PURIFICATION (4)
PURIFICATION (4)
Numbers 19:1 - 22; Revelation 22: 14, 15
JT The instruction in Numbers 19 comes in by itself. It is not given according to actual record of instructions at Horeb but came in much later and may in that sense point to the last days-the end of the dispensation, pointing to the conditions that have arisen in the interim. No such conditions had to be dealt with at Pentecost, although they were there, but such have arisen since. So that in order to understand this, we have to understand assembly history. It is to be hoped that this chapter will furnish us with what is now needed in the course of our instruction. Certain facts are mentioned, requirements that afford clues to the chapter: first, the creature which is a type, the heifer, a female creature which is to be without blemish, without defect and never having had the yoke upon her; and secondly, Eleazar, the priest, who is acting, operating. Although the instruction is to Moses and Aaron, Eleazar is the priestly operator and alludes to the spirit of priesthood, the whole congregation being brought into the ordinance and it is to be observed as we proceed that the offence is not so much in uncleanness being manifest as that the water of purification is neglected. It will be seen in the legal instruction of the chapter. Verse 14 says, “This is the law” and verse 20, “And the man that is unclean, and doth not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation”. It is neglect, of course; the uncleanness is there, but it is the neglect of the use of the water which is particularly stressed. God has provided for us in relation to conduct that would defile the fellowship; God providing for it, the provision neglected is the evil [p. 234] pointed out.
CHH Would that be the defect in the Corinthians? They had not availed themselves of this water of purification. They partook of the Lord’s supper and did not discern the Lord’s body.
JT Just so. They were to eat but to eat in a proper way, not to stop eating but to purify themselves. So the neglect was, “On this account many among you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11: 30), brought down to judicial dealings amongst them.
Ques Would it be right to say that the teaching we had in Titus is what God has done for us in taking us out of all the evil and corruption? Is it more here what we have to do?
JT The chapter down to the end of verse 10 shows the provision, the ashes of the heifer, the burnt heifer and the running water provided in a clean place. That is, it would be known by all in the camp. So that the evil would be in not appropriating what was provided.
We should look at the details of the provision down to the end of verse 10 so that we may see how foundational it is. “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a [p. 251] red heifer without blemish, wherein is no defect, and upon which never came yoke; and ye shall give it to Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring it outside the camp, and one shall slaughter it before him”. Eleazar does not do it. It is another. It is in the presence of the priest. That is, in the presence of Eleazar, not Aaron. “And Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and shall sprinkle of its blood directly before the tent of meeting seven times. And one shall burn the heifer before his eyes; its skin and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall he burn. And the priest shall take cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast them into the midst of the burning of the heifer. And the priest shall wash his garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water,
[p. 235] and afterwards he shall come into the camp; and the priest shall be unclean until the even; and he that hath burned it shall wash his garments in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. And a clean man shall gather the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the assembly of the children of Israel for a water of separation; it is a purification for sin. And he that hath gathered the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. And it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, an everlasting statute”. The process of reaching the provision is in these verses and they have to be understood so as to see the kind of virtue, the cleansing virtue, there is in the provision.
SMcC Would you say something as to the difference between the process of cleansing here and the laver in the court of the tabernacle? What is the difference between the application of the water in the laver and the water of purification we have here?
JT These provisions, the water that is in the laver and in the sea as in the temple, cover the general position. In the laver in the tabernacle the provision made at Horeb was not to meet an emergency. What was inaugurated there was to cover the whole position, whereas this is special as meeting what arose in the interim, providing a remedy for what has come in and defiles, since Pentecost. The primary institution involved is seen in Horeb or Sinai as God made abundant provision for uncleanness, for cleansing, but certain conditions arose in the interim which had to be met and hence this peculiar ordinance in Numbers 19, which comes in late as we already remarked.
CHH Would there be any similarity in 1 Corinthians answering to the laver and 2 Timothy answering to [p. 236] this?
JT I do not know if we can work it out then, whether it is 2 Timothy, but there was what was provided in Sinai in the laver, and in what Solomon carried through, the sea and the ten lavers, which brought in more water. There are the two ideas — the sea which is a very large vessel and then ten lavers in the temple. This has to be worked out in our souls as to whether the same thing existed at Pentecost, and whether the conditions pointed to in this chapter have not arisen since. I do not know whether we can work it out in 2 Timothy, but, anyway, it is to be worked out. We become sinners because we neglect it. The guilt is rather that we neglect the water of purification than in becoming unclean.
