RESPONSIBILITY IN LEADERS

^[p. 241] RESPONSIBILITY IN LEADERS

2 Chronicles 20: 31 - 33; 2 Chronicles 21:1 - 4; 2 Timothy 2: 2

In what I have to say, dear brethren, tonight, I should like to emphasise the element of responsibility among the people of God. All are responsible, but from the outset of the people of God so viewed there was the feature of persons specially responsible called leaders or princes, eventually culminating specially in the king, and this feature necessarily continues; and although at times in the history of God’s people the generality of the people was beyond the leaders in spiritual intelligence, generally it was not so. Generally those in the lead, and so specially responsible, were in the lead. Indeed the idea is that they should be. The idea of a leader is that he goes before which would mean in spiritual intelligence, courage, wisdom and love; so that we find the great leaders were said to have been sent before the people, that is Moses and Aaron and Miriam. The leaders are those responsible, those who indeed in Numbers are said to be summoned, persons summoned. The persons whose names are given were such as were summoned, we are told, as if they were there to be ready for a call from Moses. They were, as I said, in advance in spiritual stature so as to be regarded in a practical way as leaders, as princes, or as elders, or whatever the designation may be. And so, as I said, they were almost invariably, with a few exceptions, ahead of the people. This is seen especially in Judges where it is said that God raised up judges in His consideration for His people, and that He was with the judge. Whilst the judge lived God was with the judge and the people were helped and preserved; but, alas! when the judge died they did more corruptly even than their fathers. That is to say in the history of ^[p. 242] the people there was increased departure from God, for each generation did worse than their fathers. They did more corruptly; but then God was with the judge. We have there in the book of Judges, as we had last evening, the suggestion of the company being somewhat ahead of the responsible element. That is to say Manoah, the father of Samson, who is owned by the Spirit of God in his responsibility as head of the house, was not honoured by the divine appearing, by the angelic appearing. It was the wife. She discerned that the man who visited her, who was evidently in human form, was a man of God; and then she says that his appearance was like an angel of Jehovah. She had discernment; that is to say she had some ability to discern who the person was. Of Manoah it is said that he did not know that it was an angel of the Lord, so that he is behind his wife in spirituality and discernment; and then as God does wondrously and ascends he thinks he is going to die. He did not know God. At times, therefore, God exposes the responsible element by some test. Whilst recognising Manoah, He exposed him. The angel appeared on both occasions to the wife first. He was going to die, as he says in his thought, because he had seen the angel, ‘But’, says the wife, ‘if God intended to slay us He would not have appeared to us thus, and said these things to us’. That is to say, she had the faculty of spiritual reasoning and deduction. That is a fine trait in God’s people, able to think over things and make deductions.

But that is the exception, as I said; God intends to help His people through certain who are responsible, and so I wish to stress this, the responsibility attaching to such, the solemn responsibility. How many, the most honoured of God’s servants, have failed in it for the simple reason that they considered on natural lines. I take as an illustration Abraham ^[p. 243] himself, so that we may see that no one is immune from its danger. He says to God as God announced to him the birth of Isaac, the man born after the Spirit, born after the promise, “Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!” Genesis 17:18 as if he would thrust into the presence of God that man, described earlier as a wild ass of a man, who married an Egyptian wife, dwelt in the wilderness and became an archer, How much of that there is! Such men turned out of the universities and the seminaries thrust into the presence of God. Not that Abraham had any disrespect for God, far otherwise, but he was ignoring the spiritual for the moment for the natural and that in the presence, you see, of divine power, for God had just appeared to him as the almighty God. Ishmael is not born on that principle, the principle of almightiness. He was born on the natural line. That which is first is natural and especially so in Ishmael. He was born after the flesh, and yet the most spiritual man in his day, the father of believers, in the very presence of divine power, would thrust him in before God.

And so Isaac himself through his natural tastes loved venison, cultivated natural taste. Marvellous man as he was, a type of Christ risen from the dead, yet he would bless Esau instead of Jacob.

