THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST IN THE ASSEMBLY (5)
[p. 230] THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST IN THE ASSEMBLY (5)
Exodus 17:1 - 16; Numbers 17:1 - 13; Numbers 20:7 - 13
JT The phase of our subject which we are now considering is “the rod of God”. At our last reading we referred to 1 Corinthians 4, where the apostle Paul speaks of the rod, asking if he should visit the Corinthians with a rod; then we touched briefly on the rod of iron in the book of Revelation. Then we dwelt on the graphic details given in Exodus 4:7 - 14, noticing how experience with God enters into the idea, for the word “rod” is properly rendered “staff”, which suggests what one might lean upon. We also saw it in its application to Egypt; how God asserted His authority in the world to deliver His people out of it, and then at the Red Sea how He asserted His authority over death, bringing His people through it.
Our scriptures now would show how the authority of God enters into the gift of the Spirit, first in regard to the sufferings of Christ in Exodus 17, and then in regard to the priesthood of Christ in Numbers 17 and 20. It is humbling to notice that there is contention or rebellion with the people — murmurings which bring out the authority of Christ in grace. So that there is doubtless a voice for us in these scriptures, as to the spirit of murmuring. It is said, “And all the assembly of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, according to their journeys, at the command of Jehovah; and they encamped in Rephidim; and there was no water for the people to drink. And the people contended with Moses”, Exodus 17:1,2. So that we have in the names of the place, Massah and Meribah, a constant reminder of the spirit of contention and murmuring amongst the people of God. On the other hand, the name Jehovah-nissi is introduced,
which means ‘Jehovah my banner’, and suggests the divine result reached in the experience.
CAM Has the name Rephidim any significance here?
JT It is suggestive of a provision of God for the people. The word alludes to support or resting places, so that I suppose at this juncture in their history conditions would be advantageous to them.
CAM There seems to be a pause in their journey here, where they discover the kind of hearts they have.
JT Yes; chapter 16 also speaks of that. “The whole assembly of the children of Israel murmured against Moses” (Exodus 16:2). That was in regard to food. In chapter 17 it is in regard to drink.
AFM In each case the need was met by grace. There were no governmental consequences attaching to their failure.
JT That helps us to see how such murmurings are to be met. There is no retributive action on the part of God; no judgment falls on the people, because they had not yet reached the period of law. It is still a provisional condition, a state of things in which grace reigns; God overcoming rebellion in grace.
AR God says to Moses, “Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel ... Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock on Horeb” (verses 5,6). Would Horeb suggest grace?
JT Well, that is what comes out. Moses and the elders of Israel would suggest the idea of authority amongst the brethren. The rod also symbolises it, but it is seen here typically in the execution of judgment on Christ vicariously. That is, that whilst we deserved it, Christ bore it. Our murmurings must be dealt with, whether in ourselves or in Christ. The sorrowful part here is in regard of ourselves. It is the grace side in regard to God, and the sacrificial side in regard to Christ, so that God stands on the rock, as [p. 232] though to say. Aside from Christ, all is hopeless. He takes His stand on Christ.
AFM Is this the scripture that indicates that the Spirit is now formally given? Would the waters flowing from the smitten rock typify Christ smitten and suffering on our behalf, that the Spirit might be communicated?
JT That is what is in view, but the circumstances point to what is in our hearts, for as we are tested, rebellion, murmuring, or contention will manifest itself. So the question arises as to what there is in this for us at the present time, and how we must bring in the sacrifice of Christ to meet the present state. It must be met in some way; here the rock meets it. “The rock was the Christ” we are told in 1 Corinthians 10:4, and God takes His stand on the rock, as He says to Moses, “Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock on Horeb”.
CAM It has been said that God meets the worst by the best. God meets what He finds in our own hearts by the sacrifice of Christ. It should have a great effect upon us, do you not think?
JT Quite so; the rebellion is in our hearts, but God, instead of dealing with it in us, for the moment, deals with it in Christ — in the Rock — for it must be dealt with, to meet the exigencies of God’s throne; “For the hand is on the throne of Jah” (verse 16).
CAM What is the meaning of the expression, “the hand is on the throne of Jah”?
