FEMININE FEATURES IN 1 SAMUEL (3)
[p. 292] FEMININE FEATURES IN 1 SAMUEL (3)
1 Samuel 4: 19 - 22; 1 Samuel 6: 7 - 16; 1 Samuel 9: 11 - 14
JT Pursuing our subject, we shall with the Lord’s help see suffering of a peculiar nature in these first two instances; that is, the wife of Phinehas, and the milch-kine employed to draw the cart on which the ark was. Then in the third scripture we shall see the intelligence that may attach to young sisters, spiritual intelligence; the maidens mentioned there had a remarkable knowledge of Samuel, and became guides to reach him. The first scripture follows on our inquiry of yesterday, and relates to the government of God according to what had been announced by the man of God to Eli; and in the execution of that government this woman appears with right feelings and intelligence — negatively of course — but still she had an apprehension of the glory and that it had departed. It is important to have discernment enough to know when glory that had been attached to a position departs, so that there may be suitable humiliation and inquiry about it. She leaves a landmark for us in Ichabod, for in the acceptance of the negative — which he represents — we come again to the positive, as we duly apprehend the situation and humble ourselves. The line of recovery, as over against Ichabod, is in the milch-kine. They are not dying in maternal exercise but are living milch-kine, meaning they provide milk. They leave their calves behind, sacrificing in doing so, and die at the end of their service.
EGMcA What is the significance of the death of Phinehas’ wife as bearing on this development?
JT It is governmental; her husband is already slain and her father-in-law dead. It is God coming in governmentally to deal with an evil condition, so as to remove it and make way for better conditions. The milch-kine become the agents of that, which is [p. 293] very remarkable, because they are expressly feminine in their exercises — leaving their calves, lowing as they went. They are milk-bearers, but contrary to nature they went the one way in their movement.
JWD What would you say about the great place the ark seems to have among the people generally, particularly with Eli?
JT I suppose that may be a matter of how we should regard Christ, what is to be apprehended as Christ now, not literally Christ personally, but what He is in testimony, that in which He is represented. They are profoundly affected by what happened. It would suggest today persons who take account of what we have from God, what others have been used to inaugurate and we are moving on with; and that has come to an end. This sorrow of the woman is the basis of recovery negatively; she had intelligence in her death. She had thoughtfulness to name her child Ichabod; that is very remarkable.
JH Do you think verse 4 shows she had an apprehension in her soul of the glory of God as connected with the ark: “The ark of the covenant of Jehovah of hosts, who sitteth between the cherubim”?
JT She would have that in her mind and would appreciate that form of designation. I think she is the remnant, the overcomer in this particular setting. She dies in that, but she is nevertheless an overcomer in her intelligence, and left a testimony as Hannah did; she had light in her soul and she left a testimony in a poetic contribution to the service of God, a negative but still a real testimony to God, as feeling conditions; and this became the basis of recovery.
JH Does this expression of feeling suggest that she was capable like Hannah of unfolding great thoughts?
JT Just so, the expression is remarkable: “And Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and [p. 294] encamped beside Eben-ezer; and the Philistines encamped in Aphek. And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel; and the battle spread, and Israel was routed before the Philistines; and they slew in battle array in the field about four thousand men. And the people came into the camp; and the elders of Israel said, Why has Jehovah smitten us today before the Philistines? Let us fetch ourselves the ark of the covenant of Jehovah out of Shiloh, that it may come among us, and save us out of the hand of our enemies. So the people sent to Shiloh, and they brought from thence the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of hosts, who sitteth between the cherubim; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there by the ark of the covenant of God”, 1 Samuel 4: 1 - 4. This is the Spirit’s record, and the beautiful expression undoubtedly would be taken up by this dying woman: “the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of hosts, who sitteth between the cherubim”. But what a sorrowful thing, what a solemn thing, that these two men whose conduct, whose lives had been depicted as so wicked, should be there! Faith would discern that in such custody the ark must come to grief.
Rem What is the difference between this and the occasion in 2 Samuel 15 of Absalom’s rebellion when they take the ark out of the city and David tells them to take it back? David refused to have the ark go with him, it was to return to its place. What was the point here in removing the ark out of its place?
JT That is David’s confidence in God that He could bring him back and show it to him again if God took pleasure in him. It is a question of the persons responsible here; where were the persons here that God could take pleasure in? These two men afforded Him no pleasure, but the contrary; and this instance of the milch-kine taking the ark [p. 295] back was what David doubtless had in mind. David says, “If I shall find favour in the eyes of Jehovah, he will bring me again and shew me it”, 2 Samuel 15: 25. It is what God can do, so that David sends it back to the city.
