FORMATION IN EXODUS (2)
[p. 392] FORMATION IN EXODUS (2)
Exodus 3: 1 - 10; Exodus 4: 27 - 31
JT It was remarked this morning that these early chapters in Exodus typically set out, among other things, the formation which takes place in believers as believing in the gospel, culminating in chapter 12 in which we have the idea of the assembly presented: “The assembly of Israel” — a word signifying a corporate whole in which there is responsibility to God. Then there is the word ‘congregation’ in the same chapter, implying all the persons severally, each also having a sense of responsibility. So that in coming into the assembly outwardly, young believers come in already formed in measure and possessed of certain wealth, for they were to go out of Egypt with substance. The believer thus coming in does not impoverish, but rather enriches, the assembly. It was pointed out that the book begins with the sons of Israel coming into Egypt under divine orders, as we learn from Genesis. Each came with Jacob, as the depositary of the light of God and the purpose of God. But each came with his household; that is, the family idea runs through. Then it was remarked that in chapter 2 we have the family whence Moses sprang, leading to the development of the family idea in Aaron and Moses and Miriam. The authority of God is seen in Moses, brotherly affection and priestly service in Aaron, and the prophetic word, as well as the service of song in Miriam. So that chapters 3 and 4 are set before us as preliminary dealings of God with Moses, bringing Aaron in.
Ques What did you say about the well — you made a remark about it?
JT Well, I think we noted that Moses began in his own energy in slaying the Egyptian and hiding [p. 393] him in the sand — a futile effort. And as fleeing into Midian he evidently learnt — evidently had learnt as abiding in Midian — that deliverance is not to come by natural effort in us, but by the Spirit; that is, typically. In chapter 2: 15 it says, “He sat by the well”, meaning that he recognised a power outside of himself, which in the New Testament is the Spirit. The Lord Jesus sat also on the well, and as He sat there He opened up the truth of the Holy Spirit (John 4). The power which springs up in the believer is the power by which things are to be done here now.
Ques You were speaking of the mount of Olives as being the Spirit’s power. Would you connect the two?
JT Quite. The well is so suggestive of a power acting in itself; it is not a stagnant thing, it is a spring. The way that Moses served in relation to that is further instruction; it says, “The priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs, to water their father’s flock”, Exodus 2: 16. In Moses sitting in that position he sees others moving in relation to that well. That is to say, he did not initiate the idea of the use of it. We have to learn in that way that we have not initiated, or inaugurated, things, especially the power of God; it is there, and others have known how to use it, so that we come into that. Seven women looking after their father’s affairs — the father’s flock, they were typically unselfish believers without any official place, but unable to cope with the circumstances, so that the deliverer is on the scene. Moses was really a deliverer in the mind of God from the outset, but he undertook to do it in fleshly energy. And now these seven women are in need, and the obstacles are too great; there is opposition. It says, “the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses rose and helped them, and watered their flock”. Moses now is the deliverer, but not in the way of [p. 394] smiting anyone; he had learnt that lesson. He does not smite the shepherds; he does not slay any of them. The point was to help these women, that is to say, the position of the deliverer is to deliver — the positive thing. The women are helped; it says, “Moses rose and helped them”. The shepherds would drive the women away, but Moses rose and helped them, and watered their flock. That is, the point is to help.
Ques Would it be a marked day in one’s history when one comes to this — to the well?
JT I think so. I thought we might be helped here to see that it is “Not by might, nor by power”, that is, physical and human power and might, that the work of God is carried on, “but by my Spirit”, as it says in Zechariah 4, and how that is exemplified now in Moses helping the women. That is the principle of the moment, to help people, not to destroy them.
Rem One would think that Moses learnt that lesson very soon after he got into Midian. It says he sat by the well before he helped these people.
JT You feel that to help people requires the recognition of the Spirit. Sitting by the well would mean that he would be taking in in his soul the sense of what that meant. Later on Israel sang to it — a fuller recognition of it as having digged it; here it is already there.
Ques Would that principle be in line with the word “helps” in 1 Corinthians 12?
JT I think so. You feel that is the line we ought to be on now, and indeed always. You do not pretend to be inaugurating anything, it is taking up what exists; these women had done this before doubtless, and they knew what to do. They fill the troughs with water; Moses did not teach them to do that. But they needed help, and one can be a help; I am sure each one should seek to be a help.
