GOD SPEAKING IN THE WILDERNESS - IN THE TABERNACLE

^[p. 114] GOD SPEAKING IN THE WILDERNESS — IN THE TABERNACLE

Numbers 1:1-3; Numbers 1:16-19; Numbers 10:33 - 36

JT It is evident that, as in Exodus, we have the dwelling, that in which God is with us — dwells with us, so Leviticus gives us how we are to be with Him, hence the call out of the tabernacle, or tent of meeting, as it should read; then how those who answer to the call are to be with God — the terms on which we are to be with Him.

Then Numbers is the public position, how we are to be for God and in connection with the latter the love shown in the divine way of being with us in all the vicissitudes of the wilderness journey — the love, patience and grace that shine in the divine manner in the wilderness, so that the book is really, as we might say, in the wilderness. I believe the original title, at least a certain title given to the book, was simply, “In the wilderness” The book opens with God speaking in the wilderness, He speaks out of a tent, but it was in the wilderness. And so the numbering is said to be in the wilderness of Sinai, and the first movement is from one wilderness to another; chapter 10:12. Thus we are with God, or rather God is with us in circumstances in which there is nothing for the flesh; and in connection with this, we have military units and orderings involving local responsibility; so that while the love of God is put to the test, and answers to it perfectly in these circumstances, our love is also tested, for the wilderness brings out where we are, and what we are.

Ques Is Leviticus the terms on which we are to be with God, so as to be for Him according to the book of Numbers?

^[p. 115] JT Well, that is right. The second verse (Leviticus 1) begins the subject of the terms: “When any man of you presenteth an offering to Jehovah, ye shall present your offering of the cattle, of the herd, and of the flock” Leviticus 1:2 That leads on to what may be regarded as the divine requirements, the terms upon which we, from our side, are to be with Him, to approach Him. The requirements, while they take account of, and make provision for the majesty of God, also make provision for the minutest work of God in His people; the youngest and weakest is provided for as well as those who are most advanced. But one’s thought was to dwell, not on the terms, but rather on the fact that God called out of the tabernacle; and then in Numbers to point out how the love of God comes in, typically, in the way in which He accepts the circumstances of His people, accommodating Himself, as it were, to them; so that He told David, who was minded to build Him an house, that He had not dwelt in a house since the day that He brought up Israel out of Egypt, “even to this day” but had walked in a tent, and in a tabernacle; 2 Samuel 7:6. He had never had, as we may say, such accommodation as David had in mind to provide for Him; but He points out to David that He had accepted what there was; He had walked in a tent, for note, it is a matter of walking, not dwelling merely; there was very little restfulness in it; He walked in a tent with them and in a tabernacle. The allusion is to Numbers, to bring to our attention what divine love is as with us now, bearing with us, and putting up with all sorts of things, and yet finding its way to be with us. Numbers, therefore, opens with the speaking in the wilderness — out of the tent, but in the wilderness.

Ques Is that exemplified in the pathway of the Lord Jesus with His disciples?

JT Well, I think we have it indicated there.

“^[p. 116] And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14); and He put up with much. The patience and grace of the Lord with His disciples help us to understand how He bears with us now. We must all be aware of how much He has to put up with in us and what poor accommodation there is.

HH The epistle to the Corinthians would be on that line — the love of Paul to the saints, and how he put up with things in them.

JT Yes, I think so. The apostle was representative there of divine love; he says, “If even in abundantly loving you I should be less loved” 2 Corinthians 12:15. “But be it so” he said; he accepted it.

HH We are more familiar with the thought of the wilderness in connection with our individual path here; but what you are referring to is more the church’s position in the wilderness; the exercises that are in that connection.

JT That is right. The earlier instructions here are to preclude any unnecessary inconvenience — the workings of the flesh; every precaution is taken in these early chapters anticipative of the working of the flesh, to preclude it. These chapters should be read in that light — the divine foresight and forethought in order that the workings of the flesh should be shut out.

FW When you speak of the wilderness, do you mean God’s ways with us?