EGMcA There seems to be a sequence here in the scripture you have just read about these two men being with the ark, and then their death, and the death of the wife of one of them, and then the return of the ark. Does it indicate that we may often resort to the official, legal, correct side without recognising the holiness of God’s side of things?
JT That is just it; that is what had to be judged in this early part of the book. These men were utterly unfit to have to do with holy things and yet they were there, but only there in an outward way.
GAT What have you to say about Phinehas’ wife grieving over her husband’s removal?
JT That was suitable, but that would not be her meaning in the use of the word ‘Ichabod’, in saying that the glory had departed. She says, “The glory is departed from Israel; because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband” (verse 21). The latter would be legitimate natural feelings, the death of our father or mother ought to occasion feelings to us; to be without natural affections is condemned in Scripture; it is a right feeling. But the ark of the covenant was undoubtedly what governed her soul.
SMcC It suggests Psalm 78, another of the maschil psalms, a psalm of Asaph. There things are viewed from God’s side, He “gave his strength into captivity, and his glory into the hand of the oppressor” (verse 61). Here it seems to be connected with the people, “The glory is departed from Israel”.
JT I think it is a right feeling and ought to be found in a spiritual person when a calamity comes. Whatever the immediate occasion of it, this is a [p. 296] calamity; even the death of Eli was a calamity. The death of Saul was a calamity from David’s point of view; he had right feelings and lamented Saul and Jonathan, and yet Saul was his greatest enemy. I think God honours that, a right spirit; we do not carry with us natural hard feelings or hateful feelings, even if there is some ground for resentment. God wants us to have the spirit of Christ, as we see it in Hannah; she had none of these hostile feelings toward anybody. There was an adversary which she recognised, but even that adversary is a relative after the flesh and God honours having right feelings about it.
GAT That is very helpful, because I think we lack a little on that line. If one of our natural relations does not feel as we do, we are prone to feel we should not have anything to do with him. You would not go with that, would you?
JT Well, being without natural affections is condemned in Scripture. We are usually too occupied with the natural, but the natural must be observed to a point in a balanced way, because we must remember that the Lord said to the man who wanted to bury his father, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead” (Matthew 8: 22) — let the spiritual be predominant. He would have to leave the Lord to go and bury his father; he could not take the Lord with him, but from the standpoint of the government of God He is with us in regard to natural feelings.
EGMcA So that according to the Old Testament one could defile himself for his father or mother.
JT Just so.
AR There are very few Ichabods around; there are lots of Phinehases but very few Ichabods.
JT That is good. What have you got to say about that?
AR The natural is usually perpetuated; she might have called him [p. 297] Phinehas.
JT Yes, indeed, an honourable name; even if her husband did not honour it, the great Phinehas did; he had an everlasting priesthood. But she passed over that and used the negative, she accepted the truth that the glory had departed.
SMcC So that whenever this child was seen, the exercise raised would be not so much as to the mother, but as to Christ. Where is the glory?
JT Just so.
Rem Would you say that chapter 4 expresses the general state of the people at that time?
JT Yes, it does. It is a most distressing chapter, because the ark of God is taken. It is like the celebration of the Lord’s supper by independent parties without the proper state for it, which is obnoxious to God.
Rem This woman takes account of all Israel in what she expresses, that “The glory is departed from Israel”.
JT She had a national outlook, which is more than a family outlook. She had a family outlook because she referred to her father-in-law and her husband, but she went further than that; she had a national outlook in Israel.
Rem Would that help us on the line of recovery, not merely feeling things in our localities but the bearing of the general position?
JT Just so. After all the fact of her father-in-law and her husband being priests was not the main thought with her because she says, “The glory is departed from Israel”.
JWD Do you think that many times in the history of christendom it could be said the glory is departed?
JT I would think so. The Lord’s letters to the churches would help us as to that. His letter to Ephesus, which is the first one, says, “I have against thee”, Revelation 2: 4. He could say a great deal that [p. 298] was in their favour, they had tried those who said they were apostles and were not, and found them liars; we need God to help us to find people liars like that. But as we come on to Pergamos we have what is against them: Antipas is slain among them. It looks as if the glory was either departing or had departed when such a man as Antipas could be slain among them; he was a faithful witness.
