READINGS ON EZEKIEL (6)

^[p. 116] READINGS ON EZEKIEL (6)

Ezekiel 25: 1 - 17; Ezekiel 28: 24 - 26; Ezekiel 29: 21

JT In view of the ground to be covered, we should look at chapters 25 to 32 at this reading. These chapters deal with the subject of God’s judgment on certain nations in proximity to Israel: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon and Egypt. In chapter 32 other nations are mentioned as showing the judgment of Egypt, but she is in mind throughout chapters 29 - 32. The Lord would help us in the understanding of what is represented by each nation mentioned. Each is presented as representing some feature of the world with which we have to do. They do not include all the ancient nations, but rather those that were specially in relation or proximity to Israel.

And what should be before us initially is the position in which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, is seen. He is called “king of kings”, in the midst of these nations; and as about to be used of God in His judgment upon them, Nebuchadnezzar represents the element of government which is owned of God. This should be distinguished from the features of those nations mentioned; they are brought forward to represent different moral features of the world; whereas Nebuchadnezzar is on God’s side in the midst of all that, as representing His government. He has the title “king of kings”, that is, his is universal dominion, divinely given; an element which we should understand in our day, for he represents the rule that has come down to our times. The Spirit of God has grouped these nations together for our instruction at the present time, as representing the features of the world with which we must contend; whereas Nebuchadnezzar, as the universal ruler, is outside of all that. He is the emperor — the beginning of the great system of government which God inaugurated, when ^[p. 117] He set Israel aside.

ANW God describes him as “Nebuchadnezzar my servant”.

JT That is how he is regarded here; he is not judged in this book. Babylon is not seen as judged. Other prophets speak of the judgment of Babylon, but not Ezekiel, in any precise way. So that Nebuchadnezzar would represent the element of government inaugurated by God, until the restoration of Israel, which we should respect and for which we should pray, whereas the other nations would represent features of the world, as the Lord said: “Woe to the world because of offences!” (Matthew 18: 7); it is the world in a moral sense in its varied features.

The important subject in view of Israel’s recovery, or in view of the saints of today entering on their privileges, is that we should understand the judgment of the world in these features which come near to us — Jerusalem itself is included in the pronouncement earlier. The setting aside, in judgment, of the ornament of the earth — the temple in Jerusalem, represented figuratively in Ezekiel’s wife — should affect us as it affected Ezekiel in chapter 24. What God primarily set up in a religious way becomes an object of endearment to us, and if we are unduly occupied with externals, we are apt to allow too great a place to it and contravene the judgment of God. So Ezekiel is told not to mourn the death of his wife. I believe that chapter 24 is to regulate us in our attitude toward what has been peculiarly of God in a public way, lest we overlook that it has come under judgment.

CAM King Artaxerxes, in sending Ezra, describes himself as king of kings also. Do you think that idea will be carried on by men until the Lord arises from His Father’s throne?

JT I think so; it looks on to the reign of Christ. The four gentile monarchies, whose functions are provisional, are in view of this. The Lord has the title King of kings, and Lord of lords, in Revelation.

^[p. 118] Nebuchadnezzar is called king of kings here, and he is called the head of gold, in Daniel; that is, he represents, abstractly, the government of God. It is primarily of God. It is for us, in spiritual discrimination, to distinguish between that and those features represented in the other nations, that are dealt with here so ruthlessly as affecting God’s people.

JS Would you name the features set forth in these nations as opposed to the testimony?

JT Well, the first, as you will notice, is Ammon. Ammon and Moab go together. They represent features of the world all around us and near to us as real christians; not heathendom, but those that are near to us by natural relation, for they descended from Lot. And then Edom is nearer still — representing those who would claim the brotherhood. These three are forms of the world, with which we might readily contract relations and be defiled. But in our chapter they are presented as hostile to the people of God.

JS Do you regard them as in the profession at the present time?

JT Quite so; features of the world which are seen in the profession. Then we have the Philistines, who are not related to us; they have no natural link with the saints, but they are in Canaan and so in proximity to the saints. The Philistines have a nearer place than such as Tyre and Egypt. So we have to distinguish between these four features; they are grouped together in chapter 25. Comparatively small space is given to each of the four, but when we come to Tyre and Egypt, each has a large place in the book, especially Egypt.

Ques Would there be certain features seen in the book of the Acts which would correspond with these in the history of the testimony?