JT I think the Amalekites’ attack was to expel God from His place with the people; as if Satan would seek to occupy the throne that belonged to God. If that is to be met, the state of our hearts must be met vicariously. So that it is not so much a question of dealing with the people here as of dealing with their guilt, in Christ, that they might get the Spirit, and by the Spirit deal with the state in themselves. It is only by the Spirit we can do [p. 233] that.
AFM Is the idea that the hand of Amalek defies the rights of God?
JT I think so.
AP Is the grace side emphasised here because they had not as yet travelled far — they were still youthful?
JT Yes, it refers particularly to young Christians, but by the names given — Massah and Meribah — we are ever reminded of the state of our hearts. That is never to be forgotten, but on the other hand, there is “Jehovah-nissi”, which means that Jehovah is my banner. The banner is unfurled against Satan, who is working to overthrow God’s rights in our hearts.
CAM That is very wonderful, for God takes His stand against the enemy because of what is going on in our souls.
JT The throne of our hearts rightly belongs to God, but murmurings give Satan a place, so that the rights of God are denied there.
JTJr There are two things mentioned — temptation and contention. In 1 Corinthians 10 both these things come in. Some of them tempted the Christ, we are told, and some of them murmured, and death came upon them as a result.
JT Yes; we have the meaning, “because of the contention of the children of Israel, and because they had tempted Jehovah, saying. Is Jehovah amongst us, or not?” (verse 7). It is well to discern that Jehovah is amongst us — to question it is contention. Here the failure is met in grace, for it is a question of Christ enduring the thing, the Rock being smitten.
FNW Will you tell us what things Christ has suffered for us vicariously?
JT Well, He was smitten. It says, “We did regard him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted”, (Isaiah 53:4). He was smitten of God! It was acute suffering — not what man did to Him, but what God did; as if God would say to us, ‘Instead of dealing with you according [p. 234] to your deserts, I have dealt with My Son’. It makes it very touching. He says to Moses, “Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock”. Some of us will have observed in connection with our gospel preachings that in chapter 33, Moses was told to stand on the rock. “Behold, there is a place by me: there shalt thou stand on the rock. And it shall come to pass, when my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand” (Exodus 33:21,22). I suppose in that chapter we have the sinner represented in Moses standing on the rock. That is the ground that God puts you on — on Christ, but God is standing on the rock in chapter 17; as if to indicate that it was the only way to meet this matter of contention and temptation, for both were directed against Jehovah.
AFM Would Romans 8:3 be the divine answer to that? “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, has condemned sin in the flesh”. Would God’s standing upon the rock be answered to in that verse?
JT Quite so; that is the principle; it is God’s attitude now, and there is no hope otherwise.
AJD Does God secure the ground in that way for the people — the people receiving the Spirit, so that the ground is held for others?
JT The development of the idea in Romans is to the end that we might deal with the rebellious state in our own hearts.
ANW In Romans 8 it speaks of the mind of the flesh as being enmity against God. Is it something more than that here?
JT Well, it is active here. The carnal mind is essentially at enmity against God, and where it is unjudged, even in the saints, it is against God too. Here it is seen contending against [p. 235] God.
ANW Is the giving of God stressed here more than the receiving by the people?
JT Yes. We noticed previously that it does not say they drank in this chapter. That is to bring out the truth that the Holy Spirit comes in on the principle that Christ has suffered for us. In Numbers 20 it is recorded that they drank, but it does not say that in this chapter.
AC In chapter 16 the people murmured for bread, but in this case they murmured for drink. In the former instance, Jehovah spoke first to Moses, telling him what he should do; but in this instance Moses prayed to Jehovah.
JT Yes, the mediator knows what to do. Moses cried to Jehovah; the matter was most urgent. The cry indicated its urgency. Moses was in a strait; it shows the seriousness of murmuring; it is a most unreasonable thing. People when murmuring do not appeal to anything in the truth; it is just an attitude of the mind giving vent to dissatisfaction without any satisfactory reason or explanation for it. They did attempt to give an explanation in chapter 16 when they said “Would that we had died by the hand of Jehovah in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh-pots, when we ate bread to the full” (Exodus 16:3). What they said was very questionable, for in this chapter they contended with Moses, saying, “Give us water, that we may drink!” It does not appear, however, that they had any hope that he would give it to them; they wanted to make Moses feel that he was responsible for the circumstances in which they were; they were putting the obligation somewhere else save on themselves.