[p. 395] Rem A vision appeared to Paul of a man saying, “Come over ... and help us”.
JT Just so; that is what was needed.
Ques Do you suggest that as a result of sitting by the well he has a sympathetic understanding of what is needed, and he rises to meet it?
JT Just so; the point was to help these women. It was a hard-hearted thing for the shepherds to drive them away — that is the kind of thing that goes on in the world, the people of God are given no quarter, no consideration, but here is a deliverer — a mighty deliverer — and he delivers; that is the thing. The thing is done, he waters the flock.
Ques How would that apply at the present day?
JT Well, we were just remarking about the helps spoken of in 1 Corinthians. Each believer ought to be a help. Indeed, if one is not a help he is perhaps a hindrance.
Ques I suppose you would say it is the shepherd spirit that is marked here?
JT That is the thing. The other shepherds did not have the spirit of shepherds. There are such in this world that believers have to contend with — those in the place of shepherds, but instead of allowing you to drink of the Spirit of God they drive you away. That is the position around us today. But the thing is with His help to get the flock watered. You know the water is there, you have been sitting by it; and these women were doing their work well, they filled the troughs.
Rem There were seven of them — the perfect number.
JT Yes; you have something to say about that?
Rem Well, I was just thinking what a beautiful nucleus there was for the Spirit of God to work through there, first through Moses, and then through [p. 396] them.
JT These seven women of them belonged to one family, and were occupied in their father’s affairs. It does not appear that they had a brother, there is nothing said about a brother. It is a subjective state of things. Seven women like these were defenceless and exposed. What an immense thing it is to be able to help such — to water their flocks. Moses had come into a ready-made order of things, and he rises to the occasion.
Ques Is there any link between the seven women here at the outset of things, and the five daughters of Zelophehad at the end of Numbers?
JT There may be. The point with them is that they appreciate the inheritance of God; that is, they appreciate what has come down to them. Women that are spoken of in Scripture usually denote the subjective work of God, to be worked out in our comings together, and no doubt we have here a suggestion of that.
Rem The apostle says, “help those women which laboured with me in the gospel”. It is very beautiful.
JT Very good.
Rem These shepherds seem to be like the disciples, who would have sent the multitudes away. The Lord said, “Give ye them to eat”, Matthew 14: 16.
JT Moses had that spirit, you mean?
Rem Yes, and the shepherds seem to have had the spirit that the disciples had — they would have sent them away.
JT Yes, so that they are not really worthy of the name. Persons who would drive away seven women are not worthy of the name of shepherds. Yet they talk about having their flocks. If you want to get the saints to the truth of the Spirit they will hinder you. It interferes with their position.
Ques Would these shepherds be in line with those in Ezekiel who are spoken of so solemnly, who hinder and spoil the pastures [p. 397] and the waters?
JT Quite so. And you find in Zechariah, the Lord, typically, destroys three of them; God is so against this kind of shepherd. Then we have the right eye of the worthless shepherd utterly darkened, and his arm clean dried up; that is the governmental action of God against him. In the meantime we have to contend with them; we do not destroy them. The point is to help the people to get to the water. Then it says that when they came to Reuel their father, he said, “Why are ye come so soon today? And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water abundantly for us, and watered the flock”. That is, they are in the good of the deliverance, but have no knowledge of the man; they miss the point. It is often the case: people enjoy deliverance but overlook the Man — the Deliverer. He was a remarkable deliverer, but all they could say was that he was an Egyptian. But then a deliverer like that needs attention. In Romans 7 the deliverer becomes the husband. “Who shall deliver me out of this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord”. That is, “another man”, that is indicated in the beginning of the chapter, becomes the husband. So that we must not neglect the Deliverer. And so Reuel says, “And where is he?” That question might very conveniently be put to many of us — ‘What about Christ?’ They left Him outside.
Ques When you speak of the opening of Romans 7, do you mean that we should be married to another?
JT I referred to it because of the idea of deliverance. Romans 7 begins with the thought of being married to another, “even to him who is raised from the dead”; and then the chapter works out how you arrive at that, that the Deliverer becomes the Husband.