JT I think so; there are those addressed as brethren; the term “brethren” was used between the Jews and the apostles; there was a recognised outward relation. There is something like that today — a ^[p. 119] recognised outward relationship — but in our scripture each of these nations is presented as bitterly hostile to what is of God, whatever their outward attitude may be.

AFM Why was Philistia so hostile to Israel, although not outwardly related?

JT Because of the ground they occupied. They were rivals in the same territory; the other three are rivals, not exactly in our own territory, but in lineal relation; but all four are against what is of God. So that with regard to Ammon it says, “prophesy against them; and say unto the children of Ammon, Hear the word of the Lord Jehovah ... Because thou saidst, Aha, against my sanctuary, when it was profaned; and against the land of Israel, when it was made desolate; and against the house of Judah, when they went into captivity: therefore behold, I will give thee to the children of the east for a possession” (Ezekiel 25: 3, 4). You can see what their attitude was. When God’s people were under His judgment and discipline, there was a bitterness against them, and God takes account of that.

And then, of the Moabites, Jehovah says, “Because Moab and Seir do say, Behold, the house of Judah is like unto all the nations, therefore behold, I will open the side of Moab from the cities, from his cities even to the last of them ... unto the children of the east” (Ezekiel 25: 8 -10). They say that the people of God have become like the rest, on the same plane as all the nations, there is no distinction; whereas God never gives up the thought of what His real people are to Him, whatever discipline they may be enduring.

And then of Edom He says, “Because Edom hath dealt against the house of Judah by taking vengeance, and hath made himself very guilty, and revenged himself upon them, therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will also stretch out my hand upon Edom; and will cut off man and beast from it; and I will make it desolate from Teman; and unto Dedan shall they ^[p. 120] fall by the sword. And I will execute my vengeance upon Edom” (Ezekiel 25: 12 - 14).

And then as to the Philistines, “Because the Philistines have dealt by revenge, and have taken vengeance with despite of soul, to destroy, from old hatred; therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I stretch out my hands upon the Philistines” (Ezekiel 25: 15, 16). So that each of them has evidenced a certain kind of bitter opposition, and it is largely while God is dealing in discipline with His people. He is peculiarly jealous about us, even if we are under discipline; He will not allow others to attack us. He may find it necessary to discipline us, but He resents every interference.

Ques Certain opposing elements seem to arise when there is trouble amongst the saints. Is your thought that we might see where this opposition comes from?

JT That is right; there was opposition, of course, when Israel was in prosperity, but when they were in difficulty these particular elements showed themselves. The feeling is there always, but it shows itself when opportunity arises.

AR Ammon and Moab are saying things, whereas Edom and the Philistines are marked by “taking vengeance”. Though the latter may be the worse, yet God holds us responsible for how we speak against the saints, as well as for the way we act towards them.

JT The Philistines show “old hatred”. It is hereditary.

ANW Do the Jews, when speaking of the brethren in the last chapter of the Acts, have some sinister feeling? It says, “nor has any one of the brethren ... reported or said anything ... concerning thee”, Acts 28: 21.

JT It is an Edomitish position, I think, right through. Paul had spoken of the Jews as his brethren with the deepest feeling (Romans 9: 3), and in Rome he addressed them as brethren, evidently with corresponding ^[p. 121] feeling, but they used the term as designating the Jews at Jerusalem, where Edomitish hostility had been shown to Christ and His own in the bitterest form.

CAM The divine record gives us ample information as to the origin of these enemies.

JT Quite so. Take Ammon and Moab, for example; we know their corrupt origin, and we know Edom, too. God says later, “I hated Esau”, Malachi 1: 3. His conduct was such as to draw out divine hatred, and it had shown itself at this time. The Philistines came from Caphtor, connected with Egypt; they are a people of great pretension. They make much of themselves and they are rivals of God’s people on the ground of profession. They claim the same territory as the saints.

JS Would that be seen at the present time in the teaching of modernism; the levelling effect and equality which it brings in?

JT Yes; it brings everything down to a common level. I think the modernists would be all Philistines. They are inveterate enemies of the people of God. They occupy the same ground, and would by their investigations, higher criticism, and that kind of thing, bring out their claim as equal to what is of the Spirit of God. It is a very remarkable thing that in the past century, the revival of the truth came in the thirties, and almost concurrently there arose what is called the Tractarian movement in Oxford, developing high-churchism, leading to Rome. Some went to Rome, others became out-and-out rationalists. Satan was endeavouring to combat the work of God with a rival movement. Higher criciticism was also active, claiming to know everything as to the Scriptures, and so on. But the truth has come out in a wonderful development — the truth of Christ in heaven and the Spirit of God here. And then there was the introduction of the doctrine of infallibility, which followed the Oxford movement — all intended by the enemy to becloud and counteract the truth God was bringing out. Modernism ^[p. 122] is largely the counter to this great movement which men felt was eclipsing them.