AC Moses felt the second occasion of the murmuring more keenly than the first.
JT He did; he said they were about to stone him.
AP Would you say their motives were selfish? They were thinking of themselves and not of God.
They say, “Why is it that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us?” (verse 3).
JT Yes, and it is a very urgent matter. It is a question of what can be done. Even Moses is in a strait about it, which shows the effect that murmuring may bring about amongst us; even those who are most spiritual may give way. It is a warning to us that this principle of murmuring is most unreasonable and damaging.
RWS The question, “Is Jehovah amongst us, or not?” seems to be singled out from all their murmurings and contentions as particularly reprehensible. He called the names of the places Massah and Meribah “because of the contention ... and because they had tempted Jehovah saying. Is Jehovah among us, or not?”
JT So that the testimony stands against us in this matter, as though God would say, ‘You shall not escape censure, though I am not pouring out My wrath upon you’. He shows by the names given here, that the thing remains in testimony against us. Then God deals with it — not in them exactly, yet, but in Christ. So that the gospel enters into it. Jehovah takes His stand upon the rock, and says to Moses, ‘I will deal with it there and you are to be there with the rod’.
JTJr Was it the rod with which he had smitten the river and had dealt with death in the Red Sea? Is it a cumulative thought?
JT Quite so. Its power had been proved as in favour of God’s people and against their enemies, but now it is against Christ. The rod is to be turned against Christ, and that surely should appeal to our hearts: that He had to suffer for us.
WB-w Does the giving of the manna in any way link on with this?
JT I think so, because the idea of the sabbath in chapter 16 corresponds, I think, with the name Rephidim. The thought of the sabbath should be carried on into Rephidim, but it is broken in upon by this murmuring.
[p. 237] Rephidim would be a place of rest; the sabbath came in as giving rest — that is, in Christ — but it is disturbed by this murmuring; but instead of turning the rod against the people, God turns it against Christ. It has been against the power of Egypt and against death at the Red Sea, but now it is against Christ; a most touching and solemn thing — the Rock is smitten.
AFM Does the rock being smitten here refer back to the Red Sea? Christ “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25), which would result in our receiving the Spirit.
JT The resurrection of Christ is not alone the guarantee for the gift of the Spirit; the ascension of Christ is also necessary, which you do not get in Romans 5, but you do get the action of the Spirit in shedding the love of God abroad in our hearts, for what we really need is the love of God in our hearts, and that will silence murmuring. The settlement of our state comes in in Romans 7, that is Sinai. In our chapter the people have not come to Sinai as yet, but in principle the thing is here, because God meets the murmuring by smiting Christ, It is not the condemnation of sin so much as the actual sufferings that Christ endured.
CAM In Romans 5, the reference to the Spirit seems to be beyond the person’s present state of soul. It is not until chapter 8 that a state of soul is reached commensurate with the gift of the Spirit. Is that right?
JT Yes; Romans 5 may be properly connected with this chapter, because the question of law has not come up as yet. We have not yet come to Sinai. We are at Rephidim, and Massah, which is more Romans 5, I think, which provides what is needed where murmuring exists in our hearts. God says, ‘You have not the thing in yourselves, but I have it’, and it is shed abroad by the Spirit — “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us”, (Romans 5:5).
[p. 238] WB-w Would chapter 16 suggest the life of Christ in the manna, and chapter 17 His death in the smiting of the rock?
JT Quite so. In chapter 16 it is Christ here on earth as a Man to be fed upon, but chapter 17 typifies His death, not as lifted up to be looked at, but as smitten. The serpent is lifted up later to be looked at by the people for healing.
AFM Would you say the point of this chapter is the sufferings that the Lord Jesus passed through in order that we might receive the Spirit?
JT Yes; and intended to touch our hearts when we see that He had to meet all this murmuring by suffering. He was smitten instead of me, so that I might have the means in the Spirit of overcoming this murmuring spirit.
