READINGS ON EZEKIEL (1)
READINGS ON EZEKIEL (1)
Ezekiel 1:1-12; Ezekiel 1:26-28; Ezekiel 3: 16 - 21
FL I would suggest, as the line is quite unusual, that it would help us all, if you give a little outline of this book, so that we may follow along in the unfolding of it a little more intelligently.
JT Well, there are many thoughts which, I hope, by the Lord’s help, may come before us. One is that the writer is identified with the people of God in their different circumstances. He says, “I was among the captives”, and in the body of the book he dates from the captivity (see chapter 40). In that way, he accepts the governmental dealings of God. Another thought is that “the heavens were opened”, and another, that he is addressed as “son of man”, the term, indeed, appearing more frequently in the book of Ezekiel than in all the rest of Scripture: reminding us that the race of man is in view, rather than a favoured part of it. A further thought is, that it is based on signs, most of which appear in the prophet himself, and, generally speaking, involving much suffering. Another thought is, that in chapter 1 we have for the support of all these things, an array of power here, having a universal bearing, the number four governing it, and all under, or subservient to “a man above upon it”, i.e., the throne. These thoughts, I believe, are seen running through the book, and they culminate in the whole house of Israel being seen in life, and the house of God set up in relation to God’s own purpose, as it says, in “the land of Israel” (chapter 40: 2); and then blessing flowing out from the house, in the river; the river flowing out from under the threshold and south of [p. 188] the altar. The book ends with the title of the city being given: Jehovah-Shammah, meaning that Jehovah is there. These subjects are fully developed, and have an important bearing on the present time, as corresponding with the ministry of John. The captivity is accepted, and the light given is identified with the captivity; so that victory is in view from the outset; for as John sees the heavenly city coming down, so Ezekiel sees the city and the house of God there.
FL Would you say that Ezekiel, in that way, is suggestive of John? “I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience, in Jesus, was in the island called Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus”, Revelation 1: 9. Does the presentation of John correspond with Ezekiel?
JT I thought so. It gives the geographical position of the captivity as by the river Chebar, far away from the earlier centre, as John gives the island of Patmos.
FL From what you have been saying, there is a considerable analogy between Ezekiel and the book of Revelation.
JT There is. John’s ministry is based on signs, excepting the epistles; his gospel and the Revelation certainly are based on signs. In Revelation 1: 1 we read, “He signified it, sending by his angel, to his bondman John”, meaning that it was by signs, and Ezekiel is the same in character.
WM It is remarkable that both of these books begin with the servant in captivity, and end with living water.
JT That is very suggestive. In Ezekiel, a river issued out of the house, and came down south of the altar; in Revelation, it is out of the throne.
FL In Ezekiel the climax is in the glory of the Lord; would not that convey the blessing of the [p. 189] millennial day; whilst, in the Revelation, we get a higher touch in the introduction of the eternal state “the tabernacle of God is with men” (chapter 21: 3); would not that suggest blessing on a higher plane?
JT I have no doubt that is right. Ezekiel touches John in a most remarkable way, as illustrated by the number of steps in the approach to the house. First, there is a series of seven steps, and then a series of eight steps; as if Ezekiel wants to set up the earthly system according to complete exercise, seven being the number that denotes such exercise, according to the light governing the position. Eight, I think, goes beyond, leading as it says, “into the inner court”, which would mean immediate proximity to the house, where God Himself dwells; chapter 40: 20, 22, 28, 31. Now John, I think, in the Revelation, has the same thought, viz., the eternal state of things, which corresponds with the eight steps.
FL So that Ezekiel indicates there is another step, in the second series, without unfolding the nature of it, whilst in the Revelation we get light as to what that eighth step is.
JT Yes, it is beyond the millennial blessing. The tabernacle of God with men, is certainly beyond the millennial day. John saw a new heaven and a new earth; Revelation 21: 1.
DMR Is there anything significant in the fact that the throne is no longer connected with Jerusalem?
JT It is the point that is made. Israel had forfeited their privilege; not only was the throne lost but the Shekinah, or divine presence, was about to be lost. Although with the greatest reluctance, yet the glory eventually departed.
JS So in John’s gospel, it says, “He came to his own, and his own received him not”, chapter 1: 11.
JT There was in the person of Jesus here, the embodiment of every divine thought. The gospel of John shows that He came unto His own and His [p. 190] own received Him not. They lost, therefore, all their advantages, as the body of that gospel shows, but in the Person of Jesus is worked out, according to that gospel, every divine thought. I think that in the array of power in these symbols in chapter 1, we have a means whereby every divine thought is secured, and all is under the control of a Man in heaven; so that there is, at the present time, preservation, maintenance and power for the security of every divine thought.
AFM Would Ezekiel’s name indicate that he was in correspondence with that power?
JT That is it, it means “strength of God”.
WB-w Is there no thought of setting up things officially again in connection with Jerusalem here?
JT The term “son of man” would be a reminder to faith that something wider was in view.
DMR Do you think that we get a suggestion of the glory departing in Acts 7? Stephen “saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (verse 55). The Jews filled up the measure of their sin, in stoning Stephen which gave the Lord a free hand to select another vessel.
