THE RIGHTS OF GOD (1)
THE RIGHTS OF GOD (1)
JT The exercise has been that we might see how God comes in to assert His sovereign rights. Elijah, who is introduced abruptly here, represents this thought. The statement he makes in the first verse seems to be the key to his whole history and ministry. It says: “As Jehovah the God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, except by my word”. Whatever other authorities or powers may have existed, Ahab or anyone else, dew and rain were made to depend on the word of this man, and I thought that he in that way foreshadows the Lord Jesus. God has introduced a Man whose word is to determine things, and we know that all that has come out in connection with the gospel is on that basis.
FL At the end of the previous chapter we read that Ahab did more to provoke the anger of the Lord God than any other king; and then the rebuilding of Jericho was a greater expression of defiance of the rights and authority of God than in any other act. It is significant that Elijah comes abruptly on the scene after the record of those two things.
WLP It is remarkable that Elijah says this seemingly of his own accord. This suggests that he realised that he had a very great place here. You were speaking of him as being a type of Christ.
JT There had undoubtedly been serious exercise in his soul preceding this. He is not said to be a man of any special note. He was simply “of the inhabitants of Gilead”. He had no special distinction outwardly, but according to James’ reference to him, he had prayed.
PHP The meaning of his name “Jehovah is God” is striking in view of the idolatry that Ahab had set up. He was true to his name in all his ministry.
CB The authority referred to here is vested in Christ, and we need to have our attention called to it.
AFM Would this be parallel with Mark’s gospel where you have the prophetic word of Christ?
JT I think Elijah represents Christ as embodying the prophetic ministry. It is said in Romans that the righteousness of God had been witnessed to by the law and the prophets. Now Christ came in on that line.
FL It is remarkable that the introduction of Elijah is as a “man of God”; as you were saying, the man of exercise. It seems to be very significant that there is no genealogy or anything of the sort, but he comes on the scene abruptly and is recognised as a “man of God”.
JT So he says: “As Jehovah the God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand”, That was his attitude, and at the end of the chapter it is said to him by the woman: “I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth”. So in that way his word is confirmed.
BTF Would you say Elijah referred more to the ministry of the Lord while here on earth?
JT Yes. It has been remarked that the gospel of Mark would correspond with it, in that Mark presents the Lord as the Servant-Prophet. The book opens thus: “Beginning of the glad tidings of Jesus Christ, Son of God”, Mark 1:1. We have no record of the Lord’s previous life. It is simply that He is there and God has Him there. It is not the beginning of His life, but of His ministry. So with Elijah, save [p. 3] what we hear from James in the New Testament, we know nothing of his previous history; but it is enough to know that he stood before Jehovah, that the signs that mark his ministry brought about the confession: “The word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth”. It seems as if Mark’s presentation of the ministry of Christ carries special conviction with it.
FL It is also significant to see how the Lord at the outset of His ministry takes up this seventeenth chapter of Kings. “There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elias ... to none of them was Elias sent”; and then he continued of Elisha, “there were many lepers in Israel ... and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian”, Luke 4:25 - 27.
WB-w He comes upon the scene because there was a moral necessity for it.
JT The end of the previous chapter, as was remarked, emphasises the necessity, so that in this chapter it seems to me the ministry presented is one of restoration, not the introduction of something new exactly, as under Elisha, but restoration; as the Lord said of John, when he is come he will “restore all things” (Matthew 17:11) so that the child here is brought back.
BTF Elijah is a witness for God here, He came from Gilead, which means ‘Hill of witness’.
CAM Would the conditions in which Elijah was sustained in the beginning of the chapter suggest the Lord here upon earth?
JT I think so. If we compare the chapter with 2 Kings 4, what we see is that there is no over plus here, no idea of living ‘on the rest’. It is simply that “The meal in the barrel shall not waste, neither shall the oil in the cruse fail”, There should be enough, but no abundance, no idea of paying “thy debt”, nor of living on the rest, nor of a ‘great woman’ spiritually. It is simply that there should be sufficient and in that way I think it denotes the state of things before the coming of the Spirit.
FL “I am come that they might have life, and might have [it] abundantly”, John 10:10. I suppose in the days of the Lord on earth it was more the expression of life; in the day of the Spirit it is more abundantly.
