READING
READING
JT My thought was that we might see the connection between the prophetic ministry of the Old Testament and the remnant of God’s people as seen there; of course, with the view that we might see its bearing on ourselves.
What we see in this chapter is another part of the ministry of Isaiah. In chapter 6 he is engaged with the announcement of judgment, here he is the messenger of glad tidings to the king. This chapter is really for the remnant, whereas the other has a more direct application to the mass of the people; they were to come under God’s judgment; but in this chapter you see a direct appeal to faith: “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established” (verse 9). I believe we have thus indicated the two parts of the ministry of the prophets: the one having to do with the mass of those alienated from God, and the other addressed to the remnant of God’s people, to support and encourage them. Ahaz, I suppose, may be taken to represent what was of God. Although personally not with God, he was in the place of leadership of those whom God still owned.
RSS And he was on the line of David.
JT Exactly; of the house of David; that is, he was in the place which properly belonged to Christ; and I think that as we go on in the book, we see that Hezekiah answers to Christ — to Immanuel. He is the foreshadowing of Christ; he cares genuinely for the remnant and through him deliverance comes. He believed. He asked Isaiah to pray for the remnant that was left, and through his instrumentality God intervened and overthrew the Assyrian.
RSS That was in connection with his spreading out the letter before the [p. 26] Lord.
JT I only make these remarks to try and make clear the situation of this chapter. You have, on the one hand, the second part of the prophet’s ministry, and then a responsible person as the leader of the people, and God addressing Himself to faith. Everything would be on that principle.
RSS The second part of the prophet’s ministry would be that which is addressed to the remnant; the first part that which is addressed to Israel as a responsible body. I suppose at all times God gives leaders or guides.
JT I suppose so; it is God’s way of keeping His people; from the moment that He had a people He had a leader. Do you not think that is what is needed at all times amongst us?
RSS Quite so; and, on the other hand, that when leaders are there they should be recognised. We should know whom to follow.
JT Of course, Christ is the Leader of God’s people, and all true guides under Christ would partake of His character.
RSS And so that is what you would look for — those who really follow Christ.
JT And you will find where such an one exists, the object of Satan will be to divert the people from him. It is very noticeable that Rab-shakeh, the emissary of Sennacherib, did his utmost to divert the people from Hezekiah. His effort outside the walls of Jerusalem was to divert them from Hezekiah.
RSS Even speaking in their own language so that they should understand.
WCR It was to weaken their confidence in the king.
JT Yes; if the enemy can divert the saints from those whom God would use to shepherd them, he gains a great advantage.
WB The word of God is with a leader.
JT And I think it is important, as we were [p. 27] saying this morning, that a true leader of God’s people partakes of the character of a shepherd — we see this from Abel onwards.
WCR We read in Hebrews 13:17; “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls”. Is that the idea?
JT Yes; then you get in that same passage: “the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep” (Hebrews 13:20); and in Peter: “Ye ... are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls”, 1 Peter 2:25.
GFW That is the idea of a bishop.
JT Yes. A good meeting has generally a good leader or guide.
GFW I quite admit the importance of a leader, but I am not so sure about what you say. What I mean is, that some meetings are very small, and without much leadership, yet saints go on happily together.
JT Of course, there may be faith in each to lay hold of the unseen One. “The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands”, Proverbs 30:27. But speaking generally, God’s way of helping saints is by a leader. If there is blessing and souls are being helped in a locality through the gospel, you will find the need of leaders.
GFW I quite admit that.
JB A leader would not be officious; he would help more by influence.
JT Every true leader partakes of the character of Christ; he is a shepherd. Like Abel, he is a feeder of sheep.
WHF Such would be more on the line of a pastor.
JT He has regard for [p. 28] the saints.
FL I think so. The king comes to us along that line. And then you are speaking of the remnant. I suppose we see the character of the remnant indicated in Luke 2; there were faithful men, shepherds, watching over their flocks by night, at the time of the darkness.
JP So the apostle exhorted the Ephesian elders to feed the church of God.
RSS Referring to the word quoted from Hebrews 13:17: “Obey them that have the rule over you”; it is not exactly rule; it is rather the thought of a guide. The margin reads guide.
