THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST IN THE ASSEMBLY (2)
[p. 165] THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST IN THE ASSEMBLY (2)
Exodus 32:26 - 29 Numbers 3:5 - 16
JT It is thought that this subject, the Levites, may be divided in the two readings before us: the two scriptures read for consideration this afternoon, and in the evening a scripture in Numbers 8 and one in Deuteronomy 33. We should direct our attention to the facts recorded in Exodus 32, where the Levites are seen as qualifying for their great service by taking the Lord’s side in a crisis; this event evidently occurred before the one recorded in Numbers, and reminds us that levitical service hinges on faithfulness to the Lord. The apostle Paul speaks about being counted faithful and so appointed to ministry (1 Timothy 1:12), and these four verses in Exodus 32 show that the Levites came out in an unqualified way to the Lord’s side in a crisis.
This chapter records [p. 166] the making of the calf and the mixture of good and evil; even after the position was clear and Jehovah came in, a mixture still remained, for the tabernacle was pitched outside the camp, and certain ones went out; that is, those that sought the Lord. Others remained in their tents, so that this section would teach us the importance of whole-heartedness in a crisis, to avoid mixed feelings, and above all, to avoid latitudinarian thoughts or a compromise between the truth and error. That is what was begun at Bethesda, a sort of struggle; there is always the tendency to put truth and error on the same plane, or perhaps to call good, evil, or evil, good. So I thought it would be wholesome to look at this incident as showing whole-heartedness and loyalty to God and to Christ; encouraging us to be on His side, and not on any other.
JEH The challenge is, “He that is for Jehovah, let him come to me”. It is a question of being for Jehovah.
APM You referred to the mixture of good and evil, as illustrated in what Aaron said: “Tomorrow is a feast to Jehovah!” (Exodus 32:5) — mixing up idolatry with the worship of Jehovah.
JT That is what I was thinking, the tendency to level good and evil.
ANW Moses took his stand by the gate of the camp. Was that position designed?
JT Yes; it says he stood in the gate of the camp, as if it were the crucial position.
CAM I was struck with that in reading it. The gate seems to be emphasised.
JT It is the public position that is in mind.
WB-w Why do you think it is the sons of Levi only that gathered to him?
JT It serves to bring out what we have in mind, that they qualified for the subsequent great calling and privilege of service, as proving themselves true at this critical time.
CAM That gives a great emphasis to the numbering. I was struck with what you said about this preceding the calling, or numbering. When God numbers, there is some moral reason for it.
JT Yes. This evidently preceded the numbering of the Levites to take the place of the first-born in Israel; that is, they were elevated into a great position — not simply because they are the sons of Levi, but because they had qualified morally.
AP Would you say more as to Aaron’s position at the beginning of the chapter?
JT Well, he evidently is weak. It says, “When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people collected together to Aaron, and said to him. Up, make us a god, who will go before us; for this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt, — we do not know what is become of him! And Aaron said to them. Break off the golden rings that are in the ears of your wives, of your sons,
[p. 167] and of your daughters, and bring them to me” (Exodus 32:1,2). He, I suppose, represents one in responsibility prominently, and yet allowing himself to be drawn into the evil. It was not his own thought; he was brought into it. He tells Moses afterwards, “And they said to me, Make us a god, ... And I said to them. Who has gold? They broke it off, and gave it me, and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf” (Exodus 32:23 - 25). That is how he accounts for it.
AP Is the last reference to Aaron here an excuse, or how do you regard it?
JT He tries to reduce his own responsibility in the thing to a minimum, and puts the burden of it on the people. I think Aaron is the key to the mixed condition that existed, for, as the narrative goes on in chapter 33, it will be noted that Moses took the tent and pitched it outside the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tent of meeting. “And it came to pass that every one who sought Jehovah went out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. And it came to pass, when Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and stood every man at the entrance of his tent, and they looked after Moses until he entered into the tent” (Exodus 33:7 - 9). They stood, each at the entrance of his tent. They were not against him exactly; they looked after him, as if interested, but they did not go out; that is, it is a half-hearted position. Those that sought the Lord went out to the tent of meeting.