FHL Would these four nations which are grouped together in the chapter suggest the “universal lords of this darkness”, Ephesians 6: 12?

JT Yes. It is well to notice that they are put together in the chapter. Edom is alluded to later, but they are put together concisely and form a combined feature of opposition.

ABP And are they marked particularly by hatred against the people of God; whereas the other three — Tyre, Zidon, and Egypt — have more the character of shutting God out and usurping His place.

JT Well, exactly. Tyre is not marked by hatred of Israel; anciently, she was linked up with Israel in a most striking way. She had great advantages, but now she glories in the fact that Israel is laid waste; she will become enriched, as if Israel was a rival in commercialism and other interests, for Jerusalem is called “the gate of the peoples”. And now it is out of the way, and Tyre exults, for she will have a freer hand in her projects.

JS The Lord says, “it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in judgment-day than for you” Matthew 11: 22.

JT Tyre and Sidon had certain advantages, but Chorazin and Bethsaida had much greater, for the Lord Himself had done mighty works in them. I suppose we should regard Tyre as typical of the modern world of commerce. It has a great place, and the Spirit of God devotes chapters 26, 27 and 28 to it. What is meant by it is, I suppose, the great place commerce has as affecting the testimony. The Spirit of God would give us understanding of what is in the mind of God as to this feature of the world. And then the word as to Egypt is given even more space. As many as six different dates of prophecies appear dealing with this great subject of Egypt. What should be noted particularly in this respect is the repeated occurrence of the words “they shall know that I am Jehovah”. That is, there is testimony to God in His judgments. He is to be known in the judgments that He executes; so that they are a testimony, even as the gospel is a testimony. God is made known in the gospel, but He is to be known in judgment also; not that, in the latter, the knowledge is formative in the persons judged, but that there is a testimony to God. God will be witnessed to, even in eternity, I suppose, in the lake of fire, for He is known in the judgments that He executes.

CAM Tyre being the commercial world, do you connect its ruler with the god of this world? Is that why Satan has such a place?

JT I think so; there are two terms used, you will notice: the first is the “prince”, Ezekiel 28: 2 and the second is the “king of Tyre” (Ezekiel 28: 12). The prince would be, I suppose, the historical king or ruler in the country, but the king is a fuller and more official thought, and seems to afford the Spirit of God an opportunity of speaking about Satan, as the god of this world.

CAM When Paul acted against what was evil in Philippi he is said to have upset the commercial world there: “seeing that the hope of their gains was gone”, Acts 16: 19. The work of God would operate in that way, would it not?

JT Quite so. The account here is, “And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyre, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas, (and thou art a man, and not God,) and thou settest thy heart as the heart of God: behold, thou art wiser than Daniel! nothing secret is obscure for thee; by thy wisdom and by thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures; by thy great wisdom thou hast by thy traffic increased thy riches, and thy heart is lifted up because of thy riches” (Ezekiel 28: 1 - 5). And then in verse 11, “And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyre, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Thou, who sealest up the measure of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, thou wast in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the chrysolite, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the carbuncle, and the emerald, and gold. The workmanship of thy tambours and of thy pipes was in thee: in the day that thou wast created were they prepared. Thou wast the anointed covering cherub, and I had set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou didst walk up and down in the midst of stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways, from the day that thou wast created, till unrighteousness was found in thee” (Ezekiel 28: 11 - 15). It would seem that the prince is the historical ruler, only through his great riches he became exalted to the place of God in his mind — set his heart as the heart of God. But the description of the king is more personal. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, according to verse 17. He is less dependent upon his wealth. The prince’s greatness arises from his wealth, but the Spirit of God seems to move on to that which corresponds to Satan himself. The commercial world is inflationary; it inflates us, perhaps more than any feature of the world, because it affords such a means of power, such a sense of power; wealth being so deceptive.

AR Hiram, king of Tyre, was ever a lover of David; he served both David and Solomon. Is your thought that a man of means should hold his wealth in relation to the testimony?