That point you brought out about recovery is uncommonly interesting; it is said that Elijah took the child to an upper chamber and there he nourished it into life. It suggests the Lord in the upper chamber unfolding all that which nourished the little company of the remnant into life. He took them up into the upper chamber, and it was there the Lord really nourished them.
JT You will notice in Elijah’s history that the idea of elevation gives character to it. Now what is said of the child here is, that “he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into the upper chamber where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed”. That is a great point, I think. Naturally the mother’s bosom was the place for the child, but there was no life-giving power there, no hope of recovery or restoration on that line. The great principle of restoration was there in Christ; but, as you said, it was the upper loft or chamber.
CAM What would the barrel of meal and the cruse of oil suggest?
JT The woman says: “I have not a cake but a handful of meal ... and a little oil in a cruse”. That is her estimation. Then he says, “The meal in the barrel shall not waste, neither shall the oil in the cruse fail until the day that Jehovah sendeth rain upon the face of the earth!” He drops the diminutive words “handful” and “little”. That is, I suppose, from the divine side it was not a handful. It was infinite. As John says, “I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books written” (John 21:25); but it would continue at any rate, that [p. 5] is the point.
FL The outward presentation was what the widow saw.
CAM Here it is what she had. In the first part of the chapter Elijah is standing independent of anybody. That is, the ravens brought him food and he drank of the brook, but I was wondering in this part whether what she had was acquired of Lord.
JT Of course it is on the line of sovereignty all the way through here; as was remarked, “to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidonia”, Luke 4:26. It was God acting sovereignly, but at the same time there was a certain measure of faith there, although it was feeble and wanting in intelligence. She was going to eat to die, which is really, you might say, a contradiction of terms. You do not eat to die: you eat to live. But at the same time, there was a measure of light, seen in the fact that she had the meal and the oil.
PHP That was a reflection on Israel, because not even as much was found in them.
JT That is the point. In Luke 4 they would have the Lord on the line of nature. “Whatsoever we have heard has taken place in Capernaum do here also in thine own country”, Luke 4:23. They would be accredited on that line, so He immediately brings in these passages because it was a question of the truth and the sovereign rights of God.
AAT How do you connect it with Romans?
JT The righteousness of God is the great point in Romans at the outset.
AAT It has been declared.
JT Yes, “righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ”, Romans 3:22. That is a question of God’s rights of course, but rights taken up in such a way as to be effective for man’s salvation. His rights in mercy, as has often been pointed out. Elijah does not intimate there is to be no rain, but rain only [p. 6] according to his word. He does not say how long, but we know it was “three years and six months”, James 5:17.
WLP Would you say the righteousness of God is also seen in the judgment that Elijah spoke of — withholding rain? His rights in mercy are seen in Elijah going to the widow.
JT In Luke 4, the Lord says, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:21) and that scripture was, as we know, Isaiah 61:1 - 2. It speaks not of judgment, but of God intervening in grace. Romans enlarges on this great theme. The apostle says, “I am not ashamed of the glad tidings; for it is God’s power to salvation, to every one that believes ... for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the principle of faith to faith”, Romans 1:16 - 17. Now that may be connected with the word “ears” in Luke 4. The scripture was fulfilled in their ears, but if there was not faith it would have gone no further, and we know they had no faith because they “led him up to the brow of the mountain upon which their city was built, so that they might throw him down the precipice”, Luke 4:29. The faith was not there. The righteousness of God was there and presented to them; Romans teaches that the righteousness of God is presented to faith; otherwise it is wholly ineffective; so it is on the principle of “faith to faith”.
FL And it was preached “for obedience of faith among all the nations”, Romans 1:5. That is Romans. “The just shall live by faith”, Romans 1:17. I was thinking of the difference, comparing Elijah with Christ. The Lord in speaking with His disciples of Elias says: “Ye know not of what spirit ye are”, Luke 9:55. The Lord’s ministry was about three and a half years and it was needful for Elijah to shut up heaven for three and a half years. I suppose in His own person the Lord brought the rain and dew, and it was there for three [p. 7] and a half years.
CAM The Lord identifies John Baptist with Elijah.
JT “If ye will receive it;” He says “this is Elias who is to come” (Matthew 11:14); but they did not receive it.
JS So in Elijah you have divine power introduced.
JT And it is sufficient to restore. The Lord said: “Elias indeed comes first and will restore all things”, Matthew 17:11. In his ministry it is a question of restoration.
PHP Is restoration individual here, or is it collective?
