MANHOOD IN EXODUS (2)
[p. 112] MANHOOD IN EXODUS (2)
Exodus 4:10-17; Exodus 6:20-30; Exodus 7:1,2; Exodus 12:11-20; Exodus 16:4,14
JT We finished this morning by commenting on the change of humanity indicated in the instruction to Moses in Exodus 4 — man taken up again in Christ. Hence in baptism we reckon ourselves “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus”, Romans 6:11. It is man in Christ henceforth, as to his justification, subjection to God, and his inward state. In Romans 5 it is “through our Lord Jesus Christ”, and in Romans 6 it is in Christ Jesus”. In Romans 7 the inward state of man is rectified; the writer thanks God for his deliverance. Moses put his hand into his bosom and it became leprous; he put it in again and it turned again as his flesh. The inward state of man is corrected — in keeping with his position in Christ. The Holy Spirit becomes the power henceforth according to Romans 8. Chapter 7 is the light for adjustment; chapter 8 is the power — the Spirit in the believer.
The next point in regard to our subject is the question of speaking, for we are to speak aright. The Lord, we are told in Mark 7, in dealing with this matter of speech took the man apart from the crowd; “he put his fingers to his ears; and having spit, he touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven he groaned”. The result was that “he spoke right”. This matter comes up here. Moses says, “I am not eloquent”. God brings out the truth as to the power of speech. “Who gave man a mouth? or who maketh dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? have not I, Jehovah? And now go, and I will be with thy mouth, and will teach thee what thou shalt say”. God further says to him, “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well”. God’s word to Moses brings in another man besides Moses, distinguished in the [p. 113] service; the want of faith in the servant Moses is thus overruled. God never looks at these matters as accidental. He overrules so that everything is according to His mind. Aaron is brought in, and God says, “I know that he can speak well”. He knew him in relation to speaking. God had Aaron ready for this emergency. The work of God is to go on; God is ready for any emergency caused by a defect in any of us, so that the service goes on. In connection with that we have a brother. The person who remedies the difficulty is not going to detract from the position. He is a brother. God said, “And when he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart”.
Following on that is the idea of the representation of God in testimony in manhood. In chapter 7 we have representation of God in a system, as we may say. Jehovah says to Moses, “I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. Aaron was to speak to the people, and now he is to speak to Pharaoh. That is what I thought we might consider first.
Then secondly the question of food; this is essential to manhood. What we are given to eat is provided by God (chapters 12 and 16).
EGMcA How could a brother coming in help one that is slow of speech?
JT I think Aaron here typifies the resourcefulness of God. God never regards anything as an accident; there may be something to be deplored, but it is not irremediable in God’s account.
GAT Is it important to see that Jehovah did not set Moses aside when He brought the brother in?
JT Yes. God had no thought of setting him aside; his deficiency was to be made up in Aaron.
APf We do not get any previous history of Aaron. Of Moses we do.
JT God had him in reserve, and he is just the man needed, and his qualification is already known to God.
[p. 114] It shows the divine training school is always functioning, and thus needed ones are ready. Such a one will be of use when the time comes; he is just the man.
JD What do you think of Jehovah being angry with Moses?
JT It is remarkable how much is said of God being angry with Moses. Each of us has to learn that. He is the God of grace, but when it comes to a servant, a man that should know better — in such cases God is severe. For instance, God met Moses at the inn, and was going to slay him (Exodus 4:24). I think it is to produce seriousness in us, as we are dealing with God in His service. He will not brook our wills. His service is too serious a matter. Christ as His Servant is our example in service. Moses says, typically of Christ, “And Jehovah was angry with me on your account” (Deuteronomy 4:21); that is vicariously. I have to learn that for my own soul. God hid His face from Christ. “Why hast thou forsaken me?” the Lord said.
WB-w It is easier to complain than to take on the principle of restraint. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death” (Romans 8:2). In the light of Romans 7, and as having the Spirit, we are able to restrain ourselves.
