PRINCES IN ISRAEL
[p. 219] PRINCES IN ISRAEL
Numbers 1:1-4; Numbers 1:16-19; Numbers 3:1-6
JT Numbers takes up not only what was inaugurated at Pentecost, but more particularly what developed in relation to Paul’s ministry — that is, the formation of local companies, and provision for their maintenance. In Acts 11:21 we read that through the preaching of those disciples who were scattered abroad, a large number believed and turned to the Lord at Antioch, and Barnabas, representing the princely element which Numbers develops, comes down from Jerusalem and exhorts them to abide with the Lord, and then it is said “a large crowd [of people] were added to the Lord” (verse 24). Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek out Saul, who having come with him taught those in the assembly at Antioch during a whole year, so that the disciples stood out there as those known to be Christians; there was a public relation between them and the Lord as Christ, not simply as the Nazarene, the rejected Man, but as the Anointed.
I think that Numbers may be rightly regarded as leading on to that particular juncture in the course of the testimony — in wilderness conditions; there we get what God says in the wilderness; it is really what God is to us in the wilderness. We are told here that it was in the wilderness of Sinai (Numbers 1:1), in that wilderness; the speaking was in the tent of meeting, but the leading thought is the wilderness, that is, the saints referring to their local settings, are found in adverse circumstances. It is in our local settings that we encounter the wilderness. God intimates that He would speak to His people in their locality; He speaks in the tabernacle, but the leading thought is that He speaks in relation to their public [p. 220] circumstances, as taking full account of these, and making ample provision for them, so that no outward circumstances can be more than God has taken account of, and moreover, made provision for. So that what follows is to bring out the care the Lord takes. Moses and Aaron are allied in the service, but with them are others, as it says, “Ye shall number them according to their hosts, thou and Aaron. And with you there shall be a man for every tribe, a man who is the head of his father’s house” (chapter 1:3,4) — evidently a man qualified as having weight — a man who is the head, not merely one appointed to be such, he is that, “the head of his father’s house” Numbers contemplates the moral qualifications. Before the man is taken up in an official way he is already head of his father’s house, that is, he has moral weight, as though to call attention to the need of men of weight. These elements must be present — that is, Moses and Aaron and those who are heads locally. No meeting is of any account really unless there are such; it is a question of what the man is.
Rem He has not taken that place; the saints recognise him as that.
JT He is that. Take a man like Gideon for instance; he acquired a place of influence in his father’s house so that his father is carried with him in what he did. It was a very courageous thing to throw down the altar in his father’s house, but he did it; he became the head. It is a well-known story, but a very important one. It says in Judges 6:25 - 27: “Take the young bullock, which thy father hath, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the Asherah that is by it; and build an altar to Jehovah thy God upon the top of this strong place in the ordered manner, and take the second bullock, and offer up a burnt-offering with the wood of the Asherah that thou shalt cut down. And Gideon took [p. 221] ten men of his servants, and did as Jehovah had said to him” It was a question of his father’s house, where he was to acquire a place. It was the second bullock, but a mature one; it was seven years old; it was called young, but it was mature. Young brothers do not acquire influence merely through their knowledge, but through their actions.
Ques Does the second bullock indicate sovereignty?
JT Yes; God is acting on that principle; it is not a question of age, but a question of God speaking to him, but he was marked by no mere youthful energy. The bullock was mature — seven years old; it was youthful maturity; but the bullock was his father’s, and the altar of Baal was his father’s, but he had acquired power in his father’s house; that was where he was known. His father stood up for him (verse 31), that is to say, Gideon carried the local element. There is no hope for the meeting unless there be that sort of thing — moral weight through actions of this kind.
FW Do you think that he would leave the first bullock for his father?
JT I believe taking “the second” means that the first was passed by.
Ques You were referring to the action of young brothers; they would not actually supersede, would they?
JT Sometimes God has to supersede older ones; He does not like to do it; He would never supersede anyone unless such action is necessary.
Rem You would leave room for the other brothers to come in?
JT The father would come in. It was the effect of Gideon’s moral weight.
Rem Elder brethren sometimes feel it when they are superseded.
