CHRIST'S MARITAL RELATIONS WITH THE ASSEMBLY
CHRIST’S MARITAL RELATIONS WITH THE ASSEMBLY
Exodus 18: 1 - 7; 1 Samuel 25:3; 1 Samuel 25:14-20; 1 Samuel 25:32,33
JT There is considerable inquiry and exercise among the brethren as to the assembly viewed in marital relations with Christ; as to her part in the service of God, and as to how the truth of the assembly’s marital relations enters into the service of God. It occurred to me that it might be profitable to look into these two types; Zipporah, significantly related to Moses as engaged in the service of God, and Abigail in relation to David, also prominently connected with God’s service. The service of God is introduced very formally in Exodus. Jehovah sent a message to Pharaoh saying, “Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me” (Exodus 4: 22, 23). And we know how David links up with the service of God, being also “the sweet psalmist of Israel”, so that Abigail serves to typify the assembly in relation to Christ as seen in David. David represents the more spiritual side of our service as we come together in assembly; Moses represents more the initial, or dominical, side of our position. There are other types of the assembly, but these are representative of the assembly as relating to the service of God.
EJMcB It has raised a very interesting point, that is, as to the place that the marital relation has in the service of God, how far it goes.
JT Well, the link in our first scripture is very evident, for it is said that Jethro came as Moses was before the mountain. “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came to Moses with his sons and his wife into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mountain of God” Exodus 18: 5. Moses had reached that point. Israel, we are told in the next chapter, verse 2, “encamped there before the mountain”, but it is Moses in this chapter, and the [p. 442] link is very evident as to the service, because God had directed that they were to serve Him “upon this mountain”. So that the subject of God’s service is plainly in view, “And Jethro ... came to Moses with his sons and his wife into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mountain of God” Exodus 18: 5. There is nothing said here about Zipporah being a woman of good understanding, or of a beautiful countenance, indeed there is nothing at all said of her as to her character. She represents the marital side, being as much a wife as any other: Abigail or Rebecca; indeed, as appearing here she represents the thought of the marriage bond and, I think, corresponds with our position as we sit down at the Lord’s supper. The marriage link is there between Christ and His assembly, in the sense of the bond, that she is “to be to another, who has been raised up from among the dead”, Romans 7: 4. This is seemingly the Roman side of the subject.
EJMcB Has the naming of the sons any place in this matter? Do the two names suggest two sides of the position?
JT They have their meaning expressly given. “Gershom — ... I have been a sojourner in a foreign land, — and the name of the other, Eliezer — For the God of my father has been my help, and has delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh” Exodus 18: 3,4. These meanings seem to fit in with our public position. Zipporah represents the assembly in an initial way, not too lovely, not too attractive, but still the bond is there, and the Lord is true to it.
AFB Would you mind saying a word as to Jethro in this connection — what place has he?
JT There is more made of him than of Zipporah in this chapter, so that it is the ‘in-law’ position. The position is somewhat legal, and rightly so; we all begin with that. The position is clear, the wifely relation is not only there, but the father-in-law as well; he stands [p. 443] specially related to her. She is his daughter, of course, and he is her father, but the father-in-law is stressed. The position is without a stain on it; there is ample witness that the wifely relation is accredited. The father-in-law tells Moses that he has brought his wife to him. He says, “I, thy father-in-law Jethro, am come to thee, and thy wife, and her two sons with her” Exodus 18: 6. There is no doubt about it. He has thoroughly identified himself as his father-in-law, and the wife is there; the bond is clear. Whatever people may say about His people characteristically on assembly ground, the Lord owns us. The position is clear, let people say what they will, whereas the position of the Church of England, or the Church of Rome, is not clear. Who has brought them to Christ?
WS Does this represent the love of Christ, and not so much response on our side?
JT It presents the bond, and it is owned. It cannot but be owned, for she is the wife, and there are the children, and the father-in-law. If we are in this position, it is impregnable. What can anybody say if this position exists?
CL Would the legal position be secured primarily, and is it essential to the service of God?
JT Yes, we must see to that. Whatever people may say, it is a question of what is legal before God. As on assembly ground, we can easily give an account of the position if anyone wishes to know. We can bring forth the evidence of the bond. What can be a better witness than the wife, the two sons, and the father-in-law? The ‘in-law’ is mentioned over and over again; and Jethro is on good terms with Moses. Moses kissed him and brought him into his tent.