JT I think that in this chapter it is a testimony, a remarkable testimony, that in a man, there was the life of Israel. This, of course, refers to Christ, who had life in Himself. The woman’s son was taken from her bosom and laid in Elijah’s bed in the “upper chamber where he abode”. There was no power in nature (the woman’s bosom) for restoration.
FL If that is to become effective collectively it is first demonstrated in the individual. I think we see it in Lazarus. The fact that one man was raised from corruption is taken by the Spirit of God as proof for the whole nation, and not the whole nation only but goes beyond that. God demonstrates the thing in one person but if demonstrated in one it is good for all.
JT Exactly. “The Son also quickens whom he will”, John 5:21.
WB-w The idea of restoration implies that something was lost, does it not?
JT In the gospels the Lord’s ministry assumed that certain things still remained. For instance, they had the loaves and the fishes. Now they do not refer to what He brought, but to what they had, and what He could take up and enlarge as a witness; and so in regard to the child here, although the soul [p. 8] had gone out of the child yet the impression left on the mind is that it is simply brought back. It is not resurrection from the dead exactly, but rather restoration.
FL I think the language supports that. It does not say his spirit was gone but that “there was no breath left in him”. I think there is a distinction. Paul said, “Be not troubled, for his life is in him”, Acts 20:10.
JT That is what I had in mind, but by the embrace of Paul he is restored.
BTF Would you say a word as to the difference between the oil here and in 2 Kings?
JT There is no idea of filling vessels here, no idea of a superabundance. It simply was enough for current need.
BTF So it would set forth the Holy Spirit only as He came on men before Christ ascended.
JT I think what we learn from it, the moral side, is that the flesh profits nothing. If you have introduced such wonderful remedies, indeed the power of God in a man, and yet things are not restored, all is hopeless on that line. I think that is the moral lesson in it. The Lord had said in spirit, “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain”, Isaiah 49:4.
AFM Would you say a little about the exercise through which Elijah passed? There were certain exercises in his chamber; are they significant?
JT It is very interesting to compare them with the exercises of Elisha in a similar case. What is said here is, that he “carried him up into the upper chamber where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed. And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again”. Now that is more restoration. In the next book it is resurrection; 2 Kings 4:32 - 35. Notice in this latter chapter the child had already been laid on Elisha’s bed by his mother.
FL The child was dead.
JT That is important as a distinction. “And when Elisha came into the house, behold, the child was dead, [and] laid upon his bed. And he went in and shut the door upon them both, and prayed to Jehovah. And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and bent over him; and the flesh of the child grew warm”, 2 Kings 4:32 - 34. Now what I would suggest is, that this is Christianity. In this chapter are the eyes, and the mouth, and the hands. All is to correspond with what is presented objectively, whereas in 1 Kings 17 it is simply the restoration of the child. There is nothing about the mouth, eyes or hands, whereas in Christianity you have the idea of correspondence in perception and intelligence, in speaking. I suppose Romans answers to this as to the Christian.
FL The child sneezed seven times. This seems to indicate the evidences of life in Christianity.
WHF In Elisha’s case in 2 Kings it is not a question of restoration. How would you look at recovery: man as he is cannot be recovered?
JT Not as he is so Romans brings out and develops that. First of all, things are brought in through Jesus Christ and then if I reckon myself alive it is in Christ Jesus. So 2 Kings is Christianity typically, not restoration to what I was before. It is in another Man.
GWH Where do you make the distinction in Romans between ‘in’ and ‘through?’ I think ‘through’ refers to what Elijah [p. 10] would typify, the vessel through which the thing has come to us. That is what we might call strictly the objective, whereas the subjective begins, I think, in this, that I reckon myself alive unto God in Christ Jesus. That is another Man. Elisha identifying himself with the child suggests, I think, that there is to be correspondence with him in the one made alive. I am alive in a Man that did the will of God here. That is Romans. Christ is in that way presented to us and I am alive in Him; alive in One that does the will of God, and I get the Spirit to enable me to conform to that Man.
FL The turning point in Romans is at the eleventh verse of the fifth chapter.
GWH So really what begins the second part of Romans is headship.
JT It lays the basis for it. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men”, Romans 5:12. That is Adam; and then in the one Man (Christ) you have life and righteousness in contrast to that. Now that is still objective, however, but it is an element introduced into our souls that prepares us for headship. So the next chapter is that I am alive in that Man, in Christ Jesus. Then I have eternal life in Christ Jesus. Everything is in that One.