JT Yes; “if, by the Spirit, ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Romans 8:1). The severest thing we have to go through is to be “reckoned as sheep for slaughter” (Romans 8:36). The apostle contemplates the saints as in that position. It is very severe. Our brethren are suffering something like that, but where God allows that, He furnishes grace to meet it. Look at what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27; he gives a list of things he suffered. “From the Jews five times have I received forty stripes, save one.” The alleviation “save one”, would indicate that God intervened. What must he have gone through afterwards!
[p. 115] One stripe was deducted because God did not allow the lash to go further than he could bear.
GAT Was God angry with Christ?
JT Moses says, speaking typically of the Lord, “Jehovah was angry with me on your account”; it was on Israel’s account; he suffered instead of them. It was a vicarious position. It refers to the penalty of sin which could have no application to the Lord save as taking our place on the cross. In this sense Christ suffered for Israel and for us. Personally He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Hebrews 7:26). The exact words of Jesus on the cross are given; “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). God’s wrath was against sin, but it was meted out to Christ as taking our place. He was made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Rem Moses returned to Jethro and requested him to let him go (Exodus 4:18); and Jethro said, “Go in peace”. Moses was thus free to take up his service.
JT Yes; a serious thing came in afterwards; “Jehovah came upon him, and sought to slay him”. This is very remarkable, and shows the severity of God with His servants, when they disregard His word or principles. Moses ought to have known better than to allow his child to be uncircumcised.
JD Moses said to God, “I am not eloquent”, but in the service it is a question of substance.
JT This is strikingly seen in Moses. What a wonderful servant he becomes! Jehovah says, “My servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. Mouth to mouth do I speak to him openly, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah doth he behold”(Numbers 12:7,8). Moses is to be God to Pharaoh, and Aaron is to be his prophet.
NB How is this going to work out practically in localities amongst us? Moses and Aaron were outstanding brothers. A brother may not be able to say anything. How would this affect [p. 116] us?
JT We may learn from what is before us. The bringing of these two brothers together involves the principles of balancing. Moses is three years younger than Aaron. The principle of balancing must come into the testimony, as in the “balancings of the clouds” (Job 37:16). The idea of system enters into the testimony, especially as seen in Exodus. You must have two or more and so there must be the principle of balance, otherwise there is complaint and rivalry. Aaron was an older man, and he could speak well and Moses could not; moreover he was brotherly, he loved his brother. God said to Moses, “When he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart”. Well, there must be in Moses what will balance all that, and there was — evidently not only gift, but moral qualities. These are what Jehovah alludes to in Numbers 12. Thus whatever one may lack can be made up on moral lines, as the word to Timothy indicates — “Let no one despise thy youth” (1 Timothy 4:12).
At the outset all was well, for “Moses and Aaron went and gathered all the elders of the children of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words that Jehovah had spoken to Moses, and did the signs before the eyes of the people. And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped” (Exodus 4:29-31). That is a fine result. You could not get anything better. God’s ways are good. The result of the service of these two men working together is that the people believed and they worshipped God.
EC The Lord sent out the twelve and the seventy disciples two by two (Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 10:1).
JT We have that now. One by one, and two by two as well; but a system is involved — centred in Christ in heaven. Sometimes it is better to be isolated, ministering to your brethren, but at other times you can get on better with another. That may mean that [p. 117] you must be able to take second place. You find Peter and John together. Peter is always active, but John is there. He adds to the position, although he may not be active. In certain circumstances in the service of God some possessing ability to serve may be present, but not taking verbal part, but their sympathy and spirituality add greatly to the position.
CT It augments worship in the company. These two being found together in ministry effected this in the people.
JT Moses has to take first place, but he is not pushing himself. The appointment of God required this.
Rem “He was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). Here he says he cannot speak.
JT He is not relying on his natural education or ability. God had brought him down. He had gone too far in speaking of himself. We may take the attitude of smallness and be unbelieving in it.
AB God says to him, “And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the other sign” (Exodus 4:8). Testimony in two signs and testimony in two men.
JT Yes. The Lord brings out that principle in regard to the Father Himself testifying (John 8:17). Aaron brought forward in this way is striking. He completes the position.
AEH In the beginning of Luke we have a priest speaking in unbelief. Zacharias speaks wrong, and then learns to speak right.