APT Is Peter in a like situation in regard to circumcision at Antioch?
JT I think there is a correspondence there. He was amenable to influence, and when “certain came from James ... he drew back and separated himself” (Galatians 2:12). He thus denied the truth — for the time, at least.
ANW What is the significance of the priesthood being allowed to fail, while the apostle becomes the rallying point? Moses says. Come to me. What is the point in [p. 168] that?
JT Well, of course, Moses was representative more of Jehovah. Aaron had not been called up to the point of “the mountain of God”, to receive “the tables of stone, and the law, and the commandment” (Exodus 24:12). Aaron, in this connection is not to be regarded as typical of Christ. He with Hur was left with the people while Moses was on high. It was provisional in the absence of the mediator, and Aaron proved unequal to his responsibility. Thus he cannot be viewed here as representing the priesthood, as associated with the apostleship of Christ. There is no discrepancy in the apostleship and the high priesthood in Christ. You have to take them here severally: Moses, representing the authority of God, being called to the supreme point on high, and being there forty days and forty nights without eating or drinking. Aaron was below with the people. They are not seen as acting together, for the people said they did not know what had become of Moses. It is like Christ, gone into heaven; and Aaron is the responsible element down here with the people.
EEH How do you account for the fact that Aaron did not come under the judgment although he actually made the calf?
JT I suppose there is discrimination in his favour, for he really was brought into the evil. It was not a movement like Korah’s, which had a leader; he being the chief instigator of the movement.
AFM In that relation Hur would rightly stand with Aaron as supporting him. In chapter 24, as Moses and Joshua went up to the mountain of God, he said to the elders, “Wait here for us, until we return to you; and behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matter, let him come before them” (Exodus 24:14).
JT Hur is not mentioned here at all. It is significant, for authorities say his name means purity. Evidently he was not brought into this evil matter, possibly was not consulted. It is, I think, the explanation in [p. 169] part of the mixed state of things, that Aaron was amenable to the influence of others. He was drawn into the thing.
AP Would he give reputation to the wrong movement on account of who he was?
JT Quite so, and ostensibly had the right to make a proclamation; it says, “And Aaron saw it, and built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast to Jehovah” (Exodus 32:5). He did not proclaim the feast until he saw the idol, which is sorrowful. Instead of recoiling from his product, he proclaimed a feast to it, after he saw it, so that he was committed in that way, and the more responsible.
AFM There is design, too, in the fashioning of this calf; he employed a chisel. But in the account of things to Moses, he says, “There came out this calf” (Exodus 32:24), as excusing the thing, would you say?
JT Yes, it says he “fashioned it with a chisel and made of it a molten calf: and they said. This is thy god, Israel, who has brought thee up out of the land of Egypt!” (Exodus 32:4) That is what they said; the people had wanted it, but Aaron saw it and built an altar before it, and Aaron made the proclamation and said, “Tomorrow is a feast to Jehovah!” (Exodus 32:5). That is, I think, he is holding them back from idolatry in linking it up with Jehovah; it was a go-between. I suppose the instigators of the thing would go the whole way, because they wanted idolatry; indeed, the prophets say that this is the beginning of the idolatrous history of things, and that God would transport them beyond Babylon; but it would seem as if Aaron was holding them back and connecting the wickedness with Jehovah.
CAM That seems to account for his way of speaking about it. It was a kind of muddled way he had of looking at the whole thing.
JT That is always the case where we are not out and out for the Lord. Our minds are dark and confused until we take a definite stand for the truth.
[p. 170] RWS Joshua does not miss his way, but he seems to miss the issue in this crisis. What does he represent?
JT Well, also a mixed state of mind. He calls it the noise of war; he had bad hearing. That is, it is putting in the thought of war instead of mirth: they “sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (Exodus 32:6). It was idolatry, and marked by this sort of thing, which is all around us now in the religious systems, connecting it with Jehovah, but giving way to natural mirth, which is idolatry. Joshua did not discern that it was the noise of that; Moses discerned it at once.
