"A GOOD FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE"
“A GOOD FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE”
Luke 16:1 - 13; 1 Timothy 6:17 - 19
JT The word in mind is: “Laying by for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold of what is really life”, 1 Timothy 6:19. We are apt to be diverted now by what is in mind in the present situation, the establishment of ‘peace’ so-called, and as usual after conflict in the world, there is an era of physical prosperity and money-making, so it occurred to me that these scriptures would help to save us from any such inclinations. And Luke, beginning with chapters 15 and 16, contemplates the importance of money, and the parables involved show the folly of trusting to it or making much of it. The prodigal, as we know, thought of what came to him — the portion of goods that fell to him from his father and his father’s estate. Chapter 16 contemplates this incident of which we have read, and the following one, too — the rich man and Lazarus, the former representing richness; and the latter, poverty. Here is opened, indeed, the door into the unseen world for us so that we might see how the two principles work out in the coming day. It seems as if we might be helped in looking at this section of Luke and seeing how material things may be turned into good account so that we might lay up a foundation for the future with them; hence the lord of the steward speaks of him as worthy of praise because he did prudently, for the Lord says, “For the sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light. And I say to you, Make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles”, and then He introduces a thought, saying, “He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much”, Luke 16:10, meaning that the “least” would be material things, and he that is faithful in the least will be faithful when God gives him spiritual wealth to distribute. And then He says, further, “And he that is unrighteous in the least is unrighteous also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to you the true? and if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who shall give to you your own?” meaning what is our own that is spiritual, and that what we have of this world’s goods does not really belong to us. So that if we are not faithful in the world, we are apt to be short of the spiritual, if not devoid of it altogether. I thought we might be helped in looking at these practical things at this time and linking them on with 1 Timothy in which we have much of that kind of instruction.
AAT In our prayer meetings, we often pray for the oppressed, for those that are going through pressure, but the exercise this afternoon apparently is to pray for those that are succeeding.
JT That is right; they need being prayed for. Of course, we all need to be prayed for, but those who are succeeding in this world’s affairs are always in great danger.
ABP Would the prodigal and the rich man represent two extremes — the one who sinned in wasting substance; and the other, misused it in centring it upon himself? The prodigal said, “I have sinned against heaven”, in wasting what he had, spending it in debauchery; whereas the rich man focussed it all upon himself apparently — “he lived luxuriously”.
JT The end of the misuse of wealth in the sense in which the rich man misused it is a terrible contemplation. It is said, “And in hades lifting up his eyes, being in torments”, Luke 16:23. The prodigal misused [p. 284] it, too, of course. We would all say that he misused it, but perhaps all of us would not say that the rich man misused it. He became rich and the government of the country would think he was a valuable asset and no doubt share in it in taxes and the like, but the prodigal misused it in debauchery, wasted it in riotous living. Evidently the thought is that he did no good with his wealth, but did harm to himself.
RWS This steward must have faced the fact that he was going to have a rough time with his master, but he is prepared to sacrifice that, I suppose, for future gain. Is that the point?
JT Well, that is the point. The Lord when here connects prudence with the sons of this generation, and contrasts that with the prudence of the sons of light. He says, “For the sons of this world” — notice, it is not ‘children’ of this world, but “sons”, those that are grown up and mature — “are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light”, Luke 16:8, whereas in John’s gospel He says, “While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light”, John 12:36, that is, he would meet the discrepancy in the sons of light here by believing, increasing our faith in light that we may become sons of it.
WR So the basic feature of the believer in seeking after monetary return in the way of his pursuits would be righteousness over against the unrighteousness that is mentioned of this steward?
JT That is what the sons of light would seek. You mean they would seek righteousness — “but seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you”, Matthew 6:33. His righteousness — I suppose all that would be linked up with the idea of foundation, how we are to meet the coming day, for that is the point here. It is what is future yet, how are we prepared for future [p. 285] events, each having it in mind, what he is himself, what has he gathered up in store in view of the future?
ANW It says in the verse read in Timothy, “Laying by for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold of what is really life”. Is that laying hold of what is really life, what is altogether future?