JWD That is what I thought, and the milch-kine would show the glory of what had come in as coming back in our day. But this subjective state of Ichabod is the basis of it.
JT Just so, in a negative way. The Collected Writings and others are full of that, that God is not with man’s organisations, whatever their pretensions. Even the Reformation did not re-establish the ark. Even the Bible, our authorised version, for a time carried with it the apocrypha, indicating real darkness.
JH Does this woman represent the remnant side seen in Thyatira?
JT That is the idea, the remnant; that is just the thought.
JWD I was wondering whether it would not be helpful for our young people who are in the truth, to see that a kind of spirit of travail is needed in relation to the dreadful condition of things current in Christendom.
JT You have Pergamos, the third church, with Antipas slain: “slain among you”, Revelation 2: 13. In all these cases the Lord is seen walking in the midst of the seven assemblies; it is, so to speak, the “in the midst” period. In chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation He is there, but clothed not in priestly garments but in judicial garments; so that you can hardly say that, properly speaking, the glory was there, even in Ephesus, in view of the fact that He is not the High Priest; He is not clothed in priestly garments. His [p. 299] love is sealed up, His affections are sealed up, He is girt about the breasts with a golden girdle, not about the loins, but the breasts. If the girdle had been on His loins He would be still serving in a priestly way, but He is serving as a Judge, which would mean it is a condemning time. He is walking in the midst as if He were judicial. There is a certain glory attached to His walk even as a Judge, but it is very solemn that judgment is in mind, for He says, “I have against thee ...”, Revelation 2: 4.
JC Does the fact of Antipas being slain among them suggest that there was a condition there which would allow that sort of thing?
JT The ‘anti’ would mean he was against the condition there; so that to the next church, which is Thyatira, the Lord says, “But I have against thee that thou permittest the woman Jezebel” (verse 20); I am against that. There is no more opportunity given her at all; He said, “I gave her time that she should repent, and she will not repent”, so that He casts her into a bed and those that carry on with her into great tribulation, “and her children will I kill with death”. That is the finish; the glory has departed entirely, because He says to the remnant, “But to you I say, the rest who are in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I do not cast upon you any other burden; but what ye have hold fast till I shall come” (verse 24). And now the overcomer is to await another order of things; he is to await the coming kingdom.
AR The ark in captivity affected cities and affected even the bodies of people. I suppose we might see that work out in church history. When it was in the hands of the Philistines, they had to suffer governmentally.
JT That is the next thing. God widens out His dealings. He stretches His hand out on the enemy,
[p. 300] and the remarkable thing is that the Philistine priests have some light about the ark and what is becoming to it. That shows what we may look for in unexpected places, someone to lift up his voice in view of recovery — in view of relief. But these milch-kine are sufferers; they represent the feminine side in a very striking way. They are really spiritual because they go the right way; they take the one way, as if God is doing it Himself for the protection of the ark. From the time it was taken by the Philistines, it was entirely in God’s hands. There were no Levites or priests; the ark was exposed, but it was protected and brought back; that is to encourage faith in God.
JW Would the house of Chloe in Corinth represent the milch-kine?
JT Yes, it is a feminine thought; Paul learned about the state of things at Corinth from her.
JW She would represent the spiritual features.
JT She would indeed; if the glory had not already departed in Corinth it was on the way to it, and she became, as it were, the light-bearer.
AB Is there something of the feature of suffering seen in the wife of Phinehas over against Eli? When he heard the news there was no spiritual or moral reaction to it; it says, “He fell” (verse 18). But when the wife of Phinehas hears the news it says, “She bowed herself and travailed” (verse 19), meeting the circumstances with moral power.
JT There was movement inwardly, you mean, with her? Eli was an old man; we are told he sat on the seat by the wayside, and it says, “Now Eli was ninety-eight years old; and his eyes were set, that he could not see. And the man said to Eli, I am he that came out of the battle, and I have fled today out of the battle. And he said, What has taken place, my son? And the messenger answered and said, Israel has fled before the Philistines, and there has been also a great slaughter among the [p. 301] people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God is taken. And it came to pass, when he mentioned the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died; for the man was old, and heavy” (verses 15 - 18). All that description is remarkable; it is what you might call governmental. People who go in for a certain line of things are not true, as in his case in regard of his sons; he was not true in his house. But he carried on; he was old but he had regard for God and the ark. But he had failed to judge himself in a certain line of things and I believe God says, It must be that way, it is a fixed matter now, and there is no hope for him. He goes out that way; he was a man that sat down in laziness and grew heavy and blind, but yet he retained a certain respect and regard for what was of God. But the stigma is never lifted from Eli, it was the government of God. One has noticed it; this is a warning lest we go on with anything, whatever it be, that God has called attention to, which we should have judged and yet have not judged. You may be carrying on your service, but you have not done this certain thing, and the matter is fixed and you will finish that way. It is the government of God.
