THE DIVINE APPOINTMENTS AS SEEN IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[p. 429] THE DIVINE APPOINTMENTS AS SEEN IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
Hebrews 1: 1 - 6; Hebrews 4: 14 - 16; Hebrews 13: 10 - 15
JT If I may use a title for the subject, it would be the divine appointments as seen in the epistle to the Hebrews. The thoughts centre in the truth of sonship and priesthood from the divine side and the service of the saints as entering into the divine appointments in the assembly. Our subject covers the whole epistle if we wish to extend it, but at one reading it is thought that, whilst perhaps touching on the different features of each thought mentioned, we might seek to restrict ourselves so that each part of a subject should be taken in. Sonship is the first and the greatest and it has various branches, or extensions. It is hoped that we may touch on the leading thoughts even though they are not included in the passages read; we should not forget the appointments of the saints, the appointments of God as covering the saints themselves in the divine service. Chapter 13 will cover that side; but sonship, as we said, is the greatest of the features of the subject before us and it is thought we should touch on the first chapter in itself; that the speaking is by the Son. God has spoken unto us in Son; spoken as God but in the character or relation of Son. Chapter 3 speaks of the house over which Christ is Son. Chapter I deals almost entirely with the thought of sonship, and, as we said, it is the greatest, not so much because it involves deity, but because of the need for it as affording liberty in the service of God, dignity too, but especially liberty.
CAM This would be the greatest presentation of sonship in that it is applied to the Christ’?
JT Well, it is, I suppose. It is applied in this epistle according to the tenor of the epistle; not exactly according to the tenor of Galatians. It is evidently Paul’s service and he is carrying his doctrine and his ministry into the Jewish side of the position then. This accounts for much that is said here that is not found elsewhere, because the writer intends to affect the Jewish believers who were in danger of turning aside. So the idea of speaking has a great place. We have, therefore, in chapter 2: 1 - 4, “For this reason we should give heed more abundantly to the things we have heard, lest in any way we should slip away. For if the word which was spoken by angels was firm, and every transgression and disobedience received just retribution, how shall we escape if we have been negligent of so great salvation, which, having had its commencement in being spoken of by the Lord, has been confirmed to us by those who have heard; God bearing, besides, witness with them to it, both by signs and wonders, and various acts of power, and distributions [p. 433] of the Holy Spirit, according to his will?”. This passage is, I think, one of the most important as to the practical side, because of the threatened danger and warning where there may be a tendency with us to slip away, growing cold through worldliness and the like. This paragraph shows the great pains that God had taken to save His earthly people, that is to say, those who had come into Christianity; and the warning is held out because of what was said. That is, the reference would be to the ministry of the twelve, which had been widespread, and now Paul evidently had in mind to apply certain features that he was accustomed to, only giving them a Jewish turn, so that he should be more intelligible to the Jewish Christians, and above all, that there were the various distributions of the Holy Spirit according to God’s [p. 431] will.
JTJr How far back would the thought of speaking in the prophets go’? Would it go back into Genesis?
JT I suppose so. For instance, Enoch spoke. Is that what you thought?
JTJr I thought there must be allusion to what was before Exodus. Would the word spoken by angels allude especially to what came out in Exodus in chapter 2?
JT The allusion would be to the ministry, the giving of the law by the disposition of angels (Acts 7: 53).
RWS Is there a link in “the end” in chapter 1 verse 2, “At the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son”? The note says ‘The end of the period of the law, when Messiah was to be introduced’. Would there be some link with that and the end of the dispensation at which we have arrived, and the truth of sonship coming to light with all the great liberty, as you say, that is introduced? Hence should we not see the seriousness of leaving such a glorious system?