JT I would say so. In what Paul says to Timothy, of course, it is eternal life; “lay hold of eternal life”, and that would be really life, I would say, as over against what we have in a natural way, a natural life such as Adam has and which he lost as to eternity. What is really life would now have in mind the overcoming of sin in our circumstances. We should really live, but that is I believe in view of the future.
CAM It is a remarkable thing the way that Paul behaves: I mean, his manner of life in connection with money; that in the epistle to Philemon which was so linked with spiritual things, he was able to discharge every kind of debt, it would seem; even material owings to Philemon he was able to discharge in some way.
JT That is, he would set him up. He was in debt, you mean, the slave had become indebted to his master?
CAM Yes.
JT And Paul would liquidate that, you mean?
CAM Yes; he seems to be so qualified on this matter, do you not think, that material things in a secondary way were easily taken care of?
JT It is a remarkable thing that the apostle should have worked with his hands. It is said, “Yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my wants, and to those who were with me”, Acts 20:34, that he should suffer, too, really to [p. 286] cover the indebtedness of Onesimus. It seems remarkable that a man actively engaged in the Lord’s service should have enough to meet the need or shortage of Onesimus. He says to Philemon, “Put this to my account”, Philemon 18. It seems remarkable that the Lord should have it come down to us in that way; that a man given up to the Lord’s service and ready to accept the bounty of the brethren in meeting his needs should have enough to pay the indebtedness of a poor slave just converted; instead of putting it off on some rich brother or someone else, as if it would be no business of the servant of the Lord to meet such an obligation. Paul suggests to Philemon to put it to his account.
CAM It speaks of himself as a steward: “Let a man so account of us as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God”, 1 Corinthians 4:1, but his stewardship covered everything, did it not?
JT I would say so. I have often thought of the practicalness of a brother engaged wholly in the Lord’s service not putting over any such indebtedness or obligation on the brethren who might be regarded as having it characteristically, but that he might do it and not hesitate to do it, as Paul told Philemon that he could adjust the matter. There was an account, I think, between Philemon and himself, and he said to put that to his account, because he says, “thou owest even thine own self also to me”, Philemon 19. I am only thinking that the brethren who are engaged in service should not assume that dealing in money affairs is beneath them but meet a condition like that if I have to do with it and not put it off on anybody else. Whatever little or much one may have, to take on that attitude. It seems to me it is very practical.
AAT Do I understand that you are saying that Paul had money to liquidate Onesimus’ debt?
JT That is what he says, “Put it to my account”.
ANW When he said in Acts 20, “these hands have ministered to my wants, and to those who were with me”, it must mean that he worked and received compensation for it.
AAT Is it not so that in the Lord’s pathway here, it is not known that He ever had any money on Him?
JT Well, it is not known; quite so. It is not known that He actually had a coin or any money, but at the same time, we cannot just say that He did not. You can only make it out that it is not stated that He had it, but then looking back over the history of the Lord, apparently He had a house, and thus He would be practical in His affairs. We are told in Mark 2 that He was “at home”, and we are told that he lived at Capernaum. It was his own city. Nazareth might be more regarded as His city at one time, but Capernaum was said to be His own city and that he was at home; and the paralytic man was taken to that house evidently where the Lord lived. Undoubtedly we may assume that matters were taken care of, financial matters by the Lord. We are told that He worked as a carpenter — one of the most touching things you could speak about Him. He is called a carpenter. Well, that would have remuneration undoubtedly in it, and we can apply that although the thing is not stated formally; but practicalness in Christianity should pertain, even if we may be out and out in the Lord’s service, and if we have money, it ought to be used as we have opportunity. Therefore the Lord gives us this incident of a man who hardly had any principles at all. He knew he was in debt, and his master brought the matter up to him, and he saw the end had come, and now he reasons as to what he will do. One man owed a hundred baths of oil, and he says, Write fifty; and another owed a hundred cors of wheat, and he says, Write eighty. He was a thief, but the Lord [p. 288] is not speaking about that, but what should be done with what we have now in view of the future.