JT Brethren show what they are made of, if God is pleased to pass them by in connection with [p. 222] certain services; if they are subject, they see it and are prepared to go with it. It is a mature act — seven years is not youthful in a bullock; but it is called youthful here, no doubt to combine the thought with maturity.
Ques Would the altar of Baal suggest that God had been entirely displaced from that house, and hence the need for the second bullock?
JT Exactly; there was great need of some change coming in; there was nothing for God there. Here was one who before ever God said anything to him, so far as Scripture goes, was threshing wheat to hide it from the Midianites. There is a brother doing things on his own initiative. God came there and saw what was going on. Gideon saw what the enemy was at.
JVW What he was doing there was really for the good of the brethren. He was doing it in secret, but in view of the brethren.
JT That is right. He was doing it in the winepress.
Ques Would the seven years be suggestive of the necessary time in the father’s house — the period of experience?
JT Just so. He had been there the whole of the time, and knew what was there.
HEF What was your thought of the winepress?
JT It suggests suffering, I suppose.
JHB What does the house of Gideon’s father represent?
JT The locality; the angel, we are told, “came and sat under the terebinth that was in Ophrah, that [belonged] to Joash the Abi-ezrite” Judges 6:11; that was the locality; and then as to the man who had proprietary rights there, God is displaced in his house, there is no room for God. It is a question of moral weight and power.
[p. 223] Ques And that is where one has grown up?
JT That is the idea. He has grown up in the place. He has secret relations with God. The gospel of Matthew shows how the local brother should have secret relations with God. The Lord insists on these relations with God first. “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who sees in secret will render it to thee” Matthew 6:6. That is how it begins.
Ques Is the thought that the principles set forth in the book of Numbers — the wilderness book — are to be maintained when the people go into the land, even in a day of break-down? was that your thought in going on to Gideon?
JT I only referred to Gideon as bringing out principles connected with being head in his father’s house. The two things go on together — the wilderness position and the position of the land. The position of the land is not local at all; it is a question of what is spiritual, so that you apprehend it with all the saints in Ephesians; that word in relation to “all the saints” (Ephesians 3:18) is not local; there is only one body. “Until we all arrive” Ephesians 4:13 — it is a question of the whole; what is done is in relation to all the saints.
Ques Is that why the whole of the people were delivered through Gideon?
JT Quite. The land and the wilderness go together. The wilderness refers to the formation of local companies; whereas the land has reference to saints viewed spiritually as a whole but the wilderness is the place where the testimony is to be rendered, and God says, as it were, I know that, and I am speaking to you there. He spoke from heaven according to Peter — (2 Peter 1), but here He speaks in the wilderness, among the saints, but in the place of testimony. It is as though God speaks to us in [p. 224] Cardiff or Bristol. He is speaking in the place, intimating that He knows what is to be contended with in the place, and is making provision for it.
Rem Moral power is what Paul insists on at Corinth; “I will know, not the word ... but the power” 1 Corinthians 4:19.
JT These heads of houses are important because they represent the local formation. It goes on to say in verse 16: “These were those summoned of the assembly, princes of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of the thousands of Israel” That is the kind of people who are summoned, whom God calls upon. So whatever appears in a locality God holds those heads specially responsible. They have to give an account.
ER What is the distinction in the thoughts of “princes of the tribes” and “heads of the thousands”?
JT I think the expression “princes of the tribes” means that they were men of dignity; they were also men of means; chapter 7 shows what they will do with it; they have spiritual wealth. They could act together; they were too great to be selfish — to be party-men; they were not local in that sense; they were great men spiritually, so could act together as in chapter 7, setting forth the Ephesian side as resulting from what they were as heads of families. The point is that each was the head of his father’s house.
Ques Would Gideon be one who was called to give an account of what he had done?
JT Yes. It says further, “Moses and Aaron took these men who are expressed by their names” They are expressed by their names.
Ques Would their names set forth what they were?
JT Very likely. No doubt each one has its meaning.
[p. 225] Ques Is there any suggestion of this in the angels of the seven churches?