WMcB Is this the outward evidence of something?
JT It is, so that the bond between Moses and Zipporah is clear, and this comes in as God enters into covenant with Israel.
[p. 444] Ques When you ask the question as to the Church of Rome and the Church of England, Where is their father-in-law? what do you mean?
JT Well, who can show that there is any real bond or link with Christ? Is it clear? Can any of them make it clear? I am certain they cannot. What part has God in their professed relation to Christ?
Ques Is the commencement of this bond seen in that Moses “sat by the well”?
JT Just so, and we are told that Jethro had seven daughters, and here he says, “I, thy father-in-law Jethro” have come to thee, and thy wife and her two sons. There is no question about the relation of Zipporah to Moses. It is “I, ... Jethro”. He had seven daughters, one of whom was Zipporah, and he was a priest of Midian, and these daughters were shepherdesses, and they came to water their flock, and their testimony is that an Egyptian helped them. That was Moses; he watered their flocks. That is our Husband. Christ has shed forth the Spirit abundantly on us. There is nothing said as to the personal attractiveness of Zipporah. It is just that her father gave her to Moses to be his wife. There does not seem to be any special drawing on her part, it was Jethro who proposed bringing Moses into the house. As to those who question the position of the saints today and despise us, well, we have to hang our heads and say there is ground for that; but nevertheless the legal papers, so to speak, exist; we have the evidence of the bond, and that is everything in this position.
AFB Do I understand that Jethro suggests the element of authority among the brethren prior to the Supper?
JT Yes, it is authority from God; fatherly authority. Any fatherly authority is from God; it is a principle in creation. God Himself brought Eve to Adam. He was, as it were, the father-in-law; that is the principle.
[p. 445] Who can question our position? The Lord goes back to that in the matter of divorce. He says, “from the beginning it was not so” Matthew 19: 8.
Ques Are you suggesting that this is the legitimate position?
JT There must be the legitimate bond or we are disqualified, and we have no claim to the service of God at all. We must begin with the attested position in relation to Christ; that is what I think is meant here.
EJMcB Christ has a right to us, and we have a right to Him.
JT The relation is reciprocal; married “to another, who has been raised up from among the dead” Romans 7: 4. Well, that is our side, we are free, and He accepts us.
Ques When we come together at the Supper all the saints are in view, are they not? The position is somewhat beclouded as most are absent, whereas it is open for us to come in this way as recognised of God, and we come in for the gain of the assembly.
JT So that anyone who is not claiming the bond is questionable; “veiled”, as it says in Canticles. I apprehend that allusion is to questionable persons. Anyone who is not taking up this marital position in relation to Christ is questionable as to his affection for Christ.
ECM It says here, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and kissed him, and they asked each other after their welfare. It does not say that Moses went out to meet Zipporah, but to meet his father-in-law.
JT All that shows that it is the ‘in-law’ position that is stressed here. There is no question that Zipporah is Moses’ wife: there is not much evidence of affection; it is not mentioned at all, but the father-in-law is mentioned in this sense — it is a most important matter.
[p. 446] Ques When you say, We have the papers, what do you mean?
JT I am alluding to the marriage contract. You know what that means, that the principals have entered into it. Whatever the affections, the bond is there as much as if they were in abundance.
EJMcB Is that to stress the fact that we have a right to claim the Lord, and He a right to claim us?
JT Quite so. That is what I understand, and, whatever people may say, if we are in the light of this, having the Spirit and related to Christ, we know the matter exists, and we can go on with the service of God. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, was not an ordinary man; he can tell Moses what to do, he can be listened to with confidence; and he is thoroughly in what Israel were going on with. Verse 8 says, “And Moses told his father-in-law all that Jehovah had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake; all the trouble that had befallen them on the way, and how Jehovah had delivered them. And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness that Jehovah had done to Israel” Exodus 18: 8,9 — showing that it was not a mere perfunctory matter of bringing his wife to Moses and returning home, but that he was thoroughly in the thing; a reliable man who goes on to be a priest of God. We read in verse 12, “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God; and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of God” Exodus 18: 12. So the position is clear and happy.