RM Would this principle you are speaking of help us in regard to ministering to the levites, to those who have money, but we give them more so that they can use it?
JT Quite so; it is an obligation if they have it, to use it, too; if anybody is in need, use it, because that is what Paul did.
AR What about chapter 11 of Acts where those who were well off gave to those at Jerusalem?
JT They did it; they are not told to do it. A prophet came down from Jerusalem and made a prophecy. He announced by prophetic ministry that there was going to be a great famine. He does not make an appeal or take up a collection. It says, “And they determined, according as any one of the disciples was well off, each of them to send to the brethren who dwelt in Judea, to minister to them; which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul”, Acts 11:29,30; showing that the Spirit of God contemplates the use of money by persons who had it, made use of it — not for their own aggrandisement, but for the good of others. They were “well off”, that is the term that is used.
AAT Peter says in his epistle, “If any one speak — as oracles of God; if any one minister — as of strength which God supplies”, 1 Peter 4:11. Is that the subject we are discussing — ministry?
JT Well, we hope to come to that really, but we are discussing now the use of material physical things with a view to the future — not for the present, but for the future — not simply to meet the current need among the brethren, but the idea of meeting your own need in the future, your moral need in the future, that you can turn the thing to account, and as it were, bank it now, and it will be turned to use in another form in the time to come when you need [p. 289] it. You do not need it now, but you are to use it for the present so you will be ready for the time when you do need it, and that is what is in mind in this passage in Timothy — “laying by ... a good foundation”. Well, we may say, the foundation of God — that is a good word, too. “The foundation of God standeth sure”, 2 Timothy 2:19. But the believer has to look out for the question as to how he is going to meet the future. It is not a question of his sins, but more than that: there is something he will need in the future, and he is liable not to have it unless he gives it now.
CFE Would you say that the thought of trading comes into these scriptures?
JT Tell us about the trading.
CFE We do not have it mentioned here but in another instance we have the steward who was not trading with his lord’s talent. Here, the steward is wasting his goods. How do you look at this in the light of trading?
JT The lord furnished his servant with goods to be used in trading. Is that what you meant?
CFE Quite so.
ANW Does what you are at hinge mostly on distinguishing between what stewardship is and what ownership is?
JT Well, quite so; what about this matter of the future? You say, My sins are forgiven. Well, that is not all. That is not a good enough foundation. You say, I thought it was. Maybe it is not; maybe we are thinking not quite right, because Paul in his epistle and the Lord in the parable are not speaking of that at all. They are speaking of something else as a good foundation, and whether as having got means, it is going to be any good to me when the time comes for a good foundation for the future, for the future implies, What have I got? You say, It looks as if you are making it a matter of what one does himself. It is a matter of what one does himself; because what [p. 290] is done by God, and by Christ, and by the Spirit, is one thing; and the other is the exercise the Christian goes through with a view to the future. You say, ‘What about current ministry and the meetings?’ That is not the point. These passages do not deal with that; they deal with what is coming in the future.
AR Like laying up treasure in heaven?
JT Yes; that is one of the things, but this is laying up treasure on earth just now, and it can be turned around to the principle of banking, and cashed in, in some other form.
WWM Does that scripture fit in here where it says, “There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is right, but it tendeth only to want”, Proverbs 11:24? That is the attitude and manner in which I use what God has given me now in view of whether it is going to tend to poverty or riches.
JT Very good, because we are dealing with the present as regards the future, and that if a person has material things how that can be turned around and cashed in the future, as it were, and it is a question of what I am doing with mine now, because the Lord is dealing with that. That comes in, in this particular section in Luke — money and persons who have it, and what use they are making of it.
APf The rich ruler missed his opportunity in laying up for the future.
JT Just so. The Lord said to him: “Sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in the heavens, and come, follow me”, Luke 18:22. Is that what you mean?
APf Yes; and so he missed the point of the future.
JT I thoroughly believe that most of us are saying that, that we are missing the point in the future in regard to material wealth if it is only [p. 291] serving us now in a way that makes much of us or we are getting something with it that we need now; but the point we see in this chapter is how this can be turned to account in the future.