Ques Would Moses be like an Egyptian? They took him for an [p. 398] Egyptian.
JT Well, that is the way they regarded him; they did not enquire very much about him. I suppose they just looked at him outwardly. But christians are not to be content with that. The Lord challenges the disciples: “Whom say ye that I am?” Matthew 16: 15. It is for us to find out and know who He is.
Rem The nine went away, and only one came back (Luke 17: 18).
JT Yes. So that Reuel said to his daughters, “Where is he? why then have ye left the man behind?” Why should we leave Christ behind, after such a deliverance as that? Why not make some provision for Him? He has made wonderful provision for us. Wonderful indeed that He should think of anything we could make for Him; He values any provision we make for Him. He loves us.
Rem Everything is secured as coming under the new husband.
JT Yes. So Reuel says, “Call him, that he may eat bread”. That is, make some provision for him. Reuel had the right thought. So that it says he was content to remain: “Moses consented to remain with the man”. You see how the Lord, typically, accepts the situation. You think of Moses, a prince in Egypt, what circumstances had been his, and now he is content to dwell with this man in a foreign country and look after his sheep. There is no complaint with Moses at all. Jacob went to Syria for a wife; everything there was on the principle of wages, but there is not a word about wages with Moses. And after forty years we find him still looking after the flock of his father-in-law Jethro. See how thoroughly unselfish he was; he was with his father-in-law for forty years and asked no wages; no thought of wages.
Rem Does not the company in John 12 provide for the Deliverer?
JT Yes, that is very good. “They made him a supper”. That is what the Lord is looking for from every young brother and sister. We have to learn how to provide for Him, because we are so selfish.
Ques Do you think Moses would be content to remain?
JT Well, he respects Reuel; he is content to remain with the man. That is, he respected the right feeling that was in the head of the house. It is not a question of Zipporah, he gave him Zipporah afterwards; but all now hinges on the respect he had for Reuel. And the link formed between him and Reuel continued; you never hear of any complaint on the part of Moses.
Ques Would the forty years bring in the meekest of men?
JT I suppose it did. He sets out here a fine principle for all young believers, that is, the principle of contentment in our circumstances. He is content to remain with the man, although the circumstances were so different from what he was accustomed to. And he remains there all these years, and now at the end he tended the flock of Jethro his father-in-law; so that we should have no doubt it was an unselfish act. “Moses tended the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian”.
Ques Does the acceptance of the government of God and circumstances stand at the threshold of all entry into what is of the assembly?
JT I am sure it does. I am to be content in whatever circumstances I am. To be content is a fine point to reach.
Rem That would give continuance and endurance.
JT It is the acceptance of the government of God in one’s circumstances, and then you find that that same government will act against what is in your way in due course. And so you find in verse 23, “And it came to pass during those many days, that the king of Egypt died”. “During those many days”, that is, the days in which Moses is accepting the government of God humbly, “the king of Egypt died”. That was God acting against the enemy; you may reckon on that. We may have to wait but God will act for us.
Rem The same government moves the king out of the way.
JT So that Joseph came out of prison and the word of the Lord tried him; the king sent and loosed him and let him go free. We must not miss the forty years of education in accepting the government of God. Moses was content to remain with the man. You might say. He is content because he has Zipporah, but that is not the point, it is the man. He consented to remain with the man. He had respect for that man. He was his employer, as you might say. It is not easy to serve an employer, it is often irksome. There seemed to be no good relations between Jacob and Laban, but here there are; he is content to remain with the man. Zipporah is a secondary thought.
Ques Do you think it is the result of sitting by the well?
JT I am sure it is; you find it in the Spirit — by the Spirit of God you do these things. Then the removal of Pharaoh was a very remarkable thing. In the course of those days, that is, while this is going on, something else is going on, too; you can reckon on that. “And the children of Israel sighed because of the bondage, and cried; and their cry came up to God because of the bondage; and God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and God looked upon the children of Israel, and God acknowledged them”. That is, in the course of the government of God all this comes about. The children of Israel are crying; that is, the four hundred years [p. 401] is ending; they had done their work the four hundred years they were in a foreign land. And everything converges on one point: the time had come for Moses’ ministry. So that every one of us may be sure that God has something for him to do and as His government works in him, the occasion of it is also determined. The government of God works in that way.
