FEMININE FEATURES IN 1 SAMUEL (4)
[p. 318] FEMININE FEATURES IN 1 SAMUEL (4)
1 Samuel 18:6,7; 1 Samuel 18:17-21
JT We have been anticipating the advent of David and now we have reached it in the order of this book, and what has been before us ought to prepare us for the anointing, which has been, dwelt upon in speaking of chapter 2. In this chapter David typifies Christ as drawing out our affections and our praises. We may look also at the narrative of his anointing in chapter 16: 11 - 13. We have really come to the realm of love in the book; and in all God’s operations and the fields in which they are we must make room for love and its activity, bringing out persons who can love and who appreciate what is lovable. David is mentioned here by name, “The Spirit of Jehovah came upon David”, 1 Samuel 16: 13. We are reminded of the incident afforded in the synoptic gospels, how that when Jesus was baptised and the windows of heaven were opened to Him a voice announced heaven’s delight in Him and the Spirit of God came upon Him in the form of a dove. David here really corresponds in type with the expression “beloved” as we read of the Lord Jesus. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, Matthew 3: 17. God has in type reached a point of rest now in this book.
As we proceed into chapter 17, and throughout chapter 18, we have love, masculine love first, and then feminine love; but David is the lovable one. So that this afternoon we might be engaged with this side of the subject, and challenge our hearts as to whether we appreciate lovable persons, those lovable not from the standpoint of nature, which is apt to enter into these occasions, the natural feelings of young people; the Spirit of God resents that, especially as when we are convened. All that is contrary [p. 319] or extraneous should then be shut out that there may be room for the real thing — the real quality — what is called “the greatest of these”. We may well challenge our hearts as to whether we can name what is lovable and whether we are among the lovable persons. We cannot expect, it would be unfair to expect, that we should be interesting to the brethren unless we are lovable.
SMcC Would you say a word as to the difference between David, the meaning of his name being “beloved”, and Jedidiah, meaning “beloved of Jehovah”?
JT That is the name given to Solomon: “beloved of Jehovah”; it is an interesting link. That name was prophetic, I would say; this is historical, but David is really a lovable person by his conduct. Solomon had not done anything yet when the name was given; as to him it is a prophetic thought.
SMcC How would you place the two in the New Testament, the idea of David, the beloved, and what we have in Solomon?
JT I think David represents what is especially lovable. Christ made a point of presenting Himself to the disciples as risen from the dead; He presented Himself living; that is, He takes an attitude towards the brethren for a purpose: He presented Himself living so as to affect them. The Song of Songs is the opening up of this; the point of it is the working of love, the outward display of love so that it should become reciprocal. It is a book of reciprocal affections. The Lord laid the way in showing us how to love and how to be lovable, that is, you are worth loving. Hence He selects John, and the Spirit of God tells us through John himself that he was the one whom Jesus loved, I think David presents that side; it is a historical matter that he was a lovable person. He is first mentioned historically as a person, meaning he is really that at once as he comes before you,
[p. 320] because that is what the Spirit says of him, “For he was a youth, and ruddy, and besides of a beautiful countenance” (chapter 17: 42). That is how he presents himself, not that his attitude is the point, but you cannot help seeing it as he is there.
Well now; as to Solomon: as Paul says of Jacob and Esau, there was nothing good or bad in the children before God pronounced His thought of them: “I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau”, Romans 9: 13. That was the historical result of what was there in those two children before they were born; one was lovable and the other was not. Esau was not lovable, whereas Jacob was lovable; that was prophetic; the historical part had not come in yet, but it would come, and it is Malachi that is quoted there. So Jedidiah is a prophetic name, “And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, for Jehovah’s sake”, 2 Samuel 12: 25. But David gives him another name; he had good ground for knowing that he would be a Solomon, a man of peace, for that had been announced to him before, but Jedidiah had not been announced to him before. That name did not appear before; that was from Jehovah Himself at that particular time. All that would come out in Solomon came into his mind, that he would be lovable. Jehovah loved him in a prophetic sense you might say, because of what would come out in him; I think that is the way it stands. So it is with ourselves: God knows what will come out in us; though in one sense we are all lovable, “chosen ... in him” (Ephesians 1: 4), and “taken ... into favour in the Beloved” (verse 6). That is, “beloved” is the idea, the great thought of God, and we are “taken ... into favour in the Beloved” — that is David. I do not think we are accepted in Solomon. It is the word ‘beloved’ in Ephesians 1: 6: “He has taken us into favour in the Beloved”.
GAT [p. 321] Do you think we ought to be exercised that we should do things that would be lovable amongst the brethren?