WL Would the thought of running water bring it down to the present time in the light of current ministry?
JT The idea of running water is perhaps suggestive there. We get it also in the ordinance regarding the cleansing of the leper. The idea of running water was there too. One of the clean birds was slain over running water.
JWB Would you say a word as to why Eleazar comes into evidence here instead of Aaron being used while he is here?
JT It is to bring out that the priestly element is here on earth. We are told in Hebrews that our High Priest is in heaven and Aaron is the high priest. The instruction here involves that Aaron is recognised (verse 1), but the operating priest in the chapter is Eleazar. I think it means the Spirit’s being here after Pentecost. The priesthood in Christ was there before Pentecost. Immediately Christ is in heaven, He is the Priest. He is recognised as Priest in heaven before the Spirit came, but the advent of the Spirit’s presence here implies that there is a priesthood on earth available for this purpose. That is to say, the saints are priests, but it is a question of the Spirit operating in [p. 237] them. That is what Eleazar means, what refers to him typically. He is mentioned more in this book than anywhere because it is a wilderness book. We need this element amongst ourselves all the time; “Ye who are spiritual ...” (Galatians 6:1), indicates an element of priesthood down here, not only a priesthood in heaven but that there is a priesthood down here corresponding to it.
GMcP Do you not think that this chapter comes after the public breakdown in chapter 16?
JT Well, the public breakdown is one of the things. There are several things, in fact. The bearing is a good deal after the refusal of the gospel of the land, after the testimony of the spies was refused. Then the great number of people that were slain from that point onwards. A great number died in the wilderness and thus it was easy for a person to come in contact with an unburied bone. That is in mind particularly in this chapter, the number of persons involving unburied bones. This is a condition that has arisen in christendom itself.
SWP Should the man in verse 20, that will not purify himself, normally be aware of the fact of the availability of this spirit of priesthood suggested in Eleazar?
JT He should be. We were considering a man like Nicodemus. The Lord has to say to him, “Thou art the teacher of Israel and knowest not these things!”, John 3: 10. That is, a man like that does not know these matters that are available, whereas the Lord is helping the brethren because we come back to the truth of the position, and we know things that our brethren in the systems around us do not know. They are ignorant. But then, their ignorance does not shield them. Nicodemus’ ignorance did not shield him. Nicodemus should have known, and he suffered because he remained in the council and he could not be clean there. “Wherefore come out from the midst of them,
[p. 238] and be separated, saith the Lord, and touch not what is unclean, and I will receive you”, 2 Corinthians 6: 17. That is the point. It is in separation we are pure.
SWP Would it not be very serious if I continued in uncleanness and refused it?
JT How many are doing it? They are doing it in ignorance, but it is culpable because it can be known. The Collected Writings are an example for evidence. They have a very abundant circulation; the Scriptures themselves provide instruction. There is immense testimony from God. They have a wide circulation abroad in christendom, so ignorance is culpable. The present ignorance among the clerics is culpable.
Rem Would you say that haste is indicated? A dead body and grave and bones would be no place to linger; movement forward must be resumed as promptly as possible.
JT Quite so. If we calculate the possible number of persons who died after they refused to go into the land, then we can understand the number of actual carcases that were strewn on the desert, and how impossible it would be to be free from touching the carcases and bones. And God is merciful in not stressing the uncleanness from touching the bones, but the neglect of the provision for cleansing.
Ques Would the elders in Acts 20 give us what Eleazar represents here in a way? Paul speaks of his departure and the things that would obtain.
JT The whole matter is put on them. I believe the whole church dispensation is in mind in Paul’s word to them. He sent for them and put the matter on them, as pointing to the culpableness of those who are ignorant, that they should not be ignorant for there are plenty of means of finding out what God’s provision is.
GD After Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians 10 to the carcases strewn in the wilderness he says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”. Would you think [p. 239] that Paul would appeal to us in that way to take the thing up and judge it?
JT Especially as taking the Lord’s supper; 1 Corinthians 10 is a provision for the wilderness in view of participating in the Lord’s supper. That is the point in it. “I speak as to intelligent persons”. It is as if the Spirit of God is lifting up His hand with a red light to say that we can have no part in it at all unless we use this water, the water of purification. And therefore there is the appeal to each of us as an intelligent person; it says, as it were, ‘If you know, you should not be unclean’.