Then we have conflict — the enemy is attacking, now that the Spirit is, in principle, given. The enemy would rob us of the benefit of the Spirit. God’s rights in our souls are being attacked by Amalek, and Moses is told to take the rod and go up. We are now in the presence of Christ’s intercession on high, which involves that He is glorified, for it is in heaven that He is interceding for us.
AFM Is Amalek a type of Satan working on the flesh?
JT That is the idea, and robbing God of His rights in us. The Spirit here would assert God’s rights in our hearts and displace the murmuring spirit. Satan would rob God of His place in our hearts.
AP Who does Joshua typify?
JT He is a type of Christ, as risen and glorified and as apprehended spiritually by the believer; apprehended as in heaven, but operating through the Spirit here. It is the military side which culminates in the book of Joshua. Moses on the mountain suggests the side of intercession, but Joshua is a type of Christ militant — operating through the Spirit. The enemy [p. 239] would challenge what has happened, that Christ has died, has been smitten, and the Holy Spirit has been given to the saints. He would rob God of His rights in our hearts, but the end of that is Jehovah-nissi; God unfurls His banner and declares that He will have war with Amalek from generation to generation; He will not surrender His rights in His people, but will stand by them and maintain His rights in their hearts.
JTJr Would the scripture, “sin shall not have dominion over you” (Romans 6:14), come in here, as God asserts His rights over His people?
JT Yes; that would apply, for the people were not under law here, but under grace.
AR The rod is referred to here as the staff of God, as in chapter 4:20.
JT Yes, that is worthy of note — that it is the staff of God, and would show the advanced thought that attaches to our subject; that God is dealing with us in our murmurings, in Christ, and the Spirit is given consequent upon that. God has unfurled His banner; He is determined that He will not surrender His rights in the hearts of His people.
JHE Would that be parallel with the end of Romans 7? “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve God’s law; but with the flesh sin’s law” (verse 25).
JT Yes. That is the basis of the rights of the throne of God in our hearts.
WB-w Joshua broke the power of Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. How does that work out? Is it something I must do individually?
JT It is a question of the word; the sword of the Spirit. It is an inward matter. “The word of God is living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to the division of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”, (Hebrews 4:12). That [p. 240] I believe is how the Lord operates in us to defeat the wicked one.
AJD Would that be that I apprehend the mind of God and use it against myself?
JT Yes; but it is Joshua who does it; it is a military matter and it is well done. It is Christ operating in our souls by the word, which is the sword of the Spirit.
CAM That is what is going on down here, but it is intimately connected with what is going on up above, is it not?
JT Well, that brings us to the point that Moses is told to be on the mountain, but it is still a question of authority. This section stresses the matter of authority typified in the rod. The authority of God was questioned in the murmuring, but God met that in the Rock; now He is supporting the rod on high, so that the conflict goes on and in virtue of the intercession on high, Joshua overcomes.
GMacP Whom do Moses, Aaron, and Hur suggest?
JT Moses represents Christ as Intercessor. He begins, as you will observe, by lifting up one hand — the hand in which he held the rod — speaking of authority, but I think the two hands imply the priesthood of Christ as well. So that it is a combination of authority and priestly grace. It sets forth a weak state of things in the people, for the hands became heavy, but this weakness refers to our condition, so that Aaron and Hur come in as adjuncts to Moses, and the conflict is carried through. The name Jehovah-nissi shows that the end is reached morally and that God has opened up a way by which He maintains His rights in the hearts of His people.
AJD War with Amalek from generation to generation should show that Amalek would be with us from generation to generation, and that God is against him?
JT That is right; one generation [p. 241] after another.
AR This is the first conflict after they crossed the Red Sea. Does it suggest how we learn the service of Christ for us on high?
JT That is right. God led them away from war at the outset, but now He allows this battle, for we must learn war, and this first conflict is a very great one; an educational one, too.
ANW While it began by Amalek’s attacking, it ended with God’s warring, and He had the upper hand.
JT That is what the believer comes to. He learns the power of God.
CAM The banner comes in at the end. God has triumphed, for the colours are still flying after the conflict.
