DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (4)
[p. 208] DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (4)
Exodus 12:1-6; Exodus 2:1-28; Exodus 13: 17 - 22
JT Our subject is the divine system as set out typically in the book of Exodus, operating there for the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, and operating today for the deliverance of God’s people out of the world. We noted particularly in our previous readings the component parts of the system — Moses and Aaron in chapter 4, and in chapter 6 the personnel or elements enlarged on in the increase in the priestly family. Love was noted as entering into the system, seen in Moses and Aaron being brothers, and particularly in Aaron as being a man of affection. Aaron had the second place although he was older than Moses by three years; he was therefore at a certain disadvantage, which love would enable him to overcome; and in general it did overcome, although there was a certain rivalry seen later, not only between him and Moses but between him and Miriam and Moses. That is to say, Aaron and Miriam took issue with Moses in the spirit of rivalry, but love prevailed so that the service proceeded. We noted how the combined services of Moses and Aaron led to worship in the people in chapter 4. We see it here again in verse 27 of chapter 12, as Moses outlined the passover: “Ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses. And the people bowed their heads and worshipped”.
Then in chapter 7 we saw how the system was augmented in Jehovah making Moses God to Pharaoh, and Aaron his prophet. The plagues are clearly introduced to bring out the power that was there in the system. God Himself is there, using through Moses’ hand the very rod that had been [p. 209] turned into a serpent and restored. This is the staff which Moses was to use, and Aaron too. God Himself also used it for the deliverance of His people. The deliverance of the people is kept in view throughout chapter 4; Israel is called God’s son, to be released by Pharaoh to serve God. That is kept in view throughout, but Pharaoh is seen in chapter 5 as in opposition and in a defiant, rebellious attitude. He says, “Who is Jehovah?”, utterly ignoring the God of whom Moses was speaking, the One who said, “I AM”, God Himself. The light of God Himself is in Moses’ heart and in Aaron’s heart, and they are set up in that light in the power of God who is with them. The plagues are seen as signs but as conveying light too. They are not to destroy Egypt but to break it down, and at the same time to enlighten the people that they may get the benefit of the light in the plagues. They were intended to break Egypt down, weakening but not destroying it; at the same time there was an evidence of God’s grace in that He allowed Moses to intercede for Pharaoh. There was thus a gracious side to the position, God having in mind that any who were at all affected by it might recognise Him and obey Him.
Ultimately the plagues reached their end and chapter 12 shows that end. It is the beginning of time for Israel, but not for Egypt; God is not beginning times and seasons for Egypt. He makes them for His people. He divides time for His people, especially in relation to service, not only into days but into years. These years are to be filled up in His service. So that what we have come to now in this chapter is constitutional. There are elements to build up His people, not only in food but in clothing. Their going out was not to be in poverty, they were to be set up in wealth. “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the [p. 210] first month of the year to you” (verse 2). So that we are entering not only on deliverance from Egypt but on a new era, an era belonging to God and His people.
SRMcC Has this year in mind the festive year rather than the solar year?
JT Yes. It is a festive time and the year is to be full of feasts, governed by that idea, characterised by feasts that are governed by heaven. There is also the solar and lunar idea; and it is an agricultural year, governed by earth in the sense of vegetable life and fruitfulness. It makes way for the work of God in things.
AEH John the baptist recognised the need of decrease on his side and increase on the side of what was coming in in lamb character.
JT From God’s standpoint there must be increase in His people. John the baptist tells who must increase: “He must increase, but I must decrease”, John 3: 30. There is the increase of Christ in His people, and the increase of the body. That is an element that we must keep before us too, and it goes with the subjective or vegetable idea — what comes from the earth. It is suggestive of what is subjective. The sun, moon and stars are objective. The earth sometimes has the mother character, the productive character. Our chapter begins with the beginning of months, the month Abib, which alludes to fruitfulness. The corn has just come up. That is in itself a guide for time, because certain cereals come at different times; and while the heavenly bodies are objective the earth is dependent on the heat and light of the sun for its functioning.