JT Yes, but that of which I am speaking now is really the principle of election: “elect of God”. We are to be “holy and blameless before him in love” (verse 4). If I understand the idea of the foreknowledge of God, it is that He sees what you are in the picture, a prospective picture, what a product you will be. That is what He loves; He selects you because of that.
AR The power of attraction is very extensive; I think the word ‘love’ is used about five times in chapter 18. It is love’s chapter, you might say.
JT That is right; that is what I thought, and I thought we might have it before us because it belongs to this line of things. If you do not make room for love you are failing. Love never fails, and we must make room for it and for what it is to be lovable.
SMcC “But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he went out and came in before them” (verse 16).
JT Yes, he had shown himself. He is not like the Pope. Who knows what he is like, unless you knew him when he was young? When he becomes Pope very few see him, but a lovable person is to be displayed. So Moses thought of display in proposing to Jehovah who was to be leader in Numbers 27; he says, “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” (verse 16). Let him “go out” and “come in before them” first, before he is recognised as a leader; let him show himself.
TS Is that the same basis as the choice of Matthias in the beginning [p. 322] of Acts?
JT Yes, he was one of those who had ‘assembled’ with the brethren; ‘assembled’ is a verb; it is not simply that he was there, but he assembled during “all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among” them (Acts 1: 21); he would be a man like that. He would see beauty, he would see apostolic power in the Lord Jesus; that is a question of the testimony. It is the same thing in Numbers 27: Moses had in his mind that the man that was to replace him when he died was to go out and come in before Israel; that is our matter. Every Israelite ought to know Joshua, because he went out and in before them; he led them out and brought them in; so that the leaders amongst us must indicate that they are lovable personalities. Let all see them and then you have confidence in them, proving what you see in them.
SMcC That is very interesting because the same thing applies in David; when you come to the second book it says in chapter 5, “Even aforetime, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel” (verse 2).
JT Yes; that was good ground for making him king, or anointing him; but what is before us now is the person going out and in so that you can see him; and that is what the Lord does as risen in the Acts. According to Luke’s presentation, He “presented himself living”.
AB It says in chapter 27 of Numbers, “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him, by the judgment of the Urim before Jehovah: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in” (verse 21); the note says, ‘mouth’ — at his mouth. Is that a further thought, or is that the result of what has preceded?
JT The question is who the person is there; it is, I suppose, what comes from the Urim. The priest would have to say the thing; Joshua would stand in [p. 323] relation to the priest, as I understand it, but there may be a question in the original as to who is referred to in the “his”; but anyway the place is in relation to the Urim, and it is a question of light; and the priest is brought into the movement. So that Joshua and Eleazar go together as Moses and Aaron went together. Anyway, the idea is there in the movement in and out.
JH Would this going out and coming in be seen in Samuel? It is said he walked before the people from his youth.
JT That is the point. He is calling attention to what they saw.
JH Would it be right to carry it on to the Lord Jesus, John the baptist taking account of Him walking?
JT Yes, that comes out in John 1: first in verse 29, how He walks toward John, so that John names Him; he names Him by His walk — the sacrificial walk; that is what is meant. The Lamb of God is sacrificial, and He is mentioned coming to John. But in the next statement where John is standing and Jesus is walking it is the name ‘Lamb’ still, but He is not coming to John; the sacrificial thought is in abeyance. It is a question of the Person, and he calls attention to Him. He says, “Behold the Lamb of God”, without saying any more. The next speakers, in answering Christ say, “Rabbi (which, being interpreted, signifies Teacher)”. That is not sacrificial, that is teaching, they have still another thought. They must have seen something in Him so that they recognise Him as a Teacher. That is a general thought, not Rabboni, my Teacher, but Rabbi.
JWD “The Spirit of Jehovah came upon David from that day forward”. Do you link that up only with Christ personally? Or is there some sense in which the light of David breaks into the soul, and [p. 324] desire of heart awakens in that connection, and then the Spirit of Jehovah will come upon us in that extended sense?
JT Do you mean a believer now?
JWD That I might be lovable; I suppose every one of us would like to be lovable. The Spirit of Jehovah would seem to link on with the thought of supporting that as He comes upon David.
JT Yes; David would be maintained in his lovableness by the Spirit.
AR He became lovable through moral qualities, because Saul was still on the throne and really should have been the leader; but here is a man winning the hearts of the saints, not by what he is naturally like Saul, but by what he is morally.
JT Yes.
Ques Would you say that his early years would be seen as a help in developing his lovable qualities?