JT You mean as an analogy in our own times to what is alluded to here. The previous dispensation will be covered in the end of verse 1: “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son”. So that the epistle clearly is taken on that ground, that Christianity came in at the end of a certain period. We might just allude to a passage in Acts 3 where we have an allusion to what is said to be the end of the prophets: verses 20 and 21 say, “and he may send Jesus Christ, who was foreordained for you, whom heaven indeed must receive till the times of the restoring of all things, of which God has spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets since time began”. That would be covering just what we have spoken [p. 432] of as to how far back the idea of the prophets will extend. The note says, “Since time began” refers to ‘holy prophets’: lit. ‘his holy since-time-began prophets’. So that as to the question that was raised a moment ago as to how far back this speaking extended, it would clearly extend to the very beginning: “since time began”. And now we have come to the end of that period covered by, we might say, the expression “time began”. We come to the end of a period in the words, “at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son”. So that it is treated as the end of a period beginning with time and now taken on by the apostle Paul, clearly by him, linking on with the twelve who are alluded to at the end of chapter 1. The apostle Paul, I would say, makes application of his own line of thought only in a Jewish setting. What had been spoken is made applicable and now the question is what has been spoken to us. We are not dealing with what has been spoken at the Reformation three hundred years ago or so. What really comes to us close at hand is a more recent ministry, we are accustomed to say one hundred and thirty years ago; it seems to be intended to close this dispensation, and, therefore, we are under obligation to answer to what is being said. The allusion in the first paragraph of chapter 2 to what has been furnished is very striking: “For if the word which was spoken by angels was firm, and every transgression and disobedience received just retribution, how shall we escape if we have been negligent of so great salvation, which, having had its commencement in being spoken of by the Lord ...”, so that it is now treated as a new dispensation, really. The commencement of it is by the Lord and it “has been confirmed to us by those who heard; God bearing, besides, witness with them to it, both by signs and wonders, and various acts of power, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his will”. So that there was very much given, and if we apply it to our own times there has been a wonderful supply. Now is there not a movement or a tendency for many to turn aside, and is it not needful that we should be warned? It is not simply a turning away from a few brethren, but turning away from a dispensation, turning away from the whole truth of the current dispensation.
WWM As regards the divine speaking it says in chapter 11, “By faith, Noah, oracularly warned concerning things not yet seen, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house”, and then it says, “By faith Abraham, being called, obeyed to go out into the place which he was to receive for an inheritance”. Those two thoughts would apply in the speaking: one as being warned and the other as receiving the divine call.
JT And moved with fear, too. I am glad you brought that up, because we observe here that now and again brethren say, ‘We are not going to walk with you any more’, without any fear as to what the word means; and it is constant. Persons think nothing of it, as if they were just leaving a neighbour and had said goodbye to him, whereas the whole dispensation of the truth of God is involved in those who are turning away from it in this dispensation. The whole matter, the danger of turning away, is dealt with in this epistle.
AR They are treated as apostates, are they not?
JT That is really what is meant. Sin is apostasy. There is no forgiveness for the sin of turning away.
APf Could Orpah be looked upon as apostate?
JT Well, she had married a Jewish husband, and whether her committal in marriage implied she was turning away back to Moabitish idolatry would be a question to [p. 434] be considered.
TEH It took three deaths and two marriages in the family before one of the family got recovered, as though God would speak three times to Naomi in order to recover her. Three deaths and two marriages took place before she woke up. She must have been in that place a long time.
JT It would seem as if we should take those events that you have named as disciplinary, because Naomi was the object of the discipline. She had gone away into Moab but she now returned with a change of name; feelings of bitterness, as if she was being restored. And, of course, that is what we are aiming at, because there are so many taking it into their minds that they can get along without truth. And some are coming back. Just recently there have been refreshing recoveries, but many have gone and have not come back. And I think Naomi would be a sample of persons who are restored, and of course that is the end we have in mind in bringing up this subject now.
AAT In chapter 12 it says, “For ye have not come to the mount that might be touched”, and “See that ye refuse not him that speaks”. Is that the Speaker in chapter 1?
JT That is right; the Speaker is in heaven. Even if the Lord were on earth, in principle He was speaking from heaven; the voice is from heaven in Christianity because the testimony really came out with the Spirit. The Spirit speaks from heaven. He has come down from heaven, but the principle is that He is speaking from heaven.
AR There are a large number of the children of the saints going out into the world. How would you view that?
JT That is what I am thinking of. It has come into mind more and more since we began: it was not so much in mind at first, but certainly it has [p. 435] come up now and I think the Lord has something to say.
CAM Would it be right to say there is nothing greater expressed in manhood than the fact of the Son here; there is nothing more glorious?
