THE ANOINTING (5)
THE ANOINTING (5)
1 Samuel 2:10; 1 Samuel 16: 11 - 13; 1 Kings 19: 15 - 18
JT It is hoped that through this book of 1 Samuel the Lord will add much to our subject, especially as we have Christ in mind as King; and then in 1 Kings it is in mind to touch on the idea of the anointing of prophets. We have seen Christ in the gospels anointed in relation to the preaching, and in Acts 10 anointed by God in relation to His general service, and God being with Him in that service. Then we have had the general thought of the anointing of the saints and how we come into it, and the assembly viewed as anointed in the types of the tabernacle and of the priesthood. So what remains is what enters into these scriptures that we have read, that is the king and the prophets. Inasmuch as the saints are regarded as kings there will be a reference necessarily to us in that capacity; but 1 Samuel will also afford opportunity to bring in the general position of ministry yielding fruits as seen in Hannah and Abigail. Hannah alludes to the anointing in a very significant way in her prophetic message as she says, “Jehovah will judge the ends of the earth; and he will give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed”. In the phrase, “his anointed”. David was undoubtedly in mind as a type of Christ, and the Spirit of God stresses his personal appearance as entering into his qualifications for the anointing. That is perhaps additional to anything we have had in mind so far.
As to Abigail, she comes in after Samuel, a prophet of God, dies. He is a great minister in the book and clearly she has profited by his ministry because she corresponds with David femininely. This will profitably come in for review, and I should like to remark that the feminine side is really the product of [p. 222] ministry, for clearly Abigail is the product of Samuel’s ministry. She was informed of David, although not necessarily acquainted with him personally, and she had the mind of God about him as the anointed so that she speaks of him in chapter 25 as “bound in the bundle of the living with Jehovah thy God”, as she says, “because my lord fights the battles of Jehovah, and evil has not been found in thee all thy days. And if a man is risen up to pursue thee and to seek thy life, the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living with Jehovah thy God”. Thus she has a clear view of David and she is introduced in the chapter as bearing a correspondence to him in a personal sense, as verse 3 says, “The woman was of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance”. The understanding would allude to what was of God in the ministry at the time, chiefly through Samuel, so that there is a certain richness in this connection which the Lord brings before us as obtainable at the present time and the anointing is in line with it in view of results for God.
LES How would the thought of judging come in in relation to the anointing: “Jehovah will judge the ends of the earth”?
JT I suppose it shows the wide outlook the prophetess had, if we can speak of Hannah in that way in relation to the whole of her word. Among other things she said, “My heart exulteth in Jehovah, my horn is lifted up in Jehovah”, and later, “For Jehovah is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed”, and further, “Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to Sheol, and bringeth up. Jehovah maketh poor, and maketh rich, he bringeth low, also he lifteth up, he raiseth up the poor out of the dust; from the dung-hill he lifteth up the needy, to set him among nobles; and he maketh them inherit a throne of glory; for the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and he hath set the world upon [p. 223] them. He keepeth the feet of his saints, but the wicked are silenced in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail. They that strive with Jehovah shall be broken to pieces; in the heavens will he thunder upon them. Jehovah will judge the ends of the earth; and he will give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed”. So that what you refer to would seem to be included in a very wide range of thought, including the pillars of the earth and the fact that He had set the world upon them; and that is the habitable earth according to the note, so that it is not only Israel that is in mind. Hannah had a wide outlook therefore, and she would include the whole position of God’s operations and feel the need of judgment in the ends of the earth, its extreme limits.
Ques Is there a suggestion in Abigail of the result of this stabilising effect prefigured in the pillars? Her knowing David as the prevailer, and being strengthened by God against the elements set out in Nabal might be suggestive of our knowing Christ as the Prevailer and King in the presence of the elements around that are opposed.
JT In that light the repudiating of her husband is an element that is important because we are to repudiate natural links if they have turned away from God.
Ques Would the words of king Lemuel help? “It is not for kings, Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine”, Proverbs 31: 4.
JT That idea is seen in Abigail and I think she has thus to be viewed as a product of ministry. Christ as typified in David, the anointed of God, is said to be “ruddy, and besides of a lovely countenance”. He manifests the vigour of life, and Abigail does so too. Saul would represent the opposite, the want of freshness and vigour; he was a big man, but David was taken up because of the evidence of life in him. And so with Abigail, she comes in as replacing [p. 224] Samuel in a sense, being connected with his death, but as a product of his ministry. She refuses her husband and designates why.