HGH Does this chapter suggest that there should be a definite beginning to our spiritual history? “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months”.
JT Yes, that is what I was thinking, leading up not only to relief through the Lord Jesus in the gospel but also to the work of the Spirit, which is collateral with it. It must be, or life would soon die out.
Rem God says, “Israel is my son, my firstborn... Let my son go, that he may serve me”.
JT People may multiply rapidly, but God’s thought is the personal idea — a whole nation viewed from the standpoint of family relations, implying sons and hence names. The purpose of God culminates in this; He has predestinated us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself. That is in mind in chapter 4 and should never be lost sight of.
RH Does the “head” of months, according to the footnote in verse 2 (see the Darby Translation note in Exodus 12: 2) have any bearing on this?
JT This month has a leading or first place, therefore it is the dominating month of the year. The sun does in a sense determine it, but rather the name “Abib”, given to it later, which signifies, “The month the corn ripens” (see the Darby Translation note in Exodus 13: 4). The name denotes vegetable life, especially at a time when the earth is functioning. Seedtime is when the earth functions in fruitfulness.
LES The collective position is in view here, denoted by the words “assembly” and “congregation”.
JT The word “assembly” is to be noted. It has a great place here; it represents the unity of the congregation viewed as one whole.
LES There is a distinction between the two thoughts. ‘Assembly’ is the congregation looked at as a moral whole, a corporate person before God (see footnote, Exodus 12: 3).
JT That is very expressive — so many persons together to be viewed as a corporate person. It is common in political matters. The word “congregation”
[p. 212] is so many persons each having responsibility of his own. So that the assembly of God at Corinth is the idea of a moral whole; the assembly is taken account of by itself: “we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”, 1 Corinthians 10: 17.
JRH Would 2 Timothy lead up to the thought of congregation? Our individual responsibility leads to the taking up of the position. The Corinthian position is the idea of the assembly.
JT It would, in a time like this. Where there is breakdown we must go back to the beginning and begin with a remnant, but the original divine thought remains. 2 Timothy enables us to reach it, so that we do not remain individuals but come back to a greater idea, or we could never have the breaking of bread or meetings like these.
WL Is it significant that Moses was able to talk to all the assembly of Israel? None are left out of this matter.
JT God has always all His people in mind. In the addresses to the assemblies, especially Philadelphia, God has all the saints in mind and always uses assembly terms. It is that they may “know that I have loved thee”.
Ques Why is the ministry here for a household?
JT It is to work out the local position. 1 Corinthians contemplates the local and the general positions. The local position is in the opening word, “to the assembly of God... in Corinth”. That is the local position and it has to be reached in Corinth. The Lord said He had much people in that city. The household thought is hardly touched on in Corinthians in either epistle, but it is found elsewhere. Baptism enters into the matter, it is in mind in a universal way in chapter 10 where they are all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Household baptism is to take place in view of the [p. 213] local position. Corinthians contemplates not only the local but the general position; the local comes first, but how are the saints at Corinth to reach the universal idea? Paul says, “Christ has not sent me to baptise, but to preach glad tidings”; but, he says, I did baptise some. This means that Christians do baptise, but they are not baptists.
AEH Would there be a weakness in the local position if there is not a united front in connection with baptism?
JT Yes. The household involves baptism, and so in Acts the first to introduce the household idea is Paul. It leads up to his doctrine. He was not sent to baptise, like John, but he used baptism. It was generally households he baptised. In the second scripture we read there is the explanation that is to be passed down to the children. They are to ask about this feast: “And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians and delivered our houses”, Exodus 12: 26, 27. Paul brings that into his ministry at Corinth, not allowing baptism to cast a shade over his ministry; he was greater than a baptist. There is no such thing as a baptist in Christianity. John was the only one who was a baptist in his ministry, and baptism had its place; Paul recognized that, but like all Old Testament matters it was not perfect. There had been only the baptism of John hitherto, and that was not perfect, so Paul incorporated it into his own service in a limited way. The Lord did not send him to do it. However, he did baptize certain ones: “I baptised also the house of Stephanas; for the rest I know not if I have baptised any other. For Christ has not sent me to baptise”, 1 Corinthians 1: 16, 17. The thought of worthy brethren is carried [p. 214] through in the house of this man Stephanas; his name means ‘crown’.