JT Quite so. The speaking is final. It is, so to say, a last word, having the character of a last word with all the warnings that attach to it.
JTJr It is remarkable that in chapter 10 it speaks of the Son of God in the sense that we are looking at it: those who trod under foot the Son of God and those who insulted the Spirit of grace, which would seem to allude to what is here in the saints. It speaks very drastically of the thing and the kind of judgment that will be meted out to persons who do that.
JT The word in chapter 6 comes into this in a very peculiar way because it is a question of the Speaker, and the Son is the Speaker; at the same time the Spirit also is recognized and mentioned here already twice. Verse 4 of chapter 2 has been read: “both by signs and wonders, and various acts of power, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his will”. All this is another matter as to the speaking, and chapter 6 is peculiarly solemn, saying in verse 4, “For it is impossible to renew again to repentance those once enlightened, and who have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the works of power of the age to come, and have fallen away, crucifying for themselves as they do the Son of God, and making a show of him”. The Son of God is touched on here as spoken of in chapter 10. The Spirit of grace is also touched on here so that both divine Persons are touched on as entering into the warning and terribleness of turning away from the truth.
[p. 436] FSC It seems to make recovery so very difficult. How does it come about in view of a scripture like this?
JT I am thankful for the reference to the book of Ruth, because I have no doubt that what has been said about Orpah might suggest one who has turned away definitely. She went away back to her own people, whereas Ruth remained with Naomi. That is, she clung to the person who represented the testimony. That is really what is included in Naomi’s position. She represented the testimony, and Ruth clung to her. Where Naomi died, Ruth would die, and there she would be buried. She is an out-and-out case of reality, and a good model for anyone who may be in any way beginning to get cold.
RWS Be at the meetings and be with the saints.
JT You mean that is one of the remedies?
RWS If one has lost his way and seeks his way back, one evidence of that would be that he loves to be with the saints.
JT Wherever coldness is setting in, you may be sure the meetings will be lacking, and the rain, the weather, will help out in that.
AR The man in Acts 3 would be a model. He held on to Peter and John.
JT He represents a real case in Christianity, one of the distinguished examples. There were three thousand, of course, in chapter 2, and there is no doubt that what was said of them would imply they were genuine. I think they were; as if God would say at the start, I can have numbers too. It is not good to make little of numbers, because numbers are good if they are genuine, but God can take on one. That is chapter 3; the man at the gate of the temple called Beautiful. The idea was, “Look on us”, which would be the idea of the reality of Christianity in the ministering class, Peter and John. It is a Peter and John chapter, and I suppose this man [p. 437] that was converted through them would be representative of the whole dispensation.
SF Would you say the writer of this epistle seeks to hold their attention by presenting the glory of the Speaker?
JT That is the idea. The first chapter is filled with glories; the personal glories of Jesus; and, mark you, it is what the people of God, even from ancient days, have had to say about the Lord Jesus, because it is almost entirely quoted from the Psalms.
CAM Had there not been a sort of preparation of thought in the Old Testament and in all that had been said - but is not this transcendingly greater in itself?
APf I suppose at the end of Acts 2 it would be really our guidance. It says they persevered.
JT That is a good word. The three thousand are particularly in mind, the recent additions; those that were added persevered in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers. I believe that is to remind us of what Christianity really meant at the beginning: how real it was.
EAL It says in the first verse of chapter 2: “for this reason we should give heed more abundantly to the things we have heard, lest in any way we should slip away”; this means that we will become in the condition in chapter 6, “and have fallen away”. The slipping away would be that, if we do not attend the meetings, we will have some other association, and that is the danger.
JT So that the word “slip away” is not quite so strong as “fallen away”, but that is really the result, for those who are slipping away are almost sure to fall.
DAP How do you view Barzillai? He requested to die by the grave of his [p. 438] father.
JT He was held by natural feelings although a genuine, real and true man; another thing, he was a very old man and therefore some consideration was deserved, but at the same time he did not go the whole way. He is not a model of a believer who is genuine and who goes the whole way to Jerusalem. Jerusalem above is the great end in mind. What is your own thought?
DAP What you have said is very helpful. I thought he being a Gileadite might not have enjoyed the truth of sonship and hence it was not in his constitution.
