THE RIGHTS AND PATIENCE OF GOD IN TESTIMONY (5)

^[p. 76] THE RIGHTS AND PATIENCE OF GOD IN TESTIMONY (5)

2 Kings 1: 1 - 18; 2 Kings 2: 1 - 14

JT What we see in these chapters is that one man falls and another ascends. Ahaziah fell down through a lattice and was sick. I suppose the general position is that the responsible element in the sphere of profession is marked in this way by fall and sickness, whereas the coming of the Lord, in the minds of the saints, involves ascent — the thought of the ascent of our Lord Jesus. These chapters afford a climax to the subject under consideration, as corresponding with current conditions in the profession. There is a fall in the responsible element in chapter 1, and in chapter 2 we have the formal statement that Jehovah would take up Elijah into the heavens. What is of God is to go up, and is going up morally now, in the testimony being rendered. The one is moral descent, and the other moral elevation.

JM What do you mean by the fall as applying it to present conditions?

JT There has been moral descent in recent years in the sphere of profession; the authority of the Scriptures, and the relative godliness and fear of God that marked the leaders earlier, have almost disappeared.

Ques Do you take Rome to represent the outward position in the profession at the present day, the others being states in that?

JT Yes, but the responsible element seen in Ahaziah or Ahab includes more than what is in Rome. Rome is always in evidence, that is Jezebel, the state is typified in her, but I think the responsible element represented in Ahab and Ahaziah here includes more than Rome. She still exists in this part of the history, although she is not mentioned until later in 2 Kings, when she comes in for formal destruction. The responsible element, represented in Ahab and Ahaziah, comes ^[p. 77] rather under the providential dealings of God. Ahab’s death was, so to speak, providential; although he died under the judgment of God, it happened in an unusual way, through “a bow at a venture”.

Rem He was not directly smitten of God — there are those who are smitten.

JT Yes, it was a bow at a venture, although the judgment of God had been announced, but it was modified in that he humbled himself. All that comes under the providential dealings of God. Things are happening every day in that way, that faith discerns; but when Jezebel is destroyed she is not allowed to fall, she is cast down, she is destroyed in the street, and the dogs eat her — a terrible thought!

Ques Would the public side of it culminate in Revelation 18 — “Babylon has fallen”? Are these to be taken as warnings to the public profession?

JT Yes, “Babylon has fallen” is a great general thought: she is not yet destroyed in Revelation 18, it is in chapter 19 she is destroyed — she “has fallen, and has become the habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hated bird” (chapter 18: 2).

Ques Is your point that this is a statement of consequences that exist and are present, prior to the actual cutting off?

JT Yes, the book of Revelation contemplates things happening under the ordinary providence of God; faith discerns they are His judgment; but later there are direct dealings in judgment that are not merely providential, but direct.

Ques Alongside of that are you thinking there should be moral elevation?

JT That is what is going on. The moral declension, or degradation, and the moral elevation are going on at the same time. What is of God is being morally elevated, recovery has proceeded on those lines; God is bringing out the heavenly calling of the assembly,

^[p. 78] and what becomes her now, and that is proceeding constantly; but the moral degradation of the general profession is proceeding also.

AEL Without hope of recovery?

JT No, for the word to Ahaziah is, “Thou shalt not come down from the bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt certainly die” — that is the end of it.

AWR “Going up” is a characteristic expression in 2 Kings 2 — would it suggest the moral elevation? Paul comes by the upper coasts to Ephesus — is it from that line that the assembly is fallen?

JT I think so. That enters into the present testimony, the calling of God and all that goes with that involving literal elevation presently. Ephesians contemplates literal elevation — He “has raised us up together, and has made us sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2: 6. That is not resurrection, but elevation from the earth, which, of course, will become actual when the assembly is taken up, but already the principle is there, spiritually, and should enter into our view of things and our formation now, so that we are morally elevated. Ahaziah had an upper chamber, but he fell nevertheless: the assembly is marked by an upper chamber; she began with that, and she will finish with that, I believe. It appears in Acts 1, and Acts 20 also.

PL Would you have this principle in the Acts? Judas fell and went to his own place, and the brethren are found in the upper room. Then you find Herod eaten of worms, and immediately the assembly is introduced in its elevation at Antioch.