JT That would come out. That is a point that he makes himself, a point in which Eliab would discredit him. Eliab would set aside his strong point; he says, “With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness?” (chapter 17: 28). He says it in scorn, as if David was neglectful; he implied that he was neglectful, but he was not; he had left them with a keeper; his shepherdly qualities were there. But what we are aiming at now is what attracts the women in the type; we are dealing with the feminine side in this book and we have alluded to chapter 18, how the subjective side has an object, that is, love has. We are now come into the realm of love in this book, and we are to learn how to be in it, whether in a masculine or feminine way; and the first person said to have loved David here is Jonathan. Michal loved him too, but Jonathan loved him and all Israel loved him, and all Judah loved him. The women are said to have come out in verse 6 of chapter 18: “And it came to pass as they came, when David [p. 325] returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tambours, with joy, and with triangles”. David is supremely their object, not in any single personal way as Michal loved him, but they were praising him; they were occupied with him because of his prowess, because of his victory over the giant; but lovableness was already attained in chapter 16; it is already a sequence. He was a lovable person, a person to be praised.
CCT Is the singing and the dancing an outcome of love?
JT You feel that love enters into it. Applied in the antitype, it is love for Christ, and as Paul suggests, it is a collective idea which you do not get in Romans exactly; it is in Corinthians. Paul is aiming to attract the hearts of the Corinthians in a collective sense, “For I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ”, 2 Corinthians 11: 2. That is a great general thought that enters into the epistle to the Corinthians. It enters into the assembly, and I think that corresponds with what we have here, how David was acquiring that place, drawing out the affections and praises of the women.
Ques Would the idea of the women suggest maturity?
JT 1 Corinthians develops the idea of feminine maturity, womanhood. We have already alluded to Chloe — she was a watchful person; the Lord says, “But what I say to you, I say to all, Watch”, Mark 13: 37. She had discernment and sent a word to Paul that saved the saints in Corinth; she would be a model. You may be sure she would correspond with 1 Corinthians 11 where the subject comes up as to headship from God to Christ, and Christ to man, and man to woman; the main thought is the woman in view of the Lord’s supper, in view of Christ acquiring His own proper place in the hearts of the brethren collectively. You get womanhood there outlined, and the apostle appeals to woman first as to a covering. The word ‘covering’ means covered as illustrated in Rebecca in Genesis 24; she took a veil to cover herself in view of Isaac’s presence. As soon as she hears it is he, hears his name — for the servant says, “That is my master!” not “my master’s son” any more, but “my master” — she “took the veil, and covered herself” (verse 65). Well, we are coming to the Lord’s supper, and the veil has a place. In Genesis 20: 16 Abimelech bought a veil for Sarah. He says, You have not had one; it is a reproof. He said aright; she needed a veil so that she should not become attractive to others. The Corinthians were not to become exposed to others in looseness; the idea of the veil is a covering. The idea in 1 Corinthians is authority; authority is what comes down in the way of command; you are under authority. Now Sarah did not have that kind of thing on her head at all according to what we have in Genesis 20. In chapter 18 she called Abraham “lord”; Peter tells us about that (1 Peter 3: 6); but in chapter 20 before Abimelech she says she is Abraham’s sister, which was not a true representation of the facts at all. It exposed her. So that the true idea is to be clothed with what indicates that you are espoused to one man, and you do not pay attention to others. We are to be to Another, to Him that is raised from the dead. The veil in 1 Corinthians 11 is clearly to protect the saints from looseness in regard of the Lord’s supper, because it is there that the Lord Jesus is presenting His great love to us — “This is my body which is given for you”, Luke 22: 19. It is a marriage ceremony; it is like a covenant He has made between the assembly and Himself. The covering on the head is [p. 327] to preclude looseness.
EGMcA I think you referred that to the long hair in Detroit.
JT It is given as a veil in nature. That was a good reason, as the apostle says, why he should impress them with the need of having a covering.
Rem In the opening chapters of Corinthians do we, so to speak, get the names of the other sons of Jesse, and then David is brought in; in chapter 11 David is given his place?
JT Very good; they were big men in the early chapters of the epistle.
AB You were referring to Luke earlier. Is this principle brought out there in relation to the Lord in chapter 3: “Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I have found my delight” (verse 22)? In chapter 7 in the house of the Pharisee the woman comes to light utilising her hair in relation to the headship of Christ. In chapter 8, three women are brought in in relation to Christ.
JT That is most instructive, especially as in Luke. It is a gathering up of assembly material in subjection, so that in chapter 8 you have the women who accompanied Him and ministered to Him of their substance, and they are like wives, like the virtuous woman of Proverbs; the Lord is known through them.
JH Is it not remarkable that whilst they came out to meet king Saul, they should celebrate David in this way?