JT The matter of sonship is the greatest part of our subject; but then the priesthood is the power of Christ in sonship. “God ... has spoken to us in the person of the Son” meaning that it is God speaking Himself (only “in Son”: “the person of the” is interpolated, but the literal thought is that God has spoken Himself, only in the attractive relation of Son). That is the point in chapter 1, and, therefore, how serious it is to slip away, to turn away from that attractive speaking; no less than that of God Himself. But then when we come to the next part of our subject, we see that the priesthood is intended not only to influence us but to do it in the skill of the priest. The priest’s lips involve the skill of a priest, that he would lay himself out to present everything that would be calculated to save you.
APT Is sonship the understanding of the Lord in that wonderful way: what He is as Himself, from Himself? What He is Himself holds you, and then the priesthood involves what He can do for us?
JT What He is Himself, because it is no less than God Himself; but then what He can do for you brings up the question of skill; skill in the dispensation, and the priesthood represents skill, I think. The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, we are told. “They should seek the law at his mouth”. It is not simply the reading of the law by anybody, but at his mouth. That is the next thing to think of, so that if any of our brethren are getting cold, let them be visited by the priest. He has the skill of dealing with the brethren.
RWS What is the difference between the Lord’s advocacy and priesthood?
JT Both thoughts, I believe, enter into priesthood. You are alluding to the first epistle of John. Perhaps you would read it, please.
RWS It says in 1 John 2, “My children, these things I write to you in order that ye may not sin; and if any one sin, we have a patron with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (verse 1).
JT That is good. The word ‘patron’ there or ‘advocate’ is akin to priesthood. I believe the idea of priesthood includes it, only that the idea is that the Person who is the Advocate has complete latitude to look after your case. He has a right to look after your case. He is divinely appointed; it comes under the heading of appointment because the appointment is as of one who has full latitude, as a solicitor would have in presenting your case before the court. So that it may vary from the idea of priesthood, but I believe in general it is included in the thought of priesthood, only it is that side of it that implies complete latitude in having to say to us. If you are in trouble and you have to be set up again, the advocate, I would say, has complete latitude to deal with your case; and, of course, that ought to impress you. I mean I would like to apply it to myself. Here is a divine Person-no less; but He is an appointed Person. It is a question of a system with offices, and He is an appointed Person to look after the case of one who is in trouble, who needs to be cared for and set up again.
RWS That is very illuminating.
TEH Would you help me a little further on that subject? Does priesthood towards God generally relate to God, and this matter of advocacy to the Father? Is there some feature of sonship behind that?
JT Yes; the latitude that He has officially will have influence. Now what we were saying about the priest should be repeated. The sympathies of a man enter into priesthood. “Having therefore a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession. For we have not a high priest not able to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted in all things in like manner, sin apart. Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help”, Hebrews 4: 14 - 16. I think the priesthood is bound up in those words. It is a question of Christ’s sympathies as Man, and He will go a long way with us. The Advocate has full latitude to look after your case and He is with the Father, but the sympathies of Christ as Man enter into what we have in this passage. There is not time to read all the passage, because the next chapter is full of the thing and many other passages are taken up with priesthood including the great idea of Melchisedec, who is a divine Person only as he is presented here. The priesthood involves all these things; so we can see how well off we are and what sympathies we have to save us from being carried away by the influences of the world.
AR What about the priesthood here? What about their service? You are not limiting priesthood to the Lord, of course?
JT There is not much said about our priesthood in this epistle. Peter tells us that we are a holy priesthood. Here it is more Christ’s priesthood.
[p. 441] What we have in mind in chapter 13 is the service of God. The altar that we have has fittings whereby we can carry on as in the service of God, only this epistle does not go very far with the saints in their functions. It is just barely touched, I might say, in chapter 13. You get it in Peter, and of course, we get it in Paul. That is where I would say we have to go if we want to get the full thing, but I think chapter 13 furnishes enough for our subject. What have you in mind in bringing up the question of the priest?
AR You spoke one night in the care meeting of persons who visit those out of fellowship or who are in darkness. You suggested that the priest should go.