WR Paul seems to have that in mind when he says, “For I do not seek yours, but you; for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children”, 2 Corinthians 12:14. Would that be carrying the thing forward?
JT Yes; but the children have to lay up for themselves, too. It is a question with every one of us as to how the present is going, what is the outlook as regards the present, because the future is coming.
ES Is this the Christian’s way of taking out insurance?
JT You might put it that way as taking out insurance, but this is with God. You can only buy an insurance policy from God that is of any value at all. Well, that can only be by putting up collateral; that is, the collateral would be the money you have got. Give it to somebody that needs it, that is, collateral put in a place where it will account in the future. I do not know whether I am making that plain.
ES That is what I meant.
ABP What was wanting in the rich ruler? The Lord said, “One thing is lacking to thee yet”, Luke 18:22.
JT He lacked love, I would think. In his own mind, he did not lack anything really, but I would say he lacked love. The Lord says, “Sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor”. That would be love, I would say. He would turn it into other values by selling it and giving it to the poor. It happens to be his at the present time. If he obeyed the Lord’s word, his bank account would be smaller; indeed, he would have none at all, but he has built up something in the future. He has built up something that [p. 292] is going to be valuable sometime, and when he needs it, too.
ABP Does this not involve an appreciation of the future, that our path now is one of faith, and that we really look forward to what is really life?
JT That is the way I think we ought to work it out, and every one here should ask himself, What have I got? What am I doing with it? How is it going to be any advantage to me? If I increase my bank account, that is not what is meant. I am going to have great need presently, and how can I meet it with what I have now?
TEH I would like to ask a question about Cornelius. His position would imply that his salary evidently was a good one, because he was over one hundred men, and he prayed and gave alms, and then God says it came up as a memorial. Evidently God worked it out that way for his gain. Is that right? Would that have a future bearing as to what he gave in alms?
JT I am glad you brought that up. That is very good, I would say, and the idea of a memorial come up before God. I suppose that is there now. It has never lost its power or value there. Well, that is remarkable, and Cornelius would come into the assembly according to that working of the thing out. He would come in a wealthy brother.
DP Would the lead Barnabas gave in Acts 4 be applicable now?
JT That is a good suggestion, too, because it is a question of property though he never should have owned it, because he was a levite, and he had land which he was not supposed to have, but yet God honoured him. He evidently took a short cut to get rid of it, but he did not give it away. He did not say to anybody, Take it. He sold it; that is, he used his good judgment. Either the land came down from his father or grandfather, which would look as if he [p. 293] counted on grace to recognise that it was his property; and now the next thing to be settled is where should his property be? It should be in a walled city. That is where he should have property. He belonged to cities. That is where his property lay, and he had the land. Apparently, he did not live in a walled city, but now he came into the city and he had a status. He already had a status in the city, and therefore it seems as if grace would allow him to use what did not belong to him primarily, but as long as it is the grace period, he is allowed to sell that land and turn it to account, and he placed the money at the apostles’ feet. I would say he is doing pretty much what Cornelius did. He is building up a good foundation for the future, that he would become great spiritually and greater in the assembly because of that property — turn it into account by making it suitable to be put down at the apostles’ feet.
Rem You get the opposite in the case of Ananias and Sapphira.
JT The very opposite. They were thinking of the land that they had. They sold it and got more for it than would be known and they became liars. That is remarkable. These are remarkable things to come into what we have said, because all these things are going on, whether we are holding money as men hold it, or whether as we have it we are holding it as Barnabas held it; that is, giving it away to others.
JTJr The man in chapter 12 would be holding it as men in the world hold it. You remember the rich man who laid it up and did not have barns big enough. He had prospered for many years. That would be the selfish idea — a rich man in selfish consideration.
JT Very good, because he was a man that had so much, pulling down his barns to build greater, and to store his goods. He is a man of this world, that is, a man who would be regarded as having a good foundation for this world. God says, “Fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee”, Luke 12:20. That is just the thing we are speaking of now, as to those of us who have any little means — and every one has because earnings are good — the question is what we are doing with it, whether we are dealing with it as to the present or future.
