time, and he left it to him to choose them. I thought that it would be a point for us to establish our trustworthiness among the brethren.
AR “Choose us men” — does that mean that the men would be characteristically persons who judge themselves?
JT I would say that. It is a very important thing to establish a reputation, not that you are seeking it in another sense, but a reputation for trustworthiness and reliability — that you can be trusted with a mission.
SMcC Was that seen in Titus? Paul left him to choose elders in a place where there was a reputation for fleshly activities.
JT That enters into this. Those two men, Titus and Timothy, were looked at as reliable by Paul; so that they were trusted with the selection of elders. The elders were to be themselves commendable.
AAT Is there any connection with the woman in John 4 as to her link with the flesh and the way she lived afterwards?
JT Yes, she must have overcome. She went to the men and told them about the Lord; in fact she went further, she began to take care of His interests.
[p. 191] The Lord would regard her as reliable. It is reliability that is so important in the service of God, it means that persons can be trusted.
RWS Is the believer in the last verse of Romans 7 unfurling this banner “Jehovah-nissi”, when he says, “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”?
JT That is right. I myself, it is a question of the ego; he has found himself, his own feet, in the sense of responsibility, and resolves with the mind to serve the law of God. He is establishing a foundation that will give character to him, the character of reliability. None of us is of much account until he begins to make resolves before God.
AL The opening of the section reads, “And Amalek came and fought with Israel”. We should bear in mind that the enemy is ever ready to come in, so we must always be on guard.
JT Yes, it is that he sees an opening here. He works through the flesh; where he moves he has seen an opening where the flesh is unjudged. He watches us: he sees our propensities, our displeasures, our likes. He knows what to bring before you to draw out the flesh, to gratify it.
CHH What would the altar that comes in here refer to?
JT It is a landmark. It is a point reached, a victory acquired. It is said that “Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi” — ‘Jehovah my banner’. He fought under it successfully, and God, I suppose, would be worshipped accordingly as helping us against this awful thing, Satan in the flesh.
LES Samuel dealing with Agag would be in view of David’s superiority over Saul and David being able to deal with Amalek. David knew how to deal with the flesh and Saul did not.
JT Just so. Saul had just shown how unable he was to deal with Amalek. In fact he was hiding the [p. 192] real facts of the matter, which is often the case in such circumstances. We are inclined to deceive and dissemble. That is what he did, so that the Amalekite king came “delicately;” “Surely the bitterness of death is past”, he said, (1 Samuel 15: 32). There was fleshly deception in his attitude, but Samuel hewed him in pieces before the Lord. That is when another king had to be selected. It is a question as to whether Samuel himself had wholly judged Saul’s character. God says, Go to the house of Jesse to choose another king and I will tell you when you get there who it is to be, as much as to say, Do not decide it yourself. I think really there was a want in Samuel, so that as soon as the first, named Eliab, came, he says, “Surely Jehovah’s anointed is before him;” but the Lord had not told him. What was the secret? The height of his stature, and his countenance. That is a very important matter for us now, for no matter how much we have advanced in the truth, under certain circumstances we do attach some importance to the flesh.
AEH Does not David show his moral superiority when the news is brought of Saul’s death? It would naturally be very gratifying to David, but he slays the Amalekite who brought the message. He carried out what Saul failed to carry out.
JT It was the time in which the enemy would attack David on those lines but he maintained the truth against him.
Ques Might it be said that Samuel judged the Amalekitish principle in Agag the king, but that the same principle was in Saul in a more subtle form? Samuel mourned overlong for him.
JT Just so. And that, no doubt, is the secret of his selecting Eliab in his own mind; he must have been a man much like Saul. Jehovah’s rebuke would indicate this — “Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature”.
CHH [p. 193] If we do not slay the Amalekite, he will slay us? The Amalekite slew Saul.
GD How do you explain the power of Amalek, the fact that war went on from generation to generation?
JT Well, Satan will never give up. We get the idea of the power available on our side. We have power over him as we resist him. It is a question of using it, of facing him.