Ques Are you thinking of the husband now as the public position and David as the link with Christ? Samuel seems to be the last public link between God and the people.
JT Abigail takes the place of the assembly, the espoused of Christ, corresponding to Him in life over against the system and those in it, so that Saul is just called “a man” by her. The position, therefore, is held in the vigour of life both in Hannah and in Abigail. The book began with Hannah forecasting the same thing, bringing out the prophetic spirit in a woman. She spoke of the anointing of God, and the whole book becomes one of the most prolific in our subject especially in view of current conditions on the earth. What a need there is for David, that is Christ, that we might have the thought of the assembly in this aspect! Great difficulties will then be overcome as to Saul and Nabal. Nabal is still the nominal husband and Saul is still the nominal king but there are great prospects of victory because of the vigour of life connected with the anointing.
AB What is the suggestion in, “He will give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed”?
JT The horn is a symbol of power and so the thought of progress increases in the thought of kingly power, the horn of the anointed one.
EIE You were saying that the prophetic thought and priesthood are both in view here in Hannah.
JT What is your thought of the priesthood in her?
EIE I thought her language would give that idea.
JT She clearly had prayer in mind and prayer represents priesthood. She had prayed previously [p. 225] but her voice had not been heard, only her lips moved. Similarly the servant of Abraham prayed in his heart, showing that one can pray without the voice being heard. She prayed and got a definite answer, but then what she says later is not exactly prayer, we might say it is prophetic.
JB Would Hannah be on the line of movement toward God in contrast to Eli?
JT She is over against Eli and his house, so that Jehovah in His judgment of Eli reveals this to Samuel. What He speaks of is not yet the ends of the earth but judgment in His house and judgment must begin at the house of God; He has a definite judgment of Eli and tells it to Samuel.
JWD Is your thought that priesthood as seen in Hannah should be characteristic of us?
JT I was thinking of that. She is exceedingly interesting because from the outset she is an object of rivalry, a very bitter experience, and she has an outlet in prayer; it is all to promote the house of God. In her there is already displaying itself what is God’s objective to reach in Samuel, because Samuel is the fulness of his mother.
Ques Do the roots go back to the book of Ruth? Does the thought of anointing begin there and continue on in Hannah and go through her finally to David? Is that the sequence of the prophetic ministry?
JT Well, it runs through, quite so. One of the most suggestive thoughts is the proposal in Judges 9 to anoint a king over the trees. Very great partisan feeling was current, a leader was put forth and he only accepted the proposal because he was useless, he was a thorn bush, that was what Jotham’s parable taught. Such a one would oppose the anointing of God, for His anointing is not of a thorn bush; similarly Adonijah was supposed to be king, but Solomon was the Lord’[p. 226] s anointed.
SMcC The fruit of Samuel’s ministry in Abigail is that she knows what to do and when to do it; and she has the means to do it, do you not think?
JT Yes, that is good. Many have means to do good but no thought. The sacrifice Hannah took up to the house of God showed she had means, and certainly Abigail had means; she made use of plenty of the right kind of means.
R What is your thought of means, does it refer to spiritual qualities?
JT Well, that is what Mr. McC. would have in mind.
ANW You spoke of Solomon being anointed over against Adonijah; would the idea be akin to “Jehovah and ... his anointed” in Psalm 2 as over against what is appointed by man?
JT Quite so.
JWD Would this line of thought help in exercises in our localities as to spiritual leadership, the anointing being connected with kingliness?
JT Yes indeed. We have already mentioned “the shout of a king” and the thought is greatly enhanced by adding the anointing to it. What enters into that matter by contrast is what is becoming somewhat common in the world, to put up a leader that is replaceable by someone else, and Jotham’s parable suggests that no one would accept such a position but a useless brother. He gives a list of the persons who refused the crown and then Abimelech. Jotham’s brother, who had slain seventy of his brethren is symbolised in the thorn bush. That is the kind of man he was, he had nothing to leave, he was an idler. The others in the parable were well employed and each functioning in his own position as assigned to him by God. No one could yield sweetness like the fig, nor wine like the vine, and that is God’s ordering; each is set to function profitably for God and man. Why should I leave a profitable [p. 227] position like that? each one says; the only one that will do that is the thorn bush. So, as I was saying in regard of leadership, Gideon became a leader. He was very humble and disclaimed any power to deliver Israel, but God said, “Go in this thy might”, Judges 6: 14. He was like Agur in Proverbs who did not pretend to have any knowledge, but he did have knowledge. That is the kind of man needed; let him show his leadership by leading; a man is what he is, not what people make him.