JT Yes. How one dispensation merges into another is strikingly seen in Zacharias; being a priest according to the law of Moses, he becomes a priest and prophet according to the Spirit. “Zacharias, of the course of Abia, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth” (Luke 1:5). Both were fully accredited, but he has to endure nine months [p. 118] of dumbness because of unbelief. Then when the time is completed he writes of the promised son, “John is his name” (Luke 1:63). It was the divine word as to John’s name. Then his mouth was opened and, as a priest, he blesses God, and being filled with the Holy Spirit he prophesied — first about Christ, and then to John.
JD Is it right to say that the Father and Son were set forth in one Person? The Lord said, “He that has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Is the Father one witness and Christ another?
JT They are, of course, always two Persons. The Lord says, “I am one who bear witness concerning myself, and the Father who has sent me bears witness concerning me” (John 8:18). It is John the evangelist who tells us that “the Father loves the Son and has given all things to be in his hand” (John 3:35). Love is the thing in economic testimony, otherwise there will be rivalry among the servants.
GH “Paul, a called apostle of Jesus Christ, by God’s will, and Sosthenes the brother” (1 Corinthians 1:1).
JT That bears out the thought. He brings a brother in. The Corinthians may say, That is only Paul’s word; some, that his speech is contemptible; but he associates others with himself to give force and attractiveness to his service. That is what comes out in Aaron, in whom we have the brotherly element.
WGT Jacob was seeking to avoid his brother Esau in Genesis 32. Though a false brother, Esau would have to be reckoned with.
JT I think it was of God that Esau should be appeased. Jacob sends a message, in which he tells Esau of his property, including bondmen and bondwomen (Genesis 32:5). He told him how much he had, but Esau would not be helped by hearing that; he was himself a rich man. Esau came to meet him with four hundred men, which caused Jacob great concern (verses 6,7). He began to pray (verses 9-12); and God met him [p. 119] and humbled him in a natural sense, but blessed him. Spiritually he drops the idea of being a rich man; he is now a lame man; he is limping, but he has a change of name. His name is now Israel, and he meets Esau as Israel. He is now a spiritual man. He makes Esau a present of some cattle. It is a question of love now. Jacob arranges his wives and children to pass before Esau, and in this Joseph takes priority to his mother. Thus Jacob meets his brother on spiritual lines, and they are able to kiss one another (Genesis 33:4). In this way brotherly conditions prevailed for the moment. In the procedure a testimony was rendered to Esau. It must have liberated Jacob’s spirit. In view of the purpose of God as to Jacob, it was of importance that as constituted spiritual, according to chapter 32, he and his household should appear before Esau at this time. Esau was affected for the moment, and this would be used of God later.
AB There is a definite change in Jacob in that chapter. He reached Esau’s affections so that he took a blessing or gift. There is advancement.
JT We are all to be set to affect people in this way.
JW “I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4).
JT What discipline they had been through! All three were far advanced in years as taken into service.
TS Has the ability to speak well any relation to our speaking to God?
JT Yes. One says, “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah” (Psalm 19:14). I suppose God had heard Aaron in this way. As taken up in view of being high priest, there can be no doubt he had been accustomed to pray.
NB As to things amongst ourselves, does gift enter into the matter of speaking? Does prophecy as referred to in 1 Corinthians imply good speaking?
[p. 120] JT The power of speech refers to the vessel. We have to distinguish between the vessel, and what is in the vessel. The vessel is designed creatively. God has made us all, and He refers to that fact in saying to Moses “Who gave a man a mouth ... have not I, Jehovah?”. In giving a gift, God takes account of the man long before he was born. He sees to the circumstances of his birth and education. The vessel is one thing, a spiritual gift is another. The gift is to be the expression of Christ in him. He may be able to speak well about anything, but he is to see that God has taken him up to speak well of Christ. The greatest speaker was, of course, Christ. They marvelled at His manner of speaking (Luke 4:22). You do not want to speak out of accord with Him. Peter and James and John and the other apostles were specially qualified to speak. The twelve spoke in a remarkable way. “Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth to them.” The Spirit was in him. And having heard, three thousand were converted. At Iconium, Paul and Barnabas “so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1). All the hundred and twenty might speak of Christ, but it is important to distinguish those who speak formally in testimony as representative of God. Peter and the eleven were such at Pentecost. You do not want a man speaking to Pharaoh that, through want of ability, would discredit what he has to say. Moses would know how to speak to a man like Pharaoh, but while Moses was to speak to him, Jehovah said, “Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land”. This shows how important the matter of speaking was at that time.