JT Well, the ways of God come out in the wilderness; His ways with us are but the means of His showing His patience, how long-suffering He is, and how ready to accept the inconveniences of the wilderness. Caleb and Joshua entered into that; they came to see what marked God’s ways with the people, and they were content, and accepted the long period of journeyings imposed upon the people on account of their own wills. So that I think the ways of God with us — with His people — viewed collectively,

^[p. 117] only bring out the love that underlies all; as we read, “In all their affliction he was afflicted” Isaiah 63:9. He entered into what they went through. Perhaps you had something else in your mind?

FW I was only trying to focus the thought of the tabernacle in the wilderness. In Exodus there seems to be a different setting of the tabernacle — more the Ephesian, the assembly side, would you say?

HH Psalm 68 refers to God arising and His enemies being scattered, then verse 7 might have a bearing on what you are saying, “O God, when thou wentest forth before thy people, when thou didst march through the wilderness” Psalm 68:7 You get two beautiful touches in the type. Paul refers to one of them, “a spiritual Rock which followed [them]” furnishing drink and refreshment, “now the rock was the Christ” 1 Corinthians 10:4 The rock went behind, and the ark went before; that is to say, all the pioneering work, involving the severest conflict and drudgery, so to speak, belonged to the Lord. The allusion, I suppose, to the rock which followed them gives the thought of water-carrying — a sort of drudgery; divine love expressing itself thus. In Numbers 10 we find that the proper position of the ark was in the centre, the divine intent being that Christ should be honoured among the people, and that all should serve Him; He was to be in the very midst of the armies of Israel, surrounded by them. Instead of that, however, He breaks through the ordinary rule and goes before. It is a very remarkable thing that there is nothing said previously about the ark going before, showing how divine love reserves its own liberty. It acts from itself; as the Lord did when He sat at table, then rising from supper He laid aside His garments. Love would act thus, and He sets an example to us, that, instead of in any way preserving dignity or honour we may rather accept the drudgery. The whole idea of the system that ^[p. 118] exists around is built up on the honour that is put on the servant, whereas the divine way is to give that up, to relinquish all that for the good of others and to accept the drudgery.

Rem We all need grace to move on that line.

Rem The spirit of the apostle was, “ourselves your bondmen for Jesus’ sake” 2 Corinthians 4:5.

JT Yes. So he insists that the servants were the property of the saints, “For all things are yours” even the great servants, “whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas” 1 Corinthians 3:21 - 23. The honour of Christ — the place which belongs to the ark — is preserved when the early instructions in the book are observed, that is to say, the recognition of the twelve. The idea is that lie has that which, as actuated by love, is flexible.

FW I do not quite understand your reference to the ark and the rock.

JT I was pointing out that in Numbers 10 the ark leaves its own normal place, which was in the midst of the camp guarded by military organisation, a priestly organisation, and a levitical organisation — all concentric circles, so to speak, but the ark inside. Now when the time for movement came, we have the order of the movement, and then it is said that the tabernacle is taken down in its own place, but nothing is said about the ark; whereas in the verses read (35 and 36) the ark goes before — it takes the lead, to find out a resting-place for the people.

FW What do you understand by that?

JT It is divine love in Christ taking on the most onerous and menial work — first going before and finding a resting-place in the wilderness where there was no way, no path, and then the rock following, which is another thought; that rock they all drank of, it says. It is as if the Lord were carrying water behind them. The drudgery, the menial character of the service is in view. There was no actual rock, but He provided it; it followed: “the rock was the Christ” 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And have all been given to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13); is that a similar thought?

JT The reference to the Rock, the rock which followed them, is a menial one, whereas in 1 Corinthians 12 it is the cup of blessing that is undoubtedly alluded to. We have been all made to drink into one Spirit. The reference in chapter 10 is to the menial character of the thing — the Rock that followed them.

Ques Was this “resting-place” provisional? It says the ark went before them in a three days’ journey to search out a resting-place for them.