GWH In chapter 6 we begin to say, “What then shall we say?”, Romans 6:1.
JT That is right. I like the idea of the mouth, and eyes, and hands, because they denote certain things, and then the sneering shows the power that he has got, and then it goes on to say: “and the lad opened his eyes. And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite. And he called her; and she came to him. And he said, Take up thy son”, 2 Kings 4:35 - 36. Now I think that is what we often call recovery. That is permanent.
CAM As to the eyes and other members of [p. 11] the body, do you make the thought apply to the physical character of things in Romans.
JT Our members are to be yielded as instruments of righteousness to God. In Romans it is correspondence with the Man in whom things are brought to you, because Elisha’s eyes are put to the child’s eyes. There is to be correspondence.
CAM In Colossians it refers to the new man “renewed into full knowledge according to [the] image of him that has created him”, Colossians 3:10.
JT That is a further development of this truth.
BTF Why do you call it recovery? I thought it went beyond recovery.
JT The mother leaves the child on Elisha’s bed dead, and she takes him back alive.
FL I would like to suggest that with the one we have the idea of restoration in connection with Israel, and it will really be made good after we are gone, while in the other, the case of the Shunammite woman’s son we have recovery in connection with the day of the Spirit. So that recovery really comes in in both, only that in connection with the Spirit in the present day, it has a very peculiar character that goes far beyond the other.
JT As to Christianity the important feature is that the things presented in the gospel are said to be “in Christ”. Redemption and eternal life are in Christ Jesus; and then we have, “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death.”, Romans 8:2.
FL So it brings in the Spirit too, the Spirit of that Man.
FJD I suppose it is there you change your man; one is caused to pass off the scene and another is brought in.
CAM In Hosea 6:2 we read: “After two days will he revive us: on the third day he will raise us [p. 12] up, and we shall live before his face”; The living seems to be a further thought than reviving?
JT Revival is after “two days”, which I think refer to the Lord’s ministry, but the third day is really more like Elisha’s ministry. It is the result of death and resurrection.
PHP I suppose there is such a thing as recovery from something and to something, as might be illustrated in these two cases.
BTF Is it recovery to what God has found in Christ?
JT Our brother was remarking that we are recovered to something; and really it is that men are taken up afresh in Christ. We are not recovered as men in the flesh. We are justified by faith through the death and resurrection of Christ; and then we are to reckon ourselves alive unto God in Him.
JS Here there is power as a testimony in the man of God for recovery.
JT That is the idea, and so in Christ as become Man all was present for the re-establishment of everything for God.
FL I think that what comes out through Elijah in this respect is the prefiguring of what comes out in Revelation 11; that is, the testimony of the “two witnesses”. It is for the recovery of Israel. It is the character of the testimony of Elijah and it extends over the period of three and a half years.
JT There is a very remarkable correspondence with Elijah’s ministry there. They go up in the sight of their enemies.
WB-w “Art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance”. Is that the conscience affected as in Romans?
JT The widow’s exercise corresponds, no doubt; but she arrives at the point of the truth. What a great point to reach. “The word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth!”
CAM [p. 13] The last part of the chapter brings in spiritual things. In the first part (verse 15) she, Elijah, and her house ate many days. They lived in that way for a certain length of time and then the further thought of a spiritual condition comes in. Eating many days accorded with Christ’s pathway here, and then a spiritual order of things brought in after that.
JT I am sure that is so. The ultimate result in the woman is no doubt recovery. At Pentecost in a certain sense Israel, or at least a representation there, arrived at the truth. At Pentecost the coming of the Spirit sealed everything. There could be no further question as to the mission of Christ. The coming of the Spirit was the seal that His word was truth. It was a great point reached; “The word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth”. The truth is the adjustment of everything. I can understand a godly person in Israel listening to Peter in Acts 2 and seeing the evidence of the Spirit there, becoming very restful. There are no longer any puzzles. If you have truth it is the solution of things in your soul.
FL All this seems to me to open very beautifully in a line. That is, the Lord takes this product of Israel, as it were, His disciples that had followed Him. He takes them up into the upper chamber; He endows them with all the light of life and the love of God, and then He comes down as it were and gives them to Israel. He gives them to the”mother”. Now their testimony is the testimony of those that live and they live through His touch and association, so that covers the period from His death to Pentecost.