WHF There are two passages.
WCR “Remember your leaders who have spoken to you the word of God” (Hebrews 13:7) and “Obey your leaders, and be submissive; for they watch over your souls as those that shall give account”, Hebrews 13:17.
RSS Is there such a thing as rule in the assembly?
JT I think there is. I think the cherubim in the house represent the rule that is there. The cherubim on the walls of the temple represented the rule of God in the house.
JB “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage”, 1 Peter 5:3. That would guard against clericalism.
JT “But being ensamples to the flock”. It is by moral influence that the saints are ruled. That is the way Christ rules.
M You would say that any one that was instrumental in bringing you under the subduing influence of Christ is a good leader.
JT I think so. It is said of David, of course, as figure of Christ, “So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands”, Psalm 78:72. That is the kind of leader you get in Scripture.
FL The Lord had compassion when He saw the multitudes, because they fainted and were scattered [p. 29] abroad, as sheep having no shepherd; and it was as the shepherd He was cut off: “smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered”, Zechariah 13:7.
JT The connection between the earlier discipline of David, that we have alluded to, is most instructive; he was taken from the sheep. He comes out “From following the ewes great with young ... to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance”, Psalm 78:71. He was taken out of God’s school to do that. I only alluded to the thought of leadership in Ahaz here because he occupies the divinely appointed place, although not equal to it.
FL He does not in any other way represent Christ, because he signally fails.
JT I think Hezekiah did.
FL In keeping the Passover he does not restrict himself to Judah and Benjamin, but sends to the whole twelve tribes. This would encourage the remnant that might be amongst the twelve tribes. He was a shepherd in the true sense.
JT Well now, what we get in the child of Isaiah (Shear-jashub) has a very distinct voice to us. That is, there was a witness alongside of the prophet as to what God would do for the people.
G.F.W. How is that?
JT The child represented the return of the remnant, and that would be the effect of God’s work in them. That is the meaning of his name. There are three symbolic children in this section — that is, in this chapter and the next. The first is Shear-jashub, and the second is Immanuel, and the third is Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and each signifies some special intervention of God.
FL I suppose the thought of a child is a new generation. Do you think there is the thought of [p. 30] resurrection in view in connection with the remnant? I was thinking of the end of the previous chapter, the seed; the character of the remnant was expressed in that of a seed.
JT I think that it comes out in Hezekiah. In him you get death and resurrection set forth.
FL I thought that the light of resurrection is with the remnant.
JT The testimony was that they should take root downwards and bear fruit upwards. In the word sent to Sennacherib by Isaiah (2 Kings 19:29 - 31) I think you get clearly indicated death and resurrection; that would be the end of the matter.
RSS You mean taking root downwards and springing upwards.
JT Yes. All that took place in Christ, and it took place figuratively in Hezekiah. He had been down to death, he was actually appointed to death; it was not simply that he was sick and recovered, but his life was given back to him by God. It was not natural recovery, but life given back by God; so that the hopes of the remnant are made good in Hezekiah figuratively. He asked life of Jehovah and it was given him, but only fifteen years; but in the antitype you get: “He asked life of thee, and thou gavest it him, even length of days for ever and ever”, Psalm 21:4. But that is the end. You do not get that in chapter 7. What you get in chapter 7 is Immanuel.
FL It is significant that every head comes in here — Ahaz as the head of the house of David, the head of Syria, the head of Ephraim, and then Immanuel.
JT I think that the thought of a remnant is not much understood amongst God’s people, and one would only venture to take up a passage like this as [p. 31] having reference to ourselves, written for our instruction, and I think that what is going on today is that God is securing His portion from amongst the mass of those who profess to be His people.
RSS You say the thought of a remnant is not much understood.
JT No, it represents what God secures for Himself; that is, His portion is secured in spite of our failure.
RSS But would you not say there is a remnant at the present day?
JT That is what I think God is doing — securing a remnant.
RSS And that remnant would include every true believer.
JT In principle it would. “I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal”, Romans 11:4. That indicates what a remnant is to God. They are those who refuse to recognise the god of this world.