JT Yes, it was leading on; it was, as you say, provisional, because, whenever it happened, Moses said these words, “Return, Jehovah, unto the myriads of the thousands of Israel”

CCE Do you think both these movements have been exemplified in the Lord’s goodness to us during the last century? He has gone before in His gracious way to provide a resting-place for us, and then there is His wonderful grace in providing refreshment for us; I wondered whether we could make that application.

JT I am sure we can; it is very practical. If we see what divine love is in thus adapting itself to us, to our needs, we are reminded of the earlier instructions; that if the conditions described do not exist, the corresponding gain is not realised; hence we have the twelve princes, and the numbering is to be with their cognisance. Verse 16 should read, “These were those summoned of the assembly, princes of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of the thousands of Israel” Numbers 1:16 It appears it is not simply that they were summoned, but that they were responsible, being such as could be summoned.

CCE The thought would be that they could be called upon for consultation and such ^[p. 120] like.

JT Yes; and then their responsibility always stood in connection with the tent of meeting, so that they were always liable to be summoned; they were such as were summoned. Anything that might come in to prevent them responding to the summons would bring to light that there was something wrong.

ESH Would the care-meeting be something of that character?

JT I think so. The Lord expresses His mind in the summons; He indicated that not only were the persons responsible, but they were known, they had been summoned before, they were tried men. But the thing represents state in the saints rather than persons; the Lord has those known to Him on whom He can lay His hand.

ESH Does Matthew’s gospel provide for this, do you think?

JT Well, I think it would. Matthew at the end presents the Lord acting in the capacity of a king. He sent a message to His disciples, “Go bring word to my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there they shall see me” Matthew 28:10. Then in verse 16 we read that the disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them, and when they saw Him they did Him homage. Now John tells us that the Lord said to them, “I will see you again” chapter 16:22. That would be from His side. When it is a question of simple privilege and affection going out, it is from His side, “I will see you” but when it is a question of legislation, and the responsibility laid upon us, it is a question of our seeing Him, “There they shall see me” and they did see Him, and when they saw Him they did Him homage — there was respect; there was reverence.

FW Did they get their commission in the end of the chapter from that point?

JT Yes. But then He says, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth” Matthew 20:18 That was to be ^[p. 121] taken notice of; they could not go anywhere else for power; it was all in His hands. Now He says, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” Matthew 28:19 That was a big order! That would throw them back on themselves, as it were — what they were to do. How were they to do this? They certainly could not do it of themselves! But then the Lord puts it on them to do it, and the more He puts on you, the more dependent you are; but you know where to go; He says, I have got all power; you know where to go to get help.

Now these men who were summoned were like that; they were in the place of responsibility, and Moses could call upon them at any time.

Ques Is it necessary to go to Galilee for that?

JT I think it is; if you go to Galilee, that means you have interest in the thing, because you feel the need of going there; and what can you do by yourself?

In Luke the Lord puts no such obligations on us, nor in John, or Mark, but He does in Matthew, because it is a question of our being made “princes ... in all the earth” Psalm 45:16 so that the Lord can call upon us, and summon us.

In Numbers 16 Moses summoned some, but they refused to hearken; that is where the rebellion came in.

Rem “A vessel ... serviceable to the Master”; “Be strong in the grace that [is] in Christ Jesus” 2 Timothy 2:21,1. Would that cover what you were saying?

JT I think so, the vessels are meet for the master’s use. But these twelve men would represent the responsible element, and of course all are responsible. But the summons is a very serious matter. You have to give up your own thoughts when you are summoned, for something is to be said to you; the Lord has something to say.

Ques What were they summoned ^[p. 122] for?

JT Oh, for various things. The exigencies of the wilderness required that they should be called upon to assemble and give their counsel. If anything happened in any of their sections, it would be a matter for them all. The local question arises in regard of each one of them.

Ques Do you think that if we were conscious of our responsibility that our ears would be attentive to the summons?

JT If anything happened in your locality you would be wise to respond to the summons. After all, it is a general matter.

HH “The angel of the assembly” Revelation 2 and 3. Does that touch on it at all?

JT I think that is the idea — the responsible element.