JT It is on the same line as Eli, on the line of replacement, or I might say, displacement. The idea is that Saul is tasting the bitterness of displacement; not simply that God is setting him aside, but David is morally setting him aside and the women are doing it. The women have the mind of God; they have not gone the whole way yet, they are ascribing something to Saul, but that has to come to [p. 328] an end.
GAT Do you get something like this in John 5 where the Lord healed the man at the pool and the man later went out and told the Jews that it was Jesus, and after that they wanted to kill Him? Would there be the same spirit of jealousy there as with Saul?
JT Yes; quite so. Wherever there is jealousy you may be sure there is something to be jealous of — “Jealousy is as cruel as Sheol”, Song of Songs 8: 6. “Jealous” is one of the names of God. But here it is satanic; the jealousy of Saul is awful. He proposes that David is to be his son-in-law through one of his daughters, as it says, “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time” (verse 21), which probably means he was professedly son-in-law in his engagement to Merab who was given to someone else; but now he is to be engaged to Michal. But what has he in mind? He was going to use his second daughter to slay David. That is murder and hate, but love is in the chapter.
GAT Are you emphasising the seriousness of engagements?
JT Just so; it is a covenant.
GAT What do you think is so serious about engagements?
JT Saul inferred that the engagement to Merab meant that David was his son-in-law potentially anyway. He says here, “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time”. The first time must have been the engagement to Merab, that she was to be given to him; he says, “Behold my eldest daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife” (verse 17), as if that was settled. The “second time” would allude to the first sort of engagement to Merab, but she was given to someone else, showing that Saul was a truce-breaker. It says, “And it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul’s daughter should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as wife” (verse 19). It was the prerogative of the father to give his daughter and he did it clearly; he had some motive for that. And then he gives him Michal, so that he says, You will be my son-in-law a second time; he is deceiving David in order to kill him. That is hatred in the presence of the realm of love.
CCT In the realm of love the enemy commences to work: it says in verse 9, “And Saul eyed David from that day and forward”. The enemy goes to work as soon as love goes to work.
JT That is the Lord’s supper, that is what we are seeking to bring out as to Corinth. It is the Lord’s supper that brings out the love of Christ. His peculiar love for the saints, “This is my body which is given for you”, Luke 22: 19.
SMcC In our own times, do you think the enemy has employed the Churches of England and of Rome along these lines in relation to Christ?
JT I think that is right, because Michal really did love David; and I have always considered that the Anglican system has some regard for Christ, and I believe God has honoured it; but of course it will come to nothing in the same way that Michal became untruthful. The Church of England is becoming worse and worse, gradually being displaced.
SMcC I was thinking of what the Lord has in a feminine way, how we should be concerned as to this over against these pretentious systems that the enemy is using in hate against Him. It is a very real matter.
JT It is indeed. We were speaking about this out in the West and it came to us that the devil may give one a wife. A brother may get a wife from the devil, or a sister may get a husband from the devil — that is this — that is Merab or Michal. Saul is deliberately giving him Michal in order to destroy him. The contrast is. “Whoso hath found a wife hath found a good thing”, Proverbs 18: 22. David is not looking [p. 330] for Michal or Merab, it is Saul’s work. We have to look out how marriage is proposed in that way; is the devil doing it or is it the Lord?
GAT Would the idea of the devil be to destroy in the brother or sister what would be spiritual?
JT Exactly, spoil them for the testimony. Look how many we have had to refuse to walk with because of unholy alliances with worldly people!
Ques Do you think Pergamos is Merab? Does she represent what went on in that assembly?
JT Undoubtedly; that is where Rome began to develop as it is today.
FM It says in verse 10, “And it came to pass the next day that an evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house”. What is your thought in connection with that?
JT I would call that a judicial act of God. We get in chapter 19 another reference to Saul prophesying. It says in verse 19, “And it was told Saul, saying, Behold, David is at Naioth by Ramah. Then Saul sent messengers to take David; and they saw a company of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as president over them; and the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. And it was told Saul, and he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they also prophesied”; and then in verse 24 Saul prophesied himself, I read that so that we might get the context of the passage. The Spirit of God came upon a man like Saul just as He came on Balaam; that is the Spirit of God taking hold of a man and using him according to His pleasure. That is a great matter to keep before us today, the kind of men God may use in this terrible conflict. In chapter 18 it is a bad spirit, that is an awful thing, that is judicial. Saul is so degenerate that he eyed David in murderous jealousy and God allowed the wicked spirit to come upon him, and we are told, “He prophesied in the midst of the house, but David played with his hand, as on other days; and the spear was in Saul’s hand. And Saul cast the spear and thought, I will smite David and the wall”; it is a wicked spirit. Paul says to the Corinthians, “No one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus”, 1 Corinthians 12: 3. It is a wicked spirit that is in Saul in this verse, but it is the Spirit of God in chapter 19. That is a very remarkable thing, how God acts. If a man goes on a certain line you get judicial action and a wicked spirit, and that is what is going to happen to christendom; that is how it is going to finish up. Saul enquired of a wicked spirit and Samuel was brought up to him; Samuel is brought up to rebuke him, but he is led to enquire of a spirit of Python. If we play with these things, judicial action is sure to come. If we cultivate hateful thoughts, God might let it be that way, and you will die that way.