JMcK John the evangelist remarks, “There was a man sent from God, his name John” (John 1:6). The Baptist could say of himself that he was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (John 1:[p. 121] 23).
JT I think the brethren would do well to consider the difference between the vessel, and what is in the vessel. In Ephesians 4 the vessel is included in the gift; “he has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers”. He gave them to the assembly. The passage does not say the gift of prophecy, etc. The apostles were given to the assembly, their bodies, their minds; it means all that they were by the grace of God. In the service of God effective speaking is stressed; as remarked of Paul and Barnabas at Iconium they “so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed;” and at Lystra, Paul was regarded as the chief speaker (Acts 14). And yet one at Corinth said, “His presence in the body weak, and his speech naught”, (2 Corinthians 10:10).
EGMcA Do we get the two in Paul’s statement of himself; “God, who set me apart even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me”? (Galatians 1:15).
JT Yes. The whole man is there as a gift. In Aaron and Moses you have the whole position as to testimony set out. Moses is not going to Pharaoh alone; he is going in the system God has established; he represents God before Pharaoh. He is to be like God, as it was said to him, “See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. This thought deserves great consideration. Was he cowering in Pharaoh’s presence? No! He stood up like a man to represent God. You must be a man to represent God — “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26).
SP Is it seen in the Lord Himself as He speaks as one having authority and not as the scribes?
JT Quite so. It is worthy of consideration. In the gospels great men and poor men are seen as in contact with the Lord. He never says a word to Herod, but He speaks to Pilate, and in a most instructive way. Of Paul, the Lord said that he was “to bear my name [p. 122] before both nations and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Consider Paul’s address before Agrippa. Besides the king, several grandees were sitting on the bench. “Paul, stretching out his hand” said, among many things, “I would to God, both in little and in much, that not only thou, but all who have heard me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds” (Acts 26:29) — “as I also am, except these bonds” — that is how he finished. What triumph in manhood!
Rem “I have believed, therefore have I spoken” (2 Corinthians 4:13).
JT That shows that speaking in God’s service should not be apart from faith. It is a quotation from Psalm 116:10.
WB-w In what way does circumcision help Moses into manhood?
JT It was Colossian truth he was defective in, as many of us are. Philosophy and vain deceit could only be met by circumcision. Man as in the flesh is no good at all; leprosy is in him. Circumcision is the putting off of the body of flesh (Colossians 2:11). Leprosy in the head is ability used in God’s service which is merely natural. Moses was well brought up, taught in the wisdom of Egypt, “and he was mighty in his words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). He stood before the greatest men in Egypt and talked to them. Is he to bring that into the service of God? No. He neglected circumcision, and hence there would be in him the danger, as in the service of Jehovah, of having recourse to what marked him in Egypt.
NB Zipporah did not want circumcision.
JT Clearly so. Education and the polish that goes with it are apt to deceive us, and may be regarded as adornment in christianity. Circumcision meets this. Moses had evidently neglected circumcision, but he became a type of Christ in enforcing it. The sovereignty of God enters into the selection of His servants, and [p. 123] we must accept them as He provides them. Zipporah was a Midianite, and as the wife of a great servant of God it was most important that she should bow to the truth of circumcision.
WGT The radio has a social place, especially where men are talking about the things of the day. Moses and Zipporah were at the inn. Hotels cater for men’s natural sensibilities. Hence the need of accepting circumcision in view of our public relations.
GAT Would you say the wives are against this truth?
JT Well, what is stated of Zipporah has surely a voice for them.
JD Paul says of the things of God, “which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual means” (1 Corinthians 2:13).
JT That is a most appropriate word for us all.