SMcC Is this word in verse 3 as to the assembly of Israel to be viewed as abstract in the mind of God regarding them, or rather in connection with the work of God in them?
JT Both things are true. God has in mind that He would have a son. The word would be figurative, but it would mean they were not only to be delivered out of Egypt but set up in liberty inwardly by His own work in them. Deuteronomy brings out the thought in the statement, “ye are sons of Jehovah your God”. Moses said they were going into the land as sons; it was to be the corporate idea.
JAT Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians, “that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion”, would bear on this point.
JT Quite so. He introduced the matter of unity immediately. The worst thing he had to deal with in Corinth was in the first chapter; it was disunity, broken conditions amongst the brethren. So that through the ninth verse what is presented is the objective side. You have the position set before them. It says in verse 4, “I thank my God always about you, in respect of the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus”; — that is objective only, abstract truth — “that in everything ye have been enriched in him, in all word of doctrine, and all knowledge, (according as the testimony of the Christ has been confirmed in you,)” — not ‘to you’ — “so that ye come short in no gift”. All this is abstract truth; it is a question of the Spirit bringing gift in. Paul goes on, “Awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall also confirm you to the end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”.
Now that is an introduction to the epistle from [p. 215] the divine side. Verse 10 begins an exhortation. Paul comes down to actual facts involving division among them, “Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions” Where all the members have each its own place they make a whole, and those who have broken away are to be restored to the one complete whole by his word. And so the apostle proceeds, “But that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been shown to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. But I speak of this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is the Christ divided? has Paul been crucified for you? or have ye been baptised unto the name of Paul? I thank God that I have baptised none of you, unless Crispus and Gaius, that no one may say that I have baptised unto my own name. Yes, I baptised also the house of Stephanas; for the rest I know not if I have baptised any other. For Christ has not sent me to baptise, but to preach glad tidings”. Now this passage confirms what we have said, that divisions existed in the meeting and Paul brings in the matter of baptism. In relation to that, he says that he has baptised certain brethren and also the house of Stephanas. In his ministry baptism had a place, but in it Paul had the assembly in mind; the households of the saints are intended to contribute to the assembly; and this typical chapter that we have before us in Exodus is constitutional, to build them up in the truth and last throughout the dispensation in view of the children.
AEH These two households mentioned — those of Chloe and Stephanas — would definitely link on with chapter 12 of Exodus. Both are on the line of bringing in the lamb. I was thinking of the moral [p. 216] elements of the system that you are suggesting to us, as seen in the apostle himself, and the divine lamb-like characteristics that mark him in his relations with the saints. The households of Chloe and Stephanas would stand together in bringing Paul in to Corinth on this line.
JT That helps, showing how he persisted in his efforts to have local conditions right in Corinth. In this he was assisted by Chloe; and then we are told in the last chapter of the first epistle that the house of Stephanas is the first-fruits of Achaia: “(ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the saints for service), that ye should also be subject to such, and to every one joined in the work and labouring. But I rejoice in the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus; because they have supplied what was lacking on your part” (verses 15 - 17). Both households are supporting Paul in his efforts at Corinth.
FM Baptised households would produce a suitable atmosphere for the reception of Paul’s ministry.
JT Quite so. These households were contributing to his efforts in bringing about right local conditions. This question of the local and general has already been raised amongst us and that is what we are dealing with now, how the one enters into the other. Chapter 12 of Exodus contemplates the need of constitution. You get food here.