JT That is right; the colours have not been carried away by the enemy. Jehovah-nissi represents the point reached in the soul of the believer — that God is working with me against Satan in the flesh.
AC Does not the Amalek character of conflict suggest a rear attack, to use a military figure?
JT That side is developed in Deuteronomy, but not here. Deuteronomy gives the spirit of the thing, that the weak ones and the stragglers were cut off. He would attack the weak ones amongst the people of God, but in this case we expose ourselves to attack by the allowance of complaints, by unmeaning and unfair murmurings, yet God graciously meets us in calling our attention to the fact that Christ had to suffer for us on account of it.
AFM Do you think the presence of the others with Moses would suggest not only that apostleship was there, but the priestly element also; so that Aaron and Hur would suggest exaltation and purity?
JT I think that is right; I suppose the weakness of Moses would indicate the state we are in at this juncture. There would not be any suggestion of weakness in Christ, and as you say, Aaron would stand for exaltation and Hur for purity. They come in here as [p. 242] meeting the exigency as it arises, so that the believer finds that God has provided beforehand for him.
JHE On our side, would it be lifting up clean hands?
JT That is right; indeed, holy hands.
AR Would you say that in Exodus it is the overthrow of what is in me; whereas in our passage in Numbers it is the overthrow of assumption against Christ, in asserting right to the priesthood?
JT Well, that is what we come to next. Numbers 17 deals with a condition much later in our histories and, of course, comes in after the great rebellion of Korah. It is worse than murmuring on account of the lack of water. The rebellion of Korah is typical of the rebellion of the clerical system in the history of the assembly, which is the worst of all attacks. So that God speaks more seriously of it, saying, “That thou mayest put an end to their murmurings before me, that they may not die” Numbers 17:10. He said earlier, “And it shall come to pass, that the man whom I shall choose, his staff shall bud forth; and I will make to cease from before me the murmurings of the children of Israel, that they murmur against you” (verse 5). The preservation of the saints now is thus through the priest, for the rod referred to here is not Moses’ rod, but Aaron’s rod — the rod from before the Lord — the one which was laid up before the testimony (chapter 17:4), and was finally “kept” there for a token (verse 10). We have had reference to Moses’ rod hitherto. Now we have the new rod, which represents Christ in heaven as Priest for it says it “budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and ripened almonds” (verse 8). It is the full thought of priesthood in Christ in heaven — the full thought of life. “He ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). There is no possibility of His service terminating; it is in the fulness of life and by virtue of that service the people are preserved — “that they may not die”.
CAM The truth of the epistle to the Hebrews would be involved in this.
JT I think so. It opens up the wonderful subject of the priesthood of Christ as over against the rebellion of Korah, which has its antitype at the present time. This teaching is of immense value, because it is what God has brought out in these last days in the history of the assembly. God brings victory out of all the enemy’s attacks, but to meet this great attack He has brought out the truth of what Christ is in heaven.
CAM One feels what an immense thing it is to have the priesthood of Christ opened up to us by the light which has been thrown on it in this day. The great failure of chapter 16 only enhances its greatness. In fact it turns into triumph the crisis of chapter 16, does it not?
JT It is an outstanding example of development out of conflict. This is one of the greatest of conflicts in the history of the assembly, and a new state of things develops out of it; so that we have this beautiful description of Aaron’s rod, it “budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and ripened almonds”. It is the full thought of Christ viewed from the standpoint of life — a beautiful effect of life in Christ!
CHH Would the priesthood in Exodus 17 be on man’s behalf, and the priesthood in Numbers 17 be Godward?
JT Well, it is for God, but there is the thought of authority in it also, because it is a rod, but it is not to be used for smiting. It is too beautiful for that! It is presented to us in the beauty of fully developed life — ripened almonds. “The Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock”. The rod is to be used now in speaking to the rock, not for smiting. God says, “Take the rod”, as much as to say there is no other now. It is a question [p. 244] of entering into Canaan, and that must be through the support of Christ in heaven, of our great Priest. So that He is able to save completely those who approach by Him to God (Hebrews 7:25).
AFM To use this rod for smiting would spoil it.