CL I notice that it does not say that he is a priest of Midian, the title is dropped.
JT He is a real priest here. As a type he is one ready to go on with the service of God.
FH Would you say that we enter into this marriage bond individually on the lines of Romans 7?
JT Yes. I think we may take it up as we sit down to partake of the Lord’s supper; the ground taken is that we are to Another. That is, the first husband is [p. 447] dead. Whatever claimant there may have been, all is now clear; legally you have title to disregard it. It is not divorce here, the first husband is dead; we have become dead to the law by the body of Christ. Whatever exists that might hinder me in the service is regarded as done with in the death of Christ, so that we should be to Another. That is the collective position. “Father-in-law” is mentioned many times, and surely it is for some purpose: and now Jethro, as offering sacrifices, is a priest, and they eat bread before God with him — even Aaron has part in that.
Ques With regard to the Supper as presented in Corinthians, have we the idea of the legality of the thing in Paul’s word, “I have received of the Lord” 1 Corinthians 11: 23, and then some suggestion of the marital affections in the use of the title, Lord Jesus?
JT Yes, and it is “My body, which is for you” 1 Corinthians 11: 24; that surely is the suggestion of His love for the assembly. It is the Lord’s thought from heaven. The marital relation refers to a Christ ascended. The Supper here was celebrated in the assembly, and Paul in recording 1 Corinthians 11 would have the mystery in mind. Being the minister of the assembly, he would have it in his mind, although he kept back much in speaking to the Corinthians. In the second letter he says he had espoused them as a chaste virgin to Christ; but in the first letter he keeps to the wording of the Lord’s communication to him as to the Supper, and this should govern us as celebrating it.
FWK That is, the apostle claimed them for the Lord.
JT Quite so. He says that in the second letter, showing that he has more liberty now. That is what he had in his mind — they were only two years old; they were young, when he wrote his first letter, but he refers to his early service among them. “I have espoused you ... a chaste virgin to Christ” 2 Corinthians 11: 2 — he had that in his mind and we must read the first epistle in that light.
[p. 448] Ques Why does Moses eventually send away his father-in-law?
JT The matter is settled. This chapter is by itself, it is a remarkable chapter. Jethro comes in and actually officiates as priest and then tells Moses what to do, and Moses acts according to his word too. All this comes down to us for our education. Then we come to the position on the mountain (Exodus 19), and the going up (Exodus 24). The service of God started in this sense. There was the song earlier, but that was not the inauguration of the service of God, because the service of God was to be inaugurated on the mountain. The Red Sea does not denote the resources of God, but His mountain does. “On the mount of Jehovah will be provided” (Genesis 22: 14); that is what Exodus 19 presents. Everything for the service of God will come out there.
The second side of our subject is Abigail and, over against Zipporah, the first mention of her brings out that she is a woman of a good understanding and of a beautiful countenance, so that we have a different view of the assembly now, which ought to come in later in assembly service. Our spiritual intelligence ought to come in especially, and our attractiveness to Christ; also liberty for the operations of the Holy Spirit as in the assembly, producing intelligence and affections, not only for Christ, but for one another. We must be united in affection to one another; it is a collective thought and that is what is in view here; we have a different view, but it is the same subject. It should appeal to us as to how we respond in this way, whether there is a good understanding, that is, that I know what to do at a given time. “I speak as to intelligent persons” 1 Corinthians 10: 15, the apostle says. This hardly marked them at Corinth, but he would accredit them in this way. I know what to do as intelligent, and I am attractive to Christ as being of a beautiful countenance.
[p. 449] Ques Would this come in more in relation to the headship of Christ? You are speaking of the dominical side in relation to Moses.
JT Well yes, David represents that, but we have to observe first what Abigail does. You see what she is capable of before you get the thought of union with David. She is viewed by herself, she is not yet in relation with David; it is what she is in herself. We are told what she was in the third verse, and then some disaster is pending, and the young man, verse 14, “told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to bless our master; and he has insulted them” 1 Samuel 25: 14. That is, this young man understands what she is capable of. He knew where to put the information, and she knew what to do. That is the next thing, what we can do as left to ourselves. The whole of the gospel of Matthew strengthens us in that position, though Matthew does not say that the Lord went to heaven. One principle is that He has confidence in the disciples.