JH When you spoke about his being alone, had you in mind the fact that there were women standing by the wife of Phinehas in verse 20? “And as she was dying, the women that stood by her said, Fear not; for thou hast borne a son”.
JT This is the feminine side that is stressed here. Eli is gone and Phinehas is gone, and his brother is gone, but this woman is yet alive and the women are active about it. It is a maternal scene, peculiarly so. She has life yet. Eli fell back; it is a sort of apostate suggestion without saying too much against the man; but he failed to judge what was [p. 302] especially called attention to by a messenger of God to him. As the Lord said about Jezebel, “I gave her time that she should repent, and she will not repent ...”. Therefore He says, “Behold, I cast her into a bed”. That is a finished matter, that is the end of her career. Well now, this is the end of Eli’s career; but there is this overcomer, feeble indeed, but still it is said she bowed herself, which is an act of power, and travailed: “for her pains came upon her. And as she was dying, the women that stood by her said, Fear not; for thou hast borne a son” (verse 20). There is something positive in this. In Eli there is nothing; it is a finished matter under the government of God, a most solemn matter; but not so with her, there is a product, there is a living testimony. It is negative, but still it is from her; it is what she has left, a monument; just as Hannah contributed to the service of God. There is nothing like Hannah’s contribution here, but still there is the testimony from this dying woman that the glory had departed. Her mind became widened and enlarged, she says, “The glory is departed from Israel”. She is a real Israelite.
GAT She died under deep and real exercise.
JT That is the point, that is why it is mentioned. We do not even get her name, we must go by the account.
GAT Why is it held back until she dies?
JT Well, it is to bring out what is there, like John’s ministry, John’s gospel; John will enlarge on anything that is of God, however little. If it were not for John’s account of Martha, we should never have thought anything of her but that she was a poor critical woman; but John brings out the other side.
AB Is it not important to see that in both cases, Eli and this woman, it is the reaction to the tidings concerning the ark of God? It is not something that [p. 303] happens before, it is the immediate crisis; and so there is this reaction with the wife of Phinehas.
JT She did not have to do with the ark directly; she was not an official priest. The old man did have to do with it; he was a high priest and it was his occupation, like a leading brother in the meeting or a leading man among the brethren; it took all his time, you might say. He was an old man; well, you would expect him to have some thought about the things in which he was serving; but here is a person who has nothing to do with the priesthood officially, and yet she says something about it which is right. He does not say anything; he fell backward.
AB It corresponds with Philadelphia; “She bowed herself” is like “Thou hast a little power”.
JT That is right. Thyatira is the end of the priesthood, of one order of things, and Philadelphia is the beginning of another. There is a little light here; the milch-kine are not women, but it is a feminine idea; they are milk-bearers and they have calves; they are occupied in a living way, contributing. They are the ones here that represent the spiritual element — they go right along by the one way.
EGMcA Although they were milk providers, they would not now use that for the natural but for the maintenance of the spiritual.
JT That is the principle; we have the spiritual element here, so that they go on without any guide, and they go the right way. It is God guiding them.
Ques Why does it say she did not answer the women or take it to heart?
JT She accepted it that she was dying, there was no hope. She died in faith: she had power in saying what she did, “And these all, having obtained witness through faith, did not receive the promise” (Hebrews 11: 39); she is like that. It is a very little glimmer, but it is there. If you have a little strength, God takes account of that and makes much of it;
[p. 304] if there is none elsewhere, the more will be made of it. If there is nothing much around but you have a little, the more will be made of it. If a thing is scarce it will be honoured.
AR Do you think there is some instruction in this in regard of our going home to be with the Lord? With Eli there is complete prostration, but there is moral power in the wife of Phinehas.
JT That is the way to look at it, “She bowed herself”. It is said of the Lord in John that His death was an act of power; He dismissed His spirit. He was not expiring as if He could not help it, but He dismissed it in an act of power.
AR The two milch-kine are doing Kohathitish work.
JT That is what they are doing, carrying the ark.
AR And yet they are producing food which belongs to the land; the land flowed with milk and honey.