EGMcA The culmination of the career of Judas was that Satan took hold of him; he toyed with the temptation first and then Satan took possession of him. Is it not a rather incongruous situation that a man should prophesy with a spear in his hand?
JT It is a wicked spirit.
JWD Do you think the people rise with real spiritual affection toward David, and God operates to bring to a conclusion what is evil?
JT How terrible it is! We are right in the love chapter, and the great person that is so attractive is here; his very name means he is a beloved person, he is attractive, and you have this awful spirit of envy in Saul so that the evil spirit comes upon him and he actually speaks in the power of an evil spirit.
JWD How far would Jonathan’s love be carried? Would it link with Michal’s in a [p. 332] nominal sense?
JT It is more than nominal with him. David says it surpassed the love of women. He celebrates the love of Jonathan, which, I think, means that Jonathan typifies a real christian who loves Christ; but he clings to the natural and dies with his father. He is a real person I think.
CCT There was an inward movement. It says, “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David” (chapter 18. 1).
JT Quite so; he “loved him as his own soul”.
GAT I would like to hear what you say about what Jonathan said to Saul when he was getting ready to kill David. He says, “Why should he be put to death? what has he done?” 1 Samuel 20: 32.
JT He typifies a real christian who does not come into separation. He does not leave the old relationships, the relationships into which he was born, but he really loves Christ. There are many of the Lord’s people like that today; they do not leave the associations into which they were born, but they are genuine.
CCT What about the covenant they made? Jonathan made a covenant with David.
JT That was kept, too; there was a real link between David and Jonathan. With Michal I should not think there was much beyond natural affection; she despised him in her heart later. What could you think of that?
FM Would the evil spirit be the same as the spirit of Python?
JT That is the sort of thing.
Ques What would you say about the queen of Sheba? She was attracted to Solomon.
JT She was a real person; of course she is a typical person. She came from the south, and the Lord takes her up Himself and compares her with the generation in the midst of which He ministered. She came from the ends of the earth, He says, to hear the wisdom of Solomon. “A queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, more than Solomon is here”, Matthew 12: 42. She came to hear it and brought things with her; there is no indication that she was other than genuine.
AR It was wisdom that attracted her, whereas here it is more the idea of lovability, the personality of the man that attracts. Is that right?
JT Just so. Well, all that was in mind for this reading was just to bring us into the realm of love, and you see how hatred comes out. The devil cannot let that go if he can get it in amongst us.
EGMcA Do you find these lovable persons in Philippians, and a lovable company in the Thessalonians? They are “in God the Father” in 1 Thessalonians, verse 1; that is the attractive side. Then Paul speaks of the marvellous way in which their love multiplies, and says, I learn to love you. In Philippians he nursed them as a nurse with her children. Then in Philippians, Timothy and Epaphroditus come in. One goes in the love of Christ to bring a true report down, and the other is willing to die for them. Is it along that line?
JT Just so. In chapter 4 of Philippians he speaks of certain women who laboured with him, and there were two of them that did not agree with one another. These are all most interesting features, because they point out the component parts of an assembly, and how we are to watch; where there is a good state of things generally, how the devil will try to come in with hatred to spoil it. That is chapter 18 here, Jonathan loved David and stripped himself; he loved him as his own soul. These women praised David and yet did not despise Saul; they praised Saul too. Michal loves David and all Israel [p. 334] and Judah love him. The devil would bring in hatred, and that is what you get at Corinth. Paul says, “But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft, so your thoughts should be corrupted from simplicity as to the Christ”, 2 Corinthians 11: 3; and in the verse prior to that he says, “I have espoused you unto one man, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ”. We are speaking of Christ and the assembly.
CCT Do we get a clique in chapter 18: 22, “And Saul commanded his servants, Speak with David secretly, saying, Behold, the king has delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king’s son-in-law”. Is there not a clique formed there against David?
JT That is a great danger, personal friendships and under-currents to carry out some design — some terrible design. This was to kill David.
TS Is love particularly in mind in Philadelphia?
JT Quite so; it is the lovableness of Philadelphia that is in mind, “They ... shall know that I have loved thee”, Revelation 3: 9.
TS I was thinking it especially mentions the key of David; David is brought into it.