SMcC Verse 5, “One shall burn the heifer before his eyes”, is an unusual allusion, is it not, in the offerings? Would it have in mind that the operating priesthood amongst the saints is to be affected by this direct action of the fire in relation to the heifer?
JT Just so. The person who does it is not any person; it is whom the priest would consider most suitable. The priest does not do it. I think it is to spread abroad amongst the brethren that anyone is eligible and ready or should be ready to cast a stone as it were to deal with the matter of this kind, but the priest is to decide. It is not a priestly act to slaughter the animal, but it is a priestly responsibility to see that it is done. And therefore it becomes a matter for all the congregation. Anyone may do it according to the priest’s reckoning and therefore it is a congregational matter and the operation is not exclusive. Anyone can do it. It is under the surveillance of the priest and not Aaron, but the saints who are priests.
SMcC In a meeting where there is much sometimes in the way of worldliness defiling and interrupting the saints in their communion with God, do you not think there is a certain onus of responsibility on the priestly element in the locality to see that these matters are rightly taken [p. 240] up?
JT To see that things are done. Therefore the priests are called in. Sisters are included in the priesthood. Anything that comes under their cognisance should be reported, but it is not only a report in mind that is here, but the thing is done, the slaughtering is done and the burning is done.
JK Would you say it is not a priestly act, the slaughtering?
JT Well, that is not the way it is put here. The slaughtering is done by the priest in other offerings as in Leviticus 14 but generally the idea of priesthood is not slaughtering or putting to death. The priestly really belongs to heaven in christianity. That is the idea of it. Christ is in heaven. If He were on earth He would not be a priest; it is a heavenly matter and it is all the more important that we see the thing is well done. It is a heavenly matter and heaven is cognisant of it.
ASB In Deuteronomy 21 it is a city dealing in regard to the heifer. It is the elders who operate in regard to the slaughter, not exactly slaughtering there but breaking the heifer’s neck and the priests come automatically into it.
JT That is a good point to bring up here because we have a word there that clarifies the priesthood. It is said, “The city that is nearest unto him that is slain, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer that hath not been wrought with, that hath not drawn in the yoke; and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto an ever-flowing watercourse, which is not tilled, nor is it sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the watercourse; and the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to do service unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah; and according to their word shall be every controversy and every stroke”, Deuteronomy 21: 3-5. So that as soon as you have an operation they must come into it. They are the other ones.
[p. 241] They have the last word about everything. But the actual operation in both cases here is in the elders, and in Numbers 19 it is by anyone.
Ques Is this not a very testing matter in small localities because there are several persons involved and there must not only be the priestly element but the clean man?
JT That is another thing that has to be taken account of. “A clean man shall gather the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the assembly of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin”. Now that is the point to be kept in mind because we come to it again in the law of the matter. The second thought is that as a clean man, he takes the hyssop and dips it in the water and shall “sprinkle it on the tent, and upon all the utensils, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that hath touched the bone, or the one slain, or the dead person, or the grave; and the clean shall sprinkle it on the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day; and he shall purify him on the seventh day; and he shall wash his garments, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even”. So the clean man in verse 9 is also found in verse 18 and here these are important men but they are not called priests.
TU Where would you put the house of Chloe in this matter?
JT Well, we have not the idea of a report here. The house of Chloe reported the thing, and I should think that the house of Chloe therefore would be, in principle, clean. It would be a clean house. Paul said in that connection that he did not baptise. He said, ‘God did not send me to baptise, but I baptised households’. The household is definite and I would say the household of Chloe was clean in the report. But Paul was the one that must carry the thing through [p. 242] and he puts the responsibility on the whole assembly at Corinth.
SWP Was the act of Phinehas in Numbers 25 more an act of the spirit of priesthood rather than a priestly act?
JT Well, I do not know what to say about that. Phinehas was the priest par excellence, but he is the son of Eleazar. That is, it is an extension of the idea but the idea carried through. That is, the posterity of Aaron is recorded in Exodus 6 and it ends up in Phinehas, as if the primal thought is carried through in him and the priesthood is given to him in perpetuity, showing that it is a question of what the man did, not what he was told to do, when an emergency had to be met. It has to be met and God owns it.
CHH “If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work”, 2 Timothy 2: 21. Would that be a clean man?
JT Just so. One that is separated. That is exactly how the thing works out. He becomes purified by separating.
ASB Is that the import of the appellation “water of separation”?