JH When the widow cast in her two mites, she would not be destitute, would she, she would have something to fall back on?
JT She would have God; is that what you mean?
JH Yes; she would have treasure in heaven.
JT God will provide for her, “Give us today our needed bread”, Matthew 6:11. God would say, You can reckon on that. God will look after her, but she is looking to her future.
JH You are not excluding any in the room? We are all in this matter.
JT That is just the point. Everyone has something. It is a good earning time, and the question is what we are doing with it.
WR Mary of Bethany turned her money into good account. She had a pound of ointment of pure nard of great price.
JT Just so; it was very valuable. I think it is beautiful what our brother has just remarked about the widow who gave all to the treasury. There is really no treasury in Christianity, as far as I see, such as existed when the Lord was here, but the question is what we are doing with our earnings. That is really my exercise, what we are doing with our earnings, because these earnings are for the present, but they can be changed over to something that will go over to another world, where I will need the property.
FNW Would Abraham be characterised by this spirit? He is depicted as being wealthy in this world’s goods, and yet he looked for a city whose builder and maker is God, Hebrews 11:10 Just so; He was a family man. He lived in tents with Isaac and Jacob, Hebrews 11:9. That would work out, but whatever he did would work out in that way — the family living with the patriarch, because he presents the great idea of father, and how he would bring the children up.
AI In Timothy, we are enjoined to be rich in good works. Would that be laying up, as you were saying, a good foundation?
JT Richness in good works can be cashed just now. What is in one’s mind is what we can do now to be cashed in view of the future.
CAM Do you think the fact that Luke says so much about money matters stresses the fact that nothing that we have should be inactive? He says, for instance, in one place, “Whatsoever thou shalt expend more”, Luke 10:35, the Lord will repay; and in another place he speaks of a bank, Luke 19:23. If we had not done thus-and-so, we could at least have put it into a bank that the Lord would have received something later on.
ANW Do you think it possible to revert to such a condition as Acts 4? “And not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them”, Acts 4:32. Is that possible to be reverted to?
JT I would go by the facts, but in the economy of God a greater ability came into the management. That is to say, Paul came into the management. I am speaking now simply, and the order is changed. As soon as you get him you find persons well off. We have already alluded to that, but they turned what they had on the same principle; instead of laying it at the apostle’s feet they did it themselves. Paul never seemed to have resorted to that method of having things laid at his feet. He enjoined the brethren to lay up on the first day of the week, which [p. 296] is better, I would think, than laying it at the apostles’ feet. He says, “On the first of the week let each of you put by at home laying up in whatever degree he may have prospered, that there may be no collections when I come”, 1 Corinthians 16:2. It would look as if Paul is inaugurating a superior financial position and method, because he is suggesting something about the first day of the week. He is turning time into value. Time is going to add to the value of the Christian. What came out is in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. The matter became adjusted there and Paul became the bearer with others of the results. It seems as if under Paul the economy took on a higher basis of action and plan, so that the current situation was improved, of course, because they were poor. The Lord had said, “For ye have the poor always with you”, John 12:8. But then Peter and others had enjoined prophetically, “that we should remember the poor, which same thing also I was diligent to do”, says Paul; Galatians 2:10. The poor had to be remembered, and under him they were remembered. They had what was needed, no doubt, and I think we have to work all these things out in a spiritual way as to how they bear on the future and how they bear on the present, because Paul provided for the present, too. But it was the future in 1 Timothy — what was to be for the future — a good foundation for the time to come.
AR Do you think Zacchaeus was working out a good foundation for the future? He says, If I have taken anything by false accusation I restore fourfold, and one-half my goods I give to the poor, Luke 19:8. And the Lord calls him a son of Abraham.
JT He returned fourfold. That is another thing; that a man is rectifying his whole position in the presence of the Lord. The money matter is all adjusted. It is remarkable how much it comes into Christianity, and how much money affects us, and [p. 297] how much it is going to be used for the future. That is one of the most important things we have before us now, how it can be used for the future.