And so Joseph, who represents in the book of Genesis youthful incorruptibility is a remarkable character, a peculiar type of the Lord, as we may say, the incorruptible, at the age of seventeen in company with the dissolute brethren, children of the maidservants of Jacob, whose language was unsuitable for him. He was incorruptible, as in the house of the captain; indeed, there is not a shade on his character, and yet he would put Manasseh, the elder, before Ephraim — “Not so, my father”, Genesis 48:18 as if he knew better. There was the patriarch Jacob full of light, about to pass away, about to worship, about to render the ^[p. 244] highest tribute, the highest spiritual tribute to God. “Not so, my father”, Joseph says. How emphatic he was, as if the Spirit of God would remind us in that remarkable type of Christ, there is only one perfect Man, the Man Christ Jesus. But here was the patriarch crossing his hands knowingly, knowing what he was doing in spiritual intelligence, and Joseph says, “Not so, my father; for this is the firstborn”. Genesis 48:18 You see at that point he missed it; he was thinking naturally, and so you see how it comes close; the danger stands staring the most spiritual in the face, of thinking on natural lines in the things of God.

Then you find a man like Samuel, peerless in his day; in the house of Jesse, “Surely”, he says in the presence of Eliab, “the Lord’s anointed is before him”. 1 Samuel 16:6 He missed it. He had the ability of recovery at once. He did not say that again, not to any of the seven sons of Jesse. But he missed it; he had to be corrected.

And so, you see, I come down to my text, so that you may see similar features illustrated in this remarkable king, Jehoshaphat, one of the brightest on the line of David, one of the most memorable reigns — he walked in the ways of Asa, we are told. He was commendable in that respect, although much might have been said as to other matters; but, you see, immediately this bright royal personage is spoken of as being thirty-five years of age when he began to reign, a matured man, and reigning twenty-five years, and is presented to us thus, then it is said the people had not yet sought the Lord, had not yet turned to the Lord. You see, what I have been saying is exemplified here. They had not yet, as if there was some possibility, some hope that they should. God had been with Jehoshaphat in a marvellous way giving him victory after victory and yet the people had not yet turned to the Lord, as you will observe, “the high places were not taken away; for as yet ^[p. 245] the people had not prepared their hearts unto the God of their fathers”. 2 Chronicles 20:33 Now you see the position: a royal leader, through whom God had given victory after victory, who had done his utmost in setting up judges and in bringing in the levites, establishing fenced cities, and in calling upon Jehovah in time of need, had not removed the high places. Had not this been written you would have said, ‘This is a fine state of things under Jehoshaphat’, but you see below the surface it was very different. And so in the days of Hezekiah and in the days of Josiah we must not be deceived by appearances. If God be with the king or with the judge you have great victories and much wisdom and skill in government and administration; but what underlies all this? What is the secret history of the people of God? What is going on in their homes and their private circumstances? How much is left unremoved that the Word of God forbids and condemns in the most positive manner? The high places were not removed, and the people had not prepared their hearts to call upon the God of their fathers. They were ready at the call of Jehoshaphat for war; he had a mighty army. They were under his hand in the time of victory, but what about God, the God of their fathers? For after all God is not getting his portion. What is all this public show? We can thank God for it, for any power that there may be in ministry, but you may have all these things, and yet the high places remaining and the people not preparing their hearts to seek the God of their fathers. This being the case what responsibility on the king! What does he do? That is what I want to come to in the point of leadership and the responsibility in it. He appoints Jehoram to be king, exactly on the line on which Abraham urged Ishmael, on the line on which Isaac would bless Esau, on the line on which Samuel would anoint Eliab. He made Jehoram king because he ^[p. 246] was the first-born. You say that was seemly; but why was it seemly? Elijah the prophet writes later in the same chapter: he has a different view. What is the mind of God about this? Has Jehoshaphat been with God about this? He says to Jehoram, ‘These brethren that you have slain were better men than you’. Why did Jehoshaphat not know that? Why did he sacrifice the salvation of the people for natural reasons? You see that is the uppermost thought, all the thought, every day, of a true leader — what there is to be for God, what the people are to be for God; but Jehoshaphat missed it, and so he makes Jehoram king. He knew those sons of his. Their names are given to us. I am not for the moment dwelling on the weakness of Jehoram; I want to dwell upon the want of consideration, of thought and discernment in a worthy man, in a man otherwise most praiseworthy. What about these other sons? Why not take a full view of the position and think for the people of God? They are in the mind of God continually. He is the keeper of Israel; He neither slumbers nor sleeps; He is thinking of the Israel of God. Why not think like Him? Why not think like God? You see, Jehoshaphat was a man who knew how to think with God on other occasions, and to pray and to praise, too; why not now? It is a momentous occasion, he is about to die. He did die, but before he died he made Jehoram king. He made a poor choice. He made him king on the line of nature, whereas the other brethren, according to the testimony of Elijah, were better than he. Why not seek the best, the best available? There were no Davids, no Solomons, no Asaphs, no Jehoshaphats, but there were sons, all of them better than the one chosen, too, according to Elijah; but they were not chosen. Why then lay your hand on a man on the line of nature? There is plenty of opportunity to prove his worth or his worthlessness.

