FORMATION IN EXODUS (1)
[p. 380] FORMATION IN EXODUS (1)
Exodus 2: 11 - 25; Exodus 6: 1 - 6
JT I thought we might be helped in seeing the formation that takes place in the early chapters of Exodus, leading up to the collective features spoken of in chapter 12 where we have the assembly spoken of. In verse 3 of that chapter it says, “Speak unto all the assembly of Israel”, and again in verse 6, “the whole congregation of the assembly of Israel”. Perhaps the Lord may help us to see, in the meetings we may have, that the believer goes out of Egypt, as formed of God in some degree, not only as an individual unit, but as belonging to a corporate whole spoken of in chapter 12 as an assembly. The two words used in that chapter are very significant. The word ‘assembly’ describes the corporate idea — the sense of responsibility corporately, and the word ‘congregation’ is inclusive of all the members of it — all the persons — each one having a responsibility. So that we go out in the presence of the power of evil that is already organised. These early chapters show us what was in the mind of God initially, in Exodus, and how it was portrayed in Moses; the spirit which is suitable to us as going out of the world is portrayed in Moses, in the leader. The book begins with the names, “These are the names of the sons of Israel who had come into Egypt; with Jacob had they come, each with his household”, Exodus 1: 1. God thus indicates at the very outset the dignity of His people as “sons of Israel”; it is a spiritual designation. Then we see that in coming in, they come in as Jacob came in, that is, under divine direction. He was the depositary of the promises of God and they came in with him. They were related to the vessel in whom the light was, and in whom the promises were. So that it says, “with Jacob had they come, each with his household”. Then we have the names and the number of the souls. God is thus at the very outset impressing upon us what we are in His sight, and how He takes account of every one.
Ques Is it not striking that, in Genesis 49: 2. Jacob addresses his sons as “ye sons of Jacob”?
JT Showing that the link is there in a vessel, in one person. It is always that. In taking up Abraham there was one person in whom the light of God was deposited. It was all tending to Christ in whom every promise is yea and amen. So that as the gospel is received, it is received in relation to Christ.
Ques Is your thought that each one of us is attached now to the One in whom all the promises are?
JT That is the idea.
Rem And likewise that we belong to that vessel down here that is specially the object of His affection.
JT So that the whole lamb — a bone of which was not to be broken — brought that One near, in that He became the food by which they were to be built up. It is one whole idea; that is ever in the soul. You go out of Egypt in that way and thus become material for God’s holy purposes as impressionable. The passover renders us impressionable for the yearling lamb was four days in the house; he would become endeared to all in the house. The principle is that one Man has become endeared to the inmates of the family. Then He was slain. The death of Christ impresses itself. It is impressionable people that God can use; it is on the fleshy tables of the heart that God writes.
Ques What is the thought of the food that they eat?
JT I was saying they eat the lamb, one whole, no bone of which was to be broken, so that they go out as built up in that way. And it was accompanied by the unleavened bread. That is the end we might [p. 382] reach in a few readings on this subject; it is in the mind of God from the very outset in the reference to the sons of Israel and Jacob.
Ques Are the names mentioned in order to bring before us that God has not given up His thoughts in regard of His people?
JT Quite; that is very interesting.
Ques Is there any thought why Joseph is mentioned as in Egypt, in Exodus 1: 5?
JT Joseph was in Egypt as they came in. That was an immense thing; they came under his personal influence. That was a divine position; they were there under divine direction with Joseph ahead of them.
Ques Here they are called the sons of Israel. Jacob rises to the height of his new name. Then it says with Jacob had they come; does that convey that they had not learnt what it means?
JT It is a beautiful combination there. Jacob is the responsible head, but Israel is the spiritual side.
Ques What do you see in the households here? The apostle speaks of “members in particular”, 1 Corinthians 12: 27. Would the Lord have us to realise how greatly we are loved?
JT So that here it says, “with Jacob had they come, each with his household”. There is a general relation to the head — the depositary of light — each having his own responsibility, each of his household.
Ques So that at the outset of this formation, is it that you find yourself in divine care?