JT Just so, very good; we get that later — milk and honey. That is good because it is a heavenly thought.
JH In chapter 6, verse 9, the lords of the Philistines say, “And see, if it go up by the way of its own border to Beth-shemesh, it is he who has done us this great evil; if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that touched us; it was a chance that happened to us”. God evidently answers in this way.
JT There is something in those priests; we cannot say very much about it, but for the moment anyway they are under divine pressure, as in the case of Dagon. They are saying right things; their minds are running in right channels; the Philistine element is not there; they are not big men. God had already brought in what effected this among them, that is, the fall of Dagon. Things were going down with them, but the Israelites were not doing it; it was God,
[p. 305] that is the point just now. God can do things, He can bring the ark back without the Israelites, without the priests.
Rem God recognises a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the Philistines in that He allowed the ark to come back on the cart, while in David’s time there was a breach made when that was done.
JT There is a want of intelligence, but not a want of instinct; the instinct is there without the intelligence, and God honoured the instinct. The kine refer to instinct; they could not speak, they could low; they could make a noise for their calves. It is not a priestly position, but there is, nevertheless, an evidence of the work of God on the line of instinct. That is what the lower creatures represent usually in the types, the instinct they have.
SMcC Do you think there is a suggestion in the golden jewels and golden images of how in the last century there was recovery of the truth of the Person of the Lord? Religious minds were tending to attach to certain fixed ideas, like the Athanasian creed and the like.
JT There was a general movement of God. Unconverted men even took on the truths that were revived, and the study of this chapter is important in that they have a certain knowledge, these priests of the Philistines. It is said in verse 2, “And the Philistines called for the priests and the diviners” (not the military men; they have the idea of the priesthood); “saying, What shall we do with the ark of Jehovah? tell us wherewith we shall send it to its place. And they said, If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel”, (notice the fine expressions they have; they are not opposing the Israelites for the moment) “send it not empty”. God had told the Israelites they were not to come before Him empty. It is remarkable that men like that should have the idea of trespass; they are not vaunting themselves.
[p. 306] God has turned the tables against them; Dagon had fallen down before the ark. Someone has some intelligence; what would christendom be if there was not something in it? Even the Roman Catholics have something; one could find certain times when they speak the real truth.
EGMcA Would you suggest that while the exercise is going on, represented by the dying of this woman, God is preserving His Christ? I mean He is typified in the ark in the Philistine hands, and eventually it would be seen how God worked in the recovery of the ark. At the present time in the history of the church there does not seem to be a great regard for the Person of Christ, but God has preserved Him. He has brought Him back to those who really hold the truth in exercise. God works out the thing through the Philistines, in adverse circumstances and opposition.
JT Quite so. The truth of the Lord’s Person is spreading, the truth of sonship and eternal life too. The truth of sonship is of special prominence; the whole of christendom has been affected, and they are speaking of it. Where did they get it? God is there; God can go where we cannot go. God has access where we have not access, and they are talking about God here; they are not talking about Dagon. They are talking about righteousness, because they speak of a trespass offering.
GAT Would there be any connection between the Philistines asking what to do with the ark and Pilate asking what to do with Jesus?
JT Just so. There was someone there to give him the answer, if he had only listened. His wife gave him good advice; she was the overcomer in his house, and these cattle are the overcomers in the Philistine world, and Phinehas’ wife is the overcomer in a defeated Israel. In a time of darkness and disaster, she is an overcomer; she has light in her [p. 307] soul and she has power; she dies in power. But Ichabod is living; Ichabod did not die, and that is the idea. God is now operating. Ichabod is not used; it is a question of what he represents negatively, and God is going to bring in the positive in these cows. They are not Ichabod, they are not radiating a negative idea; it is a productive idea. They are milch-kine and they have calves, it is a living suggestion, and they go on the right way. It is a living God we are dealing with now in these cows.
EGMcA Would you say that as a result of the recovery coming in the joy that is seen in verse 13 is amongst us now? “And they of Beth-shemesh were reaping the wheat-harvest in the valley; and they lifted up their eyes and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it”.
JT They got light too.
AR The priestly service commences to function somewhat in that as soon as the ark got back they presented an offering.