JT Hence the great hierarchical system is out of keeping with the moment. It has acquired great power, as seen in Babylon, having power over the kings of the earth, but the divine order now is priesthood.
AR So that the development of the truth of eternal life in recent times has a bearing on this, has it not?
JT It has greatly helped in bringing out the meaning of this type. I think we should view this type historically as coming near the end of the assembly’s history — not that these conditions have not existed right through, or that Christ has not ever been a Priest, but the truth as to it has been accentuated as over against the hierarchical system that has developed. It is really the “gainsaying of Core”, Jude 11.
ANW Would you make a little clearer how the murmuring is made to cease? It says, “I will make to cease from before me the murmurings of the children of Israel, that they murmur against you” (verse 5).
JT I think it is in the exercise of grace. God is moving on spiritual lines, and what has come about in the latter history of the assembly has been on spiritual lines. It is not by the use of the rod of Moses — by discipline; not that discipline is abrogated, but the way to really quell opposition is by the use of Aaron’s rod. It is in the exercise of grace, not simply as seen in the manna in Exodus 16, but as bringing in Christ as known in heaven, in all this beautiful development of life by the ministry of the Spirit. It is the positive thing.
FNW Would there be a parallel to this in the passage, “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession”, (Hebrews 3:[p. 245] 1)?
JT Well, that is the theme of the epistle. After that chapter you might say that the apostleship of Christ is regarded as being completed. It is “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession” (Hebrews 3:1), but the high priesthood of Christ is developed from that point onward in the epistle. Although other things are brought in, the main point is arrived at in chapter 8, “a summary of the things of which we are speaking is. We have such a one high priest”: not such a one Apostle and High Priest, but such a one High Priest — “who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens” (Hebrews 8:1).
CAM That is a great help; and chapter 9 enumerates the articles within the tabernacle, including the rod of Aaron that sprouted.
JT Exactly; it is that rod — the rod of Aaron. It is the priesthood of Christ. It is a great triumph, that God has worked this out for us, and especially in the ministry in regard to eternal life, and how the conflict concerning it has been met in grace. Discipline goes on, of course, but we can never have the brethren save on the principle of grace. If we cannot hold them on this wise, we will not hold them at all. We must have each other on the principle of pure grace. So it says, “Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace”, Hebrews 4:16.
WB-w Would the rod of Moses be seen in the first epistle to the Corinthians, and the rod of Aaron in the second epistle?
JT That is the general thought in the two books, although the apostle had the right to use the rod, he wrote instead of coming amongst them. The first epistle has the character of the rod, that is, discipline; but the second epistle is restorative.
GMacP Does John 17 show how the rod of Aaron budded and brought forth fruit?
JT That is very beautiful. It is what Christ is in life, although it is not in exercise towards the disciples [p. 246] there. He is interceding for them before the Father. The exercise of Aaron’s rod, I think, would enter into the preceding chapters, for He was dealing with them on the principle of Aaron’s rod in all those beautiful discourses in chapters 13 to 16, but in chapter 17 He spoke to His Father. It is purely intercession on their behalf, but what an unfolding! what a development of life in man; what beauty of life there is in that chapter!
ABP Agriculturally, sunshine and rain are necessary to produce growth, but here the words used are, it “budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and ripened almonds”. Would this not emphasise the inherent power of life? Luke tells us that He grew and waxed strong (Luke 2:40).
JT It is inherent power. The idea of development of life in Christ comes in early in Luke, but I think John’s presentation answers more to the rod or the staff, for outwardly it is a bare rod, and yet it has this inherent nature, this power of life, to develop over night, in perfect order, the buds and blossoms and ripened fruit. It is a very beautiful thought, and emphasises what is inherent in Christ, without any external influence at all, “In him was life”, (John 1:4). I think Luke would give us Christ growing up like a tender plant and a root out of a dry ground, which also suggests what is inherent; He grew up before Jehovah, but this happens over night; it is the power of resurrection, all the beauty of humanity which appeared on the morning of the resurrection now appears in heaven, and all presented to us in this attractive way. That is what God uses now to maintain His people to keep us alive, to keep us from dying, for we are to live in Christ.