SRMcC Would you link up the two households of the midwives (Exodus 1: 21) with the households at Corinth?
JT Yes, they are on the same line; and there are others too. Even some of the Egyptians were affected, as we have already noted, and supported Moses. It is said that Jehovah directed Pharaoh to look after his cattle before the plague of hail. That is mercy. “And now send, and secure thy cattle,
[p. 217] and all that thou hast in the field: all the men and the cattle that are found in the field, and are not brought home — on them the hail shall come down, and they shall die. He that feared the word of Jehovah among the bondmen of Pharaoh made his bondmen and his cattle flee into the houses”, Exodus 9: 19, 20. That is very beautiful; the plague is not altogether punitive. The plagues are typical of the present time in which God is seeking to deliver people out of the world — those viewed as ready for conversion. God has that in mind.
LES In Acts 16 the jailer and his house would be contributory to the whole idea.
JT Quite so; in a marked way he was taken out of the enemy camp. Paul preached in a most effective way, not simply to save the household but as contributory to the assembly.
Rem The third verse of our chapter says, “Speak unto all the assembly of Israel, saying, On the tenth of this month let them take themselves each a lamb, for a father’s house, a lamb for a house”. The words “assembly” and “house” are both in the same verse there.
JT Exactly. Follow that through to verses 26 and 27 already alluded to: “And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service? that ye shall say, It is a sacrifice of passover to Jehovah, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt”. The answer is that God passed over the houses in Egypt; but when they came to the Red Sea the great thought of baptism, the universal thought, is seen. They are all baptised in the cloud and in the sea; so that we may see how the local character of the teaching became enlarged when they went into the land. Fruitfulness would have part in the matter of time. Time has not the same force in the wilderness as in the land, there is no objective in the [p. 218] wilderness. It is a land not sown. There is no help toward meditation, no help toward life in a subjective sense. As soon as we get into the land the Spirit is contemplated — something is going on and we can say, Something is happening here; we have better times than we used to have.
HB In Deuteronomy 16: 9 it says, “From the beginning of putting the sickle into the corn shalt thou begin to count seven weeks”. They could not count on that basis in the wilderness.
JT There was no sickle and no corn in the wilderness; there we have to count on the sun, but in the land we count on the subjective condition in the meeting.
SMcC It was in abeyance in the wilderness.
JT Well, they had the passover; but there was little but death in the wilderness. Six hundred thousand people died in the space of forty years, and yet God never lost sight of His own thoughts for His people in view of their service to Him.
SMcC In the antitype does that suggest that in the circumstances in which we are placed in the wilderness there is not much except as we lay hold of the purpose of God and His thoughts for us? That is the way life is rightly entered upon.
JT There was not much time for contemplation in the wilderness — only eleven days if they had gone straight through — not much time. Time is the most valuable thing we have and should be utilized. The extent of the journeying was lengthened to forty years, but it was a wandering time. They had no end in view, but God was with them nevertheless. There was no seed time and harvest. We get seed time and harvest in Genesis and this was never lost sight of. But what we are at now is a basic constitution, we have to begin building up a constitution as soon as we move out of Egypt. It was unleavened bread they ate; they were enjoined [p. 219] to keep the feast of unleavened bread and by force of circumstances they did. That was their food. My constitution is not built up on the world. Unleavened means there was no sin in the food; that is the idea in this chapter.
AP The fact that “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” should help anyone having difficulty as to household baptism.
JT The year of the passover is the beginning of time for the believer’s constitution, and what good is time without constitution in men? So that the children are in mind particularly in this chapter, especially in the antitype; even literally they are in mind here. Unleavened bread means that they are not fed on novels or anything of that character. They are to be kept from such food assiduously — by force of circumstances here; but subsequently by the command governing the feast of unleavened bread, enforcing it by authority. It is one thing to be held by force of circumstances and another to be held by the will of God directly.