EJMcB Do you look at this type as setting forth the spiritual beauty and understanding of the assembly as knowing how to act in difficult circumstances?
JT That is it. How important that is! The scripture says, “difficult times shall be there” 2 Timothy 3: 1 — that is, now. How important, therefore, to have the Abigail features! — that is, the wisdom she evidences in dealing with matters — we are to know what to do; to have a good understanding.
EJMcB She thoroughly judged her previous links.
JT She is still the wife of Nabal, but she has a true judgment of him.
ECM She seems to correspond with David himself in regard to her attractiveness.
JT Quite so. She is of importance already in that way, and this young man’s information leads her to move. Verse 18 says, “And Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves .... But she did not tell her husband Nabal”. She was like Jonathan, who did not tell his father what he was going to do. It is an important feature that we know how to hide things, the disclosure of which would defeat the purpose in view.
EM How do you account for Abigail’s having all this substance to hand?
JT It is to bring out what the assembly is. There must be resources to carry on. Abigail knows what to do, and she has the means; what a selection of food she made! And it is calculated to meet the situation with David. It is certainly good to have something in your hand if you want to appease a brother; you are not demanding of him, you are bringing something to him. David is hardly a full picture of Christ yet, he has vengeance in his heart. Our day is not a day of vengeance, it is the day of grace, and so the Lord in sending out His disciples in John 20: 23 says, “whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them”, that is the first thing; they are remitted by them because the disciples were to be representative of Him.
GCM Would you say a word in regard to the prominence given to the young man here? Verse 14 says, “And one of Nabal’s young men told Abigail”, and in verse 19 Abigail says, “Go on before me; behold, I come after you”.
JT We are in a period of young men today. It seems to be a young men’s time; and the Lord is making it a sisters’ time also. We have passed the patriarchal stage and have come to the young men’s stage. Of course the old brothers and sisters have their place, but I think the Lord is calling special attention to the young men.
CL Is this food for the young men? I was thinking of the converse of that. Had she told her husband Nabal it would have weakened the position.
JT Quite so. What a fine variety of food it is! And Abigail said to David, “now this blessing ... let it be given to the young men that follow my lord” 1 Samuel 25: 27.
[p. 451] If she had told her husband Nabal it would have interfered entirely, because the authority was still ostensibly his. It is what the assembly is as left to herself — what she is as seen in Ephesians.
CL That is, intelligence should mark us.
JT “I speak as to intelligent persons” 1 Corinthians 10: 15, is addressed to the Corinthians: “the assembly of God which is at Corinth” 1 Corinthians 1: 2; think of what that implies!
Rem Abigail has the sympathetic support of those like-minded — here the young man says of Nabal, “he is such a son of Belial” 1 Samuel 25: 17 — they had a true judgment of him.
JT Yes. You find that the young men generally rally to the truth; they have not the prejudice of the older brethren. Prejudice is a great hindrance to us in the development of the truth in the service of God. There has been a constant battle with prejudice from the time of the revival of the truth.
Rem The young men are quick to regard the needs of the position and they act quickly. This element should be seen in relation to any exercise that is raised amongst us.
JT I think we ought to act quickly if the issue is clear. It is well to take counsel, and we must not ignore that Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, made a mistake in confining himself to the young men; that has to be watched, but when the thing is clear, the example shows that wisdom would proceed at once. There are so many things that are left undone, untouched, and they become weights upon us. Abigail, “made haste” (1 Samuel 25: 18). The matter is clear; there is disaster pending. You do not delay on this account, but you proceed on positive lines, not always with a sword in your hand, but with food — food is a weapon here.
Rem What Abigail brings — food and drink — would be an excellent contribution to the wealth of the position.
JT All is David’s now, she hands it over. The position is thus changed, and he says to her in the two verses we have read, “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me. And blessed be thy discernment, and blessed be thou, who hast kept me this day from coming with bloodshed, and from avenging myself with mine own hand” 1 Samuel 25: 32,33. That is a fine tribute from David to her. It is really an acknowledgment on his part of the way she had helped him — she had saved him as well as the whole position.
Ques You are referring to the young men; is your thought that the Lord is doing things swiftly today — moving rapidly — and that the younger element is more ready to apprehend what His movements are and to follow them up?