APM Although Aaron was foremost in making the idol, he is not cut off, as many were at that time; yet he was not immune from God’s displeasure. It says in Deuteronomy, that Jehovah was very angry to destroy him. It is a serious thing to come under the displeasure of God.
AC Does not Aaron’s position show us what is liable to occur in the most spiritual, at an unguarded moment if not near the Lord?
JT That is the lesson to be learned. We allow ourselves to be brought into evil, and then attach what good we can to it, to make it less wicked than it is. Aaron in connecting the calf with the name of Jehovah sought to modify the wickedness.
AP Would Aaron be a nominal leader, but really one led by the people? May that not be a tendency with us, to be led by popular opinion, rather than leading in accord with the thoughts of God?
JT Quite so.
AR What was lacking? Was it the absence of the authority of Christ? The priesthood was there, as seen in Aaron.
JT I think that was the fact; Moses was not there. Of course, it may be applied now; it is the state of Christendom in the absence of Christ. We have all this fallacy of truth mixed with error around us. It was typically an admixture of idolatry and Christianity;
[p. 171] the leaders, particularly, the Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, and others do not wish to go the whole road to Rome, but the mixture in doctrine and the unrestrained worldliness make them idolatrous; it is all because the Lord is not here. As soon as you make room for Him, you have recovery; so that Moses in coming down represents the drastic character of the Lord’s intervention. It says, “And he took the calf that they had made, and burned it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it on the water, and made the children of Israel drink it” (Exodus 32:20). That is the first thing he does as to it: the complete demolition of the idol, and the people made to drink the water on which was strewed the powder of the idol. He makes them do it; showing the moral power he had: over against Aaron who had no power at all to stand against them.
AFM What is the idea of the drinking of this water?
JT Well, it would bring it home to them. You have the thought elsewhere of water being drunk judicially; and we have also “the little book” (Revelation 10), eaten. This water mixed with powder of the burnt idol going into the intestines, would mean the whole being absorbed it, so to speak, so that one would realise what one has done. You may not be affected really by something said to you about a matter, but in the drinking it is brought home to you in this palpable way.
JS Moses would make them taste the bitterness of the thing.
JT Quite so. That was what it really was. The Lord is asserting His authority even in Christendom today, bringing the current idolatrous conditions home to the consciences of some.
JTJr Would it be like, “Those that sin convict before all” (1 Timothy 5:20), to bring home to the conscience the truth of the [p. 172] matter?
JT That illustrates how it works out. There is no resistance to Moses here; as he comes in, evil goes down before him. It is a question of letting the Lord have His way, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, (2 Timothy 2:19). We want the Lord to have His way, thus there is power to deal with sin. He then says to Aaron, “What has this people done to thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin on them?” (Exodus 32:21). Moses puts the responsibility of making the calf largely on Aaron, “And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord burn!” (Exodus 32:22). It is remarkable that he should call Moses “lord” here, for the first time, I think. He was three years his senior, so that he must have felt the power of God vested in His servant at this time. He says, “Let not the anger of my lord burn! thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief. And they said to me, Make us a god, who will go before us; for this Moses, the man that has brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what is become of him! And I said to them, Who has gold? They broke it off, and gave it to me, and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf” (Exodus 32:22 - 24). Well, that is not the whole truth.
JS Moses’ attitude would show how displeased Jehovah was by the presence of the calf.
JT Yes; when Aaron saw it, he built an altar to it. As if to say, ‘This is going too far, and we must retrench’. He built an altar, and proclaimed a feast to Jehovah; he was by this means toning down the sin. Aaron had been damaged and was terribly wrong; now he drops down to prevarication.
APM Do you think that is where a lot of trouble occurs, not only in Christendom, but amongst us, that only part of the truth is told? Is there not a lot of mischief done because of that? We want the whole truth.
JS Aaron was damaged and the mediator was displeased. How serious [p. 173] that was!