AR Is that why it says, “Joshua broke the power of Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 17: 13), as if it were not a complete victory, as if it might come up again?
JT That is what Jehovah says. “Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”. It is because Satan is continually attacking. Resisting him, we refuse to accede to his temptations in the flesh; then we overcome him. But he will attack where there is an opening. In one sense he is a defeated foe though ever ready to attack, and as we resist him he flees from us. In the millennium he will be bound. But now in the all-wise government of God he is still permitted to attack the saints. His activities are largely through the flesh.
SJH What is involved in the going out? “Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim. And Moses said to Joshua, Choose us men, and go out”.
JT It is a military figure of speech. The meaning would be that you take on military attire and attitude in meeting Satan’s temptations in the flesh. In the type we have before us, of course, we have physical action.
AEH Is it offensive rather than defensive — to go out?
JT Evidently; there was plenty of offensive power there, going out would mean that; but Amalek had already come and started to fight. He came and fought with Israel.
JD “The hand is on the throne of Jah”. Is it that Satan acts in the flesh to contend what is in the believer’s soul?
JT That is what is meant, I think. It is in the believer’s soul, the throne is there, God shall reign there. So that “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”. God’s rights are acknowledged.
RWS Would the smiting of the rock in the earlier verses be used as leverage in the soul of the believer to deal with the enemy?
JT You mean the sufferings of Christ; the Holy Ghost coming in consequent upon the sufferings of Christ. That side of the truth is calculated to touch our hearts. He suffered that we might drink.
JD It was the same staff with which Moses smote the river. The sufferings of Christ are the basis laid for the gift of the Spirit.
JT Quite so, and now that same staff is on the top of the hill. So we should be in the thing, judging our wills and independency, for that is where the weakness lies.
AEH In the scripture in Hebrews 2: 14, 15, where the enemy is spoken of as being annulled, you have the suggestion of being set free. Is that an allusion to the power of the Spirit? It says, “And might set free all those who through fear of death through the whole of their life were subject to bondage”. The war is going on but the power of the Spirit is there to set free or deliver.
JT Yes, that we might be in that liberty. Now we may go on to Exodus 33. That brings out, not the military side of the young brother, but his love of the house. The psalmist depicts how the believer loves the habitation of the Lord’s house, the place where His glory dwelleth (Psalm 26: 8). It is a beautiful trait in a young person. Moses, it is said, “returned to the camp; but his attendant, Joshua, the son of Nun, a [p. 195] young man, departed not from within the tent”. He is not said to be a young man in the other scriptures, but he is here. He remained “within;” the power over Amalek, Satan in the flesh, maintained, will concurrently cause the development of the love of the habitation of God.
CR As a good soldier he was not entangled with the affairs of this life.
JT He is not taken up wholly with military affairs, he loves the divine dwellings as in Psalm 84: 2, “the courts;” but here it is “within the tent”. He departed not from within the tent.
CDeB Was that the same thing that characterised Timothy?
JT Well, I think it was in mind when Paul said to him, “if I delay;” in order that, if there was delay in his coming, one should know how to behave in the house of God. I suppose it was at Ephesus that the truth of the house was specially brought out, but the point is to know how to behave oneself in it. And then to know what it is: “the assembly of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth. And confessedly the mystery of piety is great. 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: 15, 16). That is the inner aspect of the house, the mysterious side of it, which a true hater of Amalek would love. That is his place. David said, “One thing have I asked of Jehovah, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of Jehovah all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of Jehovah, and to inquire of him in his temple” (Psalm 27: 4).
Ques Do you think the “camp” should be taken as the sphere of profession, which had been owned, but there is now need to separate and seek the presence of God in the tent outside?
JT [p. 196] That is the thought; the tent had been separated. “Moses took the tent, and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the Tent of meeting” (Exodus 33: 7). And then we are told in verses 9 - 11, “And it came to pass when Moses entered into the tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and Jehovah talked with Moses. And all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent; and all the people rose and worshipped, every man at the entrance of his tent. And Jehovah spoke with Moses face to face”. That is the position, that is the idea of the house, and that is the blessing, honour and dignity attached to it and to those who love it. Joshua remains there but Moses goes back into the camp; for the Lord has a right to do so, to visit His people wherever they are; for He knows where they are. But the lover of the house would stay in it. It is a question of communion, of maintaining communion with God in His dwelling.
