SPIRITUALITY (5)
[p. 70] SPIRITUALITY (5)
Numbers 27, Joshua 15:16 - 19; Joshua 17:3 - 6
JT Our inquiry so far has brought us to the end of Numbers 26, in which it is stated that “there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun(Numbers 26:65)”. The passage in Joshua 14 was read yesterday afternoon to show how faith, up to this point, is the leading thought, the link between the beginning of divine movements in Egypt and the land of Canaan; marking, too, the identity of the persons, but their condition is wholly changed according to certain passages read in Numbers, particularly those which treat typically of the Spirit. The forty years’ journeying in the wilderness after the exposure of the flesh in Numbers 13 and 14 is a witness to the destruction of what was disobedient. The apostle says in 2 Corinthians 10:6, “and having in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled”; meaning those who have faith. The little ones, or children of the transgressors, were to see the destruction of their fathers during those forty years. For faith, this would mean that the flesh in each one is destroyed, all discipline having that in mind, the “destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus(1 Corinthians 5:5)”. Hence God deals with us in discipline through history on the one hand, but on the other hand, where faith is, there is the Spirit building up a constitution, and this involves spirituality. Faith is seen in these two men, and they go through into Canaan, and the children of those who were destroyed inherit according to the divine word.
Now it is thought that we may see in the Scriptures read, how the children are in the inheritance. The qualities of which they were constituted are seen [p. 71] representatively in the daughters of Zelophehad and the daughter of Caleb. The children of those who came under the judgment of God were to inherit, and these daughters of Zelophehad and the daughter of Caleb are representative as showing that if they inherit, they do so as formed by the Spirit. They have the qualities suitable for the inheritance. They did not go in simply because they were children when the disobedience took place, and so were not responsible; they go in as suitable, as subjects of the work of God. “The daughters of Zelophehad speak right”, according to Jehovah’s own testimony. Their thought is, as they say, “Why should the name of our father be taken away from his family, because he has no son? Give unto us a possession among the brethren of our father”, Numbers 27:4. That is their exercise; they wanted a possession in the inheritance of their father, but they wished to enjoy it among the brethren; an excellent trait in persons who enjoy the inheritance of God. Then Achsah, Caleb’s daughter, as already possessing the inheritance, desires to have what sustains in it, namely springs of water. These two families illustrate how the inheritance is laid hold of by the children.
PL Would it be right to say that the confession that their father died in his own sin, and also of his sonless position — five of them, suggestive of weakness in remnant days, taking that ground — shows that they had bowed to the government of God in regard of the forty years?
JT That is so. Saying that he died in his own sin, as distinct from the sin of Korah, would indicate that they understood sin in the gravest sense - that of a party active against the truth. They do not allude to the refusal to go into the land, which marked the ten spies at that time, but they allude to Korah’s sin, which will take us down the history typically; sin evidenced, not only in the refusal of the land, but in the terrible [p. 72] rebellion of the clerical system. They understood that their father had died in his own sin — it was not a collective sin for which he died; there was no collusion in it. They indicate in all this that they had a just judgment about the sin of Korah and his band. In putting forward their matter, they recognised the principle governing the position. “They stood before Moses”, the passage says, “and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and the whole assembly”. The book of Joshua says, “they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes”. That is, they recognised their position in a divinely appointed economy. They were intelligent in their approach in making their plea, showing that in the antitype they were assembly people, they knew what to do. They were not marked by lawlessness.
PL Would you say that the expression drawing near, which attaches to the three scriptures dealing with them, would suggest that they had drunk into the spirit, so to speak, of their great ancestor Joseph, who says to his brethren draw near? The birthright going to Joseph would fit in with their desire for it.
JT These were tribal features.
WJH Had you in mind, in regard to their father dying “in his own sin”, that personal failure and breakdown is less serious than party activities among God’s people, and that there is less hope of recovery in the latter?
JT Yes. The sin of Korah is outstanding linked up, in Jude’s epistle, with Cain and Balaam; showing the seriousness of party affiliations amongst the brethren, which are ever ready to crop up. It is very striking that they distinguish between their father’s sin and the sin of Korah.
JDU Is that an indication of spiritual formation with them? They duly estimated the sin, and also appreciated the inheritance.