JT By referring back to Hiram, we get a right principle. He was a remarkable man; he was ever a lover of David; that is, he was not diverted by his wealth. It is a great matter to be free from influences;

^[p. 125] that one is ever a lover of Christ, whatever he may have; so that having means — a good salary, and the like — does not move one. Steadiness of love for Christ saves us, and of course the Lord’s supper is the great steadying and refreshing influence that holds us and maintains us in our love for Him. Wealth has a most pernicious influence, and inflates us, so that we become independent, and even become rivals of God, in our own minds, at least; that is what the prince of Tyre says of himself.

Rem So that the love of money is a root of every evil; whereas love for Christ is the spring of all good.

RWS The commercial feature would be particularly used by the enemy against the truth on this continent.

JT Well, I suppose there is no country where money has a greater place than in this in which we are. It is really the standard of everything here. In other countries, hereditary titles, family lineage, and so on, have a great place, but here, money is the determining factor of greatness.

ANW So your reference to the Lord’s supper is striking. I was thinking of the wisdom of the apostle in asking us to consider our prosperity — how God had prospered us — on the first day of the week.

JT That is an interesting connection, as entering into the thought of the first day of the week. It is remarkable how much place the apostle gives to the idea of “the collection for the saints” for meeting need, even at a distance. He refers to it in his two letters to Corinth: it is to be laid by on the first day of the week, and it is according as one is prospered. However much one is prospered, as a lover of Christ he is to put by at home proportionately.

ABP You mentioned that there was a testimony to God in the form of judgment which He brought in upon these various nations. Would you say more about ^[p. 126] that?

JT I think the judgments recorded here are designed to that end. Each of the varied phases is in its place, as the gospel is in its place. The gospel makes God known in grace, and affects our hearts; but that failing, He will be known in judgment. In these chapters there is a continual recurrence of the words, “they shall know that I am Jehovah”. Each judgment makes God known; it is part of His testimony to Himself, that those under judgment know that He is God. And, as already said, I believe that will go on into the lake of fire, that God is known in the judgment that He executes.

ABP And is the link maintained in the epistle to the Philippians, where it says, “every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and infernal beings, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to God the Father’s glory”, Philippians 2: 10, 11?

Ques When the gospel enters our souls in the Spirit’s power, is the same power that judges these nations available in our souls to help us to judge ourselves and to judge the nations now, morally?

JT We are to take sides with God, as we said earlier: “Wilt thou judge them ... son of man?” Ezekiel 20: 4. These chapters are to draw us to God’s side and God’s outlook and view, so that we might be with Him as to judgment as well as in the gospel.

CAM To bring God in and make room for His discriminating judgment is a very helpful thought. If wickedness occurs, and we make way for God, it will be perfectly met.

JT Yes, and He is better known through the judgment of it; in all these cases we see how finality is reached, and it culminates in God having a free hand to set up what is of Himself, so that the chapters before us provide for that in the restoration of Israel: “And there shall be no more a wounding sting for the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn, among all that were round about them, that despised them: and they shall ^[p. 127] know that I am the Lord Jehovah”, (Ezekiel 28: 24). That is a remarkable verse; that the judgments are in view of God having a free hand to set up what is of Himself; the house of Israel. It has come under His judgment, according to what we have already seen. But then, what is of Himself, either abstractly or concretely, is never out of His mind, and whenever opportunity offers in dealing with the world in its various phases, He brings this in. He implies that He is not going to leave a void. Through His judgments He is really making room for what is of Himself, and that His people should not be disturbed by such a thing as a “wounding sting”. How much of that there is, as it is said, “they belch out with their mouth; swords are in their lips”, Psalm 59: 7. That is, there is a certain attitude in these nations, ready to come forward when the opportune time comes, but God says, I am going to take all that away, so that “there shall be no more a wounding sting for the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn, among all that were round about them” Ezekiel 28: 24. God is telling us that in the judgment of these features of the world, He is removing these wounding stings that constantly come up and lacerate the saints. God is going to give us liberty and release from all that by His judgments. And then we have, “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: When I shalt have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and shall be hallowed in them in the sight of the nations, then shall they dwell in their land which I have given to my servant Jacob. They shall dwell in it in safety, and shall build houses and plant vineyards; and they shall dwell in safety, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despised them round about them: and they shall know that I am Jehovah their God” (Ezekiel 28: 25, 26). Note, “I am Jehovah their God” — it is His people. Now it is not only that He is known, but His people know that He is Jehovah their God.