JT That seems to be the force; that was what God impressed Jacob with, that in going in He would be with him. Jacob had his misgivings at Beersheba, but God said, I am the God of thy father, meaning He was the God of Isaac. That was the light in which Jacob went into Egypt. Things are already secured in a risen Christ so he would have no misgivings [p. 383] whatever. Things are secured for us. In the blessing of Jacob, the blessing of the tribes, he saw the whole responsible side — bringing down the discipline of God, but everyone is blessed, even Dan, in spite of the fact that he was a traitor. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. They are set up in that light. The position of Joseph in Egypt involved much for them. They had a good start in these surroundings. They were already accustomed to the idea of oppression. Abraham himself endured it in the very day in which God announced that the period should be so long. It says, “a horror, a great darkness, fell upon him”, Genesis 15: 12. He went through it in principle. The four hundred years were not spent literally in Egypt but it was there in principle. Now I think we should see that in chapter 3: 22 every woman was to ask of her neighbour, utensils of silver, and utensils of gold, and clothing. They were to put them on their sons and daughters and to spoil the Egyptians. That is the first thing that is alluded to; it really refers to the spiritual gain of the exercise. You go out with spoil. It is mentioned here that the women did that, showing how the households are brought in, how the women are brought into the thing. We have to look out for our sons and daughters, that they have got these clothes on, that they come out of Egypt with spoil.
Rem In view of God’s habitation.
JT Yes; in chapter 35 they have all got something and they bring it in abundance. Then the family principle is introduced at once. In chapter 2 God takes up a special family. If He intends to set out anything He will make a selection to bring forth His best. Therefore He selects this man and his wife whose names do not appear in this chapter; they appear in chapter 6, showing that they represent the family idea. God intended the family to be continued on the priestly line. He takes up a family [p. 384] and gives them every possible advantage to set out His thoughts.
Ques Is that why Stephen speaks of Moses being with the assembly in the wilderness?
JT I think so. You have to take up the history of Moses and see the whole bearing. Stephen enlarges on him; he begins by saying he was fair to God. He was an exceptional child; he is one of the exceptional children of Scripture as if God would say, I have set out the whole history of this man from his birth to his death — to his burial, for God buried him. Whereas with Aaron his brother we have not a word as to his infancy, nothing until he was eighty-three years of age. With him it is the developed idea introduced at once. Then Miriam, the other leader, is not mentioned by name till she is ninety-five years of age. In the prophets God says, “I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam”, Micah 6: 4. They went before them so that they could be seen. We have no history from the outset save of Moses; we have one man’s history, but the others are introduced as fully developed and their histories are not given.
Ques What is the link as to formation in regard of that?
JT Formation is secret. Secret history with God is what ought particularly to be looked into. It is not that Aaron did not have a history with God, too, because in chapter 4 God introduces him, saying, “I know him”. That means that Aaron had had relations with Him. He could speak well; he must have been speaking to God. He represents secret history, and without that we are sure to break down. I think we have to take the three: Moses, Aaron and Miriam, as conveying one whole.
Ques Would Moses not have had a secret history during the forty years in the land [p. 385] of Midian?
JT He had a secret history as every one of us should have, otherwise we are of no account at all. The Lord says, “Enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father”, Matthew 6: 6. That is secret history, where people are not looking at you, but God is. He is listening to you; He loves that.
Rem It must have been the result of secret history when he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter.
JT Yes, that went on whilst he was in Egypt. Even in the Lord’s history we have nothing mentioned from the time He was twelve until He became thirty. That is, we have a record of His infancy and then one reference to His boyhood. But then, think of all the words of that life! what was in that life! The principle of the life of Jesus is compression — the infinitude of compression into an outwardly small compass of time — thirty-three years. “Go ye and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life”, Acts 5: 20. Those thirty years were not empty years; they were infinitely full. They were full for God. Think what He found in that life! “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, Matthew 3: 17. Others such as His mother and His brethren had opportunity to see something of that life; they had opportunity, which none others had, of seeing that secret history.
Ques Do not the breathings of the Psalms fill out that gap?