JT David is brought into all these fine things in Revelation, because he represents quality and personality.
AB Is that not what the name Philadelphia means — ‘brotherly love’ — the love of the brethren?
JT Just so; that is what the Lord loves — brotherly love. We shall become lovable as we love one another, because He loves us collectively. It is not only that He loves each of us, but He loves us collectively; that is, when we love one another we are lovable.
EGMcA This spirit of Saul, which he would like to have carried on in Michal, is it not seen in 2 Corinthians where some denied the place Christ [p. 335] had in the ministry of Paul? It says in chapter 10: 10, “Because his letters, he says, are weighty and strong, but his presence in the body weak, and his speech naught”. They were trying to belittle Paul, that Christ might not have His proper place. Is that the same spirit?
JT Just so, they attacked Paul; they may have said much that was right about Christ, but they attacked Paul.
GAT “And all indeed who desire to live piously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted”, 2 Timothy 3: 12. Would you say that if there is such a brother or sister living piously it is not the person that the enemy is after, it is Christ?
JT It is the dislocation of the assembly. That is what Corinthians brings out, so that Paul makes a good deal of what was current in that assembly, “No one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12: 3. He is bringing out the spirit that operates in us. The Holy Spirit is essential to the maintenance of the collective position. You hold yourself, as sitting with the brethren, in relation to them all, hold yourself collectively, and the love that is operating makes us lovable to Christ. That is the great thought that we are at now.
JC It says, “And the women answered one another as they played, and said ...”, 1 Samuel 18: 7. Is the idea that we should seek to stimulate each other in love in this way?
JT That is right. It is the way of singing that Scripture warrants, beginning with Exodus 15. You remember the song of Moses; Moses and the children of Israel sang it. Then it says, “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the tambour in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambours and with dances. And Miriam answered them”, Exodus 15: 20, 21. You do not get the male side in the singing there. It might be illustrated in the choir; it is the male and female voices. The answering refers to responses in the singing; that is what you get here, it is a responsive matter. The women are all in it, they are singing and they answer one another.
JWD This matter that you are suggesting — love collectively — is it an abstract idea?
JT Just so, if we can understand what you mean by the word ‘abstract’. I believe we are taken up in the first letter to Corinth as furnished in every way by God, coming behind in no gift, and when we come to the Lord’s supper the apostle says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”. That is what I would call abstract. He is not really saying they are all intelligent, but that they are so abstractly, because they have the Spirit. Is that what you mean?
JWD I thought there was something abstract, but there was something concrete too. I might be able to think of the local company that I walk with as linking me on in some vital living way with Christ personally.
JT The abstract idea is really most important, because we sit down together. Your own house is one thing, and the assembly is another. We come from our houses and sit down together, and the word that applies is ‘abstract’. You are regarded as intelligent persons, and moreover, we regard each other as lovable, and we are sitting, not as so many units, but collectively. We are sitting collectively with the assumption that we love; it may be just assumption, but anyway the principle is there. So the apostle says, “Purge out the old leaven”, 1 Corinthians 5: 7. That is a very concrete thing, the real thing. It is to be put out as dung, “according as ye are unleavened” (verse 7). That is abstract. We hold ourselves in that way. We do not hold ourselves as sitting together [p. 337] according to what I may have seen, some incongruous thing I may have observed, but keeping to the idea of love and learning to love in principle, and the Holy Spirit takes charge. Therefore the meeting begins and it increases in power.
JWD That attitude of mind permits divine Persons to have a free way amongst us.
JT That is the idea exactly. The instruction for the Lord’s supper is to set us down together with right principles, and the Holy Spirit takes on that position and enlarges it and enriches it, so that we come to more at the end than at the beginning.
AB You would not say the end of the second epistle is abstract, would you? The apostle says, “Now I shall most gladly spend and be utterly spent for your souls, if even in abundantly loving you I should be less loved” (chapter 12: 15).
JT Just so; it is not abstract with him, it is active.
TS Just what is the intent of chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians as to the outlet of love?
JT Oh, to show you what it is; to bring out how important it is in the economy. It is a commodity, so to speak, and when you come to the finish it says, “And now abide faith, hope, love; these three things; and the greater of these is love” (verse 13). It is not the greatest, but the greater. It would seem as if the comparative degree is enough and it speaks for itself, all else is subordinate to it; “The greater of these is love”. It is to bring out the greatness of the quality, what it is.
TS Just why does it not come in before the Supper?
