THE TABERNACLE SYSTEM (4)
[p. 123] THE TABERNACLE SYSTEM (4)
Leviticus 1: 1, 2; Leviticus 8:1 - 12; Leviticus 8:33 - 36
JT Most of us are aware that our subject is the tabernacle. We have been considering it in its various aspects in Exodus, and we desire tonight to see its bearing in the book of Leviticus. Probably what is to be carefully noted here is that the Lord called to Moses out of the tent of meeting: “And Jehovah called to Moses and spoke to him out of the tent of meeting”. There is an indication of the assembly in type. The significance of the assembly is that it is composed of called-out persons. The end of Exodus showed us that the presence of God stood connected with the tabernacle; and what we see here is that Jehovah called to Moses from the place where He is, and from which He is speaking. I think the emphasis here is on the tabernacle.
AFM It would suggest that there is an invitation to come in.
JT Yes, I think so. The word ‘assembly’ means called out. The assembly is formed of people who are called out. God spoke from the position in which His glory is secured and in which He is prepared to meet man, but He met man on His own terms. God seeks men; the seeking implies distance, but the answer to the call implies nearness. Therefore the idea of bringing becomes evident: “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord”.
BF How do you apply the thought of seeking in the book of Leviticus?
JT We have not the word ‘seeking’ so specified here as in the New Testament. But in Romans and Corinthians we see that ‘calling’ is spoken of. God calls people out of the world. The gospel goes out world-wide and the voice of God is in it; so that [p. 124] men might come out of the world to meet with Him on His own terms. Therefore this book emphasises the ‘tent of meeting’.
AFM The idea of men meeting God on His own terms is what the ‘tent of meeting’ implies. Kindly enlarge on that thought.
JT There are two or three words used in connection with the tabernacle. The one which is used in this book is ‘tent of meeting’. It means that God was in the tent and would meet men.
JS Has God taken up His abode in the tabernacle as we are considering it in Leviticus?
JT I think what we are considering here is based on Exodus. In Exodus we see that God gave instructions to make everything according to the pattern and that these instructions were carried out. And then the tabernacle and all that was therein was anointed, so that God comes into it to dwell.
JS In Exodus it is said, “And the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle”, Exodus 40: 34. Does that mean His presence?
JT Yes, it is the place where the glory of God is seen and not the glory of man; and what we see in Leviticus is that God calls from that place, saying, “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord”. God is not only there, but His glory has taken character.
AW Is not God’s attitude a very great one here? He assumes that there are those who will come, and therefore He instructs as to how they should come. I think it is like John 4: 23 where the Lord said, “The Father seeketh such to worship him”.
JT Yes, the apostolic authority is in the call to Moses; but no one is commanded to bring an offering, it is, “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord”. As you said, God assumes that there are those who will come and He shows how they are to come. Light is given in relation to worship. God had told Moses, “When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain”, on mount Horeb (Exodus 3: 12). And again, it was said to Pharaoh, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”, Exodus 4: 23. But what we are now contemplating is that worship is established, not on mount Horeb in connection with the burning bush, but in the tabernacle, and that sonship is connected with worship.
BF Would you say that Jehovah delighted in the praises of His people?
JT Yes, I think so. God had intimated to Moses that Israel should serve Him at mount Horeb after they came out of Egypt. In connection with the sojourn of the people, there was a period marked with special interest because of service at the mountain. But service has to be according to God’s terms, as we see in the beginning of Leviticus. There may be much in the way of service, but the question arises as to whether such service is according to God.
Rem The Lord’s supper puts us to the same test as we see from 1 Corinthians.
JT Yes, and Hebrews shows that our consciences are purged to serve the living God.
AFM We may say that this book was not properly named, when it was called ‘Leviticus’; it may be called the book of the Priest, or of Praises. Priestly service comes first and it is connected with sonship. “Let my son go, that he may serve me”.
JT Yes, the name of ‘Leviticus’ was given to this book by the Septuagint, but it was not a spiritual name. It is not the levitical book but the priestly book.
JS Do we have light governing our approach to God here?