JT Yes. That is what it is for, to separate the person by washing him from the uncleanness. The uncleanness is all about him. The dead bodies, bones and graves, that is accounted for by earlier history. They had to traverse a certain territory several times, and there they were. There were six hundred thousand people dying in that territory over certain years; therefore you can calculate the number of bones that must have been in it. It is almost excusable if you touch a bone, but it is inexcusable if you do not appropriate the water. So that, “Be separated” is what the Lord is telling us. We are in difficult days [p. 243] but at the same time there is a means of going through these days and maintaining the service of God.
SMcC Would you say a word as to the practical application of this? I am sure there is a haziness in our minds as to how the matter works out practically. Is it that when defilement takes place, there is the reverting of the mind and intelligence to the death of Christ, and what it means as separating us from what is defiling, or how does it work out?
JT What you have suggested already as to the requirements of the provision comes up here. Suppose a young person has been in touch with a bone or with a dead person or a grave, all of these of course being understood antitypically. They are moral things that defile us. Well, the next thing is the knowledge of these things ought to be current amongst the brethren. What is kept in a clean place, of course, means not that the brethren have bookshelves and books in them, but they have in themselves knowledge of the provision, that they can tell immediately that the provision exists. The type says that it is in a clean place. It was put there by a clean person, but the antitype is in the brethren, in the people. They know they are responsible to impart it to a young person who does not know and therefore, you would say, naming the person, ‘You have to do certain things’. The word ‘law’ in verse 14 is to be kept in mind. The law is what applies at any time, what is authoritative. It is not simply what I say, what a brother says, but what is authoritative. And the final authority, of course, is the Scriptures and therefore a young person has to become acquainted. We will take Leviticus 4. We will say if a priest sins and is ignorant of it, and then if the whole assembly sins and is ignorant of it, and then a ruler sins and is ignorant of it, in all cases they are guilty as soon as it is brought to their attention.
What if the common people sin? That is what you have in mind, a young person, an ordinary person and [p. 244] she or he is responsible. The ignorance does not shield them. Ignorance of the law never shields anyone. The law is the law, and therefore it says, “This is the law”. That is to say, we have something authoritative, and that is to be brought in immediately and you move according to that law. Carrying out its injunctions means that I am cleansed.
SMcC That helps very much.
JT You want to get the person right. It is not only what any statesman or governor says. It is what the Lord says. So it says in verse 14, “This is the law”, and that is authoritative.
CDeB I notice that the clean person spoken of goes through the same process as the priest. He bathes himself, whereas in other instances it is merely washing. Would you say a word in connection with the bathing?
JT Well, bathing is washing, but what you notice in regard to the priest or the person who slays the offering is that they do it themselves; whereas in the case of an ordinary person, the law says that a clean person must do it. The law says that. It does not seem as if the priest is put under the law because he is supposed to know.
JJ What is the significance of the slaying of the offering?
JT It is just a type of the death of Christ. He was slain. Whoever does it, the thing is done even though it was Pilate who ordered, or the Roman soldiers who did it, the thing was done.
JWB What is the significance of cedar-wood, hyssop and scarlet?
JT They would be symbols of worldly glory, what might attach to us as being defiled. Perhaps indulging in these things might lead you into defilement and you have to see that that is cast into the burning. That is to say, the whole system of the world is brought down in this type and it is important [p. 245] that a young person be brought now into the presence of the destruction of the whole world.
JWB So that is not only the greatness as seen in the cedar-wood, but the smallness as seen in the hyssop.
JT It is all the same. It is the system of the world. When you get a convert that person is brought into the light of the destruction of the whole world, that God is done with it and He is not justifying it in any person.
Ques This teaching is for an emergency. Apparently it was the young coming along at that time. Would a brother or sister amongst us linking themselves on with a worldly person for a wife or husband be a dead bone?
JT They might get a proposal of marriage by that young person. They are both young and they are, so to say, the generations that are going into the land potentially, because earlier than this the six hundred thousand that came out of Egypt never came into the land, only Caleb and Joshua. All the others are strewn in the desert. It makes it very solemn and yet I am taking them on as though nothing had happened. This is what is meant, I think, by the authoritative law here in verse 14 being brought to bear on these matters, what the young people are apt to indulge in and excuse themselves. The brethren have to be severe in these cases. It is for their good, because we say, ‘What harm is there in it-he is a Christian?’. Yes, a Christian, but he is living in the grave, living with dead people morally, and he himself is dead, and yet you want to marry a dead person! That is the idea, that the thing has to be dealt with, and we have to be severe with it. It is not our feelings, but what the law says.