R Is the thought of mutuality represented in the three who refused to reign?
JT They rather represent the thought of obligation to God; they had a right judgment of the fact that God had constituted them just as they were and that men were trying to take them out of that position and put them into another, and that is what is all around us. But what christianity calls for and exemplifies is that there are leaders who lead, they know what to do and they do not wait for the brethren to put them into the position.
SMcC So in 2 Samuel 5 it says, “Even aforetime ... thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel”. Even before he was king the leading was seen in David, before he was outwardly in the position.
JT That is good and what confirms that is Joshua. Moses says in Numbers 27, “Let Jehovah, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the assembly, who may go out before them, and who may come in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in”. What is required is one who can move around among the brethren, that is the point, one personally known as to how he goes out and how he comes in. He is not a brother who stays out late at night and we do not know where he is; we know what he is doing and what his motives are and then how he leads the saints as God may [p. 228] constitute him to lead, as it says, “who may lead them out, and who may bring them in”. God said, We will take Joshua, he is a man with the Spirit and that is what is required. You cannot rightly say to a local brother, You take the lead today. Let God act, let a man show what he is.
LES Matthias, who filled the apostleship after Judas, had really come under the touch of the Lord in His coming in and going out.
JT He was experienced in that sort of thing, and all the apostles had that experience, no doubt.
SMcC When leadership is on the arbitrary line the element of love is lacking. Of David it is said, “All Israel and Judah loved David”, but that is never said of Saul.
ANW The thought might be further seen in Moses’ words, “That the assembly of Jehovah be not as sheep that have no shepherd”.
A Is there a point in the fact that Saul was anointed with a vial whereas David was anointed with a horn?
JT There is a point in that. As to anointing Saul, the circumstances were very peculiar because he had not proved himself to be one who could bring the people of God in and out. Party leaders might lead them out but not in, the idea is to bring them back.
LES Is the idea of leadership seen in relation to the houses of Chloe and Stephanas over against the official leadership of others, the spiritual instincts of their houses recognising and discerning what was in Corinth?
JT Yes, so that the house of such a leader would be crowned. Stephanas meaning ‘crown’; they addicted themselves to the saints for ministry. That is a good point in a spiritual brother; he is not looking for a crown but he has it already, not the kind of crown the brethren can give him but one which he [p. 229] has because a christian is crowned by the Lord and what could be better? So Paul says, “Ourselves your bondmen for Jesus’ sake”, 2 Corinthians 4: 5.
R Referring again to Saul, when he was going to the man of God he had nothing to give him.
JT Which is very different from what we have just heard about Abigail who had plenty. She knew what to do and had the means but Saul had nothing and he did not even find the asses.
JB So Paul speaks of Stephanas as having supplied what was lacking on the part of the Corinthians.
JT That is good, they had something, “what I have, this give I to thee”, Acts 3: 6.
So Hannah affords a good start for us and then we come to David, as it has been remarked. Saul is anointed in chapter 10 and God shows that He did His best for him, but he failed. Something must be in the person himself and Saul failed very seriously, so that God anointed another in David; and, as has been remarked, Samuel had a vial to anoint Saul but for David he had a horn. When we come to Solomon it was a horn taken out of the tabernacle, showing that the character of the anointing is in mind in these cases.
Ques Saul represents the man risen up against David, but I wonder if you had anything in mind in connection with the feminine side used in connection with the adversary of Hannah?
JT In Hannah’s case there was a rival wife and it was a bitter experience; I suppose it would suggest the enemy endeavouring to hinder what was evident in her. Clearly she was a brave woman and the rivalry would enhance that and manifest it in her, so that in the end she succeeded, she triumphed! She said, “My mouth is opened wide over mine enemies; for I rejoice in thy salvation”. No doubt the Spirit [p. 230] of God would have us to understand that in the latter days there would be real enemies to the Messiah.
Rem It almost seems as though the beauty and excellence of the work of God is accentuated and developed by adverse elements in opposition.
JT Hannah’s contribution here to the service of God would have the last days in mind and it shows how she made the matter hers. There is no use in speaking of things abstractly; we must meet the situation. Abigail did that too, and David.
Ques Is a good deal of the opposition today and the difficulty in localities feminine in character, risen up and directed against the collective side of the position? It is not an attack against Christ or Paul’s doctrine, but it has an adverse effect upon the brethren, the meeting, and the assembly in the locality.