JT Yes, and I think it is that we might see the place the tabernacle has. Of course, there are a great many other things to be taken account of, but I [p. 126] think it is important to see the place the tabernacle has in connection with service. The tabernacle is set up according to all the requirements of God, then it is anointed and then the glory of God filled it. The next thing we see is that it is the ‘tent of meeting’, a provisional place where God meets with persons and finally, we see what it will be eternally; “to him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3: 21.
Rem There is an answer now consequent on the Spirit being here as Acts 2 shows.
JS Yes, the tabernacle was set up in the beginning of Acts. The glory of God was seen; there was a response and service.
Rem “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers”, Acts 2: 42.
JT Yes, service was of such a character that they continued in it.
AFM In spite of the breakdown of Israel in the wilderness, the shekinah glory never left them! It enhances the grace of God in spite of what has come in at the present moment.
JT Therefore, Exodus becomes of importance to us; because in that book we see the requirements of God in relation to the tabernacle, the arrangement of all that is therein, the anointing with oil, and how it was filled with the glory of God.
WB Is there an element of command in Exodus? It would seem as if the call to the people to bring an offering was left to them: “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering”, Exodus 25: 2.
JT I think that sonship is implied. Jehovah instructed Moses to say to Pharaoh, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn, and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me”, Exodus 4: 22, 23. So [p. 127] that the son would love to bring an offering, and we see that if he brought it, he brought it willingly.
WB It involves more than bringing; the willingness must be there.
JT I think that their intelligence would be based on the state of sonship being there.
WB In Leviticus 8 we come to the priest.
JT I think we shall see that we come to the gospels in type in Leviticus 8. The christian learns from the epistles of Paul about the tabernacle and sonship and his relation to Christ; and then he comes back as having arrived, “at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”, Ephesians 4: 13. That, I think, is equivalent to Leviticus 8 where you get Christ in relation to the tabernacle. We see Christ in the gospels in relation to the mind of God. The earlier chapters in Leviticus, which deal with the offerings of the people, are to meet them and adjust them in regard to the different kinds of offerings. They are instructed how to approach God. Their spiritual instincts are taken account of, and then the law governing all that is committed to the priest; so that as all of that is dealt with and settled, the priest in his own personal rights is brought in in the eighth chapter. It corresponds to a believer receiving light through the epistles which adjusts him in his responsibility and his affections towards God, in order that he may be able to see Christ as He is presented in the gospels.
AFM The epistles are very important; because in them we see how we are developed into spiritual manhood.
JT Yes, for we cannot understand the gospels until we arrive at “the knowledge of the Son of God, at the full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ”. Having arrived there, you are able to understand Leviticus 8. It is a question of Christ’s personal rights. Therefore we see Aaron anointed without blood: “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them. And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them. And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him”.
AFM Please open up that a little more.
JT No one understands the gospels until he understands something about sonship.
BF Is there a difference between the priestly side of things and that of the people? Do we have the two here in Leviticus 8?
JT The idea of the people and the priesthood is merged into one as we apprehend what it is to have arrived at the full-grown man. All the people are gathered together at the door of the tabernacle and all are interested in Aaron, the tabernacle, and Aaron’s sons.
JS Are the epistles given us to prepare us for what is set forth in the gospels?
JT Yes, I think so. The epistles would probably correspond to the first seven chapters of Leviticus. In these chapters, there is light in connection with the death of Christ, that we may be free in our souls. The law of the offerings was committed to the priest. The law is there and is always valuable for adjustment. That being so, we are equal to the eighth chapter which corresponds to the gospels, for in them we see Christ in relation to the thoughts and purposes of God.
Rem So that the light of the gospels has a universal bearing.
JT I think so. In them are set forth the thoughts and purposes of God, the plan of the tabernacle. What the anointing represents is also seen in them, for in the ministry of Christ all the [p. 129] designs in relation to the tabernacle are seen. The anointing would convey the idea that the One, in whom are expressed the thoughts of God in relation to the tabernacle, had to suffer.