CHH Would the truth in Corinthians enter into it, partaking of the Supper worthily as having dealt with the flesh?
JT We are to judge ourselves: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat”. The Corinthians were partaking of the Lord’s supper in an unseemly manner.
CHH I was wondering if this action of Joshua indicates the advance he has made? Does the first mention of him in overcoming the flesh qualify him for this position?
JT I think the link is just there. In the meantime he had been on the mountain with Moses and of course he thus had had great advantages; but in coming down he was unable to discern the difference between war and singing. His discerning powers were not strong. I suppose it shows here that we need to keep with God, our safety lies in His habitation. What advantage there is as young people attending the meetings keep with [p. 197] the brethren! The enemy, to that extent, is at a disadvantage in his attacks. You cannot afford to absent yourself from the meetings, from being near to God, because if you do you lose connection and get neglectful, and Amalek will get power over you. Thus let us stay in the place of safety.
LES The “attendants on the Word” in Luke would have in view the service of the house, although perhaps on a little higher level than the attendant of Moses. Would that be right?
JT Yes, you mean those who were eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word. The Lord can go back to the camp, He has rights there, “the Lord knows those that are his” (2 Timothy 2: 19). That is what Paul says, and He attends to His people wherever they are, but in His own way. It is another thing for Joshua to go back because separation from the camp had already taken place. There were some there who needed attention because they were worshipping — although at the entrances of their tents.
GAT Would you say a little on the thought of Moses leaving the camp and going back to the camp? Would it answer at all to the early part of Acts?
JT Yes, I would think that. God had not left the Jews yet, that is the principle. But Hebrews 13: 13 teaches us to go forth to Christ without the camp, bearing His reproach.
Ques Why does it refer to Joshua as the son of Nun?
JT That is his identification. Identification is very common in Scripture: Eleazar, the son of Aaron; Joshua, the son of Nun.
RA Do the features of the overcomer come out in Joshua here?
JT I think so. He has overcome Amalek, he has had the rehearsal of that victory in his ears, and he is not going to give him any advantage. The house was lovable to him. It was God’s chief interest, though as yet it was not the final tabernacle, which was not yet made; but it was the tent of meeting where God met with His people and where His people could meet with Him.
CDeB There is a great danger in connection with conditions in the world because they hinder brethren from attending the meetings. Would you say the enemy is in that?
JT That is one of the strongest points to make when speaking to God about this terrible war — the possible effect of it on young brothers and young sisters called into the services. They are put into circumstances they never were in before and may not be equal to, conditions in which they are greatly exposed. Of course they would go to the meetings whenever they could; it is their salvation to go to the meetings, to keep as near as possible to the brethren.
WL So that you would say you need both sides of the matter: the war with Amalek is the negative side, whereas not departing from the tent is the positive side.
JT That is right — where God is. It is really the place of protection, and at the same time the place of enjoyment; the place where His honour dwells. The Psalms should be read with the books of Moses because they give examples of experience flowing from the light of the Pentateuch.
FNW Does Psalm 84: 10 enter into it, “I had rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God, than dwell in the tents of wickedness”? Would that be Joshua’s voice here?
JT That is what I thought.
MO Does Joshua furnish a good lead?
JT We might see that in this “young man” and in Eleazar, for the young have largely to learn the principles of leadership by [p. 199] example.
JWD What do you say about John Mark? Would you say that he left the tent of meeting?
JT I would say that. He returned to Jerusalem and at that point we have the remarkable phrase, “Paul and his company”. The energy of the Spirit would be there and hence salvation and blessing generally. John Mark elected to be outside of that and have some other company than Paul’s.
JWD I was wondering if an Amalekite attack would induce us to leave the tent of meeting?
JT Yes. One thing to be cultivated is good company. Hebrews 10: 25 says, “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves, as the custom is with some”, and I think the Lord is helping the brethren to value one another.