JT I am glad you brought that up, because it is said that Mr. Darby used to enquire when difficulties arose, “Who is she?” in connection with the source of the trouble.
K In Judges it says, “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes”. It was a critical condition and did Hannah feel this?
JT Yes, that is it; Hannah is the deliverer, you might say, because Samuel is her fulness and she is the root of the matter; God is working through her. The devil is working through her adversary, another woman, but deliverance comes in through her and that is why she is so distinctive and triumphant in bringing in the anointed one. He is going to triumph, his horn will be lifted up. Let us keep to the idea of the anointing, not man’s anointing but God’s anointing, because man’s anointing is sure to fall to the ground and disappear, but in God’s anointing we see the idea of someone in whom He is working and there is triumph.
[p. 231] Rem Verse 11 brings in the positive side of the position in the boy ministering to Jehovah in the presence of Eli the priest, as though her song rendered definite profitable results.
JT He was wonderful for he ministered although things were difficult, like David who later led the people out and brought them in. It is difficult to proceed when there are others there who have the official place.
R Does, that bring out that in a difficult day Hannah bridged the gap?
JT That is the idea in the book, it is the remarkable history of how deliverance comes. As we said previously, whatever the circumstances may be, the great principle of christianity is reigning in life, and thus Hannah triumphs, and so does Abigail, in difficulties. That is what this book indicates — Hannah triumphing and David triumphing. Hannah had a rival woman in the house and Abigail had a churlish man; the man was a Calebite but that did not help; it was a question of what the man was in himself.
T Samuel was the result of great exercise in Hannah.
JT She asked for him and he was thus a child of prayer; then she lends him to the Lord, a remarkable word! She says, in effect, I know I shall get him back, get him back in a far better way than I expect.
R Speaking of feminine affection, it did not over-influence her when it came to caring for the boy because she gave him up.
JT It meant sacrifice, but we can afford to lend all our things to the Lord. We can give them, but to lend is to suggest that they will be returned, and we get a good return.
JWD Do you think the quality of anointing connected with kingship suggests the Holy [p. 232] Spirit?
JT I think that is what is meant according to Exodus 30; the ingredients there point to Christ and come out here below; we are anointed with the Spirit of Christ.
JWD In service do the features of life and the anointing connect with the presence of a divine Person as seen in Christ Himself?
JT Quite so. So that when we consider the character of the anointing in Saul’s case it shows that it was not the real oil, nor was it in other anointings such as that suggested in the trees wanting to have a king; but when the horn is mentioned, then the Spirit of God has in mind the death of Christ. It was not a vial, which is a glass material, but a horn, and it was taken out of the tabernacle to anoint Solomon. That order of things must go through. In chapter 16 Jehovah said to Samuel, “Fill thy horn with oil”, fill it; it must have been in Samuel’s mind that it was a vessel to be used.
LES Is there a link with Ephesians, “according to the power which works in us”?
JT Quite so; and Paul had a horn in Acts 19, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” That is suggestive of the anointing, and woe if you do not have it! And so it was through him that it came and he would have in mind the idea of the tabernacle. What they received and what the gentiles received generally was the same as what was received at Pentecost, so we have the same power as they had. Similarly when Peter and John went down to Samaria the Samaritans got the Spirit through them; that is, God uses servants mediately so that the Spirit may be given and the persons thus anointed. James says, “Is any sick among you?” that is, one of us, “let him call to him the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord”, but it is “the prayer of faith shall heal the sick”. He has been ill [p. 233] and not able to serve but if he is to be cured it is that he may continue in the testimony unimpaired. The elders have the oil, and they are of the assembly.
ANW Would you confine the baptism of the Spirit entirely to the Lord Himself?
JT Well, He is the One that baptises. God gives the Spirit, Christ gives the Spirit, and also the Spirit acts Himself and comes on people; but the apostles at Jerusalem had power so that the Spirit was received through them; and in the same way those at Ephesus got the Spirit through Paul. It is very suggestive as showing us how we are brought into the anointing; we must not throw these things aside, they have a purpose.
Ques Would you say that the apostle approached Corinth in the first nine verses of his epistle with his horn in his hand?
JT They were wonderfully enriched by God, there was nothing lacking in gift, but from the subjective side there was a great defect and so Paul begins almost at once with the Spirit. He reminds them of divisions among them and speaks in a remarkable way of the Spirit of God in the second chapter; he shows them that we have the mind of Christ and brings out what the anointing is in regard to intelligence.