AFM Would its application to us be seen in that verse, “For such a high priest became us, holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens”, (Hebrews 7:26)?
JT Yes, I think so. “Such a high priest became us” (Hebrews 7:26)? It shows the dignity of the calling of the saints.
RWS It is very beautiful that Jehovah says, “Bring Aaron’s staff again before the testimony, to be kept” (verse 10), as though to say, ‘The people can see it, but I want it back again for the testimony’.
JT Yes; it is laid up before Jehovah.
AR Is there any point in Aaron and his sons being referred to in the next chapter?
JT It is the enlargement of what we have been speaking about — this beautiful setting forth of inherent life and the development of life in Christ in manhood. Chapter 18 is to open that up to us, and chapter 19 brings in the sacrifice of the red heifer to preserve us in relation to it all; then chapter 20 is as if God would say, ‘I would see this working out in this beautiful way continued, as meeting crises amongst the people’, but Moses and Aaron reduced the occasion to the low level of smiting. That is the danger of persons prominent amongst us spoiling a thing by smiting instead of speaking. What the saints need now is to be spoken to, and spoken to in relation to this beautiful presentation of the humanity of Christ — of His priesthood, as depicted in Hebrews.
AFM Would you say that Moses is not regarded as apostle here, or Aaron as priest, but marked rather in brotherly relations?
JT Yes, Jehovah said to Moses, “Take the staff, and gather the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock” (verse 8). It is as if God had in mind to demonstrate the working of this new system of things with Christ in heaven; which, instead of being characterised by smiting, was to find expression in speaking. I think God was preparing the way for a beautiful unfolding of the grace of Christ through Moses and Aaron acting according to the meaning of the rod that had sprouted. Instead of that, Moses smote the rock with his rod. He separated himself [p. 248] from Aaron in that sense, enforcing the side of apostleship, whereas God intended it to be the exercise of priesthood.
WB-w Why is it that Moses made this mistake? Could it be lack of development with him?
JT I think the point is that the ministers may do this. We may spoil the service through misrepresenting the attitude of God; and yet God in grace caused the people to drink in spite of the failure of the leaders.
TEH The apostle Paul did not use the rod at Corinth in relation to the Supper. He said, “What shall I say to you?” (1 Corinthians 11:22). He would speak, as to intelligent persons.
JT He preferred to come in the way of speaking and he told them later that he intended to do so. I believe that this is a word for any of us who minister in any public way. We must not forget that out of every conflict God will bring in something new. If we miss that, we miss the intention before Him. We have to see what God is bringing in now as the fruit of current exercise. The victory here is seen in His bringing in such a rod as this, for God speaks of it as “the rod”. Moses might have asked. Which rod? But in principle there is only one now; the issue of this conflict is unique. It is now a question of speaking to the people.
ABP Would there be a parallel thought in the priestly grace of the Lord in speaking to Peter, saying, “Lovest thou me?” He brought in adjustment by speaking.
JT Yes. There was an extensive process of adjustment in Peter’s case. The Lord had washed his feet in chapter 13; then He had prayed for him, and had looked at him in the house of the high priest. He also spoke to him as He rose from the dead, and then finally probed him, showing how long it takes when we need to be restored, and showing also the [p. 249] wonderful provision made that we should be restored. Think of all this service, as finally He probes him, saying, “Lovest thou me more than these?” (John 21:15) As much as to say. Peter had thought he had more love than the brethren; for that is what he meant. The Lord does not finish until Peter changes the word “know” to a word which meant virtually that there was now something in him to show objectively that he loved the Lord, and this completed the exercise.
ABP So that Peter began to “sprout”?
JT Quite so. The thing is public, not now merely, “thou knowest all things” (John 21:17), but the fruits of Peter’s love are evident; that is what is meant by the last use of the word “know”.
AR It says in the last verse we read that Jehovah hallowed Himself in them. Do you think that is the great result reached?
