DIVINE APPEARINGS
[p. 12] DIVINE APPEARINGS
Exodus 3:1 - 6; Exodus 16:10; Exodus 24:9 - 11; Exodus 34:5 - 7
JT I thought we might look at the book of Exodus with regard to certain divine appearings there. Certain features of the truth come out in relation to these appearings in Exodus, which, it occurred to me, the Lord would help us in considering. The first divine appearing in scripture was to Abraham, and many followed, including what we get in this book; but I think we shall find sufficient matter in the scriptures we have read to occupy us this afternoon. The idea of divine appearing or manifestation runs right through scripture, and implies that God not only furnishes His people with light, but with impressions of Himself. In appearing to Abraham, God is spoken of as “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2); but in this book we have the glory itself beginning to shine, and that in the wilderness. In chapter 16 they looked towards the wilderness, as if God would remind us at this juncture that that is where the glory lies. His glory is seen in the wilderness conditions as they are accepted. Israel were not accepting them; they were thinking of what they had in Egypt, and, in heart, were turning back; but God was reminding them by this first appearing of the glory that there would be no glory for them in Egypt. If you look back into the world, it means that you are turning from the glory. God took Moses in hand first, so that he might be impressed personally. If he were to give a lead to the people, he must be impressed personally with the manifestation of God. So that, in chapter 3, it is as if God approved the movements and attitude of Moses at that particular juncture. He had been content with the circumstances — to dwell in Midian with Reuel, remaining with him forty years, keeping his flock unselfishly.
[p. 13] He led the flock to the backside of the desert, but it was to Horeb, the mount of God.
TT Do you mean that we have to come out of Egypt to behold His glory?
JT Yes, that is how chapter 16 stands. In chapter 3 Moses is in keeping with his circumstances in the wilderness. He is content “to dwell with the man”, although the circumstances were very different from those to which he had been accustomed. We are reminded at the outset of the importance of contentment with the circumstances into which we may be led under the government of God.
JL Do you suggest that his turning aside to see the burning bush was a deliberate act?
JT That is what it says. Moses said, “I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt”. We are not told to whom he spoke. He must have been taking counsel with himself; like Nehemiah. If we learn to do that, we shall avoid special friendships. It is right to take counsel with the brethren as we have opportunity, but it is well to take counsel with oneself. “I will now turn aside, and see this great sight”. He did not turn aside as a casual observer, or a curious person. “I will now turn aside”, he said, “to see this great sight”. He already took in that it was a great matter; there was something very unusual.
WSS It is very encouraging that the glory is to be seen in wilderness conditions.
JT It is; and then the resolving in oneself to turn aside to see it; there is something to be seen.
WSS I was thinking of the loss to the saints if they do not get into the wilderness.
JT The Lord says of John the baptist, “What went ye out in the wilderness for to see?” (Luke 7:24). The people of the world have no difficulty in giving an account of what they are going to see — the races, or the theatre; but what conception have we got of what is to be seen in [p. 14] a divine manifestation? And then question as to whether there is resolve of heart to turn aside. It is not simply to look aside, but to turn; the whole person is definitely occupied.
JHT I was wondering if that would come in at the close of Romans 8, the mind being set in that direction. And then collectively, as in the epistles to the Corinthians; Paul was bent upon getting the Corinthian saints to part with every Egyptian feature, and then he held out a ministry of glory for them.
JT Quite. I think that Romans 8 fits in with the experience of Moses — at the end certainly. He began thus — turned aside to see; it was resolve of heart, and later on he asked to see the glory, which he could not, but he saw much, as we see in chapter 34, and at the end God takes him up, and he sees beyond anything that man could see naturally; he is shown the whole land. Then later he is brought into the mount of transfiguration. We begin as christians with resolve to see fully what God presents to us.
WSS This resolve was reached after a long experience in the wilderness. I wondered if you had some application to make of that?
JT I think Moses sets out the principle of accepting the wilderness. In order to be a leader of the saints, you must accept the circumstances in which they are to be led. He was already leading; he “led the flock”, we are told. He had begun by watering them, or rather he helped the daughters of Reuel to do so.
TT The people of God were in Egypt at this time, and yet the appearing seems to be connected with the people of God.
JT It had their deliverance in view; but at the moment it is not for them, but for the deliverer, for the leader.
IR What had you in mind with regard to the burning bush as affecting us today?