JV Would a purified mind help for keeping from these things? We move about and our intelligence should have a true place with us.
[p. 246] JT That is the point in our inquiry. We go to our house and other houses here as well as this meeting room and we have in our minds that we are to be pure. We have already referred to the house of Chloe. It must have been a clean house. It was not an open house where young people could bring in their friends in the evening and maybe have dances. It was not that. We read here of the open vessel. “And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, shall be unclean”. We go into each other’s houses. Are they open? Are young people allowed to come in and do what they like as they would in the world or nearly as much as the world would do? That will not do. The household is provided for. Evidently the house of Chloe was pure. Paul was counting on their reliability in accepting the report. He immediately acted upon it. It is a very important matter as to our households, whether they are clean, whether they are like an open vessel or whether they are covered.
Ques “Whoever toucheth a dead person, the dead body of a man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of Jehovah; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel; for the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him: he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him”. Does this emphasise the ease with which this matter of cleanness may be brought about when it is understood to be needed? There are drastic consequences and I wonder if it is not emphasised that this is available.
JT The matter becomes simple because verse 14 is going over somewhat the previous verses but it is called the law. The thing now is imperative. What we are doing now is imperative, not simply it is relief to do it to be cleansed, but it is imperative to be cleansed and if he does not avail himself of the provision he is to be cut off, which is most solemn.
SMcC Would that help us with questions coming [p. 247] up in the matter of smoking? The brethren may be patient with a brother that smokes in bringing the truth to bear upon him in regard to it, but if he persists I think the brethren are justified in withdrawing.
JT I would go with that. The brethren may say you are severe in doing that, but it seems to be the right thing to do. Another thing that goes with a pipe and cigar is the radio, and also young people marrying outside. They are all grouped together. The young are just exposed and we are endeavouring to bring the truth forward and the authority of it.
Rem Smoking is generally well known as being defiling, and I am sure that there is also a defiling influence in the current multiplicity of loose publications which particularly our young sisters read for the fashions and what-not. Possibly they do not see this and no doubt it hinders the service of God. Do you think that is suggestive?
JT That is good, because it is modernism that we are now dealing with, what they did not have in Pentecostal times or in the middle ages. We have a peculiar world that has arisen and these two wars have greatly accentuated it, and lawlessness. The young grow up in these things and think nothing of them, but the responsibility of the brethren now is the law-the kingdom of God. There is much made of man’s kingdom which is in a certain way right, but there is such a thing as the kingdom of God which we must insist on. It is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit”. ‘Righteousness’ is a big word and it means that it must be. There are no excuses at all. It must be so, the thing is right.
TU It seems to go to the root of things. We read of defiling the tabernacle of Jehovah, verse 13.
JT That is very good. The young people forget that. It is not simply a personal matter. It is a case of the sanctuary of God and what [p. 248] He requires.
ASB Would you help us regarding verses 17 and 18? The ashes are connected with the purification offering and the virtue would appear to be in the ashes, offering the ashes of purification. “And they shall take for the unclean of the ashes of the purification-offering that hath been burned, and shall put running water thereon in a vessel”. Say something about that-the ashes of purification, and the waters of separation.
JT And the vessel. All these things have to be looked into because the idea of a vessel is something, too. You cannot have the running water preserved without that. It would run away, but the vessel contains it so that it is applicable at any time in quantity. It is not to run away but rather that the Spirit of God is in it. The law is one thing but then the Spirit of God is in it and the Spirit of God is the cleansing power. If a believer, christian, or young person is at all amenable, he will find that out, that that vessel is useful. It contains what he needs. It is enough to cleanse him, not only the water, but the combination of the ashes. That is to say, the death of Christ brought into contact with the Spirit in the vessel.
SWP The vessel is the believer who has the Spirit. Would that be in mind in what Paul speaks of, “Ye who are spiritual”, Galatians 6: 1?
JT The idea is that the persons are spiritual, and they have the Holy Spirit; “Ye who are spiritual”, means that.
GMcP Is it not very humbling that these conditions and refusal to purify ourselves are found amongst us, whereas John says, “And every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure”, 1 John 3: 3?
JT Yes, he has the means in himself.