JT Yes, you get Him cast upon His God from the very outset. That gives us a clue as to what that life was.
Rem I was wondering if we shall learn anything of that secret history. There is the treasuring of the manna in the golden pot.
JT Yes, there is. And so in the upper room at Jerusalem it is specially noted that Mary the mother [p. 386] of Jesus and His brethren were there. What are they there for? They are there as wealth; that is to say, they possess unique wealth. All that experience with Jesus in those thirty years was there in them. The Holy Spirit would know how to use it. Although Mary never spoke a word in the assembly, the wealth was available.
Ques Is that all gathered up in regard of family conditions? I was thinking of what you said as to the three leaders. Is it not all based on the family idea?
JT They represent the family of this chapter.
Ques Does not leadership flow out from the family thought?
JT That is secret history. In the upper room we have the names given of the leading ones, but particularly Mary. There is no other woman mentioned by name but Mary. What a wealth of feeling and intelligence unspoken was involved there.
Ques And what about His brethren?
JT Well, they would see Him in the workshop, in the field and in a thousand ways. All that was not lost. The Holy Spirit would imply that somehow or other that is all in the church. The Holy Spirit knows how to bring it out.
Rem It says that Mary kept all these things in her heart.
JT Yes; that enters into the idea of the body in Paul’s ministry — what was expressed of Christ here. The fact that I do not say anything does not mean that I have not got something in my mind. The fact may be that I am not led to say anything. Take the sisters; the fact that they are silent does not mean that they have not got treasure; it only suggests what an organism the church is. Take the human body as a figure; there are organs that you are not conscious of, but they go on working to one end. The presence of the Holy Spirit here is a [p. 387] mysterious, yet a real, thing. Paul speaks of things he was not allowed to utter; that refers to the sisters. The fact that a sister is in silence does not mean that she does not possess wealth. But the Holy Spirit knows how to bring that out.
Ques Is not that experienced in the silence of the morning meeting?
JT Yes, the wealth is there. If you think of people that are well off, as a figure; they do not need to speak of it. The silence in itself speaks. Paul had the most wonderful things in his soul for fourteen years which he says were not lawful to utter. But that does not mean they were not there and did not affect his ministry.
Rem It says of Lydia that her heart was opened to receive the things spoken by Paul; she would be receiving substance.
JT Yes, the point there was that her heart had been opened to the things. That did not mean that she was speaking about them.
Rem So that whilst silence is good, the thing is sure to come out.
JT Yes; it is sure to show itself. Now this family begins here. It is a man of Levi and a daughter of Levi. In chapter 6 we are told that the daughter of Levi was Jochebed his aunt. There was a strong family link between them. It was a levitical family without adulteration.
Rem Say a word as to Miriam.
JT Well, she is called the sister of Aaron. She is first mentioned in chapter 15: 20, where it says, “Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron”. That is the first mention of her by name. Undoubtedly she is someone that represents the subjective feature. She is introduced abruptly as a prophetess. How did she become that? It is not that she was a prophetess just then. She was that, but it is not because of what she says in this chapter. She was that, like Philip’s four daughters; they prophesied — it was not that they were prophetesses. But they did the thing. What can you say if the prophesying goes on; you must listen to it.
Rem It is in that way that the mind of God is made known.
JT Yes, it was there in a woman called a prophetess. Evidently she was no boastful person. It says all the women went out after her with tambours and dances. That is to say, she was a woman of influence. They would not have gone out after a person that talks but has no substance; that is not going to influence people. Martha was not the one that the Jews went after; it was Mary (John 11: 45). That shows the influence of a spiritual person.
Rem Perhaps we have dwelt too much on the failure side.
JT Yes, but think of Miriam’s age! She must have been ninety years old.
Rem Aaron and Miriam do not help us much on the public side.
JT No, but their private history is very important. Aaron is over eighty when God says, “I know that he can speak well”. Then He says, “Aaron the Levite” (Exodus 4: 14), not ‘Aaron a Levite’. The idea must have been expressed in him. So Miriam here is already a prophetess. She has influence among the women of Israel.