JT [p. 73] Although the personal sin was there, the name of their father was not to be wiped out or forgotten. I suppose they had the idea of grace, one of the features of the assembly, introduced at the very outset and embodied in the word that “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon(Luke 24:34)” — that was pure grace.
EBC Do they connect the thought of generation with the inheritance?
JT That is the point we are on, to show how these women represent a generation. John’s line enters into this; it is not only generation, but suitable family development. The idea of an inheritance must involve the family; it comes down from the parent. It is not a creational thought, it is a family thought.
HDT In regard to the question of grace, in Acts 4:33 it says “great grace was upon them all”. That precedes those who had lands coming forward and making them available.
JT It is one of the features of the economy, running parallel with the breaking of bread. The two things are seen in the first assembly after the Lord arose, the breaking of bread and grace; the latter recognised in that the Lord appeared to an individual sinner — Simon. There was no party link at all, just his own sin, and the Lord appeared to him. So that his name stands; Judas’s does not, neither does Korah’s name stand in the family of God. In that sense the name of Zelophehad does. Then the two disciples from Emmaus witnessed to the breaking of bread — the Lord was made known to them in it. So that the divine economy as initially inaugurated stands thus. The name of Christ attaches to that position, and so, too, the children in John’s writings — “those that believe on his name(John 1:12)”.
HH Referring to faith and spirituality as necessary for the inheritance, I was thinking of the expression in the gospel of John, “he that believeth”; this is in [p. 74] addition to the work of God seen there, as set out in individuals such as the blind man.
JT Faith is stressed in the children of God — those “that believe on his name” (John 1:12) — and they are also said to be “born of God”. John speaks of persons, who already are disciples, coming to believe; they thus add to and strengthen their faith; “his disciples believed on him”, John 2:11. John contemplates persons believing because of the signs which the Lord did, but they were not trustworthy. That brought out the necessity for new birth. In the second chapter the Lord “manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him(John 2:11)”. John has in mind that there should be a real abiding faith that goes through, so that at the end, he says, the signs “are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name”, John 20:31. Alongside of that is the great enlargement of the truth of the Holy Spirit in John, first in new birth and then in the living water, and later in a personal sense.
FI Do you have in mind that when these women came up before Moses and the whole assembly, they had a sense that they would get a judgment which would be supported by grace?
JT That is the point; what underlies the assembly, as representative of God, is grace. They had confidence in coming before Moses and Eleazar and the princes of the assembly. The full economy of God is in mind. John states it: “The Father loves the Son, and has given all things to be in his hand,(John 3:35)” that is the idea of the divine economy in John. It is stable, you can rely on it. In Matthew the Lord says, “if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer(Matthew 18:17)”. Christ delegates the authority there, thus the assembly is to be listened to. Christianity, abstractly, is on a firm foundation, even as [p. 75] to administration.
AMH Did they recognise the lack of faith in their father, and desire that they should not fail in relation to faith?
JT That is a moral necessity if the father’s name is to stand in the inheritance. “Why”, they say, “should the name of our father be taken away from his family?” It is with a sense of grace that they include a request that the name of their father should not be taken away.
PL This inquiry addressed to Moses, Eleazar, and the princes, sets afoot the later inquiry Godward, and results in a statute set up in Israel. Is this an encouragement for spiritual initiative and zeal in regard to one’s part in the inheritance?
JT The definite statute set up, “a statute of right”, shows how God honours their exercises in adding the result to the statutes of Israel. The statutes and ordinances of Israel mentioned so often in Psalm 119 show how faith valued them. In Numbers 27:11, we read, “it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of right, as Jehovah commanded Moses”. It is a great matter if a crisis like this brings out an addition to what is already there. A point is reached; a landmark in the spiritual history of Israel, that is to stand in regard to the inheritance. The inheritance is a final thought. This “statute of right” is a very important addition to what was already there, and the next thing is how these women carry forward their thought. They had not forgotten this matter. They went into the land, and again recognised the economy as it was. They had admitted their father’s sin, now it is a settled matter. They say, “Jehovah commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren”; then is added, “And he”, that is, Joshua, “gave them according to the commandment of Jehovah”. They condensed the thing. They assumed that matters were settled legally. They do not again allude to the sin of their father, but we get an additional thing: Joshua gave them “an inheritance among the brethren of their father”; then we are told, “And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which are beyond the Jordan. For the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons; and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead”, Joshua 17:5,6. So that it would seem that these women got the very best. It was Canaan they sought, not Gilead.