JT Yes, I think that is good; it enters into this chapter.

JP Would Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, represent the teaching of today? The judgment was because Ahaziah sent to enquire of that source — it is ^[p. 79] the authority of darkness.

PL Like spiritism today; that sort of thing, the authority of darkness — Baal is authority.

JP They wanted to know if Ahaziah would recover, and they seek there as a source of information.

JT Yes, quite so, seeking elsewhere instead of from God. We see that all around in the profession, the turning away from God in the apostate state of things; their grossest forms may be in spiritism, christian science and all that, but, whatever the gross form may be, the thing is there, and permeates the whole profession.

Rem The very one they enquired of will fall from heaven.

JT Yes, it is the general idea of falling which comes into evidence towards the end, the fall of what is unfaithful. The idea began with Ephesus, she is to remember from whence she had fallen; an element that enters into the profession. The rapidity of the fall after apostolic times, is one of the saddest features in the history of the assembly. After the apostles had left, you get hardly anything of value in that particular era.

LDF What would you say of Jehovah sending Elijah to meet the messengers?

JT That brings out God’s faithfulness as we have been considering it, and His patience. How patiently God testifies; instead of letting the messengers go and get into greater darkness, and the king die without any further testimony, he gets this faithful word. We get a sidelight on it, as to the kind of man Elijah was; the king knew him by the description; he had already known the external appearance of the prophet, an appearance that was in keeping with the moment — God was not ashamed to be called his God. His clothing and manner were known well to the king, it is none other than the Elijah whom God had accredited publicly, and still wearing the same clothing, he has not fallen or degenerated, he is preserved.

Rem ^[p. 80] John the baptist was girded.

JT Yes, the Lord says John the baptist was Elijah — “Elias has already come, and they have not known him” (Matthew 17: 12) — he came in that character.

Rem So apostasy developed in spite of repeated warnings.

JT That is what we shall see in this enquiry, I think; the patience of God in the presence of all this degeneration.

WJ Do the garments represent a separate man?

JT I think they do: it is not only what a man says, but what he is. Elijah retains his external appearance; it is the new man, the measure of the man, the kind of clothes he wears. So that it is a voice to us as to how we do appear publicly, what one is, one’s clothes. The description is, “He was a man in a hairy garment” (or as it may read, ‘a hairy man’) “and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins”. Hair would allude, I think, to strength.

Ques Would it suggest Nazariteship?

JT I think it would: Nazariteship underlies all this. The hairy garment and the girdle of leather about his loins all speak of strength.

Rem He is not a false prophet in a hairy garment to deceive as in Zechariah 13: 4.

JT No, he is the real prophet, the same man who had been accredited by God, as the king well recognised; so there is no excuse for the king, and out of his own mouth he is condemned. Instead of recognising the moral authority with Elijah, the king is asserting his own authority, he is sending a captain of fifty to tell him to come down. Why should he go down? The word is, “he went up to him, and behold, he sat on the top of the mount. And he spoke to him: Man of God, the king says, Come down!” Why should he give up his moral advantage?

Ques Does that show how completely he is restored in the favour of God? showing the greatest moral elevation before actual ^[p. 81] translation?

JT Yes, it is a known experience, a position in Elijah showing moral elevation.

PL There is calm dignity in it — “he sat”. In the presence of all the uncertainty and strife of tongues in christendom, is he not hidden in the pavilion, like the psalmist, from the strife of tongues? (Psalm 31: 20). The Lord sits so much in Matthew. It says He sat over against the treasury, and He spoke of those who sit in Moses’ seat.

JT And, as He sat on the mount, His disciples came to Him.

Ques Was this command to come down a command to surrender the moral elevation that marked him?

JT That is what it means. Had he come down, he would have become subservient to the king’s authority, whereas moral authority belonged to Elijah. The voice in it for us is not to surrender the advantage God gives in a moral sense. Separation involves moral advantage, withdrawal from the ordinary religious level.

Ques “Hold fast what thou hast, that no one take thy crown”, Revelation 3: 11. Is that the thought?

JT Quite so. Then he says to him, “Man of God”. That is a very dignified appellation applied to any man, but does this captain really mean it? I think this is an abuse of the most exalted title, without any sense of what is meant.