JT I think the burning bush is the presence of [p. 15] God in these lowly circumstances. God intimates that He would be in the midst of His people, in the littleness of their circumstances in the wilderness. The divine appearing was in a thorn bush. It would set forth what was outwardly insignificant; but God was in it, and although the fire burned, the bush was not consumed. It was the presence of God in the midst of His people in their circumstances, intimating that in this world our outward circumstances are insignificant and despicable; but He is not ashamed to be with us nevertheless. Besides, His judgment is there.
Rem You were speaking about the ‘seeing’; is not that a great thought in John’s gospel?
JT The appearing in the bush corresponds with the Word becoming flesh. The Lord, although God, came into these small circumstances. But although in lowliness as Man, the apostles “contemplated his glory”, (John 1:14).
ELM Would the glory coming in in that way relate to the coming in of the beloved Son, as seen in John 1? I wondered if it suggested the thought of God being in Christ, coming down into lowly circumstances.
JT It does. John 1 presents the deity of Christ; that such an One should become flesh, should take that condition, is the marvellous fact stated. The Lord took a wonderful stoop in becoming flesh. It was no imaginary thing; he became flesh.
ELM I was wondering whether the first scripture might suggest a vessel for that glory to be seen in; afterwards it is simply the glory itself that is mentioned.
JT I think this may be rightly taken with John 1:14, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. It is God coming in; He says, “I am come down”. Moses was to understand that although He was in such lowly circumstances, He was nevertheless the same Person. Moses was to be impressed with the deity of the Person before him; the name of the Person in the bush is “I AM”, (Exodus 3:14).
JE [p. 16] When Stephen refers to this he says, “as he went up to consider it”, (Acts 7:31). Is there anything in that?
JT It is the same idea; in turning aside to see, he was taking account of the thing in an interested way, just as the apostles contemplated the glory of the Word as become flesh.
Rem The Lord said to the two disciples of John who followed Him, “Come and see”, (John 1:39).
JT Yes, that came in afterwards; they came and saw where He abode.
JL It says here that the Lord saw that Moses turned aside, and then He calls, the result being that Moses says, “Here am I”.
JT The person who thus turns aside is taken account of by God. What runs through scripture in regard to service is personality. God intended a great personality to shine out in Moses, and this was to enhance it. Moses was to take on impressions. The first thing is, he is addressed: “Moses, Moses”, showing how definitely he is now regarded; he was to be known personally. Later history shows how that came about, how the man Moses became very great, and God spoke with him “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend”, (Exodus 33:11).
TT Would you say what the appearing in the flame of fire teaches us today?
JT I think it is, “Our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29); that is what it would be for us; it is “our God”. The fire would denote God’s means of dealing with the flesh in His people, but with all He would be with them and bring them through. I think the Holy Spirit coming in the character of cloven tongues implies that, so that God is to be feared — not in a slavish way, but He will not brook the flesh among us.
JHT Would this experience be designed to give this servant or leader suitable sympathies to move with the people of God in any circumstances?
JT I think so. If you see how God has come in in [p. 17] Christ in such lowly circumstances, it encourages you to be with the people of God, in whatever circumstances they may be. One does not select one’s circumstances. Moses had already qualified in that he had accepted the circumstances which the government of God brought him into. “He sat by the well”; then “he was content to dwell with the man”; he consented to remain in Midian with Reuel, although the circumstances were very different from those to which he was accustomed. I believe that is a great point for all of us, especially for those who serve, to accept the circumstances which God brings us into. God is saying, as it were, to Moses, ‘I am going to accept the circumstances of My people, I am going to be with them whatever these may be’.
ELM Moses was ahead of the people; he accepted the circumstances, whereas they thought of Egypt.
JT God is saying virtually that He was to be in the wilderness with His people, and that the sphere of the glory was to be reached through the wilderness. Are we to accept what Egypt affords us, or what God proposes for us?
In chapter 16:10, when Aaron speaks to them, they look toward the wilderness, and there the glory is.
WSS Would the teaching of this passage be connected with the truth of the epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle accepting the circumstances there as they affected himself?
JT That is what comes out. He had learned, in whatever circumstances he was, to be content, and that is what is said of Moses in chapter 12 — he consented to dwell with the man. You might say it was because he was going to get a wife there, but there is nothing said about that until he consents to dwell with the man.
WSS I was wondering if the apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 and 2 Corinthians would have in view the gain of wilderness conditions?