JT Yes, that is very beautiful. In spite of Moses’ action, God reaches His end, and this is very comforting; so that the people drink. It says: “And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said to them. Hear now ye rebels” (verse 10). That is what we are apt to say, but we are reminded not to use hard words about the brethren. Even Moses called them rebels, but God resented it. Then Moses says, “Shall we bring forth to you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his staff smote the rock twice” (verses 10,11). What a misrepresentation of the moment! He was marring the whole position by this action. But then it says, “Much water came out, and the assembly drank, and their beasts” (verse 11). So that in spite of Moses’ action the abundance of water was there. That is great and God-like, showing how He rises above the failure of His servants, and causes His people to drink. But He says to Moses and Aaron, “Because ye believed me not, to hallow me before the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the [p. 250] land that I have given them. These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel contended with Jehovah, and he hallowed himself in them” (verses 12,13). He was hallowed by the way He acted; He has maintained and asserted His own rights and character in spite of the way His servants had acted.
AFM What is the force of speaking to the rock?
JT It shows what Christianity is. This is now the time of speaking. All the blessing has come out on that principle. The Lord Jesus said, “I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth”, (John 14:16). The Spirit is given on that principle the principle of asking.
JHE “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts”, (Zechariah 4:6).
ANW Moses was to hold the staff while he spoke. Is the staff in that sense intended to maintain priestliness in speaking rather than to be used for smiting?
JT Yes, the position is not to be marred. I think that is the lesson to be learned in this. God was looking for a display of the spirit of the moment as connected with this rod. The speaking in grace was to result in the free flow of the waters which would serve for the refreshment of the saints, but instead of that, you have this smiting twice, and that with the wrong rod.
JHE Moses allowed the circumstances to overcome him.
JT Quite so, but the great point is that God was not overcome by the circumstances. The water flowed and He was hallowed, and that is what is going on today in spite of our failures.
CAM God fully understood the rebellious state of the people and Moses’ spirit; it says, “They provoked his spirit, so that he spoke unadvisedly with his lips”, (Psalm 106:33).
JT Quite so; the people were not [p. 251] excused.
NP Kindly tell us why it is that Aaron is held responsible with Moses in this case, though it was not Aaron who took part in the smiting of the rock.
JT Well, if one is linked up with a brother in what is wrong, or if we stand by him and do not rebuke him, we are not immune from blame. Aaron did not rebuke Moses, as far as the record shows. They therefore were both in the wrong.
ES In spite of the failure the people drank the water.
JT God is not letting the people off, although He is sanctified in them, and they drink. The Spirit has recorded that they grieved Moses’ spirit, which shows that He did not let them off. We need to be reminded of the fact that God will never pass over anything to which our attention has to be called.
WB-w Does the contention mentioned here refer back to Exodus 17 or to what transpired in this chapter? Why is it brought in here?
JT Because they murmured here, too; after forty years they had not forgotten how to murmur; showing that if we do not judge our state, God will remind us of it.
CAM Psalm 106 alludes to this very chapter.
JT Quite so; God does not let us off.
ABP Does this scripture provide the basis for the apostle Paul to say that the rock followed them?
JT I think so “for they drank of a spiritual rock which followed them: (now the rock was the Christ;)”, (1 Corinthians 10:4). That is an allusion, I think, to the lowly attitude that Christ takes up amongst us like a water-carrier serving the saints.
APM The rock was smitten in Exodus 17 and it is smitten here. Does the thought of the rock following them apply in both cases, that it went right through?
JT I think so. The rock was smitten here wrongly. It is like any of us who serve, slighting or misrepresenting [p. 252] Christ, or maybe speaking disrespectfully to the saints, but in spite of that He causes the water to flow.
EEH Would you connect Acts 2 with what you are saying? The disciples received the Holy Spirit and then Peter speaks, and as it were the water flows.
JT Yes; Peter did not smite. He spoke beautifully of Christ. It is one of the finest testimonies you can get in contrast to the failure of Moses here. The leading apostle speaks beautifully about Christ. “Give heed to my words”,(Acts 2:14) he says. This is the time of speaking.
APT Would you say that Peter with the eleven would be like the ripened almonds?
JT I think so. What a reflection of Christ there was in Peter with the eleven standing there, representing the rights of God, but in a priestly way. When those who heard, said, “What shall we do, brethren?” he said, “Repent, and be baptised, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”, (Acts 2:38). That is like the drinking; they drank abundantly.