WB Would the first seven chapters of Leviticus set forth more the idea of the work of Christ, while the eighth sets Him forth personally?
JT That is what I thought.
WB If that is so, why does the first chapter open with the burnt-offerings? Does not the sin-offering come first in connection with our need?
JT We begin with the inverse order here; for when it is a question of the terms of God, Christ comes first. God is occupied with Him, so that the highest feature of His death is presented first. You will see this in connection with the gospel of John. But although we may begin with the highest side of the truth, we must come back to the sin-offering.
Rem Therefore Peter says, “Desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby”. Does this refer to the gospel?
JT I think the epistles enable us to grow up as Peter said, “desire earnestly the pure mental milk of the word, that by it ye may grow up to salvation, if indeed ye have tasted that the Lord is good”. Then as you advance in your soul, you will understand what is meant by, “To whom coming, a living stone, cast away indeed as worthless by men, but with God chosen, precious, yourselves also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house”, 1 Peter 2: 2 - 5. This presents the idea of the tabernacle. Then what we see next is the holy priesthood and the offering up of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Ques Did you say that Aaron and his sons were anointed without blood?
JT Not the sons, but Aaron and the tabernacle. The first three gospels present Christ anointed by the Holy Spirit, in His own personal rights. Peter said on the mount: “let us make three tabernacles”. There are not three tabernacles, but one; and that is presented in Christ, so that the voice from heaven is, “This is my beloved Son; hear him”. We see the thoughts of God expressed in Him and these thoughts are to be formed in the saints. Therefore, we see how the laver stood connected with the priests and how they washed. This refers to the ministry of Christ: “ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you”, John 15: 3. In John 13 we see a picture of the ministry of Christ.
AFM So that as we were remarking, the apostle Paul ministers in relation to the tabernacle. What was in Christ personally is now seen in the saints. His death, blood-shedding and resurrection were the basis of all.
JT Yes. Aaron and his sons may be taken as a type to show the association of Christ with the saints. Blood is put on the tip of the right ear, and on the thumb of their right hand, and on the great toe of their right foot; and they are also sprinkled with oil. This latter part of Leviticus 8 presents Christ in relation to the saints, while the earlier part of the chapter presents Him in His own personal rights.
Rem The Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one.
JT This is seen in the priestly family. In the first chapter of Leviticus there was the idea of calling; but here it is, “Take Aaron and his sons”.
JS What is the difference?
JT I think we see a difference between ‘call’ and ‘take’. The latter is a question of power. The mind of God, in relation to Aaron and his sons, is expressed: “Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin-offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread”. All these things are seen in [p. 131] Christ becoming incarnate. There is no question of distance which the call would imply.
AFM Everything is secured for God in Christ. The affections of men are secured. It is said, “Take Aaron and his sons”.
JT Yes, the epistle to the Hebrews and the gospel of John show us what underlies this. The Word became flesh. One can now understand the burnt-offering coming first, Christ in relation to the will of God.
Ques Was it not a command to Moses to take Aaron and his sons?
JT It is a command to Moses. But then, there is no ‘if’ in regard to Aaron and his sons. In the first chapter it is written, “If any man of you bring an offering”, but when it is a question of Aaron and his sons, Moses is told to take them. They are all there.
AW Moses was also told to gather all the assembly together at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
JT Gather all the assembly together is another matter, but that does not apply to Aaron and his sons.
WB When the Lord was upon earth, do you think that Aaron and his sons were there representatively?
JT The section of John from chapter 13 to chapter 17, shows what was there.
Rem The Lord said, “Take Aaron and his sons with him”. I suppose this had its fulfilment in the Lord on earth.
JT I think so. You can understand, in connection with incarnation, that there is a Man here. He is there, so that God takes Him, “Take Aaron and his sons”.
Rem But in order for the saints to come in, Christ [p. 132] had to die.
JT Yes, He had to die. You see how the saints come in in the earlier chapters of Leviticus.
Rem The blood is put on Aaron and his sons.
JT This comes in after; but before that Aaron is anointed and the altar and the tabernacle.