JT Yes, quite; so that Aaron drops out of view for a while here. He is out of view during the recovery all is linked with Moses. Aaron is not mentioned again until Moses returns from the mountain, when his face shone, and then he is afraid to come near the mediator. He is called “the Levite” earlier, this evidently being characteristic, but he is not in that capacity at all here, and that brings out the point in the verses we read, that faithfulness of the true Levites is over against Aaron’s weakness, vacillation, and prevarication, because he is not declaring the thing as it is. He is hiding himself as much as possible from the responsibility for the sin he committed, but Moses holds him to it, because he said to Aaron, “What has this people done to thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin on them?” (Exodus 32:21). He puts the onus of it on Aaron; he had brought the sin on the people — although they, as we have seen, brought him into it.
Ques Why did Aaron leave out that part about the chiselling?
JT He did not tell the whole truth. Job says, “Hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?” Job 26:3.
GMacP Moses knew the truth before; it was told him by Jehovah.
JT Quite so. It is in verses 7 and 8 that the people’s part in this wickedness of making the calf is stressed.
ABP It says that Moses saw that the people were stripped; the footnote says, “unbridled”. Does that suggest that they were not under control?
JT It was the shameless idolatrous state they were in. It looks as if Aaron helped them to complete their moral degradation!
JTJr Moses did not allow his natural relationship to interfere with his judgment of Aaron, [p. 174] did he?
JT He did not. Natural relationships were ignored in the striking loyalty to the rights of God which was manifest in Moses and the Levites. It was a question of the Lord and who was for Him. When Moses demands as to who is for the Lord, all the sons of Levi gathered to him. That it should be said “all” is remarkable, because a great many Levites must have been slain, so it must be the Spirit’s way of giving the facts — that the full thought of Levi in the crisis comes to light here.
APM Towards the end of Numbers, we see Phinehas going forward with the zeal and jealousy of Jehovah, on his own initiative, but here the sons of Levi come forward as subject to Moses’ demand. Is there not something to be noted in that?
JT Well, it is a very fine passage in the sense of exhibiting loyalty. “All the sons of Levi gathered to him” (verse 26). You would be distressed to find yourself outside of that company.
NMcC You made a remark earlier that Aaron was drawn into the idolatrous thing in which he was half-hearted; then he makes excuses. All that was despicable to those standing for God, was it not?
JT It was. You see how very weak his position was here. He was self-condemned really. If he had plentifully declared the thing as it was, he would have come out commendably. You have respect for a man that tells the whole truth, although it condemns himself. He says nothing about the chisel, nor about making the altar, nor of the proclamation. He puts the whole blame on the people; whereas Moses puts it on him, for, in truth, he was responsible. If he had stood out against the evil at the outset, God would have supported him, and it is likely there would have been no idolatry.
AC Do you not think that the faithfulness of Moses to his brother in this crisis laid the basis for further movements on his part in faithfulness to God?
JT Yes; he was faithful in all God’s house. At no point in Moses’ history does he shine, in this respect,
[p. 175] more than here. It is striking to see the power in which he acted in grinding the calf to powder and strewing it on the water and making the people to drink it, and then standing at the gate and calling upon those who were for Jehovah to come to him, and in all that followed, including the pitching of the tent outside the camp, he stands out triumphantly on moral ground, as a man of faithfulness and courage.
AR Is there not significance in the fact that the sons of Levi gathered to Moses first before he tells them to do anything? I was wondering whether it suggests the idea of coming under his influence first.
JT I think that is right. In a service so momentous, involving the loss of the saints, we need to be with the Lord, to be influenced and guided by Him.
WB-w Aaron being damaged, as you have been saying, how was he recovered?
JT It is an important question. We do not get the process of Aaron’s recovery. It is said in Deuteronomy, as remarked already, that the Lord sought to slay him. He was in a very serious position. According to Deuteronomy 9 Moses prayed for Aaron and thus evidently saved him from destruction. And we may be sure that Aaron went through much soul history with God in this matter at that time. He was a man capable of that. Undoubtedly he went through what was needed with God in order to be reinstated in His service.
AP Is there a danger of idolatry in connection with any issues that might arise amongst us, and how would it work out?