Rem So that all things work together for good.
JT That is it, to those who love God.
Ques The Pharisees said to the Lord, “Get out, and go hence, for Herod is desirous to kill thee”, and the Lord answered, “Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons and accomplish cures today and tomorrow”. Do you get the principle there?
JT Yes. What can Herod do if it be the will of God? “Go, tell that fox”; the Lord unmasked him, you know; he is a fox. The Lord is not going to be turned aside for a fox.
Ques If the government of God and circumstances are accepted, will God clearly indicate when the time comes for the movement?
JT I am sure He will. And so this final act of Moses, I think, brings him into the presence of God. It was no accident; God was watching for this. It says, “Moses tended the flock of Jethro his father-in-law ... And he led the flock behind the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God — to Horeb”. That was no accident, it was a spiritual thing that God had been working up to.
Ques Would the thought that he led the flock indicate that he had acquired the qualities of leadership?
JT I should say so; he was doing the thing well; he led them, he did not drive them. And now there is one of the great divine appearings in the Old Testament. From the time of Abraham on we have this great feature of divine appearings. Moses [p. 402] had had to do with Reuel, and Pharaoh, and now he is having to do with God. He has been doing very well, now God says, ‘How are you going to do in My presence?’ He is brought face to face with God — that is a fine touch. I may be doing well, so far, under the government of God, but now I have to represent God. One great feature in ministry is to represent God, and if I am to represent God He must appear to me — I must meet Him face to face. How am I going to do there?
Rem It says, “Moses ... was afraid to look at God”.
JT Yes; he was not like that when he said, “Let me ... see thy glory”, Exodus 33: 18.
Ques Was not that a proper impression at the beginning?
JT Well, I think it was comely. It says, “And the Angel of Jehovah appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a thorn-bush: and he looked, and behold, the thorn-bush burned with fire, and the thorn-bush was not being consumed. And Moses said, Let me now turn aside and see this great sight, why the thorn-bush is not burnt”. That is, he is now being tested. I think that we may do well in other circumstances, but when it becomes a question of having to do directly with God, you are tested supremely. Nothing really can test me more than having to do with God.
Rem And then it seems as if the Lord was very observant as to how Moses really did take it; when He saw that he turned to look, then it drew forth something from God.
JT Yes. God is testing him as to what he will do. When he turned to look, God called him by name.
Ques So would you think by that that there is a sense in which we are able to draw God’s attention?
JT I think so. In a way you know what God is by considering the divine movements in yourself.
[p. 403] God loves what is lovable. He loves sovereignly; He can love us when we are unlovely; then He loves what is lovable. It was morally very lovable in His eyes that a man should turn to see why the thorn-bush was not consumed. The man’s mind — his intelligence — is active; God loves that.
Ques What does the thorn-bush indicate?
JT I think the smallness of the circumstances in which the people of God were to be found.
Ques What does it indicate by being burnt and not being consumed?
JT I understand that God should be in the midst of the people, and yet the people are not consumed. He does not intend to consume us, but He intends to consume all that is contrary in us. So that throughout the wilderness history this is what is seen, you know.
Ques Would this be similar to what the Lord said to Samuel when He said, “Samuel, Samuel”? Here He says, “Moses, Moses”. Is that a term of endearment?
JT O, it is that you are now distinguished in heaven. Moses had done remarkably well in Reuel’s house, but now what does heaven think of him? That is, I have got to reckon with heaven. I may be well thought of among brethren, but what does God think about me? — that is the most important thing of all. I may be deceived because the brethren may esteem me too highly, but God never does that, so that I have got to reckon with God, what does He think about me? So, when God calls your name out twice it means that He has a great place in His mind for you. The archangels would say, ‘There is a man that has a great place in His mind’. “If any man love God, the same is known of him” (1 Corinthians 8: 3); that is, a man is taken account of in relation to his love; that is what God is looking at, not his knowledge, but his love.
[p. 404] Ques Does the way Moses is led indicate the way God would lead us all? That is, he acquired the heart of a true shepherd in leading the flock; and then he is to learn here that without holiness no man shall see the Lord.