JT I would not put the rapid movement first. What I would put forward first is what marked Abigail — that she is a woman of good understanding. She will not go too far ahead, but with her good understanding she has attractiveness. She is full of grace, and she moves at once because the exigency required immediate action, and that is, I think, the point. The word haste is connected with her, too, but it links on with the young man, because it was he who took the initiative in the matter. Here he is discerning and he understands his mistress, for the passage says he was her young man; he was Nabal’s young man, but he was hers, too. No doubt he had observed in her the ability to manage things.
CL Would the care meeting come in there?
JT It does; and we act accordingly, and the results reached are — when necessary — presented to the assembly as proposals. The care meeting in itself is not direct authority — Abigail is the assembly in type here, and the information is placed with her.
Rem All these features — intelligence, beauty, and trustworthiness — underlie the service of [p. 453] God!
JT Yes. You can see what an institution God has here below. Matthew unfolds it to us and shows how heaven has confidence in it. The assembly brings out the culpability of the one who has trespassed. The primary sin may not be very serious, but refusal to listen to the assembly is serious, and thus the offender is unfit for fellowship. A criminal court would not take much account of it, but one who refuses to listen to the assembly is regarded by heaven as a capital offender, and the saints are to recognise this.
HMP Are you viewing the assembly in its widest aspect?
JT Well, the desire of many now is, and has been for some time, as you know, to get help as to the service of God. Of course it has a wide bearing, but it is service in the assembly as convened that has been specially exercising the brethren; and it is clear that in assembly we do not bring in at once all that pertains to the service. If the body, for instance, is introduced, as in 1 Corinthians 10, we do not bring in Ephesians there, we just regard it according to the setting given to it by the Spirit of God, but when we come on to later periods in the service, then the truth of Colossians and Ephesians has place. The priest knows how to do things and what to bring in at any given time. So it is a question for us of the marital side, whether it be Zipporah or Abigail, Eve, Rebecca, or Asnath. All these thoughts may fit in, but it is a question of reciprocity between the Lord as Head, or as Bridegroom, and His assembly.
Ques Would it be the Lord’s thought that the whole range of the service of God should come into operation every Lord’s day?
JT I think so, because Deuteronomy says the feast in Israel was to be a yearly one; ours is a weekly one. In Deuteronomy the whole series of holy convocations had to proceed every year. Even if it were a bad year and there was a bad crop, the feast of tabernacles comes after the reaping, when we have gathered [p. 454] in everything. Supposing you have a bad crop, the feast is not to be cancelled; therefore, in our service we ought not to rob God. He says expressly after delineating the three feasts in Deuteronomy 16, that all the males must come up at the times of these feasts. An Israelite would be remiss if he did not come up at the time of each feast. Therefore, if we fail to move on to the worship of God in our assembly service, we are remiss.
Rem It seems a lot to suggest that we should be able to condense it into an hour and a quarter.
JT Well, that is another question, the question of agility — to touch briefly the features of the truth entering into the service. God is the God of measure; that is one of the things that He is a God of, and time is one of the things He measures, and, therefore we ought to measure — use our sound minds — in the parts we take in the meetings. You say, we have an hour and a quarter, well, let us proceed in regulated agility, giving each feature of the service its due place. Mary Magdalene ran, John ran, and Peter ran. Did they do wrong? I do not think so, because the heading to Psalm 22 is “Aijeleth-Shahar”, and it means, ‘according to the hind of the morning’ — an agile creature.
Ques Is there an urgent call for spirituality in this type?
JT Yes; that is evident. David says, “And blessed be thy discernment, and blessed be thou, who hast kept me this day from corning with bloodshed, and from avenging myself with mine own hand” 1 Samuel 25: 33. If she had not acted quickly, what disaster there would have been!
Rem That bears on what has been said. It is because of lack of discernment that we bring in things at the wrong time, and so waste time.
JT It is a question of priestly intelligence — to know what to do, and how, and when to do it.
Rem We want to be more alert as to what is spiritually for the occasion.
[p. 455] Rem We have been giving too much time to the covenant.
JT I think so. One is very cautious, but I think it is clear that the covenant is augmentary; it is not the whole position; it is brought in; but the position is “in assembly”. The two letters to Corinth are to the assembly; there is no covenant with the assembly, it is set up in liberty. Of course there is the marriage bond that we have been speaking of in relation to Zipporah, that is another matter; it alludes to the public position of the assembly of God.