JT Just so; the ark coming back is the next point. It says they “rejoiced”, which is right, as has been remarked, “And the cart came into the field of Joshua the Beth-shemeshite” (notice, the cart) “and stood there; and a great stone was there. And they clave the wood of the cart, and offered up the kine as a burnt-offering to Jehovah. And the Levites took down the ark of Jehovah” (verses 14, 15). Now we are on known ground, we have Levites; not priests yet, but according to God they are priests. Now we are getting on safe ground, but yet it is a very feeble condition because God is coming in governmentally and slaying them because they have looked into the ark. They are like Unitarians, they looked into the ark rudely. God deals with that and the ark is carried up into the house of Abinadab, but we have to await David and Solomon for the full result, and they are assuredly coming.
[p. 308] Rem Is this what was going on in the first epistle to the Corinthians? The ark did not have its place.
JT That is it. To make the thing practical, it corresponds with the early elements in recovery; the great evangelical movement came in in the eighteenth century with Wesley and many others well known; I believe it would correspond somewhat with light breaking in. Yet there was not the order of God, the system that God has established in Christ in heaven; the priests and the Levites were not understood. These men carried on the clerical principle, but still there was something there that God was doing, and ultimately we have the true idea of Christ and the assembly. This comes in suggestively under David, as in Psalm 78: “And he rejected the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved; and he built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which he hath founded for ever” (verses 67 - 69). It is clear that Psalm 78, written by an experienced man, gathers the whole matter together. It is by Asaph, a great singing man; he is the author of most of the psalms in that third book of Psalms. He was himself a great leader under David, a man that had right feelings in all this. So that we go back in the historical part of the psalm and we see from the light that Asaph gives us that God was operating here with a view to bringing the ark back. We must not despise what these cows represent; if we see a brother or sister with instincts, although they are not breaking bread, we do not despise them; we test them out as to what they think about the ark.
GAT They are carrying the thing in the right way; persons are turning their faces the right way if they are looking toward breaking bread.
JT Quite so; and these kine have something to give, some milk and some calves; it is a living state of things although not regulated by intelligence.
[p. 309] When we come to the assembly Paul says, “I speak as to intelligent persons” (1 Corinthians 10: 15); the milch-kine do not represent that, but they represent instinct.
AB Is there something in what the Philistines say in verses 8 and 9: “And send it away that it may go. And see, if it go up by the way of its own border”? It is not exactly the milch-kine, it is the prerogative of the ark itself.
JT Just so; the “it” is the ark.
GAT I would like to get a little more help as to a brother or sister turning their faces the right way and yet not breaking bread, as to how we should act towards them.
JT You have respect for them; you may as well tell them the whole truth, because these milch-kine were going to die. We shy at that.
GAT What does that mean?
JT It means that the road we are on is that we are going to die — to enter on it fully we have to die, “Daily I die”. Paul says (1 Corinthians 15: 31); he was working on those lines all the time. If you tell this to persons of that kind, you are very apt to turn them aside; but that is the truth, we have to come to death. In New York we have often talked about how many persons have passed through our hands, promising men and women; they just disappear in time. They come to see what is really meant, that it is an out-of-the-world position and they have to accept death for it; that is what these cows had to come to.
AR The cows are doing true Kohathitish work. Every Kohathite that carries the ark ought to be prepared to die.
JT Quite so.
EGMcA You told us something of that last night when you spoke about the new tongues; you led [p. 310] us on to death.
JT Quite so; tell us more.
EGMcA I gathered from what you said last night that if we spoke with new tongues it was according to the stand we had taken in fellowship, and it simply meant death to all that the old tongue spoke of.
JT Quite so.
JW Where is the ministry of Samuel during this?
JT That is another thing, he is out of sight for the moment, but you may be sure he is with God; there is not a word about him from chapter 4 to chapter 7, which is remarkable, but it suggests the resources that God has. God is saying, These cows are not really what I have, and the wife of the priest is dead; well, what is God going to go on with? The cows die too. But God has His Samuel, He has him under protection, and He is going to bring him out, that is what you get in chapter 7; as soon as you come to Samuel he knows what to do.
GAT Does this suggest the private life of Jesus before He comes out in the ministry?
JT Yes, that is it. God has His man in reserve; Samuel knows what to do. If the Philistines attack, he does not bring the ark in; he brings a sucking lamb in and God thundered on the Philistine; God did that, but Samuel knew what to do first. That is the next thing.
Ques Are these matters the working out of the words of Samuel?
JT Quite so; you may be sure he is saying things that the Spirit of God has not been pleased to tell us; we know that he must have been saying things; he is a prophet of the Lord, and he was not silent you may be sure. He may have had Bible readings, for all we know! There were Bible readings away back in 1820 before Mr. Darby came on the scene, in this country and Ireland and Scotland. I [p. 311] only allude to that to show that God has these secret things; His Spirit is operating all the time.