JT That is right. First God notices the fact that he turned aside: “Jehovah saw that he turned aside to see, and God called to him out of the midst of the thorn-bush and said, Moses, Moses!” (verse 4). His name is called out twice. One mention of the name would have been sufficient if it were merely to call his attention; but, “Moses, Moses!” shows the great place he had with God.
Ques On account of the way he had moved?
JT Yes, on account of his turning aside to see this sight — how the thorn-bush could burn and yet not be consumed.
Ques It is called a “great sight”. Is it a picture of another sight when they stood and watched the One who wore a crown of thorns?
JT Quite. It is really like a man’s gift: if God is to use you He will bring something specially to your attention, and if you do not see that, then you will never serve according to His mind. You may carry on activity, but you will never carry on according to His mind; you will not know your work.
Rem The way that God called Moses here must have attracted Moses greatly to God.
JT He would never forget it all his days. “The good will of him that dwelt in the bush”, Deuteronomy 33: 16. The good will, that is a term that is well-known in commercial lines; it does not amount to much in very many businesses, but it means a great deal in God’s affairs. “The good will of him that dwelt in the bush”. Moses entered in relation to the good will of God who dwelt in the bush; he proved the wealth of that in all his ministry.
Ques Why is the word ‘thorn’ used in connection with the bush?
JT O, because it is an insignificant thing.
Ques Does it carry any thought of the cross?
JT Well, possibly; it is an insignificant bush, it is not of much value.
Ques Do you mean by the good will the thoughts of goodness and blessing that God had even for His people Israel?
JT Yes, that is right; and all the resources that were at Moses’ disposal. This is his commission; the second paragraph shows that it is his commission. When later on he was worried with his work and said to God that he did not know why he should be burdened with all this people, he had forgotten the good will — the wonderful resources that were at his disposal. And so God says to him, You take seventy elders and come to the door of the tent; I will be there. And He spoke to Moses; that is, He honoured Moses, but He took the power off Moses and put it on the seventy, showing that He had furnished them with abundance to carry on.
Ques Would this be similar to what you were saying about the mount of transfiguration — the sovereignty of God in bringing them into the divine presence?
JT Yes. God came into such circumstances. Can I be content to be in them? Moses had begun with accepting the reproach, and this reproach is to continue; it is not to be lifted.
Ques Would you say that the whole of Moses’ service, and the ministry he received, was embodied in this thorn-bush?
JT I think so. This is the impression he got at the outset, and this is to give character to his ministry. He is to serve in humiliation and reproach, but the good-will was there.
Ques Would you connect God saying here,
“Moses, Moses!” with His words in chapter 33, “I know thee by name”? That was at a very critical juncture.
JT Yes; later on He came and talked with him as a man speaking with his friend.
Rem It was after Isaac was offered up that God called Abraham by his name twice.
JT That is right; he was distinguished by that action. And now Moses is required to take off his sandals, which would, I suppose, denote the divine presence, for it was no less than that; for whatever circumstances God comes into, His holiness remains. God can never be but what He is. God in Christ — God was there, come into lowly circumstances, but no less than God.
Ques Does the fact that this same thing occurs with Joshua before the movement of the assembly into the land suggest the ground we are on in having to do with the movement of the people of God in any way?
JT I think it is your feet on the ground. David went up barefoot. It seems to be an acknowledgment of our unholiness, and to emphasise our appreciation of the holiness of God. But in the house there are no bare feet. The prodigal is shod in the house. In the house, as brought in in Christ, all unholiness is dealt with, and instead of bare feet they are shod; that is, sonship taken up in Christ. Taking off one’s shoes is a divine requirement, that is to say, God would impress on us what we are in our natural state. Romans develops the thought of holiness: you have your fruit unto holiness through righteousness; it is righteousness unto holiness.
Rem Jehovah says, “I am come down”. Would the thought of the bush indicate how far He came down?
JT It does; it is very beautiful. As it says, He “humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!” Psalm 113: 6. The ark later is the full thought of the smallness of the circumstances in which God came in in Christ. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us”.
Ques Would you say that that would have a special application to our coming together on Lord’s day morning — taking off the shoes?
JT Well, in a way; but you come into the prodigal’s position with your shoes on, that is, in the light of purpose.
Rem I mean to say, there is particular reverence at that moment.
JT Well, that is right: “Be ye holy, for I am holy”. Then in the next paragraph you have the commission. God speaks of having seen the state of His people, and what He would bring them into. He sets out His full thought — to bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey.
