DIVINE DWELLING (1)
DIVINE DWELLING (1)
Exodus 20:22 - 26; Exodus 24:9 - 11; Exodus 25:1 - 9
JT The idea of dwelling, divine dwelling on earth, is one of the leading subjects of the Scriptures and it seems to me that we might consider, for the three readings ahead of us, if the Lord permit, the conditions of divine dwelling such as God can accept. We get the thought of dwelling first in Genesis 28, in connection with Jacob. It was named by one who was in it, that is, Jacob. He realised the presence of God and called the place “the house of God”, and David later alludes to Jacob in that connection. He represents our side of the subject, that is, the side which attaches to every Christian, everyone who loves God, and who desires to have, as far as he may, conditions for God to be near him, and abide with him. So David asked Jehovah to remember his afflictions, how he was afflicted in regard to the matter. He suffered the loss of his sleep, as he says, so that he might find a place for the Lord — a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob, Exodus is the proper book to get help from in looking into the subject. We have, indeed, in the exit from Egypt an allusion to it. As the people came out of Egypt, they spoke of it; they said “This is my God, and I will glorify him”,(Exodus 15:2) and it appears that the word denotes that they would make Him a dwelling. I suppose in no way do we glorify Him more than in making Him a dwelling, a place where He can be at home here on earth where Christ has been rejected. They said that He was their God, and that they would glorify Him. We have it on good authority that the word signified that they would make Him a dwelling and the Lord takes the thought up. The song of Moses, as it is called, goes on to say at the end of it that Jehovah would bring His people unto the mountain of His inheritance, the place which He had made for Himself [p. 2] to dwell in, the Sanctuary which His hands had established. So that the idea laid hold of the people immediately on coming out of Egypt — whether it would be what they would do for Him, or what He would do for Himself. It is a question of what we do for Him, and what He does for Himself, or both.
And so in this first passage, we have the initial idea in the mind of God as to it. He prescribes that we are not to have gods of silver or gold beside Him. We know how, later on, they did this very thing, they made a golden calf beside Jehovah, formally retaining Him, but at the same time bringing in another god, a rival god, which is very common; not the refusal of God, but bringing in a rival. The next thing is as to the altar. What will help us in regard to this matter is an altar — the kind of altar that we make to Him; an altar of earth first, and then an altar of stone. The brethren can link on with it.
HM God could not dwell in a place unsuitable to Him.
JT That is the thought. He commences this chapter by calling attention to the fact that there are thousands of those who love Him. God will have us near to Him, but why do not we seek to have God near to us, to afford Him conditions to be near us? How could we better express love than in this? If we have Him near to us, there must be conditions for Him. One thing I think we can readily understand is that God abominates a rival — another god beside Him.
HW Do you connect the thought of the altar with the thought of what we provide for God in the way of conditions?
JT That is what I thought. The first is positive. They were not to make gods of gold or silver, but “an altar of earth shalt thou make unto me”. Unto me — the allusion is to Christ as Man. An altar of earth alludes to Christ as Man, that is, according to what He was here; an altar of stone would allude to Him as in [p. 3] resurrection.
WJY Is the thought of an idol a false conception of God?
JT Yes. Why should a believer have any conception of God other than the one he began with? The gospel is the gospel of God concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. It presents God to us, the Saviour God, and the acceptance of the gospel involves reception. Why should that ever be altered?
HW Is that connected with the altar of earth?
JT That is the thought. Jesus, as here as a Man, held to that infinitely — what God was; what God was, not only as presented in His attributes, but what God was to Him.
HW So the apostle John, before bringing in the warning about idols, says, “This is the true God, and eternal life”,(1 John 5:20).
JT The Lord Himself said, “That they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”, (John 17:3). It is not only what is presented to us as profitable to us, but the conception of God that Jesus had — that is a perfect idea of God, and ultimately that is what all are to be brought to.
EE In regard to the altar of earth, would this be one of the first movements of a soul in a positive way? Would there be certain instincts in a soul at the beginning that would appreciate Christ as Man?