JT While no one seems to be against Moses as he returned, yet there was a mixed state of things in the camp. Some of them take the Lord’s side, and the judgment is executed, Moses goes the whole road in placing the tent outside the camp, and those that sought the Lord went out to it; others looked after Moses from their tent doors, as much as to say, ‘We have [p. 176] respect for him, but we will not go the whole way’. You can understand that they would whisper and say that Moses was too extreme, too exacting; but those that sought the Lord went out to the tent of meeting.
JEH They refrained from speaking disparagingly about him when he was with them, but when he was away they slightingly spoke of him as “this Moses”; then again, when he was with them they were silent and dare not do aught but respect him.
JT You will notice that he does not make himself the centre; he took the tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the Tent of meeting. He also stood in the gate, and said, “He that is for Jehovah, let him come to me”, which would show that he represented divine authority; but in chapter 33 he makes the tent the centre, meaning that the tent was the divine thought, as the place where Jehovah could be. He pitched the tent outside the camp. It was an action of intelligence, for the tabernacle had already been spoken of. This act of Moses is alluded to in Hebrews 13. As it was divinely owned then, so it is owned today. As having gone outside the camp to Christ, bearing His reproach, He is known amongst us.
AFM There is evidently a succession of steps in this movement. Firstly, Moses addresses Aaron as to his part in relation to the calf; then he challenges those for Jehovah to come to him; following that the drastic movement takes place, of three thousand people being slain; and then the tent of meeting is pitched outside the camp. Is that the order of events?
JT That is right. It is a new start. The truth is now asserted in the position of the tent outside. The tent represents the divinely accepted place of meeting.
AP Does verse 11 of chapter 33 confirm that, for though Moses leaves the tent to go to the camp, Joshua stays [p. 177] there?
JT Yes. Joshua represents the appreciative spiritual element in the new position — that outside the camp.
AR And you get the divine presence here now, do you not? The pillar of cloud descends, and stands at the entrance of the tent; that is, you get divine committal to it.
JT Yes. “And it came to pass, when Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and stood every man at the entrance of the tent, and they looked after Moses until he entered into the tent. And it came to pass when Moses entered into the tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and Jehovah talked with Moses” (Exodus 33:8,9). Now the position taken up in faithfulness is consolidated and fixed by the divine glory. I think that is how the truth is re-set.
WB-w It is significant that in chapter 32 all the sons of Levi gathered themselves to Moses, but there is no word about the tent.
JT Well, would that not be our coming under the Lord? “Go forth to him without the camp” (Hebrews 13:13) — coming under the Lord, standing as in the gate, is a military position. He does not go outside yet; but when the tent is pitched outside, we go forth to Him bearing His reproach. But what happened militarily is actually inside the camp, and “come unto me” would mean that one leaves the domination of others and takes his place under Christ. They did not begin to use the sword, you will observe, until they went to Moses. “He said to them. Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel: Put every man his sword upon his hip; go ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his friend ...” (verse 27). The sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; they do not act until he directs them. An believer today, in idolatrous association is to take his place under the direction of the Lord, and then consecrate himself “with his son, and with his brother”, which really means separating from evil.
JTJr The sword is connected with that; it is to be on the hip. Would the sword be the word of God in that connection?
JT Quite so, and there is a blessing attached to the action (verse 29). The place of meeting is another thing; that is not the military. It is what the word signifies. It is where we meet the Lord and one another. The military matter here is in the camp, where you have to do violence to other people and to yourself.
ANW Would chapter 32 of Exodus fit in with the first letter to the Corinthians, and chapter 33 with the second letter?
JT Quite so, and chapter 34, too. The first epistle to the Corinthians is really the sword, the word of God in that sense for slaying the evil, as it were, but the second epistle is chiefly the new covenant relation. The call in Christendom is to the Lord — Who is on the Lord’s side? And as soon as one takes up fidelity to the Lord there must be violence. He will be able to leave his nearest and dearest if necessary and consecrate himself in that way. One says to his father and mother, “I see him not” (Deuteronomy 33:9). That is the principle, that you do violence to natural feelings, and even to mere religious feelings. But chapter 33 is a question of our meeting together in peace, and where God comes in and speak with us, and the glory descends, so that the whole matter is settled. That is what happened about one hundred years ago; the position was confirmed, and has been preserved by God ever since.