EGMcA The incident in the inn would show that anyone who does not accept circumcision in his service and testimony will end in death morally.
JT God hates the bringing of mere natural ability into His service. Apollos was an eloquent man, mighty in the Scriptures, and God used him. “For he with great force convinced the Jews publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 18:28).
AEH As regards baptism and circumcision in Colossians: is baptism the application of death to me as in this present world; and circumcision the application of death to me in regard of entrance into another sphere and the things of God?
JT Colossians puts circumcision before baptism; then quickening. “Ye have been circumcised with circumcision not done by hand, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ” (Colossians 2:11) — the totality of the flesh, not a shred of it to be left in the service of God. The bearing of baptism is towards the world; I reckon myself dead [p. 124] indeed unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus. But in Colossians it involves resurrection: “in which ye have been also raised with him” (Colossians 2:12).
JTJr There was unbelief in Zipporah in regard to circumcision; refusal of it; hence the complaint against her husband.
JT The whole position was in danger by it — after all that God had done in bringing Moses forward. This position of the two in regard to circumcision was so serious, because Moses was responsible. Thus the severity of God as to him is seen; Jehovah was about to slay Moses.
WGT His wife did the thing.
JT Yes, but she bitterly reproached her husband. It was done, however, and hence the Spirit says, “he let him go” (Exodus 4:25).
JST Abraham enforced it in his household.
JT That is where the truth of it comes out and is applied in the most complete way, in Genesis 17. God changes Abram’s name there. The extension of the name implied circumcision; the new name was to work out in the power of the Spirit. Clearly the application in such thoroughness in Abraham’s house, according to Genesis 17, is the ground of the divine visitation in chapter 18. There Abraham is the friend of God.
WB-w Moses enforces the thing here, and God says to Aaron, “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses”.
JT Yes; the position is thus stabilised. All this is leading up to the testimony to the people by Moses and Aaron; and then the testimony to Pharaoh in Egypt. One thing that comes out is skill in the service as it proceeds.
This chapter is to bring out the levitical line. Amram and Jochebed are the names of Aaron’s and Moses’ father and mother. Aaron is not mentioned until he is 83, and Miriam is not mentioned by name until she is even older. God is placing qualities before names; now we have the names. “And Aaron [p. 125] took Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon, as wife; and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar”. These are important personages. Then we have “Eleazar Aaron’s son took one of the daughters of Putiel as wife; and she bore him Phinehas”. The end of the genealogy here is in Phinehas; in him we come to genuine priesthood. We have in the priesthood a carefully selected line; no mixed marriages; no unconverted husbands or wives taken into the marriage contract. This is the most difficult thing we have to do with today.
EGMcA There should be the endorsement of God in every marriage.
WGT Phinehas was raised up to deal with an ungodly marriage.
JT He is figurative of Christ. He has an everlasting priesthood (Numbers 25:13).
GAT How would you deal with ungodly marriages today?
JT They are condemned in Scripture. We ought to condemn them and refuse them. It is one of the most baneful things we have. We must deal with it; and in doing this to preserve the fellowship, the Lord will be with us. If those involved refuse to listen to their brethren, they add to their guilt and they must be refused as unfit for the fellowship of Christ’s death.
GAT The person not breaking bread may be a christian.
JT If he is a christian he ought to be in fellowship, otherwise he is questionable. He does not prove his genealogy if he does not come in. Certain ones were disallowed in the recovery in Nehemiah and Ezra because they did not show their pedigree.
WB-w The Spirit of God says, “This is that Aaron and Moses”.
JT In verse 27 it is “this is that Moses and Aaron”. From the priestly side Aaron is first; from the apostolic side Moses is first, so that there is perfect balance.
The first reference may imply Aaron’s priority of age, the latter to Moses’ priority morally and officially. This appears more and more in the history.
Ques Moses’ family is not much spoken of; why is this?
JT They are mentioned as Levites, some of them with distinction in the days of David (1 Chronicles 26). But considering the great place Moses had in the testimony, the comparatively small place his family had is to be sorrowfully noted. The fact may be intended to remind us that authority alone in the father cannot be a guarantee for a godly family. Besides, Zipporah, being a Midianite, would not tend to develop “a wholly right seed”. Her history would show this.