Ques Is not Aaron called the saint of the Lord, in the Psalms?
JT Yes, “Aaron the saint of the Lord”, Psalm 106: 16. Now in the passage we have read Moses has had this experience in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house. It is very striking that as the ark was opened the babe wept. That is, I suppose, it is a spiritual touch, that he would be a man of feeling, not hard-hearted. God can use only people that are impressionable. Paul was praying, but Moses was weeping.
[p. 389] Rem I was noticing that these burdens become the subject matter for praise. Psalm 81 speaks of removing his shoulder from the burden.
JT Moses looked on their burdens. It says, “It came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren”, Exodus 2: 11. The word “Hebrew” in this section of Scripture denotes reproach; it is used here more than anywhere else. It denotes the reproach attached to the people of God. He saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. He did not despise the people, great prince though he was. He regarded his brethren in the light of their reproach.
Ques Does it not show what a man of feeling he was? There is a great deal said about tears in Scripture; God takes great account of them.
Ques Are these feelings produced instinctively?
JT Yes; what you get in a child like this is instinct.
Rem You mean that these impressions led him to do just the right thing although it was premature.
JT That is the idea of a child; you cannot speak of it exactly as intelligence. The child has instincts, and they are the surest evidence of the work of God.
Rem The wisdom and learning of the Egyptians had not extinguished them. The instincts were right, but he is not acting from the family position in slaying the Egyptian.
JT No; he carried into this a great deal of what he was in Pharaoh’s house. There was a sense of his personal power and he was possibly a skilled military man. He carried all that into this transaction, but overlooked the fact that it would have taken a long time to slay all the Egyptians in that way. To kill a whole nation one by one and hiding the bodies in the sand is a big task. Even if he could slay them one [p. 390] by one, there was still the difficulty of hiding them in the sand one by one. But God hid them at once under the waves. What God can do in a stroke will take us a million years to do.
Before slaying the Egyptian he turned this way and that way, like the politician. The politician has to do that to get the votes; he looks this way and that way. But the man of faith does not do that; he looks up.
Rem Hebrews 11 passes over this incident and goes on to when Moses was very great. There would be a difference in the thought.
Ques Do we have to learn to be intelligent in order to be church material?
JT Yes; you have to learn to do things intelligently. “I speak as to intelligent persons”, 1 Corinthians 10: 15.
Rem At this stage he was very far from being ready to be a leader of God’s people.
JT Yes; he had it in his heart, but he had to go through a great deal.
Ques Whilst intelligence develops under the influence of God, I suppose instincts remain. “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knows all things”, 1 John 3: 20. That would be instinct. Do we always possess these instincts?
JT Well, typically they are the fruit of the work of God. It is not a question of nature, but of being born again.
Ques Would you say there is a difference between the instincts found in Moses as a boy and those that characterised Nehemiah in a day of brokenness? His weeping is connected with his first exercises in relation to the wall and the gates.
JT That is very nice. All through Scripture great stress is laid on that spirit — on feelings. In the book of Lamentations, “For these things I weep”
([p. 391] Lamentations 1: 16) would convey the spirit of Christ in that sense.
Rem The weeping would be in relation to what was due to God.
JT Quite; then it says that Moses went out on the second day. That ought to be an advance on the first. He saw two Hebrew men striving together and he said, “Why art thou smiting thy neighbour?” That was good.
Rem We need not be afraid of the way in which God dealt with him behind the wilderness, as ultimately the purposes He has for us will be brought to light.
JT I think we shall see that. The word led him to flee. It says that Moses feared and said, “Surely this thing is known”. The circumstances become the occasion of his leaving Egypt. Then the way to Midian was very long, but evidently he gained in the way because he sat by a well. He is virtually saying, ‘My methods have been all wrong’. He sat by a well; that is the very opposite of taking things in his own hands. The well acts of itself. That will be in my favour. He is virtually saying, ‘I can depend on that and not on my own power’. That is the key to all that follows — the reliance on the power of God. In that way he becomes a prepared vessel.