JT That is the thought. God has brought in Christ. He was here for thirty years under His eye and then God announces His delight in Him. He was praying as the Spirit came upon Him and the voice came from heaven. He had an infinitely accurate conception of God.
WJY Is the making of an altar appreciation of Christ, just as the making of an idol would be lack of appreciation of Christ?
JT That is the thought, I think. The making of an idol would be want of appreciation of God, the divine thought of God. The making of an altar would be the appreciation of Man — God’s idea of Man. There is man’s idea of God, and God’s idea of man, these are both centred in Christ. We see how the Lord speaks to God. We have not only to listen to what the Lord has to say to us but to see how He speaks to God, so that when the Lord was praying in a certain place, one of the disciples said, “Lord, teach us to pray”,(Luke 11:1) as if to say. We should like to get to know your way of speaking to God.
JS Why is it that we have the altar brought in before the building, before the dwelling place?
JT There can be no thought of providing for God aside from sacrifice. There must be sacrifice. God intimates at once that that is the line. It is a question of sacrifice.
P They must make an altar of earth.
JT That is imperative. “If thou wilt make me an altar of stone”, that would be a question of your spiritual ability, but the altar of earth gives us a status. The altar of stone is progress. But verse 24 says, “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me”; that is imperative. We must have that, or we are not Christians at all. There is no Christianity without sacrifice, either on God’s part or ours. We must begin with sacrifice — that is the first thing mentioned, the first positive thing.
EF Unless we know something of sacrifice, there can be no thought of God dwelling with us.
JT That is one of the initial thoughts. An altar of earth is the idea of Christ as Man, that is, as a Man here, as He is seen in the gospels. That is, God is intimating here that these are the lines He is on. Christ was coming in, and it is for us to get on to that line. It would be a question of a building or house or dwelling for Him. That is what is on the Lord’s heart — to find a place for God, so He reaches it first in Psalm 22. In Psalm 16, He abominates the idea of idolatry — He speaks of what those who sought out another god should suffer. In Psalm 22 He says, “In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee”. He would afford conditions delightful to God. These conditions were found in Himself, as the voice from heaven declared, but they were to be extended. “In whom I have found my delight” (Matthew 3:17); it is not all My delight; there is room for extension, and Psalm 22 is extension. The sphere of delight would be extended, “In the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, Hebrews 2:12. That is how the Lord stood as entering into death. “But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel” (Psalm 22:3). The praises of Israel were His habitation. The Lord had that in mind, and immediately He comes forth in resurrection. He speaks of how He would sing in the midst of the assembly. The idea was extended.
EF Were you distinguishing between the altar and the burnt offerings and the peace offerings?
JT What we have already said refers mainly to the altar. We have to get the idea of the altar, it is what Christ is. That is, it is a question of suffering, of bearing suffering, but suffering towards God. The Lord was the altar and the sacrifice as well, and the priest also. He was all. He was the altar and the offering and the priest at one time — a great combination of great moral elements. That is what is meant here, that we should get on to that line.
EE So that as God approaches men He finds all He wants in Christ, and as we approach God we find all in Christ too.
JT As we get on to that line God announces to the universe that “this is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, Matthew 3:17. And we are to get on to that line, the line that God is on.
WM It would appear that God must answer that, for He says it is the way to blessing.
JT That is what we are coming to. It goes on to say, thou “shalt sacrifice on it thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen: in all places where I shall make my name to be [p. 6] remembered, I will come unto thee, and bless thee” — a word that ought to appeal to us. “I will come unto thee, and bless thee”. Not yet dwelling but “I will come unto thee”. In the coming He would find happy conditions, for His name is revered there.
EG Why is it “thou shalt make”? Just now it was “ye”. Why is it in the singular?
JT The singular is used in addressing a collective number, the whole number. They are all included in the “thou”. All Israel was included in it. It is a common way throughout the types.
EG One heart and one mind?
JT Quite so.
CD The words ‘ye have seen’ are used at the beginning of the previous chapter, “Ye have seen what I have done to the Egyptians” (Exodus 19:4), and in this chapter (verse 22), “Ye have seen that I have spoken with you from the heavens”.