JTJr Moses’ grandson was an idolator — the first paid priest (Judges 18:30). Phinehas came of the line of Aaron.
JT In connection with the terrible conflict with Benjamin (Judges 20), Phinehas, the faithful priest, is mentioned. But Jehonathan, the grandson of Moses, is mentioned as an idolatrous priest, as already remarked, in chapter 18:30. J.N.D.’s note shows that some copyist sought to conceal this by corrupting the text.
JD You would fear for a brother in fellowship taking a sister outside.
JT When Levi was born Leah said, “Now this time will my husband be united to me” (Genesis 29:34). The name signifies union really — Levi.
JD “A man of the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1).
JT That is according to the divine way, and the result is according to God, as Exodus 6 shows.
EGMcA Aaron and Moses, and Miriam also.
JT Yes. They were together used for the deliverance of Israel; they were successful in speaking to the people, as chapter 4:29-31 shows.
Pharaoh is the next consideration. The success of the ministry in Egypt depends on how these two meet [p. 127] Pharaoh. They overthrew the whole Egyptian system by their ministry, and delivered God’s people from it.
Rem There seems to be something more in your mind about marriage.
JT We know mixed marriages are wrong. How can you expect the children to be “wholly a right seed” (Jeremiah 2:21), and material for the assembly, where a mixed marriage is taken on? It will rather be a mongrel condition — the book of Ezra deals with that. Of course we may have a family turning aside even when the father and mother are in fellowship, but that may mean that the truth is not maintained in the family.
Rem Right household conditions and manhood are closely connected (Exodus 1:1). We read of Moses’ father as a “man” (Exodus 2:1).
JT A man and his household runs through the book of Exodus. Manhood is seen in that you recognise your own parents according to what is due to them; and then bring up your own children according to what is due to the Lord and to them — bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Thus the line is maintained.
JTJr Would it be seen too in the way you work with others? When Moses and Aaron go in before Pharaoh, “they said, The God of the Hebrews has met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey unto the wilderness, and sacrifice to Jehovah our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with sword” (Exodus 5:3). This would be the result of God’s operations in bringing the two men in unity.
JT Yes. The testimony takes the form of a system (chapter 7:1,2). It runs through chapters 7 to 11. It is completely successful. Egypt is brought down by the power of the ministry and that is what happened in apostolic testimony, as seen in Acts, the world was brought down morally.
We come now to chapter 12. The next thing is, how, as going out of Egypt, are we to be maintained?
[p. 128] It is a question of the food we eat. If I am to be maintained I must eat what God provides for such circumstances. Each has to learn to go on by himself. One must possess the ability to get on by himself, and stand for the rights of God under difficulties. One says, “As for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah” (Joshua 24:15). Aaron failed in this. In the absence of Moses he gave way to the idolatrous wishes of the people. This shows the importance of each one learning to stand on his own feet in dependence on God. “Having accomplished all things, to stand. Stand therefore” (Ephesians 6:13,14). This is not simply “doing what you can”, but doing all that should be done see note in New Translation.
JD I think we would appreciate a few words on the character of food.
JT It is one of the most important things we can look into. The first is self-denial in what you are eating, chapter 12. That is, unleavened bread. The second is the manna; something you admire; it is a question of Christ, what He was here, in our circumstances, chapter 16. It is important to have these two thoughts before us.
AEH Moses on the mount would not be getting food that would puff him up, but Aaron with the people lent himself to that.
JT The people made much of him. Those mentioned are the two ideas one had before one as to chapters 12 and 16: the first is that we are reduced, the flesh starved; and the second, Christ, as in current circumstances, as seen in the gospels. The first is self-denial, the second appreciation of Christ. The manna was “on the face of the wilderness”. God said, “I will rain bread from heaven for you”. It was from heaven, but here below in everyday circumstances, available to the people. It builds up manhood according to what was seen in Christ in the scene where He was in the days of His flesh, but in which He is no longer; His people are in it; and to be here as representative of Him, we must feed on the manna.