JT I think that God is intimating that Moses is [p. 18] qualified. He was content, not only to dwell with the man, but to look after his sheep. It was a menial occupation for a man like Moses. After forty years, he is still unselfishly engaged with the flock of his father-in-law — not even his father, but his father-in-law. God comes in to show that He approves of Moses, who is not serving for wages. No one who serves for wages is qualified in the eyes of God. Not that he does not get wages; he does, far more than he could have bargained for; but God is not seeking service on that line. Moses qualified in that he was not serving for wages; he was looking after his father-in-law’s sheep. That is the thing, that you are serving what belongs to Christ. “Ourselves your bondmen for Jesus’ sake”, (2 Corinthians 4:5). God shows that He approves of Moses in that He appears to him in the thorn-bush, as if He intimated that He would come into like circumstances because of Israel. I think that is implied when He took Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders to the mount, that they might see His circumstances above, and then they would appreciate those into which He was coming in order to be with them.
EBG Is the thought in appearing that there may be some divine impression given in view of service or leadership? I was thinking of what was said to the apostle Paul, “... a witness both of what thou hast seen, and of what I shall appear to thee in”, (Acts 26:16).
JT I think that is the principle; every servant gets impressions peculiar to himself. No one else had this. It was for Moses, and it would be in his soul ever after, and would give character to his service.
EBG Do you distinguish between light and impression? You might say a little more about that.
JT I think there is a very important distinction. An impression of God or of Christ implies that He is here livingly. Of course this can be maintained only by the Spirit. It is not a mere system of doctrine or precepts, but [p. 19] that the Spirit is here, and those who are in the system take on impressions through Him. So the Lord said to Paul, “... of what I shall appear to thee in”, not only at the beginning, but what he would get afterwards. So throughout Moses’ history, God appeared to him from time to time; he was thus kept in freshness, and so representative of God.
Rem Moses was kept in the sense of this all through his history with God; he loved the people, and was able to say how Jehovah loved them.
JT God so loved them that He would be with them in their circumstances. He had never asked them to build Him a house of cedars, He says to David.
WL Would the thorn bush teach Moses not to expect anything from the people, but the voice from the bush teach him to expect everything from Him?
JT That is so, I am sure. The after-history proved that Moses suffered from the people, but found abundant resources in God.
AG Would you say that the impressions of Pharaoh’s court disqualified Moses, but that the impression he got at the burning bush qualified him as a leader?
JT Yes; the former would inflate him; the latter would reduce him, leading him to disallow the flesh.
JL Why, in chapter 16:10, do we get Aaron speaking, and not Moses?
JT The communication is to Moses, but Aaron is brought into it. It says in verse 9, “And Moses spoke to Aaron, Say to all the assembly of the children of Israel, Come near unto the presence of Jehovah, for he has heard your murmurings”. At this stage of the people’s history grace ruled, and this is conveyed peculiarly in the speaking of Aaron, that is, as through a brother. “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well”. God had heard him speak — perhaps in prayer, so that the speaking coming through Aaron would convey divine sympathy and consideration for the people at this [p. 20] stage. Although they were murmuring, God would hold to His principle of grace ruling, and so what comes out in chapter 16 is the manna. As the people murmured Jehovah said, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you”. The manna also speaks of littleness, but it is from heaven — “a small round thing”. It is Christ as Man; what He was down here in wilderness circumstances. That is what the manna is — a heavenly Man here. The word ‘manna’ is from ‘man’, referring to the inquiry as to what it was (verse 15). We may well inquire what it is, and get the true answer. It is Christ as in this world, in which He had to do with all human circumstances, sin apart. It is Christ thus as food for us, as in the wilderness. They had spoken of sitting by the flesh-pot in Egypt and eating bread to the full. God says, I will give you bread from heaven. There was no reproof; it was accompanied by this tender, sympathetic, gracious consideration. Even if they “sat by the flesh-pots” in Egypt, it would not be for very long, the taskmasters would tell them to move; but God says in effect, ‘I have a rest, a holy Sabbath for you’ (verse 23); ‘I want you to come into My sabbath, to sit for a whole day and do nothing but enjoy this bread that I am going to rain down for you from heaven’. All this is in keeping with Aaron’s speaking, hearing which the people turned toward the wilderness, and the glory of Jehovah appeared in the cloud.
ELM That would be another impression of “the goodwill of him that dwelt in the bush”?
JT Yes — how beautiful that word is!
ELM I was wondering whether there is ever a greater impression given than the initial one. In principle, God gives the best at the outset, though we may take a long time to learn what was involved in it.