JT As in Leviticus 13 and 14; quite so. They are the ones to go; the priests are the ones. The priests are always supposed to be there according to Leviticus, and it is not everybody that should go to a person who is growing cold. You want a priest. Skill is bound up with the priest.
ABP Would Romans 14 fit into what is being said? It speaks about the weak in the faith and then it says, “And he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand”. Would that involve the priesthood of Christ as we are speaking of it?
JT The Lord is able to make him stand. Just so. It is a question of skill, therefore the priest is the one who should go, but the advocate is included in that. The advocate is suggestive of the latitude that the priest has.
JTJr It takes time, and that involves a certain amount of loss. If the Lord has to be occupied in going after people in a certain way there is lost time.
JT Please tell us why you bring in the question [p. 442] of loss.
JTJr I was thinking that the service of God is positive, and if persons get away it involves the Lord having to turn aside to that.
JT Quite so. That would enter into the subject; the overhead or loss involved; but then it is needed. If we are to keep the brethren we must count on loss, and love would enable us to do that; we must save time if we can. In all these phases, whether it be skill or latitude or the like, the system is intended to cover the whole matter so that the person should not get away at all. If he does he is hopeless.
AR The early chapters of Leviticus have to do with the service of God; later on it deals with caring for persons.
JT Quite so. That is why when we come here to the worst case of sin, which typically is leprosy, the priest is always said to be there, and he is on the alert too. He is fully in the matter in his skill; he is not negligent. It is not, ‘if he can go’; he is there. It is a great idea, I am sure, as entering into our subject as to the system that God has provided to guard us and keep us so that we should not slip away.
SF Is the Lord’s priestly care and skill seen in Luke 24 in saving the two who went away?
JT Just so; how He went after them in that very busy day. The Lord intended to have a very important day on the day of His resurrection. He intended really to go to heaven as far as we can see from the facts, showing how much He had in mind. He did not miss anything. He devoted all the time that was needed to those two, and even went into the house with them and stayed long enough to let them cook a meal, all of which is most touching. John says it was late in the day, and Luke says the same thing. John 20 is the finish [p. 443] in that sense.
APT In Luke 22 it says the Lord turned around and looked at Peter. Is there a priestly service there?
JT I would think so, the tender feelings of the Lord as He looked at him. He knew well enough what was going on in Peter’s heart, and that look brought about recovery.
APT The Lord knew that there was that in Peter which would not let him go away. He had said, “Lord, to whom shall we go?”
JT I think so; the Lord would have followed him up, because He could follow him up into his whole history. “When thou wast young”, He says. He touches on that, but He runs on into the entire history of Peter, meaning he would be entirely resigned. “But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and bring thee where thou dost not desire”, meaning he would go the whole road to martyrdom.
APT Do you think our derelictions are due to the disregard of these two divine appointments — sonship and priesthood?
JT These two appointments are the important ones and I think the Lord is helping us to go into them a little, and to consider this matter of the tender sympathies of the Lord Jesus with all the skill He would command to restore a person. So He followed those two up. How many hours it took the Lord, I cannot say, but the pace would be theirs. Jacob touches on the pace of the journey in speaking to Esau; he said the little ones would fall out on the way if the pace was too swift. So that we cannot just know what the pace of the two may have been, but the Lord would keep up with it. I would say it took at least two hours; it was about seven or eight miles. The Lord was patient enough to go all that way to secure those two. Allusion has been made to the loss of time and all that, the overhead.
[p. 444] The Lord took account of all that. ‘Time is money’ as we say; time is reckoned in heaven as of value.
FSC It says He took on Himself the seed of Abraham. Does that refer to His feelings as Man?
JT Just so. An angel could never follow or enter into our make-up. An angel would do as he is told; angels would do whatever they are told to do, and they have wonderful knowledge, too, but they cannot really fully understand our constitution; they are of a different order of being from ourselves, whereas the Lord Jesus is not of a different order of being. He is a Man, the Man Christ Jesus and, therefore, qualified to be Priest.
AAT I notice it says, “Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help”. Is that approach only when we are in trouble or can the approaching be at our family reading in the morning?