AI This steward used the word that he was unable to dig. What was the suggestion in that?
JT He was too proud to work; that is all. That will not do. He is not fit for fellowship. “I am not able to dig; I am ashamed to beg”. Well, I would say, the two things go together. There was pride in the man. Why could he not dig? If a man is not working and is spending his time, not working at all — Go and find work. It is the best thing he can do.
JTJr Is that the practical side that Paul speaks of to the Thessalonians? He spoke about “their labour and toil — working night and day”, 1 Thessalonians 2:9, not to be chargeable to others, and then about the man who would not work. It is not right. He was very practical in that way.
JT He says, If any man does not like to work, neither let him eat. If a man comes to your house and he is not working, do not let him eat. You may say you are penalising the brother, but you are adjusting him.
JH Abraham had a godly exercise about the king of Sodom; He said “that thou mayest not say, I have made Abram rich”, Genesis 14:23.
JT Quite so. Here was a man who could make him rich, but he calculated it would not do for him to be made rich by the king of Sodom; God made him rich.
RWS The matter of insurance which was mentioned, often becomes a very pressing matter with some. Just how should the believer regard that?
JT Well, I would not insure my life. That belongs to God. If anybody is to keep it I should keep it myself. “Take heed to thyself and to the teaching”, 1 Timothy 4:16, Paul says to Timothy, and he tells him to [p. 298] take a little wine for his stomach’s sake. That is your own body. You do not ask the insurance people to look after your body; I would not. If there is a person that has something he is indebted in regard of to somebody else, I would protect him. Business is so peculiarly managed now that you can hardly carry on business without the principle of banking. If, as a Christian, you are apt to be brought into discredit, you had better protect yourself for the sake of the Lord and His people, not for your own sake. The credit of the testimony might be involved, and it is better to say, You had better take charge of that; I cannot take charge of that. I have no means of protecting the man I am doing business with, and I want to protect him.
RWS It is important to be clear as to the life insurance principle. If I can trust the Lord as to my life, does it cease there? My faith need not go so far as to trust Him for something else that is outside of me? If it is a matter of car insurance, you might damage some other person’s property. You would have insurance to take care of that person.
JT That is the only way I would reckon: if I should do harm to someone else — if there is a means of protecting him without my having to do anything with it. It is this world’s way. But I certainly would not insure my life nor insure anything I was dependent on except it involves somebody else.
ANW I wondered about the woman at the end of Proverbs. “She considereth a field, and acquireth it; of the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and maketh strong her arms. She perceiveth that her earning is good; her lamp goeth not out by night”, Proverbs 31:16 - 18. Is she using her wealth or what she has at her hand with a view to the future? It speaks of the family and then finally her works praise her in the gates.
JT [p. 299] That would be worked out on spiritual lines. It is doubtful that it is intended to be worked out on mere natural or physical lines. I would say it is worked out on spiritual lines, because the proposition is, Who can find a woman of worth? Her price is above rubies. You begin to value her. Her price is above rubies, because she is figuratively the assembly. She has cost an enormous amount; the Lord has given Himself for her; “which he has purchased with the blood of his own”, Acts 20:28; the blood of Christ. Therefore, I would put that on a higher level than what we are speaking of.
JAP Do you think in Jacob’s history we can learn how we grow? At Bethel he says, I will give a tenth, but as he went on he got more. When he went to meet Esau, he sent herds. Is it not as we pray to God about being liberal-minded that we get that way?
JT That is good. When you bring up anybody like that, whether it is the virtuous woman — well, what is meant by that? It is plain enough from what has been said. But now you come to Abraham himself and his relations with the king of Sodom. You can see the high level he is on in dealing with these material matters. He would not be made rich by a man like that. Well now, we come to Jacob. What can we make out of him in money matters? He was a salaried man, and his salary was changed ten times. His father-in-law was his employer and he was somewhat selfish. In the results, God helped him but it looks to me as if we are dealing with man on a lower level. That is important too; what level the man is on.
JAP He got on a higher level when he went to meet Esau.