ESH Does that scripture: “Princes shalt thou make them in all the earth” (Psalm 45:16) show that any local matter is to be viewed in relation to what is universal?

JT I think that is right. They were treated as one whole. The number twelve denotes flexibility; the Lord has what He can use. There is no number, perhaps, more easily divided than twelve; its parts are many.

Ques What do you say it denotes?

JT Flexibility in government, in administration.

HH Do you mean it would not be the judgment of one merely, but more like a jury, something they could agree upon amongst themselves?

JT Yes, and the Lord has such a vessel, such a flexible number, as it were. He could use one; He can subdivide the number, and yet all stands in relation to the total number, so that any subdivision of the number used stands in relation to the whole. He can subdivide and use every part of the total.

Ques “If two of you” Matthew 18:19. Would that suggest two of the whole agreeing in regard of the Lord’s interests?

JT “Two of you” means two of the assembly.

Ques Did the Lord subdivide the number when He took up Peter, and James, and John with Him into the high mountain apart?

JT Yes, quite; it was a fourth of the number.

CCE The Lord is prepared for any emergency.

JT That is what I thought. In the book of Revelation you have the fullest conception of it — a hundred and forty-four thousand. Whatever men may have in the way of empire, or cabinets, or administrative machinery, here is something that the Lord has. The winds are held up till the “bondmen of our God” Revelation 7:3 have been sealed in their foreheads — “[the] seal of [the] living God”; Revelation 7:2 and John says, “I heard the number of the sealed a hundred [and] forty-four thousand sealed out of every tribes of [the] sons of Israel” (Revelation 7:4); that is to say, God has multiplied them and He is to have a wonderful system of administration, flexible in the last degree, so that it is all under His hand; He can use it at His pleasure, and divide it according to His infinite wisdom. Well, we want to be in that, to be available for it.

Ques Do you think that the local exercises are in that way preparing us for the universal administration?

JT It would seem so; so the thought would be to be available to the Lord as a unit, as any part of the number, or in any subdivision of it, but in relation to the whole. Then another thing that arises is the question of confidence. This administration at the present time is carried on over a wide area, involving many modifying things, such as national prejudices and local prejudices of various kinds, and distance, so that the question of confidence comes in prominently,

^[p. 124] as to whether we can accept what has been done at a distance from us.

CCE How is this confidence fostered?

JT They were the tribes of Israel. It says, “Take the sum of the whole assembly of the children of Israel, after their families, according to their fathers’ houses, by the number of the names”. They were of one parent stock, though divided up into families, and the pedigrees were to be declared. It says in verse 18, “and they declared their pedigrees, after their families, according to their fathers’ houses” — one fountain, one parent, one source, and the pedigree brings out that I belong to that. The pedigree is to be declared, meaning that there is genuineness; we are all of one family, notwithstanding many modifying things; we are that and we hold to it, and it underlies confidence. I do not see how the fellowship which is proper to the assembly is to be maintained apart from confidence.

Ques All partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); is that the point?

JT Quite.

CCE The world works on the principle of a central authority.

JT The situation in our day is that we have no king to command at all. “The locusts have no king, yet they go forth all of them by bands” Proverbs 30:27. Colossians and Ephesians are the furnishing epistles, particularly Colossians, which brings in “love in [the] Spirit” Colossians 1:8 — “love ... towards all the saints” Colossians 1:4 Love in the Spirit is love unaffected by natural predilections and preferences; it is pure, and it is universal — for all the saints — hence you have confidence; if anything is done, say in Australia, or in South Africa, or anywhere, you have confidence, and you leave it there.

Ques Is the truth of the one body behind it in any ^[p. 125] way?

JT That is the thought, otherwise, we are just so many communities with a sort of unwritten understanding, which is not the unity of the Spirit at all. What God would hold us to is the unity of the Spirit, and that is a subjective thing.

HH We have to be built up in our souls as to what the assembly is in order to feel our responsibility in relation to it.