Ques The question the children ask is on positive lines; not, Why cannot I do this or that? but, What mean ye by this service? Is that the way we should bring up our children?
JT That is so; the children are built up. The same type of questioning comes out in Canaan to show the scope of the truth.
LES Do you think that where faith operates in our households there would be the recognition of something there for God? It was “each according to the measure of his eating”.
JT The manna contemplates constitution, not simply that we are kept alive. Being kept alive does not mean building up the constitution, but this is constitutional.
LES “And if the household be too small for a lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house [p. 220] take it according to the number of the souls; each according to the measure of his eating shall ye count for the lamb”.
JT That is remarkable. The word “neighbour” there is to help as to the local assembly; it does not suggest the universal character of the assembly. It is the local character that is in mind here. You go to your neighbour and ask him to share your lamb, that is, it is a question of the will of God, the mind of God. The neighbourly spirit is promoted in this. That would build us up constitutionally. The children are in what they are eating.
JRH It might well be said, “Our passover, Christ”.
JT Exactly, that is in mind here: “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed”, 1 Corinthians 5: 7.
AEH It is noticed in the social contacts of the brethren in their houses when there are no meetings going on, that it is very difficult to keep conversation and intercourse on right lines. Is that lack of constitution? Could it be traced to deficiency in connection with the passover?
JT That is perhaps how we reach the truth here. What does go on in our houses? Ultimately the children have to stand by themselves, and then it is a question of constitution. Things happening amongst the children are terrible; hardly a family is immune, and I think it is the want of the passover and the feast of unleavened bread. That kind of food is to become common, to be used all the time; it was seven days of unleavened bread.
Ques How do we partake of the passover in our households?
JT It is a question of where the children begin, they begin where the parents have been. One generation passes away and another comes. God is working something out and the parental and childhood idea is constantly in mind. The many terrible things [p. 221] that are happening can all be traced back to the early youth of the persons and to the household conditions.
LES We need to hold our children right from the outset. It was “according to the number of the souls; each according to the measure of his eating”. Right from the outset the children are to be held. Sometimes we make allowances because they are very young.
JT We need to account for the very youngest. In the use of the manna the very youngest were included; they are included today in the rationing.
RH When it says, “When your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service?” does it imply that as we move on this line our children will say it?
JT Exactly. They will want to know as being built up constitutionally. Every parent knows you must build up the children by the food they eat.
FKC The people bow their heads and worship as the children are brought into the matter — the fact that the households are safe; God has passed over them.
JT That is how the matter stands. The elements of the system are outstanding in the ministers, and they are seen in this section as recognised and revered by the people. Their ministry is such as to affect the people. The ministry might be to blame on occasion, but it is not to blame here; God had given plenty of matter to Moses, and ability to Aaron, so both were supplied in the ministry, and in chapter 4 it is said the effect of the ministry through Moses and Aaron was that the people bowed their heads and worshipped. From verse 21 of chapter 12 it is not Aaron speaking but Moses, and the effect of Moses’ speaking is that the people bowed their heads and worshipped. Notice that Aaron is not here as a minister, he is not mentioned in the [p. 222] speaking. From verses 21 to 28 it is Moses’ account of the setting out of the principles governing the passover and the feast of unleavened bread, but particularly the passover. It is what he says about it. This chapter from verse 1 down to the end of verse 20 is taken up with what God says, and verses 21 to 28 are what the minister says. He is viewed now as the minister. How well he can shorten what he has to say, so as not to make it too long! Prolonged discourses are not as a rule helpful, and Moses used only from verse 21 to verse 28 to state the matter; and it is said that the effect of his words was that the people bowed their heads and worshipped.
LES Would you say a word as to why Moses introduces the hyssop here?
JT It is not part of what Jehovah says, according to the record. It shows how a minister may vary what the Scripture says. He may paraphrase, or omit something, or add something, and yet be right in what he says. It is a question of levitical skill and understanding. It involves that these men could not only say things, but say them to affect the people, and yet not say too much.