JT In a sense, all that follows is the unfolding and enlarging of that, new features being added. The apostles contemplated the glory of Jesus as the glory of an only [p. 21] begotten with the Father, full of grace and truth. The unfolding of that is seen throughout John’s gospel.
ES Why did the glory appear in this way just at this point? Was it to attract towards the wilderness?
JT That is so. They looked in that direction. They turned towards the wilderness. It would look as if Aaron’s ministry was affecting them. It is the principle of turning; they needed converting. Most of us need more than one conversion, like Peter.
ES Does Aaron being introduced suggest priestly support and help?
JT I think so, to make the position attractive. God makes the wilderness attractive, especially to young christians, so all is grace in His relations with His people up to chapter 19. After the law is given, having accepted it, they come under judgment on account of their conduct, but not at this stage; God makes the thing attractive; He is bearing them on eagles’ wings to Himself. “The Man Christ Jesus” — that is the suggestion in Aaron, so that they turn round and look toward the wilderness. God says, I will honour you in turning round, and the glory was there to be seen in the cloud in the wilderness.
ELM Does Moses speak to Aaron in the power of the impression he had received in regard to the people of God?
JT Undoubtedly. We should all speak in the power of the impression that we receive, because the minister should always remember that he represents Christ. It is not only what I say, but what I am, so that it is recorded of the Lord that they “wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”, (Luke 4:22).
WAS Would the manna and the glory go together in Luke? Is that the principle here?
JT Yes. Some of us were speaking about the shepherds in Luke 2; they were keeping watch over their flocks by night, when others were in the towns, the [p. 22] census being taken. These were not; they were keeping their flocks by night, and it says the angel of the Lord appeared and the glory shone round about them. They are encircled by another world, we may say. That is what the glory implies; it is another world brought in — that is the idea in Luke. There is the communication by the angel to them, then a multitude of the heavenly host is there; they are in the presence of a multitude of heavenly beings, who know what is in heaven, and what its mind is, and they are conveying it in what they are saying. These shepherds are honoured in that they are brought into such glory — into heaven itself in a sense. In our chapter the people turn toward the wilderness and the glory is there to be seen.
JHT It was there in view of the whole congregation.
JT I think so. Aaron speaks, and the people turn round to see. It is a spiritual matter. If people turn in this sense they will see something; God will show them something. The idea of ministry is to interest you, but you must turn toward the wilderness; then you will get a view of Christ, of the glory of the Lord.
TT God seems to meet the people in their present condition and gives them a sight of the glory?
JT Yes. It is entirely on the line of grace up to chapter 19. He had borne them on eagles’ wings. But what is suggested in this chapter is, Am I ready to listen to Aaron (Christ) speaking? They turn round, and there the glory was; and then we have all this beautiful instruction about the manna and the sabbath; it is one of the most interesting chapters in the Old Testament. We have in it the first mention of the sabbath since Genesis 2. As young christians turn aside and talk about what they had in the world, God says, Look at what I am going to give you. I am going to rain bread from heaven for you. Here the manna tastes like honey; in Numbers, like oil. It is less tasteful in Numbers, but here it is for the young [p. 23] believer. It is like honey — very different from garlic! The taste of it is not what I have been accustomed to, but I am different; I am converted.
AG In the wilderness this food is to build up a spiritual constitution.
JT Yes; it enables you to be like Christ here. In Romans 6 you are to walk in newness of life. For that we need this food.
WL It would make us like what it is itself — small, sweet, and round.
TT Quails were not God’s thought for the people?
JT They were not, but I suppose they would represent the consideration of God here. There is not so much made of them here; He would emphasise His grace at this juncture. Later on He brings in judgment with the quails. God’s own thought is the manna; it is “the corn of heaven”, “the bread of the mighty”. If I do not like it, there is something wrong with me. If heavenly dignitaries live on it, and I do not like it, there must be something wrong with my taste.
WL The manna was given to prove them. In what way was it a test?
JT With other things in the wilderness, it was to ‘humble’ and ‘prove’ them (Deuteronomy 8) — that they should not be inflated and independent of God. If one does not care for the manna, he is exposed; his natural taste remains in him, like Moab, (Jeremiah 48:11). People in the world are very concerned that they should be in line with current customs as to the food they eat and the clothes they wear. If God sends food from heaven, food that angels eat, and I do not like it, I am in a fleshly condition. Why is my taste different from that of heavenly beings? I will never get the flesh-pots of Egypt up there! I must acquire the heavenly taste down here.
TT It is being given daily. Is it not a test really whether one has a taste for what the Lord is giving now?