JT There it is more what is representative; the angel is the responsible representative; there is no indication of any princely qualifications. The overcomer would be the prince, I think, but whether the overcomer — the prince — is there or not, the responsibility is there.
Rem The expression “heads of thousands” would suggest great responsibility.
JT What is alluded to in ‘princes’ here is spiritual power and weight; the responsibility is therefore where it should be, in persons of spiritual power. The angel of each assembly being addressed implies that the responsibility is there, whether the prince is there or not. We cannot avoid responsibility. Sometimes in a locality there is not a prince there is scarcely any spiritual formation at all, but the responsibility remains. The angel represents a principle rather than a person. Everyone in Ephesus was responsible; that is the idea of an angel, not any one person, but all the persons. If any one says he is not responsible, he is not a Christian at all; at any rate he cannot be recognised as such. Here the point is that the responsibility is put on shoulders that can bear it. The question in every locality is, are there such spiritual men, men with weight?
Ques Is there any point in there being “a man for every tribe”?
JT It would just represent the thought of administration; there were twelve of them.
Ques Is there not a tendency sometimes to select in our minds a certain rather prominent brother, and think or speak of him as a responsible brother? You would not go with that?
JT Well, it is more a question of a person having the qualifications; being “head of his father’s house” is a question of moral weight. The ‘prince’ is a man of means, as is fully set out in chapter 7. There they are all going on similar lines in each case. They are able to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3); that is, each has the same appreciation of Christ.
Ques Is it open to each one of us to be a prince?
JT I think it is to every one that acquires some weight. The intent of Matthew’s gospel is to make princes — persons who can influence others according to God — men of spiritual means. The Lord enjoins them to make disciples. You cannot do that unless you are the thing yourself — you are to be the model yourself; it requires power. It is not merely preaching but making — a word not noted very much. It is a question of what you can make; that means you are the thing, and it is recognised by others.
Ques Did Matthew himself move on that line?
JT I think so. I suppose like Barnabas he had means; he made for the Lord, according to Luke, a great entertainment; it was a princely act. He knew what the Lord would wish, so the kind of people he invited were such as the Lord would have.
Ques Was that an example of making disciples — these disciples who were called Christians at Antioch?
JT Those disciples who spoke to the Greeks at Antioch preached the Lord Jesus, and the converts “turned to the Lord” and Barnabas “exhorted all with purpose of heart to abide with the Lord” and then it says, “and a large crowd of people were added to the Lord”. Acts 11:21 - 24 It is a question there of the extension of the kingdom, the maintenance of the authority of the Lord in the kingdom; it is not the assembly, but, as I have said, the extension of the kingdom. Now what does the Lord do with them? They are “a large crowd” Sometimes meetings grow to a large crowd, they are in character nothing very different to a crowd; and are not yet set in order in the assembly. A crowd would never represent an [p. 227] assembly; but to set a crowd that was added to the Lord in assembly is the thing, so Barnabas and Saul teach for a whole year “in assembly”; they teach the crowd so that they should learn to be “in assembly” Instead of being a “large crowd added to the Lord” they became an assembly; they are the first to be called Christians; they stand in a known relationship to Christ. It is all the outcome of the teaching of these two men for a whole year.
Ques Is the thought in your mind to promote this kind of exercise with us?
JT I think the saints have to be put into order. What Numbers contemplates is an ordered condition of things in the wilderness. If the meeting becomes very large, you do not get what answers to Numbers, nor what was at Antioch. Luke always follows up in his gospel the order that Paul introduces and confirms it. He says the Lord told the disciples to make the multitude sit down in companies by fifties; that is assembly formation, not kingdom formation. The kingdom may have millions, but you cannot have millions in an assembly. It is a question of a small number standing intelligently in relation to one another, and in relation to Christ as Head. Numbers is for that purpose.
Ques Is that why Levi is brought in in chapter 3 as presented to Aaron?
JT As presented for the maintenance of that. You get “the generations of Aaron and Moses”; but there is not a word said in the chapter about Moses’ family; it is more to call attention to a generation from that combination — that spiritual combination — because the history begins in Exodus with that combination; it is a question of Moses and Aaron meeting on the mount of Jehovah, and Moses passing on to Aaron all the words which Jehovah had communicated to him, and Aaron speaking the words to the people. It is a combination of light and love.