Ques In connection with Jesus, would you say something about His dwelling on earth before His death?
JT The idea of the tabernacle was there in the Lord personally. But in order for us to come into the light of that we need the epistles. In them we see the wonderful things that came in by incarnation. The epistles build us up to understand what is said in John’s gospel: “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory ... )”. This is presented figuratively in Leviticus 8. There is a Man here who is delightful to God, so delightful that He can be anointed. The dwelling-place of God is also presented in Him: “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”, Colossians 2: 9.
BF Would you say that the Lord is seen first as the Ark? It says, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God” (Hebrews 10: 9), and again, “thy law is within my heart”, Psalm 40: 8.
JT There is a representation of that in Leviticus 8.
JS Is there a living expression of the mind of God and the will of God in the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us?
JT That is right. I think the anointing would show that.
AFM The Lord’s death is mentioned in John 12, and forms a basis for the company in chapter 13. But we are slow to take in these things. How long does it take us to understand the epistles, to be adjusted and be set apart to contemplate Christ! How little do we know of what it is to sit down and contemplate the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, as John said: “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father”, John 1: 14.
JT That is the thing to see. Who can do that apart from one who is adjusted in relation to the truth in its various applications, so that he is set free for the service of God!
Rem So that a right understanding of the wilderness side of things would set us free in relation to the will of God.
JT Yes.
WB It would require the knowledge of the assembly to contemplate His glory, the glory of the Son; for it is said, “we beheld his glory”.
JT Yes.
Rem We have to see how the truth in relation to understanding the wilderness side of things is set forth in Christ. In Him we see the intent of the gospel and how our need is relieved.
JT Yes, to understand the gospel we must consider the epistle to the Romans.
AW One has to present Christ to converts.
JT Yes, the apostle Paul said, “God, who ... called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”, Galatians 1: 15, 16. Therefore Paul begins in Romans from this height: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God ... . Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead”, Romans 1: 1 - 4. But while this is so in the beginning, we have to go to the mercy-seat, the righteousness of God. Then you come again to sonship in Romans 8, but you arrive at it as a son so that you can understand what is meant by, “God sending his own Son”, Romans 8: 3.
[p. 134] You are beginning to realise what is set forth in the gospel. The apostle John says, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth”, John 1: 14.
JS So that we should be able to preach the gospel better if we understand Romans in a greater measure.
JT Yes, I think it is only as you are acquainted with Romans that you can speak of what meets the sinner’s need. The person who preaches the gospel better is one who understands Ephesians. Adjustment in relation to God does not only consist in my being delivered from judgment, but also in my being saved from place. I am not only delivered from the world, but also from the earth. This is the full end so that we have: “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace [p. 139] in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God”, Ephesians 2: 4 - 8. We do not get this in Romans but it is contained in the gospel.
JS It is the gospel of the glory.
Rem We see humility in incarnation. It shows the sacrifice of God to bring in what is set forth in the gospel.
JT Yes, in John 1: 1 it is written, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. In verse 14 we see, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”. Such a Person came into such limitations through love.
Rem Do we arrive at this through the teaching [p. 135] of Ephesians?
JT Yes, you are great enough for it on account of the instructions set forth in Ephesians.
Rem Is it arrived at in a collective way?
JT Yes, it is said, “we have contemplated his glory”. We have an instance of what it is to contemplate the glory of the Son in Moses’ turning aside, when he was keeping the flock of his father-in-law”The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses”, Exodus 3: 2 - 4. It shows how interested God becomes in us when He sees that we turn aside to see what is set forth in the gospel, not only what is set forth in relation to the need of man, but what is peculiarly connected with the revelation of God Himself.
AFM So that the first twelve verses of Leviticus 8 emphasise the position of Christ personally.
JT Yes, and the sons are there, “And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water”. Nothing is said here, in the early part of the chapter, about blood. I think it refers to the purifying effect of the word, as we see from John 15: 3.
BF Would you say that the water, as we see it in Scripture, would be the application of the death of Christ to the believer?