SMcC What is referred to in verse 18 is interesting: “And a clean man shall take hyssop, and dip it [p. 249] in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent, and upon all the utensils, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that hath touched the bone, or the one slain, or the dead person, or the grave”. Looking at it in a broad way, Bethesda would excuse certain persons because of where they were. While they did not take in the thing, they say they were immune from it, but the principle of the persons that were there is important, is it not?
JT Yes. So that this section comes under the heading, “This is the law”, therefore the clean person here carries authority with him. He is not any brother who might give advice or even opinion. He comes under the head of a person who is authoritative. The brethren are to be viewed in that light. Now, in our houses we might give advice about a matter to a young person, but when we sit down in the care meeting or in the assembly then we come under the law. It is not the advice now, but rather the law, the authority that we are under, and we are to be subject to one another.
Ques Why is the water sprinkled first on the tent and then the utensils?
JT It is an enclosure. There is not much in that. Let us just look at it again, first of all, keeping in mind the provision and then the clean man in verse 18, and what he takes, hyssop which denotes smallness. It is smallness. He is small like Paul. He is not a weak person. He is not a great cleric or a man that would say, ‘You belong to my flock’. He takes hyssop and dips it in the water and sprinkles the tent. The tent is brought into the idea of small ness. There is no sense of great furniture or carpets or the like that would be imposing upon the human mind. The hyssop would deal with all that. It says, “Upon all the utensils”; however valuable they may be they are brought into this smallness in the idea of the hyssop and the idea of persons that are [p. 250] there, and then he comes into it: “And upon him that hath touched the bone, or the one slain”. All that runs together-how the brother is really brought up in truth. Paul is really a model for a christian. “Saul, who also is Paul”, which means small, not a great person who would stand up and assume to be important because he has got clerical orders. No, he is just one of the others. Paul would provide a fire and build it and do anything else that had to be done. The Lord says, “But I am in the midst of you as the one that serves”, Luke 22: 27. We can hardly serve the brethren unless we have respect for them. And a small person is ready to respect the brethren and in that way there is power, which can be used in the cleansing of any one.
SWP The heifer is small and red. Why this conspicuous colour? It is a small animal. It is not a bullock.
JT It is important to note that it is not a little creature. The heifer is a full-grown creature only representing what is feminine and in this sense soft and tender and feeling, the fullest thought of perfection, no defect. That is what God has made her. Now as to what this redness means. I should think that she is not only carrying these feminine qualities but she is different. She is distinctive because she is red, like the house of Stephanas or Phoebe. All these are distinctive persons. Why are they distinctive? Because they are christians. They have christian qualities, and intelligent qualities. That is what is in mind. This point of littleness and redness-what is meant? What do you say?
SWP I wanted to contrast that with the glory of man that is introduced in the scarlet and the cedar-wood.
JT To follow this thought up in the heifer: she has feminine qualities which means tenderness and feeling, but she has no defect. “They bring thee a red heifer without blemish, wherein is no defect, and upon which never came yoke”, you see, and she is red. We will now look at all these facts. What do they mean? She is a type of Christ. She does not mean something small but something distinctive. And its distinction is what you expect to see in Christ, that He was distinctive in all His characteristics and He suffers in that way. The heifer represents Christ in the offering but it works out to every one of us and gives us status, so christianity is distinctive. The assembly is distinctive, where persons are not like ordinary persons; a sister is not like an ordinary person. There is none like her; she is distinctive. Phoebe, when she went to Rome, is a good example. She had a letter from Paul commending her as a sister and she went to Rome, the capital of the world at that time. Would she be interested in the buildings or the shops or in buying a new dress there? Not at all. That would not give her distinction. Others in Rome would do those things. She is not like that at all. She is distinctive, that is to say, she is a real christian and is not like the world at all.
Rem The whole household of Stephanas is distinctive.
JT She is not aping the world or taking on the fashions. They are nothing to her. The question is whether she is suitably garbed before God.
AAT Is the thought of the red heifer to apply to us?
JT If it were not, it would not be here. It is selected for this purpose. It is a personal feature which can be noticed, but not noticed as rich or worldly, but as having a christian character, a lowly christian character like Phoebe.
JJ Paul was being a model to believers.
Ques Is it the tender feelings coming out when he says, “We beg you, brethren, to know those who ... take the lead among you in the Lord, and admonish [p. 252] you, and to regard them exceedingly in love”? It is taking account of this.