JT The order of the truth is the public position in chapter 10, which is the fellowship; we do not get the word ‘fellowship’ in chapter 11, it is in chapter 10, because it is a question of our being [p. 338] trustworthy when we are not under each other’s eye. In chapter 11 it is the inclusive thought when we are all together, hence what we have had about headship and the feminine side; and the Lord tells us at this time in His own words what He delivered to Paul to tell us: “This is my body, which is for you” (chapter 11: 24), the utmost limit or extreme to which love went for us. But when you come to chapter 13 the apostle presents a picture of love, an account of love, a delineation of love, and almost personifies it, so that the Corinthians could at any time look at that picture and compare themselves with it, so that it might be in them. The apostle did not mean to look at it as a picture on the wall, but that it might be a concrete thing among the brethren, and in order that we might have this ministry; that our ministry meetings should be practical, not objective merely, but that a person who speaks should be an example. You sometimes feel as a brother gets up to speak, I do not know whether he is morally equal to that; he may be saying good things, and yet he is morally unequal to them. That is the idea, the persons themselves ought to be equal to what they are saying, to bring personality and quality into the assembly.
JH I would like to ask about this matter of love in connection with that statement in Ephesians: “he that loves his own wife loves himself” (chapter 5: 28). What does that mean?
JT That is a mystery that has to be understood; I do not know that it can be explained, “This mystery is great”, Paul says; Ephesians 5: 32. It is a great mystery, that very thing that you are saying, but he says, “But I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. It looks as if most of us married people could say, I know that by experience. But I think you would rather be transferred to Christ and the assembly, the great mystery of God, and learn the [p. 339] meaning of it there, because that is what Paul had in his mind.
EGMcA It goes on to say, “For no one has ever hated his own flesh” (verse 29).
JT Quite so; you want to get the good of it, but Paul says, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. The state of humanity as it is, with which marriage is connected, is a corrupted condition, and it is not so easy to prove the thing today because it was started in an uncorrupted condition. In Genesis 2 you get that word, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (verse 24), and that suggests Christ and the assembly. You cannot get it in a corrupted world now.
AR It is Christ and the assembly before sin came in.
JT It is a sinless state of things that is in mind.
RG The singers answer one another here; should we connect that with praise and singing prompted by others?
JT The word is ‘respond’; the singers respond; something is sung by one set and another part by another set. Choirs really are in mind.
CD Is love productive in that way, especially in the Supper?
JT I think we get the shell of the assembly, which David and Solomon represent; the thing was already taking form in Israel. You get similar voices in 1 Chronicles in relation to David. This thing is typically leading up to the assembly as suggested in Abigail, which we shall have tomorrow if the Lord will; that is Christ and the assembly in type; Solomon, which is the full thought, will come in later. The thing is taking form as soon as you get David in power; the service of God is there in [p. 340] principle.
AR How do you hold yourself at the Supper, as loving Christ in a feminine sense or a masculine sense?
JT Feminine; all collective love is feminine. Jonathan represents masculine love, which would be sonship — what we are to God, or as the brethren of Christ. That is masculine love, but collective love is feminine. We get the kernel of it here; it will come out more fully in Abigail.
AR John 20 would be masculine love: “Go to my brethren and say to them” (verse 17).
JT Just so.
GAT The end of Revelation is feminine.
JT That is the thought; she has made herself ready.
Rem Abigail would not say, Saul has slain his thousands. She would leave Saul out altogether.
JT She would. The full thought of Abigail has not been arrived at yet, but it is beginning; they are beginning to love Christ collectively.
EGMcA Then in the light of being at the Supper, loving and being lovable, it says, “Let a man prove himself, and thus eat” (1 Corinthians 11: 28); that goes farther than abstaining from evil. The Supper should test me as to whether I love and whether I am lovable.
JT Just so; 1 Corinthians 11 is what is in the assembly as convened; it is not what is outside.
SMcC In the assembly, when you move from the Supper and move forward in the service and come to the family side, do you hold yourself in relation to what you are individually in relation to God’s choice, or do you hold yourself in relation to the collective side still?
JT It would be collective after the Lord’s supper, because it is the assembly and Christ. We must make room for Christ and the assembly; that is collective. Then we have the thought of the brethren of Christ — the “many brethren”; then we have the thought of the sons of God, that is, so many persons, but in that relation. Is that clear?
SMcC That helps; but in the matter of sonship, do you view sonship in its totality in relation to all the sons, or that each one is a definite expression of God’s wisdom and His choice in the matter?
JT I would not individualise it, because it is glory to God in the assembly. The sonship idea is there, the brethren of Christ. It is in the assembly, so that we are always in the sense of the collective; so many sons, but in an enclosure, because the heavenly city is an enclosure.
JWD It does say in the collective setting: “When shall I come and appear before God?” Psalm 42: 2.