LK Why does it say, “Each a lamb, for a father’s house”? Is it that the idea of the fatherly element would be brought in in relation to the passover?
JT That helps in what we are remarking; it is a father’s house. The father is sometimes shut out — there is too much mother. We need more fathers amongst us.
SMcC This bunch of hyssop should have a bearing upon us in relation to our houses and families because the love of what is big is prevalent in children, whereas ministry would emphasize what is small and perhaps obscure.
JT It is remarkable how they get the big ideas. So with young married people with means; perhaps [p. 223] they inherit too much — it is damaging. If they have earned it, it is another matter.
WL So Moses says in verse 21, “Seize and take yourselves lambs for your families, and kill the passover. And take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason”. It goes with the family thought.
JT Quite so. It does not appear as though Moses excelled in his own house. He excelled as a minister, as an apostle, so to speak, but his sons never came to much. They were Levites, but I think the mother side was weak in Moses’ house and that is probably the explanation of much.
MB Esther 1: 22 says that “every man should bear rule in his own house, and should speak according to the language of his people”. We bring much trouble upon ourselves in not taking on this place in our households.
JT We were reading the book of Esther recently. I hope the Lord will use what was brought out as to the development of the feminine side amongst the gentiles. Vashti, the gentile queen, failed in obedience. In the millennium God brings in the female side in its subjective character, typically seen in Esther, the Jewish queen. Paul makes a great deal of the house and practical instruction as to marriage, while at the same time the female side of the truth has failed in Christianity.
SMcC It is interesting that the question of holiness is raised in Leviticus 19: 2, 3: “Speak unto all the assembly of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Holy shall ye be, for I Jehovah your God am holy. Ye shall reverence every man his mother, and his father”. The mother is put first.
JRH How do you account for the female side being so much emphasised in Moses’ preservation and upbringing, and then the weakness in his own marriage and [p. 224] household?
JT Zipporah did not contribute much. A great deal might be said about that. Moses’ own mother was an excellent person, and his father was a good brother, and so was he himself; but so far as his own children were concerned, they were not a success, evidently due to the mother.
AEH Could the failure of the gentile queen be attributed to the particular form that the world’s system takes during the assembly’s period here, and that the feminine side is more attracted by the world’s system than the masculine side is?
JT I think so. Vashti would show that she had a coterie of women with her in the royal house which belonged to the king. Scripture says, “Also the queen Vashti made a feast for the women of the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus”. They carried on by themselves, and the king sent his servants to ask her to come out, and she would not. There was absolute refusal. Many women would say she was doing right; but Ahasuerus, however bad, represents authority in the gentile monarchy as much, in a sense, as David does in his kingdom, and she is flouting it. She will not obey and so she is deposed and another comes — a Jewess. In the beginning God made them male and female and said, “Let them have dominion” together, and that means that headship is acknowledged in the one.
AEH Often in the subverting of the principle of headship we hear remarks such as, Well, if my husband was a different kind of a person... But the idea is of God establishing certain principles, and our blessing is in acknowledging them.
JT The divine principle is set out in the first of the four monarchies in Daniel 2: 38: “Thou art this head of gold”. The authority is of God and the female side has failed in it. That is the history.
WR [p. 225] Verses 8 and 9 deal with the preparation of the lamb: “And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs shall they eat it. Ye shall eat none of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire”. Roasting with fire seems to be insisted upon. I suppose both the father and the mother would be in the matter: the mother would prepare the lamb and it would be the responsibility of the father to see that all was rightly carried out.
JT That is so. The fire has direct action on the meat. Boiling is indirect, but roasting is direct; even a pan is not direct. The fire here comes in direct touch with the food. That would mean that our constitutions have appropriated the death of Christ; we appropriate what He endured. I may be indulging what cost Him so much.