JS It would show the conditions in which God can be with us as outside of the idolatrous camp.
JT That is right. The violence is in the camp and you come under great reproach for that violence, but the peaceful meeting outside by those who fear the Lord is in chapter 33, at the tent of meeting.
CAM [p. 179] The military action is emphasised, but it always has an objective. The Levites would never acquire this setting in their normal service, would they?
JT No; so that I believe we may call the scripture in Exodus 32 our qualification for levitical service. Through faithfulness you are worthy of notice in view of being employed in the service of God. You may have all the education the seminaries of Christendom can give you, and yet may not be qualified to be numbered among the servants of God. The initial qualification is this act of violence in the camp.
Then the next thing is the acceptance of the Levites by Jehovah. That is our next passage — in Numbers 3; as much as to say that He approved of them; they had qualified, and now He takes them on — He says “instead of”. “And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying. Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him; and they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole assembly, before the tent of meeting, to do the service of the tabernacle” (verse 5 - 7). You have the tabernacle or tent of meeting in Exodus 33, and now these men have qualified themselves, and He is taking them on as servants instead of the firstborn in Israel.
CAM They were really going to be a most peaceful people!
JT Exactly; they were not military people properly. Jehovah says, “Bring the tribe of Levi near”.
APT Levi’s name means “joined”, does it not? Whereas this dealing with evil is the antithesis to that.
JT That is, you disjoin yourself, you dissociate yourself from what is evil. And now you are joined with Aaron, for in Numbers 18 they are united with Aaron. The word was taken from Genesis 29:34.
JS Would the Levites’ faithfulness here suggest any prior history by the fact that they all came to Moses?
JT Why is it that they did this? There must have been some antecedent history as in the case of Aaron earlier, of whom Jehovah said, “I know him”. But the point is they did this, and God is taking them up on this ground, for they have gone the whole way in the crisis. I believe that what is creditable is that we go the whole road, without compromising; God would say of such, ‘You are peculiarly pleasing to Me, and I wish you near’. Now they are associated with Aaron the priest, to be before him. They are to serve him, to keep his charge, also the charge of the whole assembly, to do the service of the tabernacle. In chapter 8, where they are presented to Jehovah and waved before Him, He says, as it were, ‘I wish to have more of this’, so He reduced their age from thirty to twenty-five. I believe that is the idea. God has something great for those who qualify in this way, a service in which we are to be united with Christ, in which we keep His charge, and do what is needed in regard of the whole testimony.
CAM What strikes one as being so important is this: that if you are undecided in one crisis, you will fail in the next; you want to be sure of being clear in every conflict as it comes along; otherwise, you will fail when the next comes.
JT That is right. I think God’s government goes on in that way. You may be clear outwardly in this crisis, but miss your way in another; the point for us today is to go the whole way, to go out to the Lord, to be entirely under His direction without modification; He will then take us on, as is said here, “Bring the tribe of Levi near”. Numbers 3:6.
AR They become the best that God has, be in taken instead of the firstborn among the children of Israel.
JT Quite so; they take the place that belonged to others.
AP What is meant by that?
JT I think it is God’s way of showing what He approved in them because they qualified in this way. I believe that is our position today. The great revival [p. 181] of a hundred years ago was seen in men who went the whole road; God took them on, and identified Himself with them.
AFM We have come into that movement, through grace, and it is encouraging to look back to the faithful men of a hundred years ago; but what about today — are we following in the steps of those men?
JT I think the danger, especially in a crisis, is to modify, and then put evil for good, and good for evil, to mix truth and error, instead of maintaining a single eye and going the whole road with the truth. If others see it, why cannot I? God will help me to see the full truth of the position. As I take my eyes off men and look alone to Christ, and ask what He is saying about all this, my view becomes cleared.
JTJr Do these Levites correspond with the vessels to honour in 2 Timothy?
JT I think that is the point exactly: “If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work”, (2 Timothy 2:21). Thus we come out to the tent as pitched (verse 22): “But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart” (2 Timothy 2:22). That is the tent of meeting.