FC Do you think that Luke appreciated that company in Acts where he begins various passages with “we” did this and that?
JT That is right. As soon as he joins the company he is speaking as one of them; he does not say ‘they’. Very often people say, They are doing this and that, whereas the word should be, We are. If it is anything to us at all it ought to be our company.
JVS Psalm 122: 1 would bear on that, would it not? “Let us go into the house of Jehovah;” it is a question of where your heart is.
JT Quite so. It was a real joy to the heart of the psalmist to go to the house of God and he went with a joyous company: “Our feet shall stand within thy gates, O Jerusalem”.
EGMcA John Mark went back to Jerusalem in the face of the trend of the Holy Spirit.
JT I suppose he was influenced by natural feelings about Jerusalem, and he may have thought the road was hard, and the work hard and trying. At any rate, he abandoned those who, with Paul, were moving in the energy of the Spirit in the testimony of God.
[p. 200] AR Does the Lord Jesus show leadership in this way at the age of twelve? His father and mother started home but He was still in the temple.
JT Yes. It was His Father’s business.
AEH Do you think those men who were associated with Joshua in battle against Amalek might be carried forward here in those who are called men? In verse 10 it says they “rose and worshipped, every man at the entrance of his tent”.
JT Yes. “It came to pass that every one who sought Jehovah went out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp”. There were others, however, who did not go out to the tent of meeting. “And it came to pass, when Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and stood every man at the entrance of his tent, and they looked after Moses until he entered into the tent”. Those in verse 7 go all the way. “Every one who sought Jehovah went out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp”. Standing in their doors is not the same as going out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp.
JS Is this the movement that is recorded in Hebrews, “Let us go forth to him”?
JT Yes, the allusion is to that, “Let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach” (Hebrews 13: 13). There are other incidents as to Joshua that could be called to mind, and perhaps negatively ought to be in our minds so that they should be avoided. Joshua showed partisanship in Numbers 11 at the time of the transfer of Moses’ power to others. Some remained in the camp and prophesied; Joshua would not rest at that. He asked Moses to forbid them. That is a negative thing, but it does point to a danger with the best of young brothers of having a preference for certain ones, especially those who might have been a help to them.
JD When the Spirit of God put Paul forward instead of Barnabas, John Mark’s uncle, there was apparently a party feeling with John Mark, that he was not satisfied to have Paul promoted.
JT “Paul and his company” brought in just there would show, as we have said, that there was a spiritual attraction around Paul which did not affect John Mark. Now Numbers 13 brings out the promotion of this young brother clearly in view of the land. Joshua is going into Canaan. He is going to lead Israel into Canaan and the leader evidently needs all the spiritual dignity that can be conferred upon him, because, given in this sense, it is power. The Lord accorded titles to certain persons, and it implies that it would increase their power; so that Jehovah says, “Moses called Hoshea” — which means ‘Deliverance’ — “the son of Nun, Jehoshua” — which means ‘Jehovah is Saviour’. I suppose Moses would have the sense, prophetically at least, that while Joshua was in Canaan there would be one there who was trustworthy, who would apprehend the whole position before God in view of the ultimate result. It would be Jehovah’s power, but through this young man in due course.
EGMcA Why is it that Joshua was the only man of these twelve whose name was changed? Caleb was also an outstanding man in perseverance.
JT Well, he was not going to get the official status of Joshua, for after all, such a title must be prophetic. Paul says Timothy received a gift through prophecy — God indicating to a man beforehand what he is to do. It ought to have a great influence over him for good. The more sense of responsibility I have, the more upright in the sense of it, the more power I shall need, and God furnishes this so that His work may prosper. Anyone who did not recognise distinction in this change of name — Hoshea to Jehoshua — would be delinquent in Israel. Deliverance is a good deal, but ‘Jehovah is Saviour’ is more; it is to be demonstrated [p. 202] in this young man, and therefore I think the matter is prophetic.
WL Would you say his service among the saints is to be more universal, whereas Caleb’s was more sectional? The thought that ‘Jehovah is Saviour’ would suggest that this service is in relation to the whole position.