JT It can be at any time; it is a question of the system we are in. We have full liberty and latitude, but it is boldness in the sense of respect, I would think, and reverence, so that we can come freely. If we are in need, of course, the word would be that you can come boldly, but it applies to us at all times.
FHL Would you say a word about the difference between the high priest here and the great priest in chapter 10?
JT I do not think there is much difference. The great priest is a moral thought; the high priest is to bring out His distinction, which would be one that He has relative to others; He is greater than others. The word ‘high’ would mean there are others that are in that.
FHL It would be more official?
[p. 445] JT It would be; but the great priest is what He is morally. He will go all the way. What we have been saying as to Luke 24 would cover it. How great the Lord was morally to secure those two and He did secure them. They came back the same night showing they were entirely recovered.
RWS What is the confession? It says, “let us hold fast the confession”.
JT It is not simply profession but confession. That is to say, it is what we confess, meaning that Christianity is the confession of certain truths and the Lord is the High Priest of that. He has that place. It is so important to heaven that the confession should be maintained; not simply the profession but the confession, what is confessed. The Lord made a good confession, and so each of us is to make a good confession; if it be a child going to school, he should confess the Lord to his teacher or fellow-pupils, not so much to his mother or father, but to persons who are not in near relation to him. The confession is what you say as to the truth to other people.
FSC Is there any reference in verse 1 of chapter 3, “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus”?
JT “The Apostle and High Priest of our confession”. What we confess. Heaven is providing for us as confessors; that is what makes us important in heaven. We are confessors, confessing the truth.
RWS Confession implies there has been a challenge.
JT Just so; you are standing up to the thing; you are not ashamed. The Lord Himself is not ashamed to call us brethren, and we should not be ashamed of each other. So it was that Moses confessed his relation with his Jewish brethren in [p. 446] the presence of the Egyptians. And the Jews, the brethren of Joseph were cattle-keepers. That was their confession. They had to say that. Pharaoh brought that out. If anything, they were an abomination to the Egyptians. That had to bring out a confession. You say, well, what is your confession? I am this, that, and the other thing, but are you caring for the brethren? That is the point. You would go anywhere to care for the brethren and do something for them.
JTJr Esther had finally to make her confession. I mean, her birth was not made known right away but she had to confess it.
JT Quite so; she had to do it, and Mordecai saw to that. He says, ‘You will not escape any more than the rest of us; you had better do it; you had better make a confession’, and she did.
FHL is confessing His name, as in the last chapter, the same thing?
JT That would be the same idea.
FHL It is a public matter.
JT It is publicly acknowledged that you belong to the brethren, the people of the Lord Jesus.
AAT In Romans 10: 10 salvation is connected with the confession.
JT Confessing the name of the Lord; that is a particular thing for salvation, but that is not quite as far on as what we have been saying. Joseph confessed publicly that he belonged to the Hebrews, the despised Hebrews, and so identified himself with the despised sons of Jacob.
TEH The confession in chapter 13 would involve the idea of something for God-the sacrifice of praise continually to God.
JT That is what we are, poor and despised people. We may as well accept it; poor and afflicted people, but we trust in the Lord and all [p. 447] these that we have been speaking of, Moses and Joseph and the Lord Himself, who, it says, witnessed a good confession, all run together. ‘I dwell among my own people’, the great woman said.
Well now, chapter 13 should not be forgotten although we have touched on it already. “We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle”. We have rights. The Lord’s people are not asserting their natural right, but we have rights and we have an altar that others cannot serve at, so that we are exclusive. And then it goes on to say, “for of those beasts whose blood is carried as sacrifices for sin into the holy of holies by the high priest, of these the bodies are burned outside the camp. Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate: therefore let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach”. That is of great importance here; bearing the reproach that is attached to our position. The world does not care for us at all. Therefore it goes on, “for we have not here an abiding city, but we seek the coming one. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name”. So that our services are carried on on those lines.
AR Is that how the tribe of Levi comes forward in Exodus?
JT Just so. You can see how the whole position enters into what we are saying in our little meetings. There is nothing at all to us that can measure up with the great congregations around. There is nothing at all; it is not worth mentioning, but then heaven knows the difference and we have to accept the reproach and the confession that goes with it; the confession of the name of the Lord Jesus; no other name. We do not claim any other name than that.