JT That is right; that is the only setting; not that we may not worship individually, but not when we come to the assembly. There nobody should. It is a collective idea right through and goes right on to eternity. The sons of God are all one and in that setting.
AR The assembly would be in a false position to assume to be a son with a Father. To assume to be the only son with a Father would be false, would it not?
JT Usually the idea is in the plural. When God said, “Let my son go”, that was Israel figuratively, but the application of ‘son’ is usually in the plural.
JWD Would you not say that when you get up to give thanks to the Father your own personal conception of what is proper to the state of sonship enters into it? You are not expressing a collective state exactly, are you?
JT I should not like to say anything that I could not in principle apply to all that are present.
JWD But it is your own [p. 342] personality?
JT Well, that enriches the whole company. Take Paul; supposing he was in assembly, if he got up to address God he would address Him in relation to those that were there.
JWD It would be himself.
JT He would be able to do it better than anybody else and it would be richer because of his state; still, he would bring in all the others.
JWD He would not be just a vessel for the expression of others?
JT I think the thought is that we get up with the collective idea. Without the Holy Spirit there is no possibility of reaching these things. Even though the measure of the saints may be small, the presence of the Spirit enlarges each one, and you are greater while you are there than you are elsewhere. The presence of the Spirit would affect everybody present and the Holy Spirit operates in that connection according to the state of all.
GAT When we are speaking to the Father we use the word ‘we’; in that way the one that is speaking would be the mouthpiece for all.
JT You would not like to speak in the singular.
SMcC Do you see any difference between the collective position in the masculine side and the collective position in the feminine side?
JT There is a difference. The time after the Lord’s supper ought to be properly feminine on our side; it is Christ and the assembly. But then God and the assembly has to be provided for too; that would be all masculine.
SMcC On the feminine side it is not so many persons but one entity. On the masculine side it does involve so many persons?
JT It does; only the idea of the assembly is always there.
AB God tabernacles with men; it is always in [p. 343] the plural.
JT The assembly is there but the men are there too.
AR What you say is excellent. It is glory to God in the assembly. Even if we touch eternal conditions, the thought of an entity is the thing in toto, is it not?
JT Just so.
JH Do you think we are tested in linking on with all the saints, not only in our thoughts but in what we say, linking on with what has already been said by others?
JT I think so. Colossians contemplates love for all the saints, and significantly enough, the only use of the word ‘Spirit’ in Colossians is “love in the Spirit” (Colossians 1: 8), so that the Spirit is in the assembly and the love is always radiated and circulated by Him. That is, the apostle’s idea develops into a very concrete sense of unity and lovability in all of us. That is what makes the assembly so wonderful; it is the home of love.
EGMcA How do you understand the verse in Hebrews 2: 12, “I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”? Does the Lord connect the brethren there with the assembly?
JT You have two thoughts; the ideas of brethren and of sons are both there. The assembly always stands; it is the great system of God. It is never abrogated at all. We never think of anything eternally other than that as to ourselves.
EGMcA There is no son isolated, or one brother?
JT Oh, no.
TS The closing statement of John 17 says, “That the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them”.
JT That is a good scripture to bring into what we are [p. 344] saying.
SMcC What one had in mind in asking that was not so much isolation but that in sonship each one has a specific identity. It is not merged in one whole as you have on the feminine side, the assembly being one entity.
JT I think you are right there. The idea of the assembly is not stressed in that, but it is there nevertheless, and the glory is in that.
JH Do you mean the idea of greater or lesser comes into this matter of sons of God?
JT It would. But where love is operating you are not thinking of each other in any such sense at all. It is all on the elevating principle. Love is reigning really in the assembly. I think we should keep in mind what a great organism of God it is, for we are not so many people in space. The design is that we are to be held in the position, and that the most dignified of all positions.
JW Is that why Paul says in writing to the Ephesians, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ” (chapter 1. 3)?
JT Just so, “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages” (chapter 3: 21). The word ‘assembly’ goes through.
AB Does it help to keep in mind the great culminating thought in 1 Corinthians 15: 28, “That God may be all in all”?
JT That is another good thing to have before us. He is all and in all in the assembly. We have to make room for the other families, but the assembly stands, so that the tabernacle of God is the idea.
NB What would you say about the Lord’s part in the assembly service, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”?
JT That shows that the Lord has a place there, I would say that comes in in the actual service after He has had His portion — Christ and the assembly, “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. But then we must make room for the Father and for God.
EGMcA It speaks in Acts 20: 28 of the assembly “which he has purchased with the blood of his own”. That is for God, is it not? I was wondering whether the feminine side is particularly for Christ; but when you come to sons you are under the leadership of God; it is the assembly, but rather looked at as sons.
JT That is right. That is what I would say.