WHF You would say a remnant stands representatively for what the church is before God.
JT I think it is God’s portion.
WHF Would you apply it at this present time to the church — the general thing, which of course includes all believers?
JT That is what was said, as I understand. Still you would not for a moment exclude from your mind the thought of a right state in the people — “who have not bowed the knee to Baal”. The thought of a remnant is expressed in the leper who returned to God (Luke 17), and that involves that God has a place in the soul; while you would not exclude a single believer from your mind, yet you must be careful to allow for a state in God’s people which answers to God.
WHF So that you have not in your mind a distinct class in that way.
JT [p. 32] You would include all believers but at the same time you would be careful to recognise what is due to God, and that involves state in the saints. What I mean is this: the Lord speaks of Philadelphia and He says: “Thou hast a little power, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name”, Revelation 3:8. These were three things that marked a company. And then He says: “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial”, Revelation 3:10. The Lord would not exclude a single believer on earth from His mind when He said that, and yet with all that there was something there that was noticeable. They had power and did not deny His name; so that you feel, whilst you include all, there is something for the conscience of God’s people — as to whether we are marked by the things mentioned.
WJN Does the acceptance of this place you in separate company?
JT I think it does. It is what separates us. You feel that you cannot go on with anything that is inconsistent with God. That is what marks the remnant.
GFW The ordinary idea of a remnant, I think, has been that it was a small class of God’s people, and I take it you do not think that.
JT No; I think it includes all, in the principle of it. God’s people belong to God; but what I think we should be careful about is, to preserve the state that answers to God; it is in that way the saints are brought under exercise.
FL It is well to bear in mind what you have just said in regard to Elijah; there were seven thousand, and God knew them, but Elijah did not; they were not morally in the good of what they were in the sight of God or Elijah would have known them. They would have been with him. The remnant, as I understand it, really includes all that belongs to God. “The Lord’s portion is his people”, Deuteronomy 32:9. In Philadelphia [p. 33] you get what answers to the normal state of the whole church. The remnant there was morally equal to what it is in the sight of God. I do not see that we get this anywhere else but in Philadelphia.
JT And it is a great thing to take God into account. The Lord knoweth them that are His. As you were saying, God told Elijah in Horeb about His people, and he evidently did not know about them. God sends him back to anoint certain ones: Hazael king over Syria, and Jehu king over Samaria, and Elisha to be prophet in his stead. Elijah returns, and in the next chapter you get war with Syria. Syria attacks Samaria, and he makes such demands upon Ahab that Ahab cannot evade resisting him, and a prophet comes to Ahab and encourages him to resist the Syrians, 1 Kings 20. Ahab then asks who is going to lead, and the prophet says: Thou; the wickedest king that reigned in Israel, yet God sends the prophet to him and says, You are to be the leader. Ahab asks as to those who should fight, and he says: “The young men of the princes of the provinces”, 1 Kings 20:14. God gave a complete victory over the Syrians. Now I think it is in this way you learn in the Old Testament what God is, and you are preserved from narrow thoughts about God’s people. You can never tell whom God may use.
WB Is that illustrated in Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus?
JT It is remarkable that they were comparatively hidden and did not share His afflictions, but at the last they come forward and shine on the side of Christ.
FL Do not you think that one mark of the remnant, that is, those who are in the good of the remnant spirit, is that they appreciate all that the original stands for in the mind of God — nothing smaller? For instance, as with Hezekiah when it was a question of keeping the passover; the whole twelve tribes must be brought into view. Do you not [p. 34] think the remnant, understanding the mind of God, always appreciates the divine original?
JT I think it is very clear.
FL So with regard to the assembly, one would conceive that Philadelphia understood, as none other, what the church is in the sight of God.
JT So Philadelphia really refers to a state rather than a class of people.
M The idea of a remnant, then, is that part which is exactly like the original.
JT Yes. As was said, they answer to what the original was and what it stood for. The fact is, that if there is love for Christ you will maintain everything that belongs to Christ, and that is how true testimony shines. It is the result of affection for Christ. So the Lord says: “Thou hast a little power, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name”, Revelation 3:8. That is because they love Him. He said in John 14:23: “If a man love me, he will keep my words”.