Rem I would like to ask a question as to the covenant. The Lord brings it in Himself, it comes in of necessity in connection with the cup. I think you have referred to the thought that after the Supper we make room for the Lord that He should have His full place in the affections of the saints going out to Him, and then He would bring us to God. Do you think of necessity that we should refer to the covenant again?
JT Not of necessity, because if we refer to God in His love, we include it; the love of God includes it, although the word love is not attached to the new covenant in the terms of it. The love of God is surely greater; Romans develops all that for us. Romans is basic both as regards the first and the second parts of assembly service, because chapter 8 brings us to the Father.
AFB So the great thought of the covenant is that we might be in liberty before we proceed to the marital side.
JT Quite so, especially the young people, although we all enjoy it, however spiritual we are we enjoy it, but it is especially for the young people. It shuts out judaism.
EJMcB Going back to your remarks as to our being legally right, we know the ground on which we stand and we are conscious that it is of God — then there is the thought of Abigail, which seems to be the [p. 456] point here — preservation. David would have wiped out Nabal and all he had if it had not been for the wonderful part taken by Abigail.
JT Quite so, and then the assembly viewed by itself is more prominent here, rather than those who are in the lead on the male side. David is remiss, and we have to take that to heart today. I mean the brothers who are in the lead in a meeting are apt to be too much in the lead and to miss it, so that it is well that special ability should not dominate; the assembly characteristically should come into evidence.
EJMcB You mean to have a spiritual lead, not a personal lead!
JT Exactly. We do not have to do the same thing every Lord’s day. Whatever it be in the service, let it give room for the assembly as such.
Rem So that the meeting should not go by clockwork.
JT There must be the idea of time and order, and then the filling in of the service with what speaks of spiritual wealth. Abigail knew what was needed and she brought it ready for use; you will observe that she brought stimulating things as well. She brought sheep ready dressed, she brought parched corn, and then she brought wine, raisin-cakes and fig-cakes. The whole selection is remarkable; just what was needed. A brother might get up and thank God in the assembly for temporal mercies and other such things, but the priest would say, No, you must be more limited than that. You might give thanks for a great many things in your house before you left for the assembly, but you must be more limited in the assembly. You should know what to bring, what is suitable; that is the general principle.
Ques Are the moral qualifications seen in Abigail necessary for our moving on?
JT That is the point. David says, “blessed be thy discernment” 1 Samuel 25: 33. How great a tribute that is! It is the [p. 457] subjective side of the assembly in these types, and there is no assembly aside from the work of God and the Spirit of God in us. So this is a suggestive view and a very attractive one too. The woman here knows what to do and she is reflecting David beforehand.
Ques Is that why the things themselves are not in the raw state? They are at all stages of exercise — the loaves, the raisin-cakes, and so on.
JT They are all ready for use, the sheep are dressed, and the corn is parched, and then there are raisin-cakes and fig-cakes. We have to go the whole length of the chapter to see the full result — the marriage; but the point now is what she was before it. What will she be after it? I mean she should take on more of this character; but there is very little said about her afterwards.
Rem If we were more conscious of what the assembly is to Christ as seen in these two types, it would help in the service of God.
JT That is what I think. We should carry this through, and if we are not so attractive as we ought to be, as might be said of Zipporah, we are assured that the position is a right one. There is not much said of her; it is as much as to say, we cannot say much about that meeting as to public testimony: still it is on right ground, and the Lord is owning it.
ECM “So David received of her hand what she had brought him, and said to her, Go up in peace to thy house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person”. 1 Samuel 25: 35.
JT Beautiful. You do not get anything like that in Zipporah.
Rem He not only says, “blessed be thy discernment”, but “blessed be thou”.
Ques Is that a mark of the Lord’s approval?
JT That is what is meant. David is quick to see what is there and he is a type of Christ in that. Take a woman like Lydia, how quick the apostle was to discern what was there. “Lydia ... whose heart the Lord [p. 458] opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul”. Acts 16: 14. She was a woman of affairs, a seller of purple — she did things; that is the idea.
Ques Do you think these features would be particularly appreciated by the Lord in the circumstances?
JT God orders the circumstances to bring out what we are.