EGMcA Do you mean by that that as the result of the way God worked this out, we are sitting here this morning in the truth of the teaching of Samuel typically, the ark having been recovered from the hands of the Philistines?
JT There is something going on, and we must have eyes to see and ears to hear. Samuel will not be quiescent with this condition, but God is not pleased to tell us what he is saying; God draws a veil over that until chapter 7, and then you get Samuel and he knows what to do.
JW Would there be concurrent lines in the return of the ark and the underlying ministry of Samuel?
JT That is the point; what God is going on with secretly.
JH Samuel says “to all Israel” when he is an old man, “I have walked before you from my youth up to this day. Here I am: testify against me before Jehovah”, 1 Samuel 12: 2, 3.
JT That indicates his service; it was certainly a prophetic service and a priestly one too; he was not a priest; he was a prophet, but he acted as a priest, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge”, Malachi 2: 7. And if you look at chapter 7 you will see at once how he meets the position. It says in verse 5, “And Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpah, and I will pray Jehovah for you. And they gathered together to Mizpah, and drew water, and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day” (he did not tell them to do this; it is a commandment of God, but he is leading in it), “and said there, We have sinned against Jehovah”. Light is breaking in from the priest. And then it says, “And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpah”. He is a judge now as well as a prophet — a man that could [p. 312] do anything that required to be done in an emergency. “And the Philistines heard that the children of Israel were gathered together at Mizpah; and the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel; and the children of Israel heard it, and were afraid of the Philistines. And the children of Israel said to Samuel, Cease not to cry to Jehovah our God for us, that he will save us out of the hand of the Philistines. And Samuel took a sucking-lamb”, that is very beautiful; they knew what he could do, they knew he had power with God; “and offered it as a whole burnt-offering to Jehovah; and Samuel cried to Jehovah for Israel, and Jehovah answered him. And as Samuel was offering up the burnt-offering, the Philistines advanced to battle against Israel. And Jehovah thundered with a great thunder on that day upon the Philistines, and discomfited them; and they were routed before Israel” (verses 5 - 10). That is Samuel, so that we are on the line of victory now.
But we have to go on to the young sisters for a little while in chapter 9. God gives the different feminine phases in this history for our profit and guidance. This chapter tells us about Saul and Saul’s father, it gives us his long genealogy; and what comes out is that there were lost asses, another phase of weakness, and Saul is sent by his father to find the asses. He takes his servant with him and he does not find them. God, in this simple way, is exposing Saul before he comes into the kingdom, so that faith will understand what may be expected. It is still the judicial dealing of God in setting up a king like this, but he is giving faith an inkling of what may be expected. He did not find the asses, and now he is going to find Samuel. How is he going to find Samuel? Well, he needs guidance. “As they went up to the ascent to the city, they met maidens going forth to draw water” (verse 11). These are young sisters occupied profitably. They are going to draw [p. 313] water, like Rebecca, suggesting church material in youthfulness, “And they said to them, Is the seer here?” Notice the word ‘seer’, a man that sees, which is so much needed because Saul did not have that power, “And they answered them and said, He is; behold, he is before thee: make haste now; for he came today to the city; for the people have a sacrifice today in the high place. As soon as ye come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he goes up to the high place to eat; for the people eat not until he has come, because he blesses the sacrifice; afterwards they eat that are invited. And now go up; for this very day shall ye find him. And they went up into the city. As they were coming into the midst of the city, behold, Samuel was coming out towards them, to go up to the high place” (verses 11 - 14). Well now, this passage introduces what is most remarkable, because it is for young sisters, as to what they are occupied with. If there are meetings going on, or brothers coming or going, or if there is a new book of ministry, they know and they can guide others. They are not occupied frivolously; they are occupied with this great event, that Samuel is in that town and they know all about his movements and what he does. They say, so to speak, Now you go that way and you will find him; they are definite.
AB The words of Samuel did not fall to the ground, but had found a resting place in the hearts of these maidens; like Rhoda when Peter was released from prison, it says she recognised the voice of Peter.
JT These sisters belong to Rhoda’s class and she belongs to them. It is a remarkable word coming in to the book of Samuel, of a piece with the structure of the book. We must have the young sisters; we must have them with us, not coming to these meetings for natural causes, but coming in relation to Samuel. Samuel is the man of God, and he does [p. 314] things, and they know what he does and why he is there: If you go that way you will find him, they say.