JT We are notified at the very beginning here that the scene in which we are is contrary; we are not going to have any help from it; it is in the wilderness. The book of Numbers begins with that, so we must make up our minds at the outset to be tested to the utmost limits of our capacity, and that throws us on the Lord. It is no small matter to move in such a scene, even physically, with a large number of people, and to maintain the principles of God. The tabernacle, so to speak, is standing in the midst all the time, so how are we to hold the truth of the assembly, that in which God dwells, and yet be separate and definite in our local setting — how is it to be done?

ESH Do you suggest that if family relations and affections amongst brethren are developed, there would be more confidence?

JT Yes, for there would be the consciousness of common parentage, as it were, and being of the same family. After all, Israel were sons of one man. The pedigree establishes that fact for each one; it establishes the fact that I belong to the family.

Ques Would that correct the tendency to question what is done at a distance?

JT I think confidence would enable us to rely on what was done at a distance; we must come to that.

Ques Would it be on the line of love believing ^[p. 126] all things?

JT Just so, that is right; “believes all things, hopes all things” 1 Corinthians 13:7 Would this confidence tend to maintain the normal conditions to which you refer in the early chapters?

JT Well, I think that confidence is one of the greatest features, calculated to guarantee the fulfilment of the early chapters — our belonging to one family, and each showing his pedigree. Anything contrary to that later would be called in question. If I have established my pedigree, I have established and avowed my relationship to the saints as one of the brethren and am under obligation to love them, and that is wherever they are, whether local or elsewhere.

Rem It is striking that the pedigree and the father’s house are thus brought together at the beginning of this particular book that takes up the local settings of things.

JT It is so; the thing comes down to the standard of the father’s house; first the tribe, and then the father’s house; the family thought runs right through, so that we can have it in the smallest number — the father’s house, or we can have it with the whole twelve tribes. The family thought was always to be maintained, hence when they went up to Jerusalem three times a year, the family thought would ever be present.

FW Why do you think the order is changed in the naming of the tribes? According to the instructions the tribe of Gad comes in earlier, but in the record of the carrying out of the instructions the order is changed and he is nearly last.

JT Everything here is in divine wisdom; there would be some good reason for it, but what it is I do not know. You notice that as a rule Reuben is mentioned first, but in the order of march, Judah comes first. Reuben represents the responsible side,

^[p. 127] but Judah is the sovereign side; on the line of the responsible side God may alter things and put another before you.

Ques Would you say the maintenance of the family thought produces confidence?

JT That is what I have been trying to enlarge on: “we are brethren” as Moses insisted. At the very beginning of Exodus we have a sort of key to the whole of these instructions; I refer to the combination of light and love in Moses and Aaron. When Moses returned from the wilderness after forty years, he had the light, but Aaron had the love. God says to him, Aaron is coming to meet you, and he will be glad to see you, and when Aaron met him he kissed him. The love side is seen in Aaron, he was the brother, and he was the Levite. “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother ... And also, behold he goeth out to meet thee, and will be glad in his heart” Exodus 4:14 So that you have in the meeting the combination of light in Moses and love in Aaron, and these go together.

Ques Like Paul the apostle and Sosthenes the brother?

JT Very much like that; Moses has the light, and Aaron is the spokesman — the brother is the one who speaks; these two things run right through.

Ques Would both be seen in the breast-plate of the high priest?

JT Well, the saints were all there in the heart of Christ. He never loses sight of one of us. According to our scripture He has us here under His eye for administration, to be summoned at any time and to be used according to His pleasure, whether one or two or three. You can divide twelve into twelve units, but all under His hand and all serving in relation to the whole number.

^[p. 128] Ques Would you say a word as to these men here covered by the expression, “heads of the thousands of Israel ... expressed by their names”?

JT I suppose the name expressed what they were. If you think of the ‘brother’ you want to think of him in relation to the work of God in him; you do not want to think of him in any other light; you are sorry if you have ever done so. The epistle of John shows us how to regard the brethren abstractly, how to take account of them according to the work of God in them, disregarding all else, for really and truly we are of no value except in that measure. The abstract way of looking at things is most important as underlying our relations to one another.

ESH Does it prove the work of God in us, to thus view the saints?