EEH “^[p. 128] Commit it to Jehovah — let him rescue him; let him deliver him”, Psalm 22: 8. Would that be a sting delivered to the Lord on the cross?

JT Yes. That psalm speaks of several such stings. The Lord was beset with them, even while He was on the cross.

RWS Protection from them is in some sense known today in the promise to Philadelphia: “Behold, I make them of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie; behold, I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet, and shall know that I have loved thee”, Revelation 3: 9.

JT That is most important now — it is a promise. There are several promises to Philadelphia, and that is one of them. It is a marvellous promise, too; it is quite an exercise as to how it will come about. The Lord, I am sure, would help us to understand how it takes practical form.

JHE Peter says, “For the time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come; but if first from us, what shall be the end of those who obey not the glad tidings of God? And if the righteous is difficultly saved, where shall the impious and the sinner appear?” 1 Peter 4:17, 18. Peter had a right view of it, had he not?

AR How is the Lord causing those who say they are Jews and are not to worship before Philadelphia’s feet? Will you say a word more?

JT Well, if He does it even in a small way, the end is reached. It would be very objectionable for us to be looking for this if we are not equal to it. It is a question of spiritual state. It requires balance and self-renunciation to expect it, but the Lord speaks about it to Philadelphia, so that we can count it as a promise.

ABP Does that thought carry through to the judgment seat of Christ; so that matters that ^[p. 129] have not been thoroughly bottomed or adjusted here, will all be cleared?

JT It would all culminate there, but I think the promise to Philadelphia is intended to be a present realisation; it is an act of the Lord’s whilst we are here. “I make them of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews, and are not, but lie; behold, I will cause that they shall come and shall do homage before thy feet” Revelation 3: 9. That is a very wonderful promise, and I believe we should count upon it.

GMacP Does it indicate that these judgments of God on the nations will culminate in the expression of love to His people?

JT Yes. It is a necessity of love to clear the ground, as seen in our chapters. The ground is so encumbered that God cannot work out His thoughts as He did at the beginning of christianity. The ground is so encumbered with these features all around us, that He needs to bring us to His mind about them. So that as we come to it, we know in some measure that He is God in a judicial way, which is important: He is known in His love in the gospel. Both are testimonies to God. Those who know Him through the gospel love Him, but those who know Him through judgment may not love Him, they may be consigned to eternal punishment.

Ques How do you regard the current commercial depression in relation to the judgment of God on Tyre?

JT The depression has been a help to the brethren. Of course it has involved temporal suffering to many, but I think it has greatly aided the brethren in seeing how the government of God works; to see, for instance, how in a moment great fortunes may collapse and come to nothing. I believe it has been a great help to many who are upright to see just what commerce is in this sense — how quickly the results of it may disappear.

CAM So that there seems to be two ways of arriving at governmental results. One is that economic conditions may take all away from us, but the collection ^[p. 130] among the saints offers a way of being in a position where we have not very much to lose.

JT And I believe the way in which the apostle Paul presents the truth of the collection enables us to get the benefit of it by giving in a balanced way; on the principle of equality, as he says in the second epistle to the Corinthians; but in the first epistle, it is laying by at home on the first day of the week as God has prospered us. It does not imply that we lay by the whole amount acquired, because a man has obligations which he must meet righteously, so that he weighs the thing, and the sentiment entering into the first day of the week would tend to liberality. If you think of giving a certain amount, the disposition would be to increase rather than reduction. The tendency would be to give more rather than less, on the first day of the week. The drift of the sentiment that underlies the giving would tend to express more love.

CAM That is excellent! So that really, you have no weights to keep you down; as a matter of fact, you are ready then to go up!

JT Just so.

AR Would Numbers 7 enhance what you are saying? As a result of the princes giving, an eternal state of things is reached, is it not? Moses went in to speak to God, and God spoke to him.

JT Yes. The whole chapter is devoted to giving, and it is spread out; the offerings of each prince, although the same as the others, are given in detail, as if God is so pleased with them. He would have the offerings mentioned twelve times; and then the total — including weight — of each item is given. The brethren counting the gifts on the Lord’s day morning is a holy matter. It should not be regarded as purely temporal. The gifts of the saints are holy, and heaven is pleased with them. So that as Moses goes into the sanctuary to speak to God, God speaks to him.