SMcC Do you think Samuel’s personality would enter into this matter of “fill thy horn with oil”, it being his horn?
JT Do you not think God is saying, ‘You must wipe away your tears about Saul, do not mourn, we are going to lose that brother or sister but you cannot use the horn and go on with the tears’? He says to him, “How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him ... ?” God is not going to use a man like that and we must stop our groans; we are being occupied with one who has been usable, but is [p. 234] not now. God says, I have rejected him and you cannot use the horn of oil with that mind and those tears.
Rem The time to mourn is before Jehovah has rejected him.
JT Quite so, but now, Jehovah had definitely rejected him.
LES In Corinthians it says, “That the approved may become manifest among you”, 1 Corinthians 11: 19.
JT Paul says, “When your obedience shall have been fulfilled”, when you stop mourning for the persons God has rejected you will not be looking on things after the outward appearance. “His letters ... are weighty”, these persons would say about Paul, but they would also say hard things about him, that his bodily presence was weak and his speech contemptible, and the Corinthians were listening to that; therefore he says, I do not want to deal with you but I will deal with those men “when your obedience shall have been fulfilled”. So here Saul is really dealt with in principle but not yet actually and Samuel must stop mourning about it. Saul was right in chapter 14 but in chapter 15 he was wrong and at the end of chapter 15 it says, “Samuel saw Saul no more until the day of his death; for Samuel mourned over Saul; and Jehovah repented that he had made Saul king over Israel”. Now He says to Samuel, You must stop mourning for Saul; it is a party feature to seek to carry on someone whom you have idolised and admired after God has rejected him; we must get someone else. Then God says, “Fill thy horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons”. He did not even leave it to Samuel to determine which it was. He said, “I will tell thee”. It was a matter of rejecting those of Jesse’s sons who should not be king and God would say as each came forward, This one will not do. But Samuel thought [p. 235] differently, showing how hard it is to get away from party leaders.
LES Paul said to the Corinthians, “Ye have reigned without us”.
JT Here it was without Jehovah and with party leaders; so we come to verse 11, “And Samuel said to Jesse, Are these all the young men?” The one who is to be king is “less than the least of all saints”; he is not aspiring to it but he is keeping the sheep. Jesse says, “There is yet the youngest remaining, and behold, he is feeding the sheep”, a sort of sustaining touch. Joseph talked about the eleven bowing down to him and Jacob did not like it very well; Jacob was a spiritual man and so was Jesse but spiritual men get darkened in a matter like this; but Jesse mentioned the thing that qualified his youngest son, “he is feeding the sheep”.
A Does David come in on the line of headship? It does not say he is caring for the sheep but “he is feeding the sheep”.
JT Quite so, which implies considerable knowledge. What the sheep should have he is supplying, “And Samuel said to Jesse, Send and fetch him; for we will not sit at table till he come hither”. The father is being brought into the current; it is well to see people come around to the right thing. Well, God had been watching David and He was now going to make him something, so Jesse brought him in and then the Spirit of God says, “He was ruddy, and besides of a lovely countenance and beautiful appearance. And Jehovah said, Arise, anoint him; for this is he”. There was no delay, the thing must be done at once, and it was done — a most beautiful picture! It is fine to see such a one come up when the brethren have been in the dark. God Himself takes the matter in hand so that when the person He is going to use comes into presence there is no mistake about it, he is the one. It is the first mention we [p. 236] have of David save as he is mentioned prophetically; but here he is, the beloved one!
AB So we do not have any mourning now. It says in Isaiah 61: 3, in relation to the Lord, that He has given “the oil of joy instead of mourning”.
JT We see how that enters into this; the scene is beautifully changed and we are told, “Arise, anoint him; for this is he”. There is no doubt about it and his own person shows it.
UOG It says, “Arise”, so they must have sat down.
JT “Arise”, quite so. They must have sat down but as he comes in he becomes the whole object and “Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren”, not in a private room but “in the midst of his brethren”.
T It was quite different from Saul’s anointing.
JT Quite so. And now for the few minutes that remain we might look at the anointing of Elisha. There is no record that Elisha would actually anoint, but there are three persons mentioned to be anointed by Elijah and they are each anointed to do just one thing; it is not a general idea. It is said, “Jehovah said to him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus; and when thou comest, anoint Hazael king over Syria; and Jehu the son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint king over Israel; and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah shalt thou anoint prophet in thy stead. And it shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay”. That is what Jehovah said, so they are definitely anointed for judgment. Elisha’s slaying would be of a different character from that of the others, and he does not himself anoint anyone; it was one of the sons of the prophets that anointed Jehu. Each of these men was anointed for a specific purpose but the prophet was especially in mind because he was to [p. 237] take the place of the one spoken to and clearly there was to be moral quality with him. The prophet here is the main thought and so it is that he slays on that principle; that is his place.