JT He did. It is well he had those droves. He made much of them at first to Esau. He said virtually to Esau, You must not think I am a poor man. I [p. 300] have droves and herds. He sent them on with certain ones to appease his brother. That was on a low level. Jehovah was on the watch about that. What was He going to make out of Jacob? He is left alone, not even wife or children with him. It is a question of Jacob finding his own measure and his own value before God. It is not a question of herds or even children; it is a question of Jacob himself. That is another thing that is important. What does God do with him? He makes a prince out of him, not because he had money but because he had power. He was weakened in his thigh, but he limped. He was weakened outwardly but he was made a prince. Therefore, in bringing up these cases God would help us to see what we are dealing with now, and I think Jacob is a man that represents a Christian whom God would take out of all these things that he followed that were really of no value. He was making too much of them. He just takes him by himself and makes a prince out of him. That is no question of money at all.
WWM This matter is a matter of the heart, too. In regard to God David says, “And I know, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. In the uprightness of my heart have I willingly offered all these things; and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, offer willingly to thee”, 1 Chronicles 29:17. The idea is the offering spirit.
JT Quite so. That was a fine time, showing how these things can be made use of at the time and the brethren seem to be enhanced by it.
DP Would you say a word as to why the lord of the steward did not condemn his shrewd practices?
JT Because he just left him as it is. He does not exonerate the man or ennoble him at all. It is said, “the lord praised the unrighteous steward”. That would be his own lord, the man who hired him. He [p. 301] spoke well of him. He was his servant, but he spoke well of him. “And the lord praised the unrighteous steward because he had done prudently”. But then the Lord brings in this word ‘for’. The Lord begins to speak Himself. He says, “For the sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light”, Luke 16:8. He is not saying he was right at all; he is a thief really. He belonged to the sons of this world. He was a thief in it really. He was unrighteous. The Lord leaves him there. He does not enlarge on that at all. He goes on to say, “Make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles”. It will not simply fail you, it will fail itself. The mammon of unrighteousness is sure to fail. It will never hold when the test comes. “That when it fails ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles”. The unjust steward is not going to be in eternal tabernacles. The Lord is turning that around, and He gives a course of instruction, because He says, “He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much”. He is telling us if we have a little means, to use it for the Lord, and the Lord is saying, I will make you spiritual if you do it. “He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much; and he that is unrighteous in the least is unrighteous also in much”. If he is unrighteous in the way he uses his money he will never be honoured in the assembly. That is what the Lord means. “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to you the true? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s” — meaning your money does not belong to you, really. As Paul says, “We have brought nothing into the world: it is manifest that neither can we carry anything out”, 1 Timothy 6:7. Therefore, the Lord says, “Who shall give to you your own?” Our own is what is spiritual. God would honour us in that way.
[p. 302] He would say, as belonging to the assembly the wealth of the assembly is ours. All things are yours, even the world is ours.
ABP According to what you said this afternoon as to the teaching of these passages, what you have here can be something you can take with you, the result of prudence.
JT You can take it with you, and in taking it with you it stands by you, because you have to go through the Jordan. That is one of the things we have to think of. What wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan? Money will not help you there but spirituality will. That is one of the greatest concerns we have when we get older and should be always but especially when we get older. What wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?
ABP Did not the apostle Paul not only have in mind what he had done with material means, but that also that had been once given to him? He entrusted it to the Lord that He is able to keep it. Is that not something he had bought with these things — his pedigree and all that he relates? He does not simply throw it away. In one sense he does, but in another he buys something with it.
JT In giving it up, you mean? Although, sometimes we say, Look at what he gave up. He was a rich man; he was a titled man. Well, the Lord does not always value them as we do, because after all, Paul says they are dross. “But what things were gain to me these I counted, on account of Christ, loss. But surely I count also all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord”, Philippians 3:7,8.
AR While we are going through the Jordan it is a question of what we are going to get on the other side.
JT That is where the first need comes. If you have to go through Jordan the first need is how are [p. 303] you going to meet that? What wilt thou do in the swelling of Jordan?
ABP Paul further says, “that I may gain Christ”, Philippians 3:8.