JT That is the idea. What a privilege to be spoken to out of the heavens! We have the thought amplified in chapter 24, because the idea of dwelling must necessarily be linked up with the heavens. Heaven is God’s dwelling place. Chapter 24 shows that they went up and saw the God of Israel, and what was under His feet. They saw His living conditions. Jacob alluded to this; the first mention of the house is that it is the gate of heaven.
CD I was thinking of the words ‘I have spoken’ in connection with the hymn we sang just now. It is the response to that voice.
JT It is not only what the voice says, but where it comes from. The heavens were opened to Christ, as much as to say ‘You have a place up here’, and He knew the conditions in heaven. Indeed, He says He is the Son of Man which is in heaven. The dwelling on earth must be a transcript of what is in heaven. The idea [p. 7] is, what is in heaven.
AJD Then we should have to understand what is spoken.
JT The thought here is, “Ye have seen that I have spoken with you from the heavens” — a holy conversation with them from the heavens. Hebrews opens up that He speaks from heaven now.
EE Is that not an important consideration, that if God is going to dwell as He dwells now in the heavens and in Christ, the dwelling must be heavenly in its character? Is that not lost sight of today?
JT Entirely. They have no idea of what is called the house of God, no idea of its being a transcript of what is in heaven. If conditions are not equal to what they are in heaven, then God is sacrificing to be with us, but there must be some relation to what is in heaven. We are told that the tabernacle is a figurative representation of what is in the heavens.
AJD In seeing Christ we would understand what is in the heavens, apprehending Him.
JT Christ brought down here what was up there.
WJY Would you open up why the altar of stone is not obligatory?
JT Because the Lord makes allowance for spirituality. He does not unchristianise us because we are not spiritual. The Corinthians were not spiritual, but they were not unchristianised because of that. They are still regarded as the assembly of God in Corinth. So long as the Spirit has a place amongst the saints, they are owned of God as in some sense having conditions for Him, but then allowance is made for spirituality. If you can go that far, God appreciates it all the more. What is your own idea?
WJY I just wanted it opened up a little. You connect the thought of the house of God on earth a good deal with the knowledge of a risen Christ.
JT We do, but to apprehend the stone altar as it typifies Him here is another matter. Romans, of course, gives us a status in that we believe in Christ [p. 8] raised from the dead for our justification. It does not go so far as to say that we are risen with Him, nor does it say in Corinthians that we are risen with Him; but Corinthians intimates that the assembly is the assembly of God, nevertheless. Colossians contemplates that we are risen with Christ by the faith of the operation of God who raised Him. I believe that fits in here with the altar of stone. It is a question of what Christ is in resurrection before God. If we can go on that far, good and well. God delights that we should go that far; but still, there is an if here.
EE Would their standing so closely to the giving of the law be an outcome of regulating their conduct morally before God?
JT It is a question of spirituality, I think. The idea of His coming to us is not made to depend on it. It says in verse 24, “In all places where I shall make my name to be remembered, I will come unto thee, and bless thee”. And then it says, “And if thou make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone”. The blessing is secured on the ground of the altar of earth and the coming in of God. The remembrance is owned to be there. If we can go further than that, so much the better, but we are not unchristianised because we do not. It denotes poverty but we are still on ground that God can own.
JS I would like a little help on the thought that there should be no steps to the altar.
JT That is that their nakedness should not be discovered. It would mean that you would be exalting yourself like the Colossians were, adding to what they knew. That would be steps. They were adding philosophy and vain deceit to that, that is adding steps, that would be a higher altar than others. If you take on philosophy, that is going up by steps and so is ceremonialism — these are the two things in Colossians 2 that are condemned. It is bringing the human element into the service of God. That is all it is — mounting [p. 9] up in my own strength and exposing myself as just a man in the flesh.
WJY Contrary to the liberty of the Spirit.
WM “To whom coming”; there would be no steps there?
JT “To whom coming, as unto a living stone ... ye also, as lively stones, are built up” (1 Peter 2:4,5). Built up is one thing, and climbing up by steps is another thing.