[p. 228] Here we get Aaron and Moses; Aaron is put first; the priestly element is combined with another thing, with authority — light.
ER In the first chapter it is “Moses and Aaron took these men” (verse 17).
JT There authority is the leading thought, and the priestly element is added.
ER What does it suggest in the light of what we have been speaking of?
JT That is more what the Lord will do at any time. The heads of the tribes would be the spiritual element representing what is in each locality. Moses and Aaron represent what God had — what was in Christ; it is always available, but is the prince always available in local formation?
Ques Would verse 5 suggest God’s thought?
JT There you get the names of the men, but before you get that you get the fact that they were heads.
Ques Did you say that Moses and Aaron represent light and love?
JT Yes; Moses represents light; a great deal more is said about Moses than about Aaron; Moses’ history is given from his birth; the parents are mentioned; Aaron was born before, but not a word is said about him in Exodus 2. Miriam was considerably older, but her birth is not recounted, showing that Moses was the leading thought, and so God would work with him for eighty years, and then He sent him back to deliver the people. But Moses says, “I am not eloquent” Exodus 4:10 and God answered, “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well” Exodus 4:14 — that is to say, Aaron represents the secret history not recorded. That is the Levite; nothing is said about him before; but there was a development that God took account of. “Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also behold, he goeth out to meet [p. 229] thee; and when he seeth thee he will be glad in his heart” Exodus 4:14,15. God knew Aaron and what was in his heart, and Aaron went out to meet Moses, and “he went and met him on the mountain of God, and kissed him. And Moses told Aaron all the words of Jehovah who had sent him, and all the signs that He had commanded him. And 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” (chapter 4:27 - 30); and the people worshipped. That is at the beginning of all (Exodus 4), presenting the generations of these two men. The priestly generation is mentioned in Numbers 3.
Ques Why do you connect love with Aaron?
JT Because he kissed Moses; the man who kisses is the man who loves. Aaron was glad in his heart as seeing his brother, showing he had affection. It is not that Aaron had more love than Moses; in the sequel it is far otherwise, but Aaron stands for a principle there.
Ques Does it indicate that these relations should always mark the priest and prophet?
JT They are perfectly combined in Christ, but are they combined in you and me? In the generations of Moses and Aaron you get the names of Aaron’s sons; but two of them died; it is solemn to think of it; two died before the Lord because they offered strange fire.
WH You mean it is Aaron who speaks in what is local, although from light?
JT The love side comes in to bring about liberty of affection; Aaron speaks. Corinthians would correspond with this; the apostle associates a brother with him (1 Corinthians 1:1); the question of authority is linked with the affections of a brother. Not that Paul was not a brother, but it is to bring out the principle that should work out in us. The danger [p. 230] is that we may have light but not love; God wants to maintain the balance.
Rem You cannot well have the love without the light, can you?
JT Mary Magdalene had love; Peter and John had light, but they went to their own homes; but Mary remained and got the message. Love never fails; even if it be associated with ignorance, it never fails. In the generation there should be the combination of these two things, but there was not because two of them died.
JHS What is represented by these two men dying?
JT It is a solemn fact that we may be found presenting strange fire; they did not get it from the altar.
Rem In drawing near to God I suppose it is either advancement and growth, or else it must work the other way.
JT Quite. We may so easily bring in what is strange in approaching God — “strange fire”
Now you see “Moses and Aaron took these men who are expressed by their names and gathered the whole assembly together on the first of the second month. And they declared their pedigrees after their families, according to their fathers’ houses, by the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, according to their polls. As Jehovah had commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai” Numbers 1:17 - 19. The declaration of pedigree is the next important feature. With regard to fellowship (to bring it down to ourselves), it will not do simply to say that we are Christians; that will not do. There are those who accept on that ground, but we have to inquire into the pedigree.
Ques Inquiring as regards suitability for reception is on that same line, is it not?