And now He says in verse 10, “I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt”. That was his commission. In closing I thought we might see in the end of chapter 4 how the message was delivered to them. Of course, much intervened because most of chapters 3 and 4 happens in this position at mount Horeb. The passage we read (verse 27) says, “And Jehovah said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him on the mountain of God, and kissed him”. It would appear that Aaron had to do all the travelling; that is, it is to bring out the brotherly side — what love would do. Moses here is a type of one who has light — the man of God. Aaron, the brother, is the love side; how far love would go! Apparently all took place at the mount of God, so that the travelling was all Aaron’s; God directed him to meet Moses. And then it says, “he ... met him on the mountain of God, and kissed him”. He would remind Moses of the great principle, “On the mount of Jehovah will be provided”, Genesis 22: 14. Aaron is the provision. And then it says, “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, and did the signs before the eyes of the people. And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped”. I was thinking we might see there the effectiveness of the ministry set out in this way. No greater tribute can be paid to a man’s ministry than that it brings about a state of worship in the people of God.
Ques Would what Moses said previously: “Who am I, that I should go ... ?” bring out the diffidence that is proper to service?
JT I suppose so, as to the humility of mind, though he went too far, did he not? He went too far in chapter 4: 10, “And Moses said to Jehovah, Ah Lord! I am not eloquent, neither heretofore nor since thou hast spoken to thy servant, for I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue. And Jehovah said to him, Who gave man a mouth? or who maketh dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? have not I, Jehovah? And now go, and I will be with thy mouth, and will teach thee what thou shalt say. And he said, Ah Lord! send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. Then the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Moses”. That is, he went too far.
Rem Something similar seems to come out in Gideon, that is, reluctance to move without proper confirmation.
Ques Is the affection of Aaron for Moses such [p. 409] that he helped forward his effective service to the people? Aaron serves perfectly here.
JT I suppose that enters into it; it established a remarkable atmosphere, you know, because you have two persons now instead of one.
Rem Yes, I was thinking of the brotherly spirit.
JT Yes. I would say that Moses had the light. It is all well to have love, and Aaron had that, but that will not do in itself. What would he say to the people? He met Moses and kissed him. Well, that is not enough; that would not help much. The testimony lies in the words. Moses had the light of God.
Ques In connection with the signs, is it that the people might believe — something like that in John’s gospel? The disciples believed on Him.
JT Yes. We do not speak of our love in testimony exactly. The testimony is Christ — what God is in Christ, and Moses alone had that. Aaron could not have said anything about that; that is, he does not present that side, the side of light. What is to be spoken is in Moses.
Rem So that affection would be governed by light.
JT That is the idea. “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”. See how accurate it is; it is a question of what Moses received from God. Moses represents that side — a man that has a gift; there is nothing said about Aaron’s gift.
Ques Would some of these words be: “I have surely seen the affliction of my people”, and “I am come down to deliver them”?
JT Quite; that is, their hearts would be touched that God had come down. As He had come down to see the tower of Babel, and Sodom, here He comes down to deliver.
[p. 410] Rem I was wondering if these two would be like the two you spoke of in Matthew with reference to the assembly.
JT Very much; it is that principle. You have two persons — adequate testimony, adequate witness. Of course, they might also be taken to represent Christ as Apostle and High Priest; both these features are combined in Christ. And then the affection that marked Him. They “wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth”. The mouth was a priest’s mouth. “And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped”. That all refers to what Moses had; that was where the light came from.
Rem This was far more effective than when he slew the man.
JT Yes, indeed. Now you have here the beginning of what we spoke of, that is, the assembly. He is not dealing here with the individual members, but with the corporate whole; that settles everything with the elders. Moses communicates the mind of God to those who were responsible, that is, the elders; the elders would be responsible to communicate it to the people. We shall see this, please God, more fully in chapter 12.
Ques Is there a difference then between gathering all the elders of the children of Israel, and the signs that were done and the people believed?
JT I think it would be in its representation; we have to see things in that way, because there were probably two million Israelites in Egypt. Things are concentrated like the two midwives. There must have been more but they are representative. So here, the elders are representative. It is the idea of a corporate whole with responsibility.