SMcC What difference do you see in the food Noah was instructed to take into the ark? It says, “And take thou of all food that is eaten”, Genesis 6: 21. There was nothing definite named as food there. The ark refers to our houses too, and salvation in relation to them, yet the food is not defined. Any kind is to be eaten, whereas here it is specifically defined.
JT Quite so, but there were no children in the ark. We are there supposed to be full-grown, and that would mean there would be understanding of the deluge, which was a terrible thing. Enjoyment in the ark would be of full-grown character. Our houses should always include children and they are in mind here. We say we can trust the brothers in the care meeting, and we can trust the brothers and sisters sitting down in assembly, but their children may not be behaving on the back seats and we cannot trust them. We are in mixed conditions in this chapter; there is the necessity of the fire, the evidence of the Lord Jesus dying on account of sin. What [p. 226] the children are indulging in at the back of the room cost the death of the Lord Jesus.
SMcC That is very helpful regarding mixed conditions in this chapter.
JT There must be some feature of the work of God in His people before they are reliable and you can trust them. John 20 supports that: “Jesus said therefore again to them, Peace be to you: as the Father sent me forth, I also send you. And having said this, he breathed into them, and says to them, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (verses 21 - 23). The Lord regards them as trustworthy. We must have that or we cannot have the assembly. We cannot trust young children, and even young grown-ups; it is one of the features of the flesh in youth — untrustworthiness.
LP What are the bitter herbs for?
JT They have the same effect as the burning. It is bitterness. We should learn to taste bitter things that cause weeping in us. It says of Moses as a little child that he wept: he was no stranger to suffering.
LES In the word addressed to fathers in Ephesians 6: 4 it says, “And ye fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and admonition of the Lord”. Would that imply the action of the fire?
JT As a father you know the severity of the Lord’s discipline. “I rebuke and discipline as many as I love”, Revelation 3: 19. The father and mother have learned that by experience and they pass it on to their children.
Ques Is the passover the burnt-offering aspect of the death of Christ?
JT It is really a sin-offering in character according to the burning. It is the death of Christ in its severity. In verse 21 it says, “And Moses called all the [p. 227] elders of Israel, and said to them, Seize and take yourselves lambs for your families, and kill the passover”. These are very severe thoughts. “And take a bunch of hyssop” — that refers to what is small; we do not get any flattery from the levitical instincts of Moses, it is what is deflationary, humbling and small — “and dip it in the blood that is in the bason” — notice the word “bason” — “and smear the lintel and the two door-posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning”. All this is the delineation of the truth, and it is most solemnising. All is judicial outside and we are protected inside. The lamb was to be in the household four days before it was killed; the children should be affected by that.
The paragraph read from chapter 13 alludes to the continuance of the system in the light of these things. “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh let the people go, that God did not lead them the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, That the people may not repent when they see conflict, and return to Egypt”. We do not want a Lot’s wife, looking back. “And God led the people about, the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went arrayed out of the land of Egypt”. That is, the exodus was systematic, they went out in order, in rank. That is very important in this subject. “And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him; for he had made the children of Israel swear an oath, saying, God will be sure to visit you; then ye shall carry my bones with you hence. And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped [p. 230] in Etham, at the end of the wilderness. And Jehovah went before their face by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them in the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; so that they could go day and night. The [p. 228] pillar of the cloud did not remove from before the people by day, nor the pillar of fire by night”. So that we have a definite order of march, and perfect guidance, God in the cloud guiding us. And then we have something historic. Children love history; they love to hear about their ancestors. The point here is faith, Joseph’s long outlook into the land, so that he would have his bones go there.
AEH This would help us in speaking to our children. Eve was built. Do the bones suggest the framework of the system, which in itself might be a cold idea, but they are to be adorned and set out by the wealth of what is connected with it?
JT The framework idea entered into Eve. She was built: “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”, Adam said. The bone is the framework but the flesh is the filling out.
APT Would chapter 12 be the filling out of the framework, the constitution built up in a living body?