^[p. 131] Ques In 2 Corinthians 8: 5, Paul, speaking of the Macedonian saints, says, “but they gave themselves first to the Lord, and to us by God’s will”. Would that furnish the basis of the sentiment — giving themselves to the Lord?

JT Yes; but at Corinth (1 Corinthians 16), the basis of the sentiment is the first day of the week, which carries with it so much holy sentiment, involving love. There is the wonderful activity of Christ on that day; the wonderful self-sacrifice in the way He served, right up to late in the evening. I believe that would be involved in what the first day of the week would suggest.

JS Do you think it would encourage us, as was said, to give more as we see the Lord giving all; “This is my body, which is for you”, 1 Corinthians 11: 24. He gives without reservation, does He not?

JT Quite so, and all that would enter into the first day of the week, according to the apostle’s presentation of it; and his example as coming together to break bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20: 7).

FHL The first day of the week carries with it the thought of what is eternal, does it not?

JT I think it does: it has eternity in view.

ANW And would not the doing of it at home guarantee that the home is in its right setting in regard of what is eternal, too?

JT I believe so; the family would be brought into it. I think balance enters into all that we are saying, that you carefully weigh the thing; it is not simply a matter of spontaneity, but it is a carefully weighed matter. Paul makes a striking allusion to the love of Christ: “For the love of the Christ constrains us, having judged this: that one died for all, then all have died”, 2 Corinthians 5: 14. That is, you are balanced in the thing, in that sense. You look abroad and say, “that one died for all, then all have died”. You are able to take account of the whole position, and you will also be able to take account of your money rightly, how it can ^[p. 132] be used in the furtherance of God’s interests, I think it is well to have in mind this question of balance, because christianity ought to produce a balanced state of things, that we are not fanatical in any sense; everything we do is done in a sober, intelligent way. The apostle says, “I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”, 1 Corinthians 10: 15. That is, we are to be careful and weigh what is presented to us. The scripture we have referred to says, “For the love of the Christ constrains us, having judged this” 2 Corinthians 5: 14. He judged under the influence of the love of Christ, and what a judgment he had! And I believe that all that should be in the household on the first day of the week; that is, we are balanced. But then, the tendency created by the sentiment of the first day is to give more, rather than less.

Ques Then is it in order for members of the family, when they are in fellowship to speak over these matters, to keep the thing in balance?

JT If they are contributors to the household, they should all be in it. It seems to be rather a question of the brother and his wife, although persons in fellowship in the house should, I think, be brought into it.

AR The apostle in referring to the collection, says of the Lord, “for your sakes, he, being rich, became poor, in order that ye by his poverty might be enriched”, 2 Corinthians 8: 9. And then he says, “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable free gift”, 2 Corinthians 9:15. That would help to balance the idea, do you not think?

JT The second letter goes into it more fully and brings in the word “prepare”. The giving in the first epistle is according to their prosperity, on the first day of the week, but the second epistle stresses preparation. The apostle had boasted to the Macedonians “That Achaia is prepared since a year ago” 2 Corinthians 9: 2. The money laid aside should not be used for what is personal; it is not yours any more; the sacrifice is not to be recalled. It is the Lord’s.

EEH Would you regard the pound of ointment in John 12 as a balanced idea?

JT I do. It was a pound; it was weighed, and kept for a purpose.

Ques What about the money that Judas wanted to disburse later?

JT Well, he spoke commercially; he had no spiritual thought at all; and so was not fit to say anything in those circumstances; a man that is merely commercial cannot think or speak in a holy way. But Judas “was a thief and had the bag, and carried what was put into it” John 12: 6. Those charged with the care of the collection of the saints should be marked by the opposite of this.

Ques He referred to giving it to the poor. That might sound good in the care meeting, but was not the levitical side first in the Lord’s mind?

JT Well, it does not say so there. It does in Deuteronomy; but Judas’ word was simply foreign to the occasion, even though he spoke about the poor. It was foreign; he was really condemning a worshipper.

JTJr Some said, in Simon’s house, “Why has this waste been made?” Mark 14: 4. If there is waste it is what we use for ourselves, not what is used for the Lord’s interests. We often waste what should be used for the box.

JT What we began with on this subject should be borne in mind. It is a question of a lover of David; a lover of Christ; Hiram was typically a lover of Christ. He used his wealth on David; he built David a house, and contributed largely to the house of God. Hiram is the type of a believer who has means; a man may be a christian and have means. We are told of some in Antioch who were “well off”, and they contributed to the need at Jerusalem and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. So that I think we go back to Hiram in this way. He was not diverted by his wealth, even though it increased; he kept on loving ^[p. 134] David, and gave more; he gave largely to Solomon, also, for the house of God.