Rem The last verse you had read suggests the reminder from God to Elijah that the reason for this replacement was the state of soul in himself. Elijah having said, “I am left, I alone”.
JT God had someone in his stead and that would be to correct Elijah. God accepted his resignation and He proceeds to give him a wonderful outgoing, saying, as it were, You anoint these three men and adjust matters on the earth, and I will give you a wonderful outgoing. We get in 2 Kings what Elisha really was and how he slew people; it was by raising from the dead and changing conditions, making barren places fruitful and so forth, showing that we have to pursue the meaning of these words about slaying and not take them at first sight; we must see what is meant.
Rem Hannah says, “Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive”.
JT Just so. Surely the Shunammite woman’s son was made to die for a purpose, but he was made alive, for Elisha’s ministry was one of grace not judgment.
R Would you speak of Elisha’s ministry as being an evangelical ministry?
JT Yes.
Ques What about the sword in his hand? How would that be reconciled in our minds as to the ministry of grace?
JT It bears on what Romans teaches: “If therefore thine enemy should hunger, feed him; if he should thirst, give him drink”. A young brother was being taught by the clergy to take the sword and that Romans 13 meant that that was the only thing to do; to be prepared was not murder, and to kill a man on [p. 238] the battlefield was not murder. But the Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants had fought”. But they will not fight, the sword has to be put into its place. Romans 13 says about the government, “It bears not the sword in vain; for it is God’s minister, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil”, but Romans 12 says, “If therefore thine enemy should hunger, feed him; if he should thirst, give him drink; for, so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head”. That would be worse than using the sword if you made it literal; but if it is grace, the enemy is to bow his head to grace and he can be your enemy no more.
UOG The Lord’s ministry goes still farther, “Love your enemies”.
JT Quite so, I am speaking now of the effect of the thing and how Scripture turns things around to mean what they do not seem to mean on first sight, and it is so about this matter of the sword.
JWD I think that is very interesting. I had not seen it that way, but really there could be no other way.
T The fact that grace reigns does not mean that looseness is allowed; righteousness should be maintained.
JT In Elisha’s ministry of grace there is an exception in regard to the forty-two children, but it was the bears that killed them; Elisha did not.
K When the Syrians came into the camp of the king of Israel he would have slain them with the sword but Elisha said, Give them food.
TU Is that grace reigning through righteousness?
JT Just so.
JB In Luke it says, “Let him sell his garment and buy a sword” (chapter 22: 36). In Luke where grace shines out the Lord speaks of [p. 239] the sword.
JT That is to be understood on the same principle, it should not be taken literally. What does the Lord mean? He speaks in parables sometimes and parables often hide the truth, so that we must learn to understand; “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear”. The ordinary man does not understand and that greatly enlarges the difficulties which we have to contend with. The men that our boys in the army have to meet are worldly men; they do not understand that he that has no sword does not need to buy one for protection; Peter took the sword and took off the ear of the priest’s servant, but the Lord would say, That is not what I mean. The Lord meant that the two swords they had were adequate testimony to what He was saying and for the moment they were to be without protection. He says, Put that back into its place, you are misunderstanding what I said.
JWD I suppose buying it would relate to ourselves in Matthew 18; we take the sword in that sense in our care meetings; it brings life out of death.
JT Quite so, if one is seeking recovery.
AB In Luke the Lord is ministering in relation to the state of the disciples and they are exposed in the one taking the sword; we learn from that instance that they did not understand what the Lord had in mind.
JT It is like a little sign hung out, that the Lord is passing from one dispensation to another and we must understand what He is saying.
Ques When He says, “It is enough”, is it the result of disappointment on His side? In the ordinary sense two would not be enough.
JT Quite so. The Lord would say, Understand what I am saying about the sword.
GW The word of truth is really the sword. Does it involve the right use of the Scriptures?
JT [p. 240] That is what they had to learn, and Paul had to learn it too. A brother once said that when you come into the meeting you hang up your sword with your coat. That is a mistake because you may find an enemy inside. Do not hang it up with your coat, carry it along — the sword of the Spirit.
AB “For the arms of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful according to God”, 2 Corinthians 10: 4.