[p. 231] Rem In addition to inquiring as to the pedigree of the one applying for fellowship there should be the testing of the pedigree of those outwardly priests. In Ezra’s day the children of Barzillai — though he was a man of very great note in the testimony — forfeited their priesthood because they could not show their pedigree (see Nehemiah 7:63,64).
JHB Would you say a little more about inquiring into the pedigree of those desiring to be received among us?
JT We want to be sure they have the Holy Spirit. They are to be identified as of the priestly family. You may be regarded as exclusive in doing this, for there are those who do not do it, and they simply disqualify themselves from having any part in the testimony of God; they write themselves out of the book of Numbers.
GW Is that what Nehemiah had before him when he said the gates were not to be opened till the sun was hot?
JT Exactly. Everything was to be in the open.
Ques To put it practically, how would you ascertain whether a soul desiring to break bread has the Holy Spirit?
JT There should be the fruits: whether they can say “Abba, Father”; the fruits of the Spirit are given to us, and we should certainly be able to observe by watching whether a Christian has the Spirit, and not only that, but whether his associations are right. You must watch for his associations.
HEF Would you get the declaration of the pedigree in 2 Timothy 2?
JT I think so. You are qualified by departing from iniquity and calling upon the name of the Lord, and then, as it says, “If therefore one shall have purified himself from these” — from vessels to dishonour — “[in separating himself from them], he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master” 2 Timothy 2:21 But it is “have purified himself” from vessels — that is, from persons; not only from a system, but from persons who are disqualified.
HEF And then, “Pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart” 2 Timothy 2:22 Would that be it?
JT That is the result. Before that is the injunction that you “flee youthful lusts” No one can do that but by the Spirit. One may regulate his conduct for the sake of propriety, but that is not what is meant. He can only flee youthful lusts by the Spirit. It is by the Spirit that I put to death the deeds of the body. One may be able to regulate oneself outwardly for the sake of propriety, but what is meant is what one does by the Spirit.
Ques Those who have been brought up in the meetings have only had a short distance to come, have they not?
Rem Nehemiah points to those who went up from Babylon to Jerusalem.
JT They had a long way to come. I should suppose they had given up a great deal, and that makes moral fibre that greatly adds in the formation of the assembly; persons who have learnt to judge sin, and encounter opposition, are suitable material for it. In Matthew 16 it says of the Pharisees that the Lord “left them and departed”; then He raises the question as to the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. You may leave it outwardly and carry it with you. Do not take any back with you, or you will leaven the company.
Ques Is there any point in the Levites being given to Aaron and then presented?
JT The thing of great importance is the journey back. What young people want to see is that there is the journey into fellowship; if it is not really taken, they do not become an addition to the company at all. The idea is that everyone who comes in [p. 233] becomes a contribution. The man at the gate of the temple in Acts 3 had never walked in his life, he had never stood up, but Peter took him by the right hand, and the man leaped up, stood and walked; there was spring in him. That man was not going to be a burden on the company; he learned to balance; he is not going to lean on that brother or this, but he is able to stand himself, like a board in the tabernacle. The boards were made “standing up”; it is not a question of leaning on other people. The unity of the Spirit is another thing, but before you come into that you must stand up. Then he walked, too. That is a man with the Spirit. Then Barnabas is an example of one who was able to make contributions; what marked him at the outset was material contribution; Acts 4:37. Those who come into fellowship should be as those who contribute, not as weights.
WHH Peter was formed after the pattern of Moses and Aaron; he was a pedigree man.
JT I have thought sometimes in connection with cases of reception that we are liable to make mistakes because we are not great enough to discern spiritually what is there. To the disciples at Samaria Simon Magus would be a burden. I have no doubt that Simon would get the right hand of fellowship of certain so-called ‘brethren’ today. I can understand some regarding him as a fine addition to the company, but Peter says, “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter” Acts 8:21. He was not converted at all. What is needed is discernment.
ER Paul and Barnabas bring contributions.
JT Yes; in bringing spiritual experience. That is the idea.
Rem We should each be contributors to the assembly, and the more we contribute the more spiritual wealth we shall acquire.