JT Just so. The Colossian saint is hidden in the sense that he is not distinctive according to man. The Lord was not distinctive according to man. He was amongst men. He took His place among men like another man. The christian can do that.
Ques In the gospel last night the thought of smallness came in. I thought it would be much in line with this, but yet distinctive. Would this be in line with the smallness of the setting of the poor wise man?
JT Quite so. The city had a poor wise man in it. I was thinking of the distinctiveness of Elisha in Israel. Naaman thought of the king. If he was to be cleansed it was a question of the king. But no, it is a poor wise man; he did not come out to see him but he showed him how to get cleansed; that is the idea.
GMcP Would the heavenly qualities and distinctiveness of christianity be seen in Paul and Silas in prison and also in Lydia-the distinctiveness of the heifer?
JT Just so.
HB In the matter of restoration the spiritual restore in the spirit of meekness. Is that how it is to be done?
JT You approach a brother or sister not as above him but at his feet to serve him.
EC Why do you think it is necessary to do it on a third day? Is it to derive virtue in the matter?
JT The third day brings in the idea of progression. Suppose you call a person an untruthful person to his face and rail on him. You may judge it on the spot and regret it, but you cannot go in and give an address to the people of God right away. The thing has to be gone through. Certain exercises have to be gone through to reach the point of purification for the service of God or whatever it may [p. 253] be.
EC Is three days the normal length of time for the self-judgment to take place?
JT Well, it says seven in this passage. Take the history of Peter. The Lord appeared to him as He arose from the dead. “The Lord is indeed risen and has appeared to Simon”. You say Simon will be fully restored. But according to John he had much more to go through. That would mean the seven instead of the three.
HB Unclean until the even.
JT That is another thing. Another day. “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath”. That is an allusion to the day, the close of the day.
AAT I was wondering what the connection was with Revelation 22, the washing of the robes?
JT Well, we have anticipated it largely. It says in verse 14, “Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life”. It is a question of washing the robes. It is not that you have been washed. The Lord says to Peter, “He that is washed all over needs not to wash save his feet, but is wholly clean”, John 13: 10. That sort of thing has to go on continually and that is what is alluded to in Revelation 22: 14, that one has to continually keep his robes clean. He is to be up-to-date all the time with clean robes so that any time he may take part in the tree of life or enter by the gates into the city.
HB Something like what you said about the repenting sinner?
JT Yes. It is going on all the time. That is a real person. John says, “Blessed are they that wash their robes”. Not that ‘have’ washed, but “wash” their robes. They do it all the time, so to speak. That is, they are always clean that they might have right to the tree of life and to enter by the gates into the city. So you are always ready for the tree of life and for the city. You are part of the most exalted things. Paul was always ready for them.
CHH [p. 254] Would the application of the water bring to light the necessity of household readings? It says, “Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, fully fitted to every good work”, 2 Timothy 3: 16, 17. You speak of the sins of ignorance: probably a good many things are done through ignorance, whereas the reading of the Scriptures and the application of them would convict, and would not the water there be the word in a sense?
JT I would think so. We shall proceed to that this afternoon, the washing of water by the word. Where the Scriptures apply as in our morning readings, the young people get washed by what is said and that is what is in mind here, that he has in mind that he has part in the greatest things, that he is not only a clean person, but that he can have part in the greatest things, that is, the tree of life which belongs to the celestials, to the people of the heavenly city. “That they should go in by the gates into the city”-meaning you pass with the doorkeeper. You do not have to ask any leave to go in. You just go in. You have a right to go in because you are washed.
AAT Is it right to link that scripture up with people seeking fellowship?
JT I think it would be, only that when they are coming into fellowship we are not so much stressing the idea of what is heavenly-of course you may do — but you begin at the bottom. What we have already in Numbers 19 would apply more because we are in the midst of a world of corruption.
SMcC When you say the tree of life belongs to the celestials, have you in mind that only the saints who comprise the heavenly city will have access to the tree of life?
JT I think that is so. The leaves of the tree are for those outside.
SMcC [p. 255] What about the saints of past dispensations that are embodied in the twenty-four elders referred to earlier in Revelation? Do they have part or access?
JT I think all have part, that are celestials. There are to be other families, but the city comprises one family. I think it is exclusively the assembly when you come down to the abstract. But then you have the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed at the gates, and the nations bring their glory to it. So that they are closely linked with it. I think the Old Testament saints in some sense have access to the tree of life. That should be gone into more, but we have no time. Our subject is purification, not life.