JT We are directed back to our fathers. And so as to the bones of Joseph, what were they like? What was Joseph like? The children would say, He is my great-great-grandfather. The children of Manasseh were born on Joseph’s knees. That is, the bones are the framework, but there are not bones only, there is flesh. According to Ezekiel flesh came on to the bones, bringing in affections and warmth and beautification.
JRH They were not led through the way of the land of the Philistines although that was near.
JT That would be God’s provision for them, knowing how they would be in constant dread of the Philistines. Presently they would need powerful armies, but not yet. It is to bring out the consideration of God for us when we are young persons in [p. 229] the family.
HB I suppose the result of the constitutional thought would be seen in Psalm 105: 37: “And he brought them forth with silver and gold; and there was not one feeble among their tribes”.
FC Does the pillar idea — the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud — enter into the system also? It is a formed idea.
JT Yes, it is a formed idea. The cloud is formed by some action of the air literally, but the pillar is what God forms because He is in it. God is there. We are told He worked out from that point and discomfited the Egyptians. He is before them by day and by night; they can go by day and night.
HGH It was the cloud by day and the fire by night. Would that suggest His consideration for us in the circumstances in which we are?
JT I think so; we do not need to loiter. Moses had trouble at the inn; Zipporah made complaints and Jehovah was minded to slay him, a remarkable thing; but here they are to go day and night. God is there, and there is perfect safety; there is no danger of damage in the journey. They are now beginning to walk: “I it was that taught Ephraim to walk”, God says. They do not go out like an unordered multitude, they go out in fives; each has his place. It is the early idea of being taught how to walk by God, and being taught how to follow a lead too. God Himself is the Leader.
SMcC Five would suggest what is basic in manhood: five senses, five fingers, in contrast to six. They are in fives.
JT Quite so. It is man’s constitution physically.
RA It says, “To give them light; so that they could go day and night”. They are governed by light from heaven. Day and night are governed from heaven.
JT The light was in the fire. It said, “And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, at the end of the wilderness. And Jehovah went before their face by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them in the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; so that they could go day and night”. And then it is touching, the consideration of Jehovah in that position; it is said that “The pillar of the cloud did not remove from before the people by day, nor the pillar of fire by night”. It was trustworthy; you could reckon on it.
So that in summing up the position; the households are in mind, and the history of Joseph and the carrying up of his bones; also the number of years of Israel’s captivity. It terminated at the very day of the predicted four hundred and thirty years. Everything was in order, moving by clock-work, as we say, carrying out the divine mind; and the little ones are reminded of that. If they show any interest in the testimony of God, then they will find there is history attached to it. Israel had entered into the four hundred and thirty years, it had been said they should be afflicted all those years; it is the history of our affliction; but now they are coming out, and the very day is mentioned. They are coming out with great property, and they are coming out in order by fives, and God is leading them.
LES It says in Psalm 105, “Egypt rejoiced at their departure; for the fear of them had fallen upon them. He spread a cloud for a covering, and fire to give light in the night” (verses 38, 39). And verse 42 says, “For he remembered his holy word, and Abraham his servant; And he brought forth his people with gladness, his chosen with rejoicing”.
JT So that if the children are not ready for the truth immediately, God will make it very delightful by putting it into poetry. That psalm is the history in poetry, an attractive way of recording historical things. The Psalms are poetic and touch the affections and you can remember them too; they are [p. 231] sometimes written in acrostic form so that the mind is aided. You do not get the same assistance for the mind in these historical books. The book of Psalms gives you great assistance, so that you can carry the historical facts of what God has done with His people in your mind.
JRH The next chapter seems to be the covering idea, the cloud coming in between the people and the Egyptians, the baptism of the cloud.
JT I should think baptism in the cloud would be the Spirit in principle as over against baptism by water. They were baptised in the cloud before they were baptised by water, so that properly the Spirit comes into our baptism, at least with adults.