HSH Why does the inheritance of these women come in again at the close of Numbers in regard to marriage?
JT That is an important side of our subject which may be reserved to a meeting later on if the Lord will. The brethren here have some exercise about mixed marriages.
Ques Is it important that it is not only their claim, but Jehovah’s matter, and He justifies them in the place where they invoke the name of Jehovah, and gives them the best portion in the land?
JT What comes out is that these women are honoured; their exercise brings in a “statute of right”. It is a very remarkable thing that God honours them in this way. Jehovah adds, in Numbers 27:7: “thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them”, and the end of verse 11 states that “it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of right”. It seems to me that this statute of right is very important today, because our relatives are so distant from us in many instances, but we can share the inheritance with them, however far they may seem to be from us. The link of the family, however attenuated, is maintained. I think that ought to help us in regard to our brethren now. John speaks of “the children of God who were scattered abroad John 11:52”. Perhaps many have little or no idea of any link with [p. 77] others. This statute of right is a divine provision that brings them in for a portion in the inheritance.
CSS You have spoken of generation; is it seen in John 4, where the Lord speaks of worshipping the Father, before He speaks of worship to God?
JT Quite so. That would show that in grace He was bringing the woman in. She was claiming relation with Jacob, but it was not valid. The Lord implied that He was a Jew, and she regarded Him in that light and He accepted it. She had no family claim, but He brings her in, in grace. She comes into the inheritance; the living water, which comes into our subject, being essential to it.
AED Does Paul use this statute of right in Ephesians 2 in bringing us Gentiles into the inheritance?
JT That is right. It depends on family link, which we Gentiles now have: “no longer strangers and foreigners but ... of the household of God(Ephesians 2:19)”.
AEM A distribution of the inheritance comes down to the one that is nearest to him. Is that an important principle in trying to help?
JT Yes. “Ye shall give his inheritance to his kinsman that is nearest to him in his family”, Numbers 27:11. I suppose the idea of family in John, the generative thought, allows for great extension. We recognise when it is valued by any, and we can move in relation to them, owning them as our brethren.
AMH Would the loaf in the Lord’s supper keep this before us, that, what we are about to go forward to, is not limited to ourselves?
JT We being many are one bread, by extension, includes all Christians. One misses them and tells the Lord so. Many may be without the Spirit, but there is a link with the family nevertheless, and evidence of the divine generation affords one a claim as of the family.
SEE Would the statute of right be established [p. 78] in the passage in John 1:12, “but as many as received him, to them gave he the right to be children of God”?
JT Quite so: it is for them to take up. The passage referred to in John 11 does not contemplate the ability to do it. They are “scattered abroad”, but the right is there, and it is part of our work at the present time to instruct people on these lines. John’s gospel is intended for that.
ESW All these relationships seem to stand in relation to the Father. Would it extend to every family in heaven or on earth, named of the Father?
JT That is the way it works out. Paul speaks of one God the Father, not many fathers, but one.
EE The impoverished conditions through the workings of sin make things more difficult even for those who are spiritually minded to come into their proper portion.
JT The apostle warned that difficult times should come, and they have come. You are made to feel it when you come in contact with those who belong to the family, but are not in practical enjoyment of it; many are prejudiced and preoccupied, but this passage gives us a wide area to operate in; we should seek to impress them with the fact that they belong to the family of God. If you say to a person who is hard. You are my brother, — one has often noticed that the word brother touches any one who has family instincts.
JD You mentioned those who are scattered abroad; in dealing with souls, would you look for the features of the generation according to John 1?
JT Certainly, that is the point here. When travelling and meeting people you cannot but see in some the evidences of divine generation, but they are terribly beclouded and hardened through circumstances, as has been remarked, the circumstances of sin, and religious circumstances, and I think John’s gospel is intended to meet that. You begin with Christ, the Person of Christ.