LTF What stands in contrast to the remnant?
JT The whole outward mass — the many.
GFW I have to confess I cannot quite see the application of the word remnant if it includes the whole thing.
FL If you look at the church historically in connection with Thyatira the whole mass has become corrupt, so that for the first time the Lord has to take account of what is distinctive in character from the whole mass, and so He addresses them: “Unto you I say, and unto the rest”, Revelation 2:24. And in Philadelphia that which is addressed comes out in a very clear and pure light in contrast to Thyatira and Sardis.
JT You cannot but see that the Lord thinks of the whole church. “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial”, Revelation 3:10. Thee must include the whole church.
GFW What was the original that this is a part of?
FL I speak of the original as being that which was set up in divine power at Pentecost, that which shone forth in Ephesus in its undimmed day; I take the remnant historically in Israel as being in the light of the kingdom and the purpose of God in connection with the king.
GFW Speaking of the remnant, then, you have respect to the day of Pentecost?
FL Where there are those answering to the remnant, they will value and appreciate the divine original.
JT The remnant becomes, in a way, the generic head of the succeeding dispensation. I think that the remnant stands out in contrast to the mass after general defection occurs either with Israel or the church, and they give character to the succeeding dispensation. If you take Noah as an example, I take it that Noah carried through from the first world all the elements of the second world. That is, he brought a remnant through; it was nothing more, but there was nothing left of God in the old world that was not carried through into the new. There were male and female of every kind of animal besides Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives. In principle he brought what was of God through, and thus there was everything there that was requisite for the establishment of another world. So that a remnant is no small conception. It is a very great conception. It contains in itself that which is necessary for the establishment of the succeeding dispensation.
FL That is very valuable, and it was really a little on that line I suggested some time ago the idea that the resurrection goes with it; and I think the [p. 36] last verse of Isaiah 6 would enforce it; the holy seed being the substance of the remnant.
JT I do not know of anything more interesting. Take Noah. It was there death and resurrection. Everything that was of God in the first world went into death, but was carried through safely and established in another world on the principle of resurrection. So here, as you will see later in Hezekiah, the remnant figuratively go down into death and are taken out of it. They were to “take root downward, and bear fruit upward”, 2 Kings 19:30.
ARS If I understand you aright now, the remnant includes every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, but there are certain characteristics that should mark that remnant, and that is, that it keeps His word and does not deny His name. Is that right? Every believer is included, but certain features are presented in order that our consciences may be exercised.
JT I think that is just it.
ARS So that if a christian is not keeping His word the address to Philadelphia should exercise him.
JT I think the prophetic word is intended to exercise us. In this chapter we have: “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established”.
ARS You made a remark about prophecy written in a book and then given to the churches. Is it not remarkable that this prophecy, The Revelation, is scarcely read by Christendom at all?
JT Most of them think it is a sealed book! It shows where people are. The Lord says to John: “What thou seest, write in a book”, Revelation 1:11. The whole book was sent to each assembly. The book contained the whole vision, and that was sent, we may say, to the whole of responsible Christendom. The [p. 37] question is — Are they reading it? and, secondly — Are they affected by it?
JP One would expect the enemy to be particularly set against that which the Lord has specially given for the help of His people.
JLJ Would you say that we do not get the thought of a remnant apart from failure?
JT Yes; it becomes evident because of decline in the mass.
FL Another important point in connection with the remnant is, that, in a sense, it is necessary for the glory of God, because the testimony is always connected with it.
JT Yes. And then what comes out is so encouraging. Immanuel should appear and should be known in the midst of the people. Now to see the full working out of this you have to consider the historical part in the books of Kings and Chronicles. That is, the full power of the enemy would be seen in the Assyrian. This chapter begins with Ephraim and Syria allied against the house of David, but the full power of the enemy should be seen in the Assyrian, and he should come up to the neck. He should attack. It was all right so long as he carried out God’s will, but when he interfered with God’s rights in the land he is met with God’s judgment. It was Immanuel’s land. Then God takes up the conflict with the Assyrian, and the remnant in the next chapter say: “Immanuel” — God is with us. Directly they discover that God is with them it is all over with the Assyrian. God sends a message to him: “The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee”, Isaiah 37:22. That is beautiful. They discover that God is with them. The Assyrian comes up to the neck. He overflows, but he does not for the moment know that it is Immanuel’s land he is treading upon.