JT Quite so. Caleb was a great man, and greatly to be distinguished too, but he could not be equal with Joshua.
CHH Is it significant that Joshua represented the tribe of Ephraim, whereas Caleb represented the tribe of Judah? What is the significance of these people representing the different tribes?
JT The tribes are all represented, a prophetic matter, in view of the distribution of the land later. So that when Moses goes up Mount Nebo to see the land it is taken account of generally according to the tribal positions, not what it used to be.
GAT Caleb felt the same as Joshua in regard to going into the land.
JT Yes, he was a worthy colleague, as you might say; what comes out in regard of him is not an official appointment, but what he was morally and spiritually. Joshua is to acquire official appointment, according to Numbers 27.
AEH Do you think this name received from Moses is intended to leave the sense upon Joshua in after days that he has the Lord with him in leadership?
JT Quite so. You can understand he would say, I must be true to my name. We are wonderfully named. “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God” (1 John 3: 1). And again, “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11: 26). You must be true to your name. “If as a christian” Peter says, 1 Peter 4: 16. So Joshua would say, My name prophetically is ‘Jehovah is Saviour’. I have no doubt what it [p. 203] says in Joshua 10 enters into that, how God hearkened to the voice of a man so that there might be complete victory in Israel.
FC Do you think that underlying this changing of names is the fact that God says, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit”? Caleb is never spoken of like that.
JT Yes. That is what we are coming to now — in Numbers 27.
CR When ‘Saul’ is changed to ‘Paul’ he is said to be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 13: 9).
JT Quite so. When he spoke to Bar-jesus, it was a great triumph. Paul caused him to be blind, “not seeing the sun for a season”. Now in this last scripture Moses says, “Let Jehovah, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the assembly, who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in, that the assembly of Jehovah be not as sheep that have no shepherd”. This is real leadership. Moses had in mind the whole assembly of Jehovah. “And Jehovah said to Moses, Take Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and thou shalt lay thy hand upon him; and thou shalt [p. 204] set him before Eleazar the priest, and before the whole assembly; and give him commandment before their eyes. And thou shalt put of thine honour upon him, that the whole assembly of the children of Israel may obey him”. That is what we have been saying, that he might be true to the honour placed upon him; to refuse pride, but to understand that he must be true to the name divinely given. “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him, by the judgment of the Urim before Jehovah: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, he, and all the children of Israel with him, even the whole assembly. And Moses did as Jehovah had commanded him; and he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before the whole assembly. And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him commandment, as Jehovah had said through Moses”. So that now the position is clear. Jehovah says Joshua has the Spirit, and I think the suggestion is that he has it characteristically; a man who has learned to judge the flesh, has learned what Rephidim means. Instead of the flesh, the Spirit has scope.
AEH Stephen in Acts 6 is distinguished among the seven men selected; the particular thing said about him is that he is “a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit;” and later it says that he is “full of grace and power”. That connects with this, does it not?
JT Just so. The use of the word “full” in that instance — and there are many such in the New Testament — would mean that Rephidim is understood, that the battle is gained. “Full of faith and the Holy Spirit”, he has dealt with the flesh, he is not allowing it any more. He is making scope for the Spirit: “but if, by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Romans 8: 13).
JS This charge would have a very sobering effect.
JT Think of the weight of it! But Jehovah knew His man. He has been through the conflict of Rephidim and will pursue this line, disallowing the flesh and making room for the Spirit.
JD Would Joshua be characteristically free of the flesh and able to lead the saints into the counsel of God?
JT Well, think of what it would mean spiritually! It involves the light of Paul, especially in Colossians and Ephesians; “the putting off”, as he says in Colossians, “of the body of the flesh” — the whole thing — “in the circumcision of the Christ” (Colossians 2: 11). “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and ye are complete in him” (verses 9, 10). That is the fulness of the thing, so that there is no room for the flesh. All that [p. 205] is involved.
EGMcA Would this indicate a man in the power of Romans 8 ready to go on to Colossians and Ephesians? I was thinking of the prominence of the Spirit in that chapter — coming after the teaching of chapter 7.