[p. 79] If there is reality in any one, he will respond to the opening verses of John’s gospel, and then in verses 12 and 13 you come to persons who receive Him. Are you receiving Christ? If you are, you have the right to take the place of a child, as believing on His name, which disallows all other names; and you are born, not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. How peerless it is, and what stability it gives us as having faith in Christ, believing on His name!
JD Would the coming forward of the feminine side — the daughters of Zelophehad — involve the subjective state, consequent upon generation?
JT That is right. There may be much to be learnt from their names, and there should be, but the general thought is that they represent the subjective side. They speak with a right feeling. God is honouring them. I believe they represent those who are fully fit for the inheritance. They value it and speak intelligently about it. They wish to bring down the name of their father, and to be among their brethren. What fine traits these are!
As to Achsah, Joshua 15, the question of the husband comes in. In this spiritual order of things, we must have that feature, which has place as entering into our minds. So Caleb says, “He that smites Kirjath-sepher and takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife”. We are now in the marital state. She is a child of Caleb, of the man who has come through, the man of faith. He has come through from Egypt to Canaan. Identity is there and the marriage thought is there, and what is her exercise about the position? Verse 18 says, “And it came to pass that as she came, that she urged him to ask of her father a field”: that is, she urged her husband, “and she sprang down from the ass”. She is spiritual and she has spiritual agility. I think that is what is meant by the word “sprang”. “And Caleb said to her. What wouldest thou?” She recognised her father in her movement off the ass; and she said, “Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a southern land; give me also springs of water. Then he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs”. That is another fine part of our subject, showing what marked both the children of parents who had fallen, and the child of parents who went through in faith. She wanted springs of water, and he gave her more than she asked, he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.
CSS Does this come on the line of desire and dependence on God as one man who could pray, “Oh that thou wouldest richly bless me, and enlarge my border”, 1 Chronicles 4:10.
JT Quite so. In the book of Chronicles you get touches of that kind in the history. The idea of the inheritance is there in one man — Jabez — and God granted him all his desires; showing what is available at any time to any who has desires.
CCE Have you any thought why this incident as to Achsah is repeated in the book of Judges?
JT I think, to carry on this fine thought of the inheritance in the family of Caleb, showing what a start the tribes had in the land. We have this thought carried through; a woman wishing for springs of water. It is a subjective thought. You could not have the book of Joshua without this; and so you find the son of Eleazar the priest — Phinehas — in the end of the book, God thus showing what continues.
WJH Is Paul like Caleb, as he comes to Ephesus and raises the question of whether they had received the Holy Spirit in view of occupying this blessed territory?
JT Yes. That is the basic idea, consequent on the gospel, in Ephesus, as if the matter of the Spirit must be settled at once. There can be no going through into the counsels of God without [p. 81] it.
HH Would you say a word as to the upper and nether springs?
JT I think the upper would be like Ephesians and the nether like Romans. Colossians hardly touches on the Spirit, except “love in the Spirit”. The Spirit is not stressed in Colossians. It is the going into the land there. In Romans you have great enlargement as to the truth of the Spirit, and then in Ephesians the Spirit in relation to heavenly things.
EE While speaking of Achsah, what is there for us in that she moved her husband to ask for a field?
JT I think she is recognising headship, he is the one to take the initiative. That is what I understand. She is thoroughly right in the matter, just as the daughters of Zelophehad were right. She recognises her husband.
FI As you have already said, the marital side enters into this; what he received she was able to name properly. She urged her husband to ask for a field; she had received a southern land; but she rose to the highest thoughts, and would have springs of water.
JT She recognised her husband. She urged him to ask of her father a field; and she sprang down from the ass. She is in the right attitude of subjection, and Caleb said, “What wouldest thou?” She was where she would get answers: “And she said, give me a blessing; for thou hast given me a southern land; give me also springs of water”. It was the time of asking and she took advantage of it. God loves that in His people and responds to it. Elisha says to Elijah, “let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me(2 Kings 2:9)”. Elijah says, “Thou hast asked a hard thing: if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee”, (2 Kings 2:10). This would mean that the gift of the Spirit requires such a state. It is not simply the position of Romans, but the ascending thought, the heavenly position. You get a double portion in view of that.