The enemy may be God’s instrument in discipline, but when he interferes with the rights of Christ, it is all over with him, because Immanuel is there.
RSS What is the difference between what is set forth in the Assyrian and the Syrian? Here the conflict is between Syria and Ephraim and Judah. The former wished to go up and dethrone the king of Judah and set their own king on his throne.
JT Syria and Ephraim represent a certain feature of the enemy’s power which is of a religious character. It is directed against Christ and His rights to the throne. The Assyrian is not a religious power, but a political power, and it attacks the whole nation, so that the full bearing of the prophecy has reference to the future. The Assyrian is the northern power, and he attacks Israel — the whole nation; whereas Ephraim was a part of the people. God was not with Ephraim; God had given him up, and he had become allied to the gentile; so that it is a wicked bond and it is opposed to Christ and His rights in the midst of the remnant. The remnant is in view. “The remnant shall return”, Isaiah 10:21. You can see the same working today — a religious combination against the rights of Christ in the midst of those who seek to walk in the truth.
FL It is very clear, and if we look to the origin of things we shall see that. Syria was of the same kindred as the Jews. When it became a question of getting a bride for Isaac, the servant must go to Syria; and Ephraim was Judah’s brother; yet they are allied to fight against Jerusalem where the testimony of God was. It is very helpful to see it is that which was kindred, and therefore religious opposition.
JT Quite so. The point is to put another king there besides the one that belonged to the house of David.
FL Of course, the Assyrian is the great power [p. 39] that God will take in hand for judgment in the last days.
JT The king of Assyria said: “I come and take you away to a land like your own”, Isaiah 36:17, that is, he would captivate the people. Syria and Ephraim would put a corrupt king on the throne of David. That is the most dangerous thing. If you have an influence over the saints other than Christ, you will corrupt them.
RSS The distinction between the Syrian and the Assyrian is confirmed very much by that expression, “A Syrian ready to perish was my father”, Deuteronomy 26:5, which shows the relationship existing between Israel and Syria.
JT There are people around us that are related to us. There is a certain relation between us and the religious order of things that prevails, but they are allied together against the rights of Christ in Jerusalem. Here the house of David trembled because of the combination.
JP It was that that moved the heart of the house of David. “It was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim”.
JT Who among us would not be moved with fear, apart from knowing God, in the presence of the conditions around us; but God comes in and sends His messenger with Shearjashub; this was, that God would work in the remnant; and then He says: “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings”. That is, God would deal with these two men.
JP The kings there referred to the two mentioned in the earlier part of the chapter. Mr Darby’s translation makes that more plain than our Authorised Version. The most serious judgment was pronounced upon Ephraim; God announced the time: “Within threescore and five years shall [p. 40] Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people”; and it has never been a people from that day to this.
RSS I thought the reference to the child (”Before the child shall know to refuse the evil”, verse 16) referred to Immanuel. Now I think it is Shearjashub. It is the child immediately at hand.
FL And in the next chapter, with regard to Maher-shalal-hash-baz, you get the same expression. It has reference to the prophet’s child.
RSS It is clearly so there.
JT I think it is so here; the child immediately at hand.
JB Verse 15 would be Immanuel, would it not? We see the same thing as to the remnant later on: “For butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land”.
JT I should like to get more clearly before us the peculiar danger that threatens God’s people now — a confederacy between Ephraim and Syria. In a sense it is a more dangerous thing than the Assyrian.
RSS The Assyrian was more an open enemy.
JT There could be no difficulty about him. He is an open enemy, but Ephraim is not that. Ephraim is the elder brother.
JP There is no confederacy about Assyria. The word confederate is brought in here. Syria is confederate with Ephraim; that is the thing.
JT Ephraim represented the elder brother. He had a right to the firstborn and he was envious of Judah; that is, envy marked him, and where you get envy it will devise something; it may be hostility to a brother or brothers, but it results in an attempt to place another influence than Christ’s over the saints: to put, as we get here, another influence on the throne besides that of the house of David.