Ques Is that why he says, “if I be a man of God ...”?

JT Yes, he says it over and over again. There is something attached to that. There is moral authority in his position on the hill, but that is to be supported from heaven; heaven is behind this title where it is properly applied. This is a voice to us as to retaining the advantage God gives. The enemy would come in to induce us to give it up. It seemed reasonable enough for the king to send a message like this. Why should he not come down? But he is a man of God. Elijah is retaining his advantage.

^[p. 82] Rem The enemy saw the matter was urgent, for the second captain says, “Come down quickly!”

JT Quite so, the second one is adding to the insult. The third discerns the position; God is with the third one, but the not giving up of things is important. Naboth refuses to give up his inheritance, and Elijah refuses to give up the advantage God had given him of moral authority. He had the advantage, not the king; he is telling the king what is going to happen. We do not want to give up any advantage God gives us that is founded on separation.

FI Elijah would represent a fixed principle, and departure from that would mean death. It is what is fixed, and any lowering of it means death, as it did with this captain and his host.

JT Quite so. Then there was the usage of an appellation that in itself meant spirituality. A man of God is morally the greatest title you can get; a man of God is a man who is with God, and has partaken of His character, and to use that title merely formally is most obnoxious. God asserts through Elijah the power that lies behind the title. Every appellation in spiritual things taken on by the profession and degraded accordingly, God takes back by showing His power behind them. It is like the spoiling of the Egyptians. These things belong to God, and God asserts His right to them, by showing His power in them.

Ques Are we not in danger of using the names of divine Persons too easily?

JT I think we should be careful in using divine terms, or names of divine things, to use them in power, with some idea of what they mean. The word ‘church’ has become degraded in unbelieving lips. Faith alone can rightly use these terms; the terms in christianity have become degraded, and in that sense lost; but God would rescue them all. This title, ‘man of God’, is used remarkably sparingly in the New Testament, but it is used frequently in these books.

^[p. 83] Ques The fire that descended is called “the fire of God”; does that mean that God is asserting still more powerfully His thought as to the man of God?

JT I think so. It runs into the New Testament — “our God is a consuming fire”, Hebrews 12: 29. Whether it be literal or spiritual, it is behind the man of God.

PL Does Revelation 1 answer to that? “His eyes as a flame of fire”: then falling at His feet as dead, and the Lord’s right hand laid on John, saying, “Fear not”. Is that what the third captain does? If you stand by the principle as Elijah did, will not God see to the people? In a certain sense did He not give Elijah these fifty men who understood the position?

JT Quite so, and these men are saved. He “fell on his knees”, that is very different to falling through the lattice. A man falling on his knees means he is in the presence of the power whereby he can get relief.

Ques Would you say a little more as to the term “man of God” being frequent in the Old Testament and scarce in the New?

JT Well, it is one of the suggestions we have of the present value of the Old Testament, like the term “Son of man”; this latter term is used about eighty-four times in the New Testament by the Lord Himself, and it is used very frequently in Ezekiel. This is a picture of current circumstances to which 2 Timothy applies; this section brings out the value of the man of God. It is not an official thought, it is what a man is, and sometimes you do not get his name; the thought would be to emphasise the idea of the man of God.

Ques Would the captain with the third fifty represent those who are following righteousness, faith, love and peace?

JT First, you recognise what the judgment of God is. The third captain and his fifty bowed to the judgment and cleared themselves. The man who names the name of the Lord and separates from iniquity is establishing a testimony; he is forming a judgment which ^[p. 84] God never overlooks; and that judgment is to be executed in due course. He is executing it morally in separating from iniquity, and God will come in later and execute it publicly — but it is his judgment. This man is falling on his knees before the real power (compare Numbers 16).

AEL He is crying for mercy.

JT Yes. Morally he has left Ahaziah’s system altogether, he is with Elijah.

Ques Is the idea of the man of God one who has moral substance?

JT Quite so. There is something there to show that he is a man of God.

Ques You called our attention to what the widow of Sarepta recognised by the resurrection of her son — that Elijah was a man of God and she knew that the Lord was with him. It took her a little time to learn that?

JT Just so. She did not learn it easily. So if the Spirit of God uses a term there is substance behind it.