^[p. 247] These sons had grown up before Jehoshaphat; they were his own sons. It says that here, they are specially said to be the sons of Jehoshaphat. What fine men they were! They were the brothers of Jehoram. Each of them had his own distinction; each of them had his name. The names are given: that is not for nothing. They were known men, you see, grown up in the household of the king, and every one of them better than Jehoram, and yet he chose Jehoram. Now you see how the people of God suffered. What happened to the brethren? They are all slain. We want to preserve the brethren. Above all the brethren must be preserved. Brethren is a family term. It is a term that goes into eternity. The levite may cease, and the priests, for they are but for time, for service, but the brethren — the brethren of Christ are to continue for ever. In this man of Jehoshaphat’s choice there is a murderous heart, the heart of Cain. You see what havoc and sorrow we bring in, among the people of God, by moving on natural lines. What shall we do without the brethren? What would God do without the brethren? What would Christ do without the brethren? We must preserve the brethren. These are brethren characteristically; they are said to be his brethren, the brethren of Jehoram, sons of Jehoshaphat. There is no mistake about these men. And then Elijah comes in as if to confirm all this. ‘These men’, he says, ‘are better than you’. How much better he does not say. It is enough to say that they are better. But Jehoshaphat has made a mistake, and great man as he was, he has wrought havoc in Judah through his selection. So you see, dear brethren, that is the position. If the testimony of God is to continue those responsible have to see to it that the brethren are to be preserved, and if they are to be preserved right leaders must follow on, and if right leaders are to follow on we must set them an example and not lay our hands ^[p. 248] on those who are unfit through natural considerations. All party spirit is on that line. It is on the line of natural selection. That is a so-called scientific term in very bad association, but it is exactly what underlies the party. I select my friends on natural lines for some reason or other, whereas the brethren are in divine selection. The principle is sovereign, that God gives me my brethren. Well, I have got to regard them. God gives me brethren. Who gave Jehoram these brethren? Well, they were the sons of Jehoshaphat, but they were worthy men. What support they would have been to him had he been worthy. They were the sons of Jehoshaphat and they were the brethren of the king. So that, you see, the brethren are divinely given. I do not select them. How could I select the brethren? They are there. They are here for God. It is for me to accept them and make the most of them. We know we have passed from death unto life because we love them. Whoever they may be as to this world, their associations or circumstances, whoever they may be, they are divinely given and are to be so regarded. “Every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him”. 1 John 5:21 That is the principle. They must be preserved. I know nothing that is more to be desired in any little service that one can render but that the brethren should be preserved. If clericalism is allowed, if party spirit is allowed, the brethren to that extent are set aside. As another said when he met those kings of Midian — he enquired of them what kind of men they slew. ‘They were like you’, they said. ‘They were like you, every one of them as the children of a king’. You see what the brethren are, each one of them resembles the children of a king. We have got to learn to view them thus. Even the Midianitish kings could so regard them. Gideon says, “They were my brethren, even the sons of my mother”. Judges 8:19 What a woman Gideon’s mother must ^[p. 249] have been! Her idea was far beyond Jehoram’s who did not bear the resemblance of a king. She had a far higher idea; her sons were as the children of a king, and Gideon recognised them, and he was the leader in that family. Would he slay them? Ah, no! he cherished his brethren; he was there for them. But Jehoram here, you see, as soon as he reaches the throne, he slays his brethren. And so you see how important it is to judge ourselves as to natural considerations, personal considerations, and think with God. The most spiritual, as I have already said, is exposed to this snare. He would not think of slaying the brethren himself, he loves the brethren, but he lays his hands on a man who does not love the brethren. That is the thing. For some reason, some personal reason, some natural reason, he places his hand on a man who does not love the brethren. Now you see there was a reason for this in Jehoshaphat, for although he was so praiseworthy, his career was not unmixed. You see, he made an alliance with Ahab; that is a very bad thing. He allied himself with the house of Ahab; as a matter of fact, Jehoram’s wife was of the house of Ahab. All this was most corrupting and doubtless lies at the bottom of this mischoice of his. But he is a remarkable man. He walked in the first ways of David, first ways. So you see what lies at the bottom of such an error in laying his hand on a man whom he ought to have known did not love his brethren.