EF You were connecting what you were saying with that word in Colossians, “Ye have been also raised with him through faith of the working of God” (Colossians 2:12). Could you say a little as to what that means?
JT It is a question of faith. It is “through faith of the working of God”. We are not risen literally, while in flesh and blood, though there were those who said it; they shot far beyond the mark. It is the most extravagant statement one can make, that the resurrection is past. People are dying every day, yet it was said the resurrection was past already. Colossians is not that, it is ‘raised by faith’. Our resurrection is a question of time, but we may take it on spiritually as if it were already so.
EF Is taking that ground the altar of stone?
JT No. The altar of stone is Christ. It is the apprehension of Christ in that light and it brings us into accord with Him.
P Is that why it is not to be of hewn stone? No human element comes in.
JT Quite so. It is like the stone cut out without hands, man has nothing to do with it; it is Christ in resurrection. The idea, I think, is permanency. The altar of earth would be Christ as He was, in His humanity, His incarnation. But the altar of stone is Christ as He is. He remains Man but the allusion is to what belongs to that condition of things here.
P Would it be that we cannot approach God or know Him in any way except by this altar [p. 10] of earth?
JT There is no other way of drawing near to God save by sacrifice. There are no specifications for altars in Genesis, it is in Exodus you get the first specification of an altar. It is an altar of earth; the allusion is to Christ. In Genesis the worshippers are allowed to make their own altars, but in the ministerial books we get specifications; that is in view of Christ becoming Man. When we come to the later chapters we find an altar of brass, and then we have the measurements as well as the material.
RST Would it be right to say that if we are to have some apprehension of the value of Christ as the altar and as the sacrifice and as the priest, we must have some soul experience of the greatness of what is set out in verse 18? This great thought of dwelling is consequent upon some soul experience of the majesty of God.
JT Quite so. This thought of the stone is very compact, very concise. Permanency is suggested in the stone. It is not quarried or cut, it is in its original state. The allusion is to Christ as He is in resurrection, that is a permanent state. We might go further and say that it is as He is in heaven. The forty days on earth after He rose would be what He is now, brought within the range of the saints, that they might grasp the new state and conditions, and then we see Him as He is — a further thought.
JS It is important for us to get the altar as being alone in this chapter. What I mean by being alone is Christ being the altar who stands alone.
JT He is to be apprehended in this way. God is leading up to the thought of dwelling and impressing upon us what the initial ideas are. He makes a covenant with the people. He loves the people who make a covenant with Him by sacrifice. The altar of earth is the initial idea. We are grasping the thought of humanity in Christ and then what He is in resurrection. We are on the high road to the dwelling [p. 11] place.
HW Is the thought that every saint of God has an altar individually, or have you the collective idea in view at the moment?
JT It is the collective thought, I think, right through. We do get individual altars: Moses made an altar in chapter 17 and he gave it a name there. But this altar is prescribed. God is prescribing material here. It is on the way to the dwelling, what He requires. If there is to be a dwelling, it must be according to what He requires. He is proposing His terms.
WJY We could not walk with anyone who refused the thought of sacrifice, but we might walk with one who was not up to Colossian truth.
JT That is the thought. The Corinthians were certainly not equal to the Colossians, and yet they are owned as the assembly of God. They are owned in both epistles as the assembly of God.
HJM Why does it not speak of sin-offerings in verse 24?
JT Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are mentioned, that is, offerings that are pleasing to God; burnt-offerings are wholly for God. The peace-offering is for the saints, but makes room for God. In our meetings we make room for God, another initial thought. That is just what it means.
HW Is the service of God the end in view?
JT Yes. A meeting like this is for the saints, but God would like to have a part in it. There is not a meeting the saints have that He would not like to have a part in in some sense. The peace-offering means that. It is very lovely to think that the Lord would have part with us in all these meetings in some sense. The assembly is the supreme thought.
AJD That would greatly enhance the value of these meetings to us.
JT We never should omit the place for God in our meetings. The peace-offering [p. 12] means that.
AJD It is incumbent upon us to recognise God’s requirements.