CCT These maidens are very busy drawing water; I suppose that is the reason they were able to give a sure answer.
JT They are quite sure; they were guides.
AR They were up-to-date in church history; they were talking about ‘today’, the word is used four times.
JT Very good.
JWD We never find that men drew water in the Old Testament; it is a peculiar feature of women’s service, I suppose it was connected with this feast.
JT Clearly; they were definite in what they were doing. Deborah speaks about “the places of drawing water” (Judges 5: 11); they were going to draw water and here is a needy man and they can tell him exactly what he wants and where to find it.
Rem They did not volunteer the information; they answered.
JT Just so, very seemly, just as Rebecca did, she responded to the servant. They are very definite; they say, “Make haste now, for he came today to the city; for the people have a sacrifice today in the high place. As soon as ye come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he goes up to the high place to eat; for the people eat not until he has come, because he blesses the sacrifice; afterwards they eat that are invited”. What a perfect knowledge they had of the whole ritual, because that is what it is; there is ritual to christianity; we ought to know what is to be done.
JW It is a remarkable thing that Saul does not seem to have any knowledge of Samuel; his servant alludes to the seer and the servant provides the offering.
JT Just so; he is a ‘yes’ man here; he had no initiative.
CCT “And now go up”, they say (verse 13). Do the maidens command Saul?
JT It is a word that fits in there; the men needed guidance and they are getting the guidance. You know how comforting it is if you miss your way and someone can tell you it definitely and surely. The word ‘way’ is really christianity in the book of Acts.
Ques Would you say that the activity of these maidens is really levitical in principle?
JT Just so; they are guides.
MB Is it a reflection on Saul that he was unable to recognise the greatest man of his day when he met him?
JT Well, the Spirit of God has recorded all this for faith. You might think God is coming in for Saul; but faith would discern beforehand that it was not so; there must be a David, the way must be made for David. David is mentioned in the book of Ruth and faith would look for him.
JWD In 1 Corinthians 11 there is something that a woman alone can do in connection with contributing to the assembly that a man cannot do for her. I was thinking of the women’s service in the Old Testament, women drawing water. But in 1 Corinthians 11 we have the order in creation, and this has relation to the Lord’s supper. If the women do not take this up, no one can do it for them; a feature of the house will be missing. I mean woman’s attitude to the man and having the head covered.
JT They are to do the thing; quite so.
JWD It is something that falls essentially within the range of their service like drawing water.
JT Yes.
AB Is there something in the fact that where the overseer is referred to in 1 Timothy 3 the word ‘ministers’ in verse 8 involves sisters, the footnote [p. 316] having a reference to Phoebe in Romans 16? I was wondering whether these young maidens were an asset to Samuel in relation to his own overseership.
JT They were serving Samuel too, you mean. Quite so.
JH Their ability to answer the question as to the seer and their drawing water would show spirituality on the inward side.
JT That is what I thought we might see; there was intelligence. The milch-kine represent one feminine feature — that is instinct, motherly instinct, and they yielded milk. Here there is a contribution on the same line, but it is another feature, a feature of agile intelligence, youthful intelligence. They know exactly what is happening that day, ‘today’ is mentioned several times; they are up-to-date spiritually, they have a full knowledge of what is up to the very minute in what God is doing.
JH You were saying a seer is one who sees?
JT We are told the difference between a seer and a prophet: “In former time in Israel, when a man went to ask counsel of God, he said, Come and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was in former time called a Seer” (verse 9). An allusion is made to the change-over in the use of the word. The word ‘seer’ is a man who sees; a prophet is a man who speaks for God. It is the same sort of thing, but it looks as if there was advance in the use of the language. Progress in the testimony necessitates fresh words, fresh designations, so that the divine vocabulary is enlarged. It is remarkable that the change comes in here in this setting.
JH The idea of the seer is not dropped, is it?
JT Not at all; only you have two thoughts instead of one. The word ‘prophet’ is more dignified as representative of God, “He that receives a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward” (Matthew 10: 41), showing that a prophet had acquired a great status in the testimony.
JH Would these thoughts be necessary in a meeting for prophetic ministry?
JT Just so; we need to see who the prophets are and designate them.
JC Are the two thoughts linked up with Jeremiah? The question is asked of him, “What seest thou?” Jeremiah 1: 11 and Jeremiah 13; Jeremiah 24: 3.
JT He shows he is a prophet; he sees and can name things as he sees them.