Well now, there is a remarkable word, before I pass on to the New Testament, in this connection in the prophet Jeremiah to show you how those responsible among the people of God, whilst saying one thing supporting what is right, may nullify it in the next word. In Jeremiah 26 the prophet was speaking the words of the Lord faithfully and feelingly in the court of the Lord’s house, and the priests and the prophets decided that he should be put to death.

^[p. 250] You see, there are elements of opposition throughout the Old Testament. Some would slay the prophets, some would slay the seed royal, others would slay the brethren; and these elements continue. Jezebel would slay the prophets, Athaliah would slay the seed royal. Jehoram would slay the brethren. And so in Jeremiah’s day the priests and the prophets who should have stood up with him for the testimony, decreed that he should be put to death for speaking the words of God. Then the princes come into view. They say he must not be put to death. Then certain of the elders said, ‘Now there was a man in the days of Hezekiah and he prophesied like Jeremiah and Hezekiah did not put him to death’. That was a very fine speech. It was in the defence of Jeremiah, as if to say, ‘That brother has spoken well; he defended the truth tonight and he encouraged us’. Then they proceed to say that there was another man prophesied like Jeremiah in the days of Jehoiakim. What happened to him? The king sent to Egypt whither he had fled, and they brought him back and he slew him and buried him with the common people. Well, what defence had Jeremiah in that? You see, they nullified their statement. They might as well have said nothing. We want, in those responsible, definiteness, a definite standing by the right at all times, and not saying one thing now and another thing tomorrow. That has to be peculiarly avoided in the things of God.

Now, you see, in the New Testament, in the passage read, it is the same thing. The apostle is concerned as to how matters are to be. The time of his decease had come. He had a child too. He was in no way mistaken as to Timothy; he was his child in the faith, not according to nature; he knew him well. He could put his hand on Timothy without a question, without a hesitation in his mind. It was a question, you see, of the things that Timothy had heard of him.

“^[p. 251] The things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses”. He was not only satisfied as to Timothy, but he would make sure that Timothy would pass on unimpaired what he had heard of Paul. So that on the one hand there has to be the preservation of the brethren according to the mind of God, and on the other hand the preservation of the things, the ministry, the truth that we have received. “Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and keep it”, Revelation 3:3 the Lord says — what thou hast received. “The things thou hast heard of me in the presence of many witnesses”. God has wrought wonderfully in our times and we have received the word in the presence of witnesses. Now what are we to do about it? You see it is whether I commit myself to a faithful or to an unfaithful person. ‘Commit these things’, says the apostle, ‘to faithful men’, faithful men. He does not say if they exist. There is not a question about it. He supposes the existence of faithful men. It is for us to find them; it is for me to find them; it is for you to find them. If I have received from the Lord precious things, what is to become of them? These are most important matters. The Lord holds us to account. What is to become of the things? I know of no other way to preserve them — in fact Scripture is very emphatic about it — it is a question of faithfulness — faithful men. The Spirit of God remains here and He will provide others, no doubt, for the moment, but that is God’s provision. But God says, ‘I put faithful men within your reach’. It is for us to find them. I will not find them on natural lines, on the lines of natural selection, or natural preference. I shall have to find them as to faithfulness. What has their history been? Faithful men! It is for me to find them. It was for Timothy to find them. We cannot doubt that he found them.

Well, that was all, dear brethren. There is a heavy ^[p. 252] obligation upon us, every one of us as to these matters, the brethren, the continuation of the brethren, the continuation of the truth amongst them. These are the two great features and those in special responsibility will be held to account for it.