[p. 448] CAM The blood was brought into the holy of holies; would the reproach in the outside place be commensurate with the entrance that we have into the holy things and into the inmost meaning of the sanctuary?
JT Yes; so that outside the camp, inside the veil: the two things balance in heaven; our position is balanced in heaven in that sense, so that heaven is not ashamed of us.
WWM The confession that we had already is more what we do outwardly, but this confessing His name here is what we confess to God about Christ?
JT Well, the allusion here is in verse 15: “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name”. Your point is that you are confessing to God?
WWM I was thinking that. You can speak to God about Him.
JT Quite so; but the word is, “let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God”. That is one thing. And, “the fruit of the lips confessing his name”. The confession of His name God would be pleased with. It is a service we are carrying on; the sacrifice of praise, and the fruit of the lips confessing His name. God would be pleased with that surely, but at the same time it is a testimony, too.
TNW Is this praise referred to here in line with what you spoke of in connection with chapter 1, Christ’s sonship and liberty? Would you say a word more about that in connection with His sonship?
JT It is the first thing we are dealing with. It is a great liberating thought; not simply that He is Son as subject to the Father, but that He is Son as God Himself. He is in that relation; He is in the Deity in speaking. It is God that is speaking, but He is speaking in the relation of Son. That imparts [p. 449] great latitude, so that the Lord says Himself, “if therefore the Son shall set you free, ye shall be really free”, John 8: 36. I believe that is the way it works out.
RWS You alluded to the altar; we have an altar; you spoke of the settings, all the settings. Would you enlarge on that?
JT Take a meeting-room. There are chairs and there is a table and there is a fire, it may be, and there is water. These are just preparatory thoughts. The word that was addressed to the Lord by the disciples was, “Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” Matthew 26: 17. Well, the preparation, of course, was essential and the altar would be essential here, only that we have to discern that it is not simply a physical matter. It is a moral thought here, “We have an altar”. The altar in Exodus, of course, was made of brass, but this is a moral thought, and what I was remarking as to the settings there fits. The moral side of the thing is what is so difficult to bring with us. What we bring with us will be greatly enlarged if we are godly when we leave our houses and draw near. The physical side will gradually disappear in importance; it is what we are morally that will make the occasion. “We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle”. Then he goes on to speak about the bodies of the offerings and “let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach”. There is that sort of thing that enters into the matter. It is not physical. It is a question of what is going on in your household, and what you indicate to others if they are spiritual. There is something in the person if he is spiritual. So, that the whole thing becomes spiritual; even the confessing of the name will take that character. The confession of the name before God would be within the hearing of any that might [p. 450] be there. We show forth the death of the Lord Jesus; we do that. It is the attitude of our souls, so that others discern there is something going on.
RS Must we attain some measurement in order to have part in the altar? It says in Revelation 11: 1, “Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship in it”.
JT That is taken from the Old Testament circumstances which would be, so far as words go, a physical matter, but we are dealing, as Revelation does too, with moral things when we talk about an altar. It is not a physical thing. It is what is in yourself in the sense of sacrifice. The altar is there; we have it. If it were physical others might have it, but only certain ones have it. Therefore, it is a moral question that we are dealing with in this chapter.
CAM “No right to eat who serve the tabernacle” would stress that. There are those who are incapacitated to understand any moral ideas or spiritual things.
JT They can hardly get beyond the natural; so we have had the place where the bread should be placed on the table, but it is a question of what is in the soul of the persons that are eating.
ABP This book shows that what is physical is only a shadow of the real moral thing.
JT Quite so; so that Revelation is laid in Old Testament thoughts, only it is Christianity we are dealing with.
APT Do the “we have” and the “let us” refer to the ones that understand the spiritual side?
JT “Let us” is what we are doing; what “we have” God supplies. This altar is God-supplied only it is a question of what we are. You can see we are sufferers. Moses was a sufferer; it was he that made the altar in the wilderness and it was made of brass; but the brass was only a symbol. All these [p. 451] things were left to the saints themselves in the book of Genesis, but when we come to Exodus God says, I want measurement; I want accuracy; I want things as they are, and that is why there is so much of accuracy and pattern in Exodus.