Ques Is there not the danger of getting into a routine method of giving; not going beyond a certain amount?

JT The tendency of love is to increase. The service of the Lord requires this very thing. Hiram was ever a lover of David, and that is the only thing that is worth counting upon in these matters. The root should be that I love Christ; and if I love Christ I love the saints, and what I have is to be used to promote the interests of Christ. But giving should be in a balanced, calculated way.

JS Hiram did not fluctuate in his affections, but was a constant lover.

JT He was really more affluent in his giving in Solomon’s time; Solomon, however, provided food for his household, but all that Hiram did for Solomon is connected with his love for David (1 Kings 5:1).

FHL What would you say about the two mites? Luke 21:1 - 4.

JT It is an incident that is brought forward by the Spirit of God as showing how far love will go. It does not interfere with what we are speaking of as to balance; Paul’s thought is equality; not that you should be in want because of giving to another what you need, but the thought of equality; steadiness of love for Christ balances things. You say that this or that is needed and you can afford to give so much; and in wisdom that is the thing to do. But the sentiment of your soul is that your needs become less and your desire is to give more. Jacob’s tenth was not bad for a young christian. I do not know that many of us go much further. He returned to Bethel and was pleasing to God there — that is, in God’s house. He ended as a worshipper of God and as putting the spiritual before the natural.

CAM He went on giving in that sense.

^[p. 135] Ques How does the thought of balance enter into the care meeting? I ask in reference to giving.

JT The thought of balance certainly enters into it. In Exodus we have the principle of measure in the counting and weighing; these two things go together. It is a question of what the brethren ought to give; determined after careful consideration of the need, and of what we may reasonably expect the brethren to give as lovers of Christ. By experience you know what may be reasonably expected, and the distribution would be based on that.

JS And would not Hiram’s example help us? He saw that Solomon had undertaken great things and so would require much more.

JT Quite so. And there was reciprocation in Solomon’s time, for Solomon provided for Hiram, too, as we have seen. So that one gets back what he gives and more. “Give and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over”, Luke 6: 38.

Rem Hiram did not like it very much.

JT That is another matter coming in later, but the principles are all there, and in Solomon’s time there was a reciprocative feeling between the giver and the receiver. The apostle speaks of “giving and receiving”, Philippians 4:15. The two things should go together. So that giving is not continuously one-sided. Balance makes the giver and the receiver to gain.

RWS Some meetings think of the levites all over the world; other meetings consider just for the levites in the district, and in the country. Is the universal position to be in mind more than we have it, possibly?

JT I think so; our giving ought to be universal, because the instructions we have deal with need a long way off, and the levites, according to Deuteronomy, should be considered ^[p. 136] first.

AR In regard of Tyre, in the scripture we read, this power seems to have acquired immense influence; it is power in the seas; whereas the king of Egypt speaks of his rivers, which is a more limited thought, is it not?

JT Well, chapter 27 is remarkable, depicting a wonderful scope of mercantile enterprises; the east, west, north, and south are laid under tribute by this great trading nation, and the sources of her wealth and variety of her wares are described in remarkable detail. But it is a “lamentation”, as if spoken ironically. Then as to Pharaoh, it says, “the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, set thy face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against the whole of Egypt; speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great monster that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which saith, My river is mine own, and I made it for myself” (Ezekiel 29: 1 - 3). The opening verses on the subject give us the idea that God’s creation — rivers, mountains, lakes, lands, woods, or whatever they be — are appropriated by man in the flesh, who leaves God out of his calculations. “My river is mine own, and I made it for myself”, Pharaoh says. He would exploit it for himself. It is just man generally, looking at the creature of God as ministering to him, as though it were just for him, for his comfort, for his pleasure, to promote his greatness; that is all. That is the idea of Egypt, and there are so many prophecies concerning it, that the subject is more extensively treated than any other in these chapters. God is now speaking to us as to His creatures, which He has provided so bountifully, and man appropriates them deliberately, and says they are his own, that he made them for himself and uses them exclusively for himself, to promote his greatness and build himself up here in pride. That is Egypt, and in this moral sense it is abominable to God.