JT Yes, it would be in its full sense. But we are considering it now as it says in John 15, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you”. Of course, there can be no cleansing apart from the death of Christ, but I think we have a picture here of the Lord as He is seen in the gospels and how the saints stand in relation with Him.
[p. 136] BF May we not look at it as the result of the presentation of the death of Christ to our souls by the Holy Spirit; on account of which, new affections are formed in us?
JT Yes. That is why what is set forth in Leviticus 8 comes after the offerings. The believer is able now to contemplate the Lord as He is seen in the gospels. While the earlier part of Leviticus 8 emphasises Aaron’s position, the latter part shows how his sons are consecrated for the priesthood. It is a figure of how the disciples are brought into association with the Lord in priestly service. For this the blood is necessary. They were to remain at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation for seven days and seven nights.
Ques Is that why we have, in Hebrews 10, the exhortation to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water?
JT The reference to the earlier chapters of Leviticus shows how the believer draws near. I think Hebrews agrees with those chapters, for Hebrews does not take us as far as priesthood in the way that it is presented in Leviticus 8. The epistle presents priesthood in Christ and how saints can approach God consequent on Christ’s position, but it does not present priesthood in the saints as we are dealing with it here. It is more elementary in Hebrews.
Ques Has the altar in Hebrews a universal idea?
JT The altar as presented in Hebrews is exclusive: “We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle”, Hebrews 13: 10. The altar there deals more with exclusiveness, it does not take you inside.
Ques Which one of the epistles gives us the priestly order as in Leviticus [p. 137] 8?
JT The epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians. You begin with what is consistent with the priest in Romans 7: 22 where you see, “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man”. In chapter 8: 15 you have the Spirit; and as a consequence, you are marked with life and peace. Then it continues: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. There you see the son.
AFM In Romans 12 you offer praises or spiritual sacrifices.
JT That is how priesthood is seen in Romans.
AW Why is the offering presented at the entrance of the tent of meeting? What is the force of that?
JT It is said, “If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall present it a male without blemish: at the entrance of the tent of meeting shall he present it, for his acceptance before Jehovah”. I think that the offerer merges in his offering into priesthood. The basis is set forth in the fragrance and virtue of the offering.
WB One does not go in alone.
JT He goes in with others. At the entrance his offering is accepted. It refers to his own acceptance. Our offering is Christ. In Him is set forth the right for us to enter.
JS We enter in virtue of His acceptance.
Ques Why do you connect priesthood with relationship?
JT It is the son that is a priest. Aaron and his sons are referred to all the time.
Rem You were saying that the son is seen in Romans 8, “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”. Would not this part of Romans agree with the latter part of Leviticus [p. 138] 8?
JT In a way, but what you get in Romans is the principle of the thing. You do not get sonship there in a concrete way. But when you come to Colossians, where the Spirit is only spoken of once, you will observe that what underlies is sonship. The Colossians were marked by love in the Spirit. They were not partial.
AFM In Romans the apostle takes up the whole question in relation to the adjustment of the believer on the earth so that he may be free with respect to things here. And when we come to Corinthians, we see enlargement.
JT Yes. Romans and Corinthians run together. But Corinthians is corrective so that the apostle had to say, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect”, 1 Corinthians 2: 6.
Rem You were saying something about Colossians.
JT Colossians sets forth love in the Spirit. It is not preferential love. The Corinthians were marked by preferential love. As long as this state of things remains, we can never touch priesthood. Love, as seen in Colossians, suggests that you love all the saints and that you are not influenced by what is natural. Therefore the priests were not to wear woollen garments, or drink wine, or mourn for the dead. “They shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them ... neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court ... . And they shall come at no dead person to defile themselves”, Ezekiel 44: 17 - 25. The Colossians were in the reality of this truth, there was love in the Spirit, and in Ephesians there is such an expansion to your love for the saints that you want them in heaven. Therefore the apostle writes: “And hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus”, Ephesians 2: 6, 7.
WB To love in such a way one must have the Spirit and be marked by love in the Spirit.
JT Yes, unless you have the Spirit, you cannot love thus.