JT You feel that the more you know Him the more you see that. His requirements are in our favour too, as well as in His own. Now in chapter 24, Jehovah proposes in the first verse that Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders should go up. Then the next thing that comes in in this chapter is in connection with this proposal of Jehovah’s that the saints should go up, and you get the richness of the circumstances. That is, God really means that we are to come up to see how things are in view of chapter 25, and the remaining part of the book which has in mind the subject of God’s dwelling. God said, as it were, ‘Let a goodly number of you come up and see just how things are where I am. The mediator, the priests and elders will be with you, persons capable of witnessing, so that a right testimony should be presented of what is up here’. Then the next question is. What about the state of the people themselves? This is a great proposal that God is going to make, taking up what was intimated when they came out of Egypt, that He would let them build Him a dwelling, glorify Him, but. He says, I will give you every advantage. I will let you come up, not under poor circumstances, but under rich circumstances. So Moses proposes to the people what Jehovah says and they say, ‘We will do everything He says’. They answered with one voice (verse 3). “All the words that Jehovah has said will we do(Exodus 24:3)!” and then again at the end of verse 7, “All that Jehovah has said will we do, and obey(Exodus 24:7)!” They add the word ‘obey’ as if they are getting on. This is fine progress in a believer’s soul. They commit themselves definitely.
JJ Why are the youths of the children of Israel brought in in verse 5?
JT That means that service is to be in freshness. God is the living God; He looks for living things and Moses sees that. The surroundings here are full of [p. 13] rich thoughts. All Israel is represented in the pillars and there is plenty of testimony to the death of Christ in the blood, the abundance of blood, and the obedience proffered by the people. It is a rich state of things; that is to say, the word for us is spiritual wealth. If God is to have a dwelling place this is the thought. Before you come up. He would say, You will have every advantage in the circumstances you leave. It is a rich state of things in verses 9 to 11: “And Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up; and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were work of transparent sapphire, and as it were the form of heaven for clearness. And on the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand; they saw God, and ate and drank”. A wonderful scene! And they are to come down again, qualified to bear witness of what was there.
WJY Is that a heavenly experience?
JT I think so.
WJY A good many have difficulty about the expression, “They saw God”, in view of the scripture that says, “No man hath seen God at any time” (John 1:18).
JT It is good to bring that up. Whilst God in the absolute sense cannot be seen by the creature, yet He will never have it that He cannot be seen in some sense, for the Lord said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). We see Him in His moral features. There was something there that these men could take in, for they were creatures, as representative of God. There are those who see God and are blessed according to the Lord’s own words in Matthew 5. Also Moses saw the form of Jehovah.
WJY Would Paul’s visit to paradise be a counterpart of this?
JT It would, to some extent. He speaks of what he heard.
WJY That he might help those down below.
JT [p. 14] What an effect it would have on his ministry and on his demeanour afterwards! God would be stamped on his mind, the heavenly scene would be stamped on his mind, though things were not to be uttered; he heard unspeakable things not allowed to man to utter.
CSS Do you think this would suggest something more than days of heaven upon earth; they went up amid the richness of the scene and they ate and drank.
JT It does. It is what is up there; the assembly as the habitation of God by the Spirit comes down, really like the vessel Peter saw which came down and went up.
CSS It would speak of purity. Those that are pure in heart shall see God.
JT That is it.
PD Would God show them the conditions that He was accustomed to up there that there might be conditions down here suitable for Him to dwell?
JT That is the thought. No one would assume that God is not visible in some sense. We have to read Scripture contextually. In the word “No one hath seen God”, God’s infinite essence is alluded to in an abstract way, for God is revealed and is to be seen in some sense, He is to be seen in Man, to be seen in Jesus.
CM Would this indicate our experience as following the Supper?
JT This is a suggestion of our place above, only that what is in mind is in the next chapter, which describes what God requires for His habitation, and which presents an accredited testimony as to what is required, what He seeks, what He needs, and what is due to Him. Now they are called nobles, “on the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: they saw God, and ate and drank”. God was there. Abraham saw God too, but not in the absolute form; he saw Him in one of the three men, for certainly one of the three men that came to Abraham was God. Abraham discerned [p. 15] that and stood before Him. Abraham could say that he saw God, but not in the sense of John 1:18. Everyone who sees Jesus, sees God in some sense. That is what I apprehend eternity will be — God seen in Christ. The dwelling or tabernacle of God is with men; God is there.