JT That is right. “No one having drunk old wine straightway wishes for new, for he says, The old is better”, (Luke 5:39).
WSS Would that bring us to the next scripture, that the acquiring we have spoken of would qualify us to go on to the mount?
JT That is the next thing. You have what is little down here — God in the bush, and the small round thing lying on the dew, to be gathered up daily, showing the wonderful humiliation of Christ. Now the next thing is, What is Christ on high?
WSS I was wondering if you had in mind that if we are not appropriating the manna we are not qualified to enter into that side of things?
JT I have — manna prepares us for heaven. The experience of the disciples before the transfiguration corresponds. “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. That challenges me as to whether I have been building up a heavenly constitution. How am I to be up there? The question of eating enters into it. In chapter 24:11 they were taken up, they saw the God of Israel and did eat and drink. What did they eat and drink up there? No flesh-pots up there! So that if they did not have a taste for what is heavenly, they would at best be pretending to enjoy the thing. Many people come to a meeting, then they go home and read a novel or a magazine. Your taste is really in the novel, the paper, or the magazine. That is where I am tested. Those who ascended the mountain were ready for what was up there — spiritual food. Note how “they saw God, and did eat and drink”. They were “nobles of the children of Israel”. God did not lay His hands on them; they represent spiritual persons. God delights to have us up there, but if we have not a taste for the food that is there, what pleasure has He in us?
EBG Is this on the line of 2 Corinthians 11, [p. 25] learning what it was to go down, and then in chapter 12 learning what it is to go up?
JT Yes; very good.
JL This would be the connection between Luke 9 and 10 — the transfiguration in chapter 9 and the sending out of the seventy in chapter 10.
JT Yes, and the Lord declaring that their names are written in heaven. I think in Luke the principle is that heaven comes down in testimony. Heaven comes down in the multitude of the heavenly host; then in chapter 10 I am given to understand that I have a footing in heaven personally, so that if I go there I am not unknown; I am not a stranger.
TT What is the thought of the paved work of sapphire?
JT It would indicate the kind of circumstances in which God was — His own sphere. He was going to walk with them in the desert — on the desert sand, so to speak. There is nothing said of flooring in the instructions for the tabernacle, given later.
TT Was that in relation to God revealed in Christ?
JT I think we are limited in apprehending the circumstances of Christ in heaven, what belongs to Himself in His own right; in grace He has come down to our circumstances. I think they were led up to see so that they might understand His grace in coming down. He was coming down to dwell in the tabernacle. As to the inside material of the tabernacle, its furniture and compartments, it was a figurative representation of things in the heavens; but the floor, where He was going to walk, was the desert sand.
TT It was a paved ‘work’ of sapphire stone. Does that suggest that something had been done?
JT Yes; God is seen in relation to made or created things.
WL Would the pavement suggest the counsels of God, the way God has put things together?
JT It is “transparent sapphire”. What is conveyed is a work of white or transparent material of the most precious quality. It is what is under His feet. We may compare it with what was under the feet of Jesus coming into this world. The woman in Luke 7 would consider that His feet were not on a pavement of sapphire, but in the thorny way.
AG Why is He called the God of Israel?
JT The God of the Hebrews is what He is down here with us; up there all is dignity and glory. It is the spiritual realm, so that you have ‘nobles’ here, the nobles of Israel.
Chapter 33 brings that out — how God stands by Moses; it is another appearing, God honouring his servant. He comes down and stands with him at the tent door, honouring Moses down here in his faithfulness as taking the tabernacle and pitching it outside the camp. But in chapter 34 He honours him in his desire, in his personal desire to see the glory; it is an ascending line in this appearing. It is “on the top of the mountain”. Moses goes up, and God comes down “and stood beside him there”, and proclaims before Moses the name of the Lord; He is now to be known typically in the new covenant. We have now a divine impression in Moses, a reflection of the glory; he shines as he comes down. The saints are to reflect what God is. We are changed, by beholding the glory of the Lord, into the same image from glory to glory.
Ques Is the glory of the Lord the display of the Person?
JT It is the display of what God is. The glory of the Lord in 2 Corinthians refers to His mediatorial service in making effective in our hearts the love of God. Chapter 3 is His mediatorial service; in chapter 4 the glory of God is seen in the face of Jesus. It shines there, and it shines into our hearts. That corresponds with this chapter. The glory is reflected in the saints [p. 27] down here.
JHT Paul was an able minister of the new covenant, to reflect what he saw.
JT Exactly. He was the personification of what he had seen, in that sense.