FL Ephraim established new gods at Bethel and Daniel So that what we are dwelling upon here is more on the line of apostasy — false gods, and so it is [p. 41] distinctly religious; whereas Assyria has the power that God gave politically.
JT And Assyria is the rod of God’s chastisement. With Ephraim you get the envy of one who is displaced, because God displaced Ephraim in favour of Judah. At the end the envy of Ephraim shall depart; but it has not departed here.
GFW Ephraim was set over Manasseh.
JT Ephraim had this place of firstborn and had the birthright; Ephraim was the leading tribe. But God forsook Shiloh and the house of Joseph, and took up David and Judah. I only alluded to that because it is the cause of all the trouble amongst us — the envy of Ephraim.
JB Why are these two called firebrands? Is it not significant?
JT That is what Samson used. Your thought would be that they would set things on fire.
WHF Ephraim represents the side of responsibility, and on that line failure comes in; and then David comes in on the line of sovereignty.
JT The responsible man always rejects sovereignty.
FL “What portion have we in David? ... to your tents, O Israel”, 1 Kings 12:16. It is important to see that the two great things that dominate are both satanic; that is, that which is represented in Ephraim and Syria takes its impulse from the god of this world; and its initiation was in the golden calves at Dan and Bethel when the ten tribes apostatised. Then the prince of this world is represented in the Assyrian.
WCR Is confederacy taken up when there is a lack of faith?
JT You will often find that when a brother is displaced, and God takes up others and uses them, the spirit of Ephraim comes in; God is not with that spirit, so there is always a tendency to confederate [p. 42] with others for support. But then, the house of David had Immanuel. This is a wonderful section of the word, because it brings Christ in.
WHF The opposition is to what God brings out sovereignly.
JT That was the point of Satan’s attack from the time God took up Judah and David. It was God’s sovereignty. God chose Judah. “What portion have we in David?”
WHF We have seen that in our own times clearly.
FL Will you say a word as to the culminating point of all this? I was thinking of the Revelation, where we get the religious power and the political power and the power of Satan all allied in one vast confederacy; we get the term here in Isaiah, “a confederacy”, but that is the true confederacy in the Revelation, where everything is so dominated that men cannot buy nor sell without the mark of the beast; it is the culminating point, as I understand it, in the last desperate attempt to overthrow the power of Immanuel. Does not this line lead up to that?
JT Certainly it does. We shall see that more clearly in chapter 8 in connection with Maher-shalal-hash-baz. What I think we may see in this chapter more specifically is God’s address to faith, and His intervention in Immanuel.
FL The Lord has the name Immanuel in Matthew. This passage is quoted in chapter 1.
JT There we have the fulfilment of it.
FL It gives character to that gospel.
JT The practical bearing of Immanuel is the presence of God in the midst of His people. This was in Christ as [p. 43] Man.
WJN And that in the present day is the resource in view of what we have been speaking of.
CA So when you see these evil elements come in we have the realisation that Christ is with us.
JT At the close of this chapter certain things are spoken of which indicate some peculiar privileges of the remnant. God has not yet intervened for the land; the Assyrian is there as the rod of His chastisement. It says: “And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land” (verse 22). The land as a whole is abandoned; it is full of briers and thorns; and if a man is to invade it, he is to come with arrows and bows; that is, it is a place where enemies lurk. There are hiding-places for the enemy in the land. But then on the hills, where there is the mattock and where there is digging, “there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns†: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle” (verse 25). It seems to me you have there indicated a condition of things like our own. The general state of things furnishes lurking-places for enemies, so that you have to be armed; but then there are the tops of the hills where there is exercise. The digging with the mattock refers to exercise. Things would be very obscure.
FL There is much food in the tillage of the poor.
RSS What do the hills indicate?
JT I think they refer to the moral elevation to which the remnant attain through exercise so that they are morally free from the attacks of the enemy and there is food there; oxen go forth; not literal
†There is a difference of judgment as to the rendering of verse 25, but leading scholars sustain the Authorised Version. It is supported also by a footnote in the Revised Version. The context, too, seems to justify the reading in the Authorised Version.
oxen, but those who serve God’s people. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”, 1 Timothy 5:18. It seems to me to indicate a general condition of things prior to the attack of the Assyrian which chapter 8 indicates.