HW This scene depicts the present position of the saints and what is available to us at present.
JT The point here, I think, is competent testimony. Not only Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, but seventy of the elders, that is seventy-four persons, are going up there and seeing God, seeing what is under His feet. How affected they would be, what a testimony they would carry down to the camp as to what was up there!
WJY Why does it emphasise that they ate and drank?
JT To show that they were normal, I think. It was not that their condition was merely visionary, it was real. As it says of the Lord, He ate before them. He took part of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb and ate before them; the condition was real. Their condition up there was real; they were balanced, they were sober, so that they could witness to it; it was a real thing. How important that is, that we are brought into spiritual realities in the assembly.
CSS Would it suggest that the thing is to be continued? So that the Lord says, ‘Give her meat’ when He raised the little maid from the dead.
JT We might say, ‘What are we to be up there?’ Paul says, ‘I do not know whether I was in the body or out of it. I was caught up to the third heaven; I went as far as that’. That is not exactly this; that was a very exceptional thing. Paul did not eat or drink up there. He was a man in Christ, in his senses, whether in the body or not he could not say. He repeats that.
WJY This would emphasise that the humanity of the nobles was in no way [p. 16] changed.
JT It was real humanity. They could say, ‘We were perfectly in our senses when we saw God’. The idea is to bring down a balanced testimony as to what was up there.
EF Are you suggesting that we must know something of this to provide these conditions you are speaking of?
JT Yes, to get a competent testimony as to what is suitable to God.
AJD They went up. The exercise is on their part.
JT Yes. It was not ‘caught up’. It was no rapture, it was a normal, balanced state of things. There is nothing more balanced than Christianity.
CD Does it not suggest, too, that under right conditions the presence of God is restful, not alarming?
JT That is the idea. I am sure these men would say to you, ‘We were perfectly at home’. They were called nobles.
EF Does the covenant provide these restful conditions that you are speaking of?
JT It has a great place. These are the conditions from which they went up. The covenant is down here. If you apply it to an assembly meeting, this properly follows the covenant. It produces liberation so that we may ascend, as it were.
EF Sometimes we are not able to ascend. Is that because we know so little of the covenant in its reality?
JT Quite so. There is no power. We are not released.
EE One feels if we are honest with ourselves we would say that this is where we are weak. I was wondering if you could think of some incident relating to the Lord that would help us to apprehend what you are bringing before us. Would the Lord going up the mount of transfiguration be akin to [p. 17] it?
JT Yes, very much akin. They were, you might say, the personnel of the assembly. How great the persons are! A heavenly scene comes into view. Two men, we are told by Luke, spoke with Jesus — two men, before the names are given, as if to call attention to man. The men are perfectly free up there, so free that instead of the Lord speaking to them, they are speaking to Him. In our eternal relations I believe we shall be free to go and speak to the Lord at any time. Peter and John were not equal to the scene, but Peter refers to it afterwards as if he were then equal to it. “When we were with him in the holy mount” (2 Peter 1:18) there came “such a voice to him from the excellent glory” (2 Peter 1:17). He makes no allusion to his own failure there. He is now speaking as a competent witness, “eyewitnesses of his majesty”. What he is speaking of he had actually witnessed, and that is the idea.
WM Would we learn from this that it is the mind of God that we should be restful before Him?
JT Because the thought originated from Him. He said ‘Come up’. The Lord took three up. This was a divine proposal.
PD Would the scripture “See that thou make them according to their pattern, which hath been shewn to thee in the mountain” (Exodus 25:40), fit in with this reading?
JT Yes. The point for this reading is to grasp the initial ideas of dwelling, and the competency of the witnesses that went up there. How balanced they were! How real the scene was! So at any time you could speak to any of those persons and they would give you a testimony as to what divine conditions were up there.