[p. 82] What a great position Achsah was in! Her husband had just taken Kirjath-sepher, which is The city of books, and she is consciously in need of support in this great position. How can I overcome the influence of books save by the Spirit? I lay hold of the mind of God and live in the mind of God, and man’s books do not influence me.
WJH At Ephesus they burnt certain books as they came into the light of what Paul brought them.
JT That helps in what we are saying. We have to transfer these types into our own circumstances, because they are for us. Books have an immense place at the present time, and saints are damaged by them, but the Spirit enables us to overcome them. We touch certain subjects — history and such like as we need, but we are not overcome by them; we overcome them by the help of the Spirit.
LDM The Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance.
JT Yes; the earnest would mean you get it in principle now, enabling you to overcome what is presented in the books and the like, what controls the world.
ESW Would you link these two great features with the Lord’s supper? Our place in the body with a view of the inheritance, and spiritual joy to enable us to go forward into it.
JT That is right. The Spirit, of course, is with us in assembly from the outset, in fact. He is always with us in the sense of the anointing. At a certain point there is an upward trend, which would imply the Spirit of adoption. In His power we are carried over to the heavenly side of things.
EESL What is the inheritance? Is it the whole of that which God has made available in the word for our possession and enjoyment in divine things?
JT It is a very wide thought. We touched on it yesterday as to what the spies were to inquire into;
[p. 83] what they were to find out, and in order to indicate the variety of things, Deuteronomy 8:7 - 10 helps us, “For Jehovah thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of waterbrooks, of springs, and of deep waters, that gush forth in the valleys and hills; a land of wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig-trees, and pomegranates; a land of olive-trees and honey; a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, where thou shalt lack nothing; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose mountains thou wilt dig copper. And thou shalt eat and be filled, and shalt bless Jehovah thy God for the good land which he hath given thee”. This passage indicates the things that are there. You get indications of it later; for instance, in Jonathan’s victory, it is said that the honey flowed. So that the idea of it was carried down. It is a spiritual matter for us — what we enter into according to Ephesians. The Spirit is said to be the earnest of it, and it is brought to us by the Spirit in principle, but only in that sense, not the complete fulness of it, so that we are carried through. In Ephesians the Spirit is the earnest of the inheritance, extending “to the redemption of the acquired possession(Ephesians 1:14)”.
JWH Does that connect with the bunch of grapes?
JT That was the testimony to it. The “first” grapes, to show how productive the land was; pomegranates and figs were also brought down.
WJH It is spoken of throughout scripture as the land that flows with milk and honey; could you help us to get a spiritual thought as to that general expression?
JT I suppose there is the thought of the Messiah, Emmanuel, that we share it with Him, Isaiah 7. Although from living creatures, butter and honey would not necessitate their death.
Ques Do we have to claim the inheritance as the daughters of Zelophehad did?
JT That is the thought. God values our going forward in this sense, especially claiming it amongst [p. 84] the brethren. Esau stands over against all this. He sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.
JSD While we come into the inheritance in a corporate way, why are the various portions allotted, to some in one way, and some in another?
JT Each will have his portion in the land. The boundaries of the tribes are carefully maintained, possibly alluding in some instances to the test we are to one another, because the boundaries are sometimes very irregular, and one tribe, such as Simeon, had his inheritance inside that of Judah. There is irregularity in that sense in Joshua, which I suppose alludes to our responsibility here — to bring out our love, in bearing with one another. In Ezekiel, the boundaries are in a straight line, the inheritance of each is straight across the land. There is no such test implied in the coming day as there is now. Nevertheless each tribe has its own setting.
CSS Is the new generation to take full possession of the land?
JT Achsah asked for springs of water and she urged her husband to ask for a field — two definite things, but both are available. The idea is that you want some feature or features, and asking is in order. God is urging us now in what we have before us to lay hold of the inheritance and to understand what is in it. Springs of water are of particular importance.
EESL Would the Spirit of God in taking up these daughters of Zelophehad and Achsah, place before us a contrast to the selfishness and lack of appreciation which Israel showed, and which resulted in their carcases falling in the wilderness?
JT Quite so. God urges us to lay hold of the things He has prepared for us — for those who love Him.