GAH Will you say a word on verse 21?
JT It refers to the Lord’s provision for the remnant in those days; so that there is abundance of milk.
JB You were about to speak of the butter and honey.
JT It seems that in conditions such as this chapter indicates, God forms His people after Christ through this kind of food. I feel at the present time that what saints need is proper food, because it is through this they get discernment. What would you say?
JP Part of the original description of the land was that it flowed with milk and honey. You could not have butter and cheese without milk. Butter and honey are not produced in the wilderness; they are the proper product of the land; and what makes it so striking is that the butter and honey are available in the midst of a scene of general desolation.
JB Available to the remnant — to the saints now.
JT So you see a most remarkable analogy to the present time. You feel you are not safe in any place in Christendom today. Primarily there were no briers nor thorns there, but now you have to go about with a bow and arrow.
FL I would like to read a verse or two that apply to the people as a whole before the remnant was in view: “So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock; butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams [p. 45] of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape”, Deuteronomy 32:12 - 14.
JB You get the lesser cattle too.
JT It is very encouraging that although there is not the abundance that there was at the beginning of the nation’s history, there is all that is necessary for the support of the remnant.
JLJ In the book of Chronicles, where the ark was installed, there was plenty to offer and plenty to eat.
JT I believe exercise involves moral elevation.
M Every one that is exercised is able to “nourish a young cow, and two sheep” (verse 21).
JT No doubt, in principle. And it is very encouraging to get into a sphere where there is no fear of briers or thorns.
JNH No place for the enemy to lurk.
JT It is sorrowful if you come in amongst God’s people and find the enemy lurking there.
FL Thorns and briers are the evidence of the curse.
RSS “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good” (verse 15); what would be the application of that to Immanuel?
JT There was no possibility of the Lord choosing the evil, but everything in Him was normal. He grew up before God as a Man; He increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man. Everything in the Lord’s history personally was normal.
JB The point is here that Christ is looked at on our side. “Unto us a child is born”, Isaiah 9:6.
FL I think that verse 15 really speaks of what was normal; it is not that the Lord was exposed to temptation, but discernment as to good and evil always marked Him as born of a woman. Taking up [p. 46] manhood, He knew how to refuse the evil and choose the good. We see it in the temptation. But verse 16 gives a different thought. It refers to Shear-jashub.
JT Exactly. The Lord took man’s place, and there was the refusal of evil by Him; it is viewed here on account of what He fed upon. You get in this book also: “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary”, Isaiah 50:4. That could not apply to the Lord viewed as a divine Person.
GFW Would it be on the line of that scripture, that He learned obedience by the things He suffered? Hebrews 5:8.
FL It is very helpful to see that the Lord came along that line. When He met Satan it was by what He fed upon. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, Matthew 4:4. It is very helpful for us that He came that way.
RSS And the connection between verse 22 and verse 15 is that the remnant partake of the same food as He did.
JT And they learn how to refuse the evil accordingly.
JB Take the Lord in Jerusalem at twelve years of age; He was hearing the doctors and asking them questions. That is something analogous to this.
JT He was normal in every stage of His humanity, whether in infancy, in childhood, or in manhood.
JP We lose a great deal if we do not take account of the Lord in this way.
FL He learned obedience by the things He suffered. He learned to obey (as another has said) because He had been accustomed to command.
Ques Would you say it presents His [p. 47] perfect humanity?
JT Yes. He was perfect in infancy, Psalm 22:9,10. Luke presents the genuineness of His humanity.
T If you were asked to give a description of the remnant, would you say it is where every divine principle is maintained?
JT Just so. Everything that belongs to Christ is cherished there. Anna and Simeon represent the remnant that come down to us from the Old Testament. Simeon, the intelligent side of the remnant, and Anna, the enduring character of the remnant; she continued steadfastly in the house, she departed not from the temple and spoke of the Lord to all those that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.