JT I think love would do that; love would think the best of another. Our prayers are to cover the whole field; if you think of this brother and that brother, how are you to take account of him as he comes before you, how are you to think of him? Well, what marks that man? The epistle of John would teach you to regard him in the light of the work of God in him.

ASL John says not only that he that is begotten of God does not sin, but that he cannot sin.

JT It is only as you view a brother abstractly you can say that.

Ques Would “head of their fathers’ houses” Numbers 17:3 suggest the thought of influence, and hence there would be confidence?

JT Yes, indeed. They were really princes, meaning that they were spiritual men, men of moral weight and influence. Thus we see that God’s rule is through influence; it is a question of the influence you exercise among the saints.

^[p. 129] ASL Would light in Moses and love in Aaron be combined in one — should both be in us?

JT Quite, they present one person really. It is remarkable how effective the two were as they went to Pharaoh; first they gathered the people together; that is a great thing in the combination — ability to gather the people together — and as gathered together they tell them what will happen. Aaron conveys to them the wonderful things that had come through Moses — the intervention of God for their deliverance. These early chapters of Exodus are a key to all this instruction as to how you are to gather the people together. It is easy to scatter them — but Moses and Aaron gathered them together so that they worshipped God; and they did worship God, according to the early chapters of Exodus.

ASL Is there such a thing as having done with the wilderness once for all, leaving it definitely behind for ever, so that you have no further experience of it?

JT To leave the wilderness for us is a wholly spiritual thing; it can only be by the Spirit.

ASL Is there such a thing as being able to look on the wilderness as a thing of the past? I might leave it perhaps in a measure in spirit, perhaps in a large measure, but have not I constantly to come back to it? I have heard it stated that if one was getting on normally, one would have done with the wilderness. My reply was that if I had done with the wilderness I should not require the manna.

JT The manna ceased when they entered the land, but the truth is that the two things go on concurrently; the one is what I am here as in my ordinary circumstances, and the other is what I may enter by the Spirit; I can only say I am in the land by the Spirit; I can only say I am in the land if I am in it. When the children of Israel crossed the Jordan and went into the land, they had done with the wilderness, but with us the wilderness and the ^[p. 130] land run on concurrently. And then the land as presented in the type as entered by the tribes, is not heaven for us as we shall enter into it by-and-by; it is heaven as we may know it now, so that you have the conflicts and the victories preceding possession. The boundaries of the inheritance allotted to the tribes are very irregular; they were not in straight lines, as they will be by-and-by according to Ezekiel; then they will run east and west in straight lines parallel to each other. There will be no testing as to the limit of one’s inheritance, it is perfectly defined, but in Joshua the boundaries are very irregular, running into one another, in one instance a tribe finding its inheritance inside another. All that is to test and bring out how much we can bear with one another, so that love is developed.

ASL We get conflict with enemies, too, in the book of Joshua.

JT That is not future, it is the present time.

Ques Have you any illustration in Caleb and Joshua, who trod the wilderness after they had entered the land?

JT They were morally there all the time. The land was in their hearts. Caleb said, I am just waiting to get to it. It was love that led them to go back and walk with the people all those years; only the type fails, because we can enter into the land at any time by the Spirit now. It is a question as to whether we are able to abstract ourselves from ordinary wilderness conditions down here to be in the realm of the Spirit. It is the power of the Spirit; it is not a question simply of faith, but of the Spirit.

ASL Would it be going too far to say that in whatever measure we may have got across, and enjoy what is in the land, it is impossible to be entirely outside wilderness conditions so long as we are here?

JT I think so, except for a very little moment. Paul referred to his going there fourteen years previously — ^[p. 131] that is exceptional. No doubt he had frequent visitations, for ecstasy was no uncommon thing in the early days, but I am afraid it is very uncommon now. Ecstasy is abstraction from normal conditions here to be with God. Paul said, “Whether we are beside ourselves, [it is] to God; or are sober, [it is] for you” 2 Corinthians 5:13 Apparently he had the power to abstract himself at any time.