^[p. 137] As one looks at the dates given in these chapters, he is impressed with the importance this feature of the world has in God’s mind — sometimes seventeen years elapsing between one prophecy and another; God would thus return to speak of Egypt: He would give her to Nebuchadnezzar as wages for his service against Tyre (Ezekiel 29:17, 18). God is constantly bringing this matter before us, so that we are not to be selfish; that is, all God’s creation is to be used to promote His interests, and in love. Pharaoh is not judged because of his hostility against God’s people, although he caused them sorrow in failing them when they leaned upon him. He is judged because of his pride, arrogating to himself God’s creatures in independency of Him; building himself up in greatness without God. The recurrence of the word “uncircumcised”, covering Egypt and other nations, is to remind us that they were marked by unjudged flesh, and hence causing “terror in the land of the living”. They had not been owned or supported of God. Hence they together have gone down to the pit, all of them slain, fallen by the sword.

Rem This arrogance is really against the testimony; whoever it may come through, it is this Egyptian evil.

CAM I suppose one of the evidences of this in the so-called christian world, is that the giving of thanks for one’s food is practically dying out.

JT I have often thought of that — God is left out. So much so that one is peculiarly refreshed as he sees one giving thanks to God in public for his food.

ABP The rich man clothed in purple and fine linen living sumptuously every day, is the Egyptian feature.

JT Yes. It is just himself; he was not exactly persecuting the poor man, but he was living in his wealth, indifferent as to the poor man’s need. Luke makes a good deal of material means affecting men in this way.

^[p. 138] Returning to Ezekiel, attention may be called to chapter 32: “And I will destroy all the beasts thereof, from beside the great waters; and the foot of man shall not trouble them any more, nor shall the cloven hoofs of beasts trouble them. Then will I make their waters clear, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord Jehovah. When I shall make the land of Egypt a desolation, and the country shall be left desolate of all that was in it, when I have smitten all them that dwell therein, then shall they know that I am Jehovah” (Ezekiel 32: 13 - 15). God’s creation goes back to its purity; to what it was originally. Egypt is dealt with and the waters are made clear. God has in mind that He will reinstate things after He has dealt with these features in the world; after the beasts are destroyed “from beside the great waters; and the foot of man shall not trouble them any more”.

HB Would the word in 1 Timothy 4: 4, with regard to the creatures of God, fit in: “being received with thanksgiving”?

JT That is what God has in mind. He would indicate that His creation is for those who love Him. He is tolerant of these evil influences, but these passages show how He will deal with them, and this is what the judgment of Egypt means. God is indicating here what is in His mind, and insisting upon it; His creatures are to be received “with thanksgiving” by those “who are faithful and know the truth”, 1 Timothy 4: 3.

NP Would “the goodness of God”, in Romans 2, come in here? The goodness of God in a material sense abounds towards men, and yet the world appropriates it without thanksgiving; whereas the goodness of God should lead men to repentance.

JT Quite so; the creation abounds with the evidence of God’s goodness, but men have appropriated it, as if it were consistent to use it for their own benefit, and leave ^[p. 139] God out.

JHE In the beginning, Egypt was favourable to the people of God, but later she sought to appropriate them for her own good.

JT All these nations had opportunity of knowing what was right, but it is the departure that God is dealing with.

ABP Is the sequel of God’s ways in government seen in the fact that the nations shall bring their glory to the heavenly city in the day to come?

JT Yes. We have already alluded to Ezekiel 29: 21: “In that day will I cause the horn of the house of Israel to bud forth, and I will give thee the opening of the mouth in the midst of them: and they shall know that I am Jehovah”. In the people of God there is fruitfulness, and the liberty to speak, when God has dealt with all these elements.

Ques Does Psalm 2 deal with these things? It says that the Lord shall have them in derision, and they are admonished to “Serve Jehovah with fear, and rejoice with trembling” (Psalm 2: 11).

JT Quite so; there, of course, it is the direct attack of the nations on Jehovah and His anointed. Here it is the world of the flesh in its varied phases; in its antagonism against Israel and its usurpation of God’s creature benefits, and God is dealing with it. And if that kind of thing is in any of us, there is a voice for us in this, too. How prone we are to live to ourselves! The apostle says, “Having judged this: that one died for all, then all have died; and he died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who died for them and has been raised”, 2 Corinthians 5: 14 - 15. These nations had to do with Israel, where the light of God was, and hence they had opportunity to know what was right, but they turned definitely to their own natural desires and ways, and hence His judgments upon them.