JT You are struck with the frequency of the mention of the Spirit in Romans 8. There are about thirteen references to the Spirit in the first thirteen verses of that chapter. Before that you have the resolve in chapter 7 — “I myself with the mind serve God’s law”.
APT How old is Joshua at this period?
JT We could not be sure of that, but we could be sure he has advanced. He has been forty years in the wilderness, and he was able to lead an army at Rephidim, at the beginning of the wilderness period, so that you can reckon yourself; he was 110 when he died. So he is fairly advanced now.
APT I really had in mind that he would not be subject to inflation.
JT That is the point. David says, “I have been young, and now am old” (Psalm 37: 25). He is pointing out the advantage of age; at least, of age and experience with God. He goes on to say, “I have not seen” so and so — a very important thing to say: that is experience, in view of helping another.
JP Is what we are in the sovereignty of God one thing, but what we touch here another — the thought of being influential?
JT Yes, and you are trustworthy. You have overcome the flesh. You thus make room for the Spirit. “Full of the Holy Spirit” implies being immune from the power of Satan.
AEH Would you distinguish between “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Numbers 27: 16), and “the Father of spirits” (Hebrews 12: 9)?
JT There is not much difference. It means that [p. 206] He has a thorough knowledge of you, having given you your spirit. It is a peculiar thing, the spirit returns to God who gave it. You do not get it from your parents, God gives it, and hence He has special rights in it.
AEH The thought of experience would enter into that: I have learned that He is not only God in a general way, but that He comes down to very fine points — “the God of the spirits”.
JT Just so. So in Proverbs 20: 27, “Man’s spirit is the lamp of Jehovah”. God has certain rights in it. The spirit returns to God who gave it, so that He knows us in that way and searches us through it.
Ques There would be some point in Joshua being provided “that the assembly of Jehovah be not as sheep that have no shepherd”, would there not?
JT What a solemn responsibility as to the saints, how they are cared for! One has often felt, if anyone seeks a gift — the means or power of serving God — let him ask to be an elder, one who leads the saints in that sense, who cares with genuine feeling how they get on. The desire of Moses here is, “Let Jehovah, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the assembly, who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in, that the assembly of Jehovah be not as sheep that have no shepherd”.
AB Is it like the apostle in Acts 20: “I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God”? There was no shrinking with the apostle.
JT Just so, and he is putting the responsibility of it on the elders in Ephesus. It is very remarkable the attention that Paul pays to the thought of eldership shown through Timothy. An elder is not a universal official; he is not as an ordinary Levite who has gift. If he has gift, he is obligated to all the brethren everywhere; gift is universal. Eldership is always for localities, for towns or cities, so that in small meetings we shall [p. 207] sometimes be few and weak unless saints accept obligation to be present. Unless I have gift, I ought to be at my local meeting as much as possible to support the preaching. The spirit of grace would lead in this way. An elder takes care of the assembly.
GAT Do you see a difference between driving the sheep and leading them?
JT In driving much damage is caused. Jacob says to Esau, “the children are tender, and the suckling sheep and kine are with me; and if they should overdrive them only one day, all the flock would die” (Genesis 33: 13).
APT Is it not beautiful to see how Moses began in caring for the flock (Exodus 3), and that now as he is about to die he is still caring for it? He says, “that the assembly ... be not as sheep that have no shepherd”. He must have carried this thought right through. Is that what should mark those who wish to be leaders?
JT Care for livestock always marked the true people of God even from Abel. The Egyptians abhorred shepherds, which is spiritually significant.
RA John 10 helps, as to how the Lord leads His sheep in and out.
JT All these things culminate in Him. He is the great Shepherd and the good Shepherd.
AR It is remarkable that in the power of current ministry unity really prevails among the saints universally. Would it be suggestive of the Joshua character prevailing among the saints in some way?
JT Quite so. God is helping us, but we have to be on our guard so as not to think there is very much, because we are really in a day of small things. It is remarkable how much of our time, a great portion, has to be used in putting people and things right!