JT Quite. In Acts 4 we see what was current in the company; those who had land sold it, and [p. 234] brought the price of what was sold and laid it at the feet of the apostles. A person coming into fellowship ought to see what is current among the saints and see right ways and practices. Barnabas saw that, and did the very best thing; he sold land too, and brought the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles. In coming amongst the saints he was like them; he did what they were doing.
Rem He was called the son of consolation.
JT The apostles had discernment; they knew. It says the apostles called him Barnabas. They gave him the surname of “son of consolation” in anticipation of what he should be.
JHB In chapter 9 it was Barnabas who took Saul and brought him to the apostles. What would that represent?
JT It would show that he was advancing spiritually; he began with material things. We should be reminded that material things are not to be despised if devoted in a spiritual way. He was a spiritual man, so his money was of value. Simon’s money was of no value; I am not referring to its material value, but it was of no value in the assembly. Peter says to him, “Thy money go with thee to destruction” (chapter 8:20); he would not have it at all, but Barnabas’s money was a sacrifice with which God was well pleased. He advanced from that; he was an unjealous servant and so he brought Saul forward, one who was to be greater than himself.
JHB Would you say in that case that he was like one of the princes in the first chapter of Numbers, and Saul was like one who had declared his pedigree?
JT Yes; and Barnabas knew his pedigree.
Ques Is it not a matter of importance that those applying for fellowship should be seen by spiritual [p. 235] persons?
JT I think it is. We so easily let in material that will be damaging to us. Quality should be the first thing.
Rem There should be right desires as to spiritual things. We should be on our guard as to mere additions; we should all like them.
JT Mere additions may be very damaging to the testimony. The Lord speaks about the proselytes and He says, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye compass the sea and the dry [land] to make one proselyte” Matthew 23:15. That kind of thing would show a party spirit, a tendency to make a show of numbers. What the Lord wants is quality; He wants numbers, of course, but He wants quality.
Rem There is oftentimes a question of the one applying for fellowship being kept waiting.
JT If he is the right sort he will wait too; he will not force himself. On the other hand we should not keep a believer waiting if his case is clear.
Rem He is prepared to prove his pedigree.
JT Quite; and he has to do so. Here it says that they did it; “They declared their pedigrees after their families, according to their fathers’ houses”
Ques What about “twenty years old”?
JT It refers to having the Spirit; you arrive at manhood; it is not a question of having experience, but of having the Spirit. In comparing it with thirty years old — the age of levitical service — that is a question of spiritual experience.
Rem In regard to the numbering of the people, it seems that ability to go to war is taken account of.
JT That is a question of confessing Christ; it does not require great experience to confess Christ. No one can say that Jesus is Lord save by the Spirit. You can qualify if only you have confessed Christ.
Ques Is that the way we bear testimony in the enemy’s camp?
JT We are to confess the Lord wherever we may [p. 236] be, but make sure that it is by the Spirit — not the mere use of words, but from the heart.
Rem David reduced the age of the Levites taking up service to twenty.
JT Because their work would be service in the house of God; they would not have to carry the tabernacle any more; 1 Chronicles 23. You can do these things much more easily with saints around you than when you are in the enemy’s land. When you carry the testimony in the presence of opposition you need more power.
Rem Referring to Barnabas as one of the princes, it is said, “He was a good man and full of [the] Holy Spirit and of faith” Acts 11:24. We like to see those princes among us.
JT That is the thing; if you want to get the thing, be the thing. Moses and Aaron taking these men suggests the present activity on the part of the Lord Jesus. “So he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai” (verse 19); it is all in “the wilderness of Sinai” that is to say, in the presence of divine authority. Sinai represents the authority of God, but then it says the Levite is given to Aaron and his sons — that is to say, the priestly generation, the priestly element took control of this; it is not a question of being controlled by Israelites, but by the priests. So Paul asserts that they were the servants of the saints: “Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas ... or life, or death, or things present ... all are yours” 1 Corinthians 3:22. The Levites here were to keep the charges.
Ques Is this in connection with the priestly side?
JT Yes. They would be under the influence of the priests in that. Take a man who exercises gift, the saints are greater than he. The disregard of this is what built up the clerical system.