AP I notice that they had charge of both the tent of testimony and the tent of meeting; what is the difference?
JT The tent of testimony is what God is setting out before men in the assembly, and the tent of meeting is where we meet one another; the two things go together.
APM In the action of Moses in pitching the tent outside of the camp, it says he called it the Tent of meeting, thus making it very prominent. The tabernacle is so designated [p. 182] forthwith.
JT It is not a pretentious name, but contains a very precious thought. It is where God meets with us and we can meet one another. We speak much about meetings, and the word thus used conveys the very precious thought of meeting one another.
WB-w These sons of Levi seem to be unified. They were all united on one thing. How was that brought about?
JT Well, we ought to be motivated by one thought. We have the Holy Spirit, we have the holy Scriptures, and we ought to be united in the truth. There is the unity of the faith and the unity of the Spirit. There should be nothing less than that amongst us; anything less, in principle at least, is simply ‘open-brethrenism’, and we soon get down to the level of current Christendom if we proceed on those lines.
WB-w I think that is very good. We want to get clear of all activity of the flesh. The flesh works in us one way or another to bring in strife and quarrelling, but there was no evidence of it among the sons of Levi here.
JT Well, why cannot we take the ground, you and I, for instance, or any two Christians, or any one hundred Christians? We are all blessed in Christ, we have the Spirit, and we have the Scriptures; is there any reason why we cannot be of one mind? If anyone says, I do not see that, then the question is. Have you good eyes?
ANW Could we not say as to chapter 32, that what rallied them there was the man that thought for God? It seems that that cleared the situation; they rallied to the man that thought for God.
JTJr They all had the sword on — that would be one idea?
JT Yes; it is the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
JTJr Each had it on his hip, where it was in readiness for [p. 183] use.
ARS Do you not think that eye-salve is what is wanted if we cannot see the thing?
JT Exactly, and the Lord counsels us to buy it from Him. In every case it is a question of getting to Him. You need never be utterly shut in. The Lord gives understanding in all things.
JS The initial step is moving out to the Lord and then getting His thoughts — coming under His authority and direction.
JT Quite so. Then the tent of meeting is the next thing. You are there as under the direction of Christ.
AR I was wondering whether what is seen in the Levites here would maintain unity in the whole assembly.
JT Well, as has been remarked, the word “united” was what governed the Levites. They are not said to be anointed. They come in under the anointing of the priesthood. In truth, the Levites are an integral part of the priesthood. In both Deuteronomy and Joshua they are regarded as priests, so that it is a question of adhering and submitting to the spiritual thought, and this is what is reached. That is, to give room to the Spirit of God in our service, however insignificant.
NMcC Would you say something more about the query. Who is on the Lord’s side? In every controversy, is it not true that each would say that he is on the Lord’s side? Would you say more about that?
JT Well, it is a question now of the word of God. “To the law and to the testimony” (Isaiah 8:20). Having the Lord, the Spirit and the Scriptures, we shall see eye to eye, if we are subject. As “God reigneth” and as He brings back Zion, the watchmen of Israel “see eye to eye”, (Isaiah 52:8).
AP I suppose there were many in Israel, as the Levites acted under Moses, that would say. There is another side to this.
JT Quite so. But surely the saints should be able to determine right from wrong. Does not the word of God settle everything? It is quick and powerful and [p. 184] sharper than any two-edged sword. It discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. If that is the weapon, we shall be transparent, and all will be clear. We must tell each other what we think and compare facts in dependence on the Lord, then as in the light of Scripture, differences will vanish; but instead of this we are prone to remain in silence, nursing our natural feelings and grievances, and darkness continues.
NMcC Would you say we are confined to the word of God in a crisis?
JT Yes; each ought to have his sword. The sword of the Spirit is the word of God. It is a great weapon when the enemy has to be met. Where fleshly thoughts are harboured and divine principles refused the enemy has scope, and this situation must be met by the word of God.
ES In Acts 15, after much discussion, and relating of facts, James stood up and quoted “the words of the prophets” (Acts 15:15).
JT Yes, he spoke the word of God, as also did Peter, and thus the matter was settled.