JT I see what you mean; that we may have Christ for gain.
JAP Barzillai was attached to his wealth. He could not go over.
JT His mother and father and what he had on the other side. He was going back over Jordan.
FNW There is a certain variance among the saints apparently as to the life insurance applied to the brothers in the armed services. Do you see any difference there? Is the principle not the same?
JT I understand they do not take it.
FNW Many have not.
JT I understand many have trouble because they do not take it.
FNW Do you think they should take it?
J.T. Why didn’t you?
FNW I felt the Lord’s help in it.
JT I do not think we ought to commit ourselves where all have one pot and join in together. I believe the Lord would honour us in standing out to an individual position.
FNW It gives an opportunity for testimony that would not otherwise have occurred.
JH I was wondering about this state that any of us might get into where Jacob found himself, complaining about his wages being changed ten times. We are liable to be ensnared in trade unionism. We might bolster our wages that way but God would not honour it.
JT It is one of the snares of the time and, of course, insurance, I believe enters into it, and those who are in it have to just work it out before God as to how much it may or may not involve. It all works into the modern way of business, and I know [p. 304] well enough what it is, what has to be gone through with it, but surely the Lord would help us that way in seeing that we are not going to succumb; at all costs it will be according to the will of God.
ABP When Elijah was at the brook Cherith the ravens brought him a portion of meat in the morning and in the evening. Would that be a great principle on which to live, what God provides and our acceptance of it? “Godliness with contentment is great gain”.
JT That is beautiful. That is how it was with him, and then he has to go across the country to be supported by a widow.
FHL Perhaps that would connect up with chapters 9 and 10 of Luke, where the Lord sent out the twelve, and then the seventy, without money and without purse. Was that just educational?
JT That has to be weighed out, too, as to the time, whether the actual facts of that case would fit in with Paul’s exercise; whether the economy had not taken on a different standard which, I would think, because he worked with his hands, whereas the Lord would say, It is an absolute thing in my case, and if you are to be my apostles, you are to represent me, and you are not to take anything, purse or clothing — nothing except just what you want for the moment. It seems that we have to weigh these things up according to the time, that is, whether the dispensation is involved, and then, as we have already remarked, according to the history of the persons — how it might fit in their case.
JAP The Samaritan had money with him — two denarii.
JT He did. That is another thing. It is important to have it, because these men at Antioch had money, and they used it because of the prophetic ministry. It was prophetic ministry that met that [p. 305] situation, and these men were ready. They did not make a collection; they just gave according to what they had, each being well off. And Paul and Barnabas were ready to do the carrying.
RWS In the scripture in Timothy in verse 18, it says, “To do good, to be rich in good works, to be liberal in distributing, disposed to communicate of their substance, laying by for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold of what is really life”. I wanted to ask about the laying by for themselves a good foundation for the future. That is after this life, is it not? That belongs to the world to come. Does it apply to the future in our own lives, or in the future in the world to come?
JT That is a question I think we have barely time for, the difference between this life — what he calls here, laying hold of what is really life — whether that is not the present, what we enjoy now. That comes to one’s mind as we have talked about the matter here, whether that is not what we have as here together this afternoon, the life that we enjoy, what is really life. I would say the force of it is what is really life now, what we have in the fellowship — whereas eternal life is spoken of earlier in verse 12, “Strive earnestly in the good conflict of faith. Lay hold of eternal life”, 1 Timothy 6:12. That is to be taken according to the full value of the term “eternal life” and it bears on the future, in the world to come, everlasting life; whereas what is really life, would look as if the apostle changes it to bring it into the present, what we have at any time at these fellowship meetings, instead of staying home or reading or going out for a ride or the like for physical reasons, this is really life.
RWS The note says, ‘As “seize” “caught hold” as if it is an act of violence to seize it’.
JT The word, you mean, the laying hold, to seize it. Of course you miss that sort of thing if you [p. 306] just want to have pleasure and the like, for ease and comfort and that.
CAM I suppose it would be right to say that in either view of life, it would be life beyond the touch of death.
JT I think so. What is really life must be beyond the power of death.