JT Stephen saw the glory of God. That is contemplated in Ezekiel: it departed first from over the threshold of the house, and then it stood upon a mountain beyond Jerusalem, so that it finally left, and Stephen sees it in heaven. He sees the Son of man and the glory; and then after that, you have worked out the thought seen here, that all the power of God on earth was subservient to a Man in heaven; so that He speaks in power out of heaven to Saul, as Jesus. Then the term ‘Lord’ is emphasised in Acts 9, to remind us that He has authority to repress and restrain all that would lift up its head against the testimony of God. These elements ought to have been in Jerusalem; they were no longer there, but in heaven, in His hands, so that the opposing elements [p. 191] are dealt with, and then Ananias is brought into service, and although refractory, the Lord uses him, and brings him into accord with heavenly light. I think Ananias may be taken to represent these symbols here, of power and spiritual movement by which God is carrying on His government.
FL Do you think the Lord before the high priest would have a reference to this in Ezekiel? They say, “Tell us if thou art the Christ the Son of God”. He says, “Thou hast said. Moreover, I say to you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven”, Matthew 26: 63, 64. It was this largely that produced the accusation of blasphemy, when the Lord turns the question from “Son of God” to “Son of man”.
JT And so in answer to Nathaniel, the Lord says to him, “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee”; and Nathaniel answers, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel”, which was quite in keeping with an Israelite’s expectation, that is, any pious Israelite would, as reading the Psalms, know that the Son of God was the King of Israel; but the Lord says, “Thou shalt see greater things than these ... . Henceforth ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of man”, John 1: 48 - 51. That was for “one truly an Israelite”; an instruction to him that there were greater things to come, in relation to the Son of man, that is, the whole race of man is to be brought into view.
JS Is that answered in Stephen?
JT He evidently, by the Spirit, was guided to refer to the Son of man; as an Israelite, he would have the Messiah in his mind, but referring to the Son of man, he was in keeping with the character of [p. 192] the moment.
WM I suppose that Nathaniel would hardly know Him as the Son of God as we do, but in connection with Psalm 2.
JT It would be in a more limited way.
WM The Son of man would be more in relation to the race of men.
JT So that John develops the truth of the Son of man in a constructive way. It is more definite in John than in the other evangelists. He gives you first the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on Him; then he gives you the Son of man lifted up: “As Moses lifted up the serpent” refers to Genesis 3 as well as to Numbers 21; it was a question of the source whence sin came, so that the Son of man deals with the thing at its source; and the result is, the whole race is to come into the good of His being lifted up.
WM Satan came in as a serpent and is cast into the abyss as the ancient serpent.
JT In John 3: 14, it says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus must the Son of man be lifted up, that everyone who believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal”. The onus of the thing was on the Son of man, and He dealt with it at its source. In verse 16 we get the source whence love springs: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal”. Here it is not the Son of man but the Son of God. God has found a means, in His Son, of opening up His heart; but verses 14 and 15 deal with the onus that lay on Christ as becoming Man to do the will of God; so that the present result is, eternal life for anyone that believes on Him. There is a very beautiful combination in verses 14 and 16: the former is from our side, the uplifted Son of man; the latter from God’s side. He gave His only-[p. 193] begotten Son.
RSS You refer to the seed of the woman in Genesis 3?
JT To the serpent. Chapter 3 begins with the serpent; he “was more crafty than any animal of the field” (verse 1), that is, he takes the initiative, it is a question of the source of the evil; man was not the source of it. Satan was.
WM That is, Satan is the source of evil, God the source of good. Man was not the first to sin.
JT Then the Seed of the woman is the Son of man, and therefore, God says to the serpent. “On thy belly shalt thou go, and eat dust all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel” (verses 14, 15). The Son of man deals a death blow to the serpent, in His being lifted up.
WM Why do you think that God says, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman”, as well as between both seeds?
JT The woman represents humanity subjectively. It contemplates the work of God; John’s epistle, I think, shows how the two lines work out. In Revelation 12 we see that the dragon persecuted the woman that bore the man-child.
AR Is that the reason why Satan is dealt with typically, later on in this book?
JT Quite. He is in view in Ezekiel in the King of Tyre, and John in the Revelation identifies him as the ancient serpent, the devil. There is no doubt as to who he is, the Spirit of God pursues him from the very outset right to the end.
WM In the latter scripture you referred to, he is called a great red dragon; as the dragon, he gives impetus to the head of the Roman Empire, and then he is called the devil and Satan.
AFM It is in that book you have his final consignment to the lake of [p. 194] fire.
JT Referring again to John 3, the Lord says, “And no one has gone up into heaven save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven” (verse 13); so that He is in the position as Son of man to know everything, as He says in verse 11, “We speak that which we know, and we bear witness of that which we have seen”.
AFM What you were remarking about the Son of man being lifted up in John 3 is most important. We have generally connected it with the condemnation of man’s sinful state, but it is most helpful to see that it goes further back than that.
JT I think that is the thing: to see things here dealt with at their source, and thus effectively.
BTF Do you distinguish between the work of the Son of man and the work of Son of God?
JT The Son of man is on the side of the human race, whereas the Son of God is on God’s side. The best illustration of the former is in Simeon. He receives the Child Jesus in his arms. He is on the side of man. Simeon has Him in his arms; and as having Him there he says, “A light for the revelation of the Gentiles”. You see the Gentiles come in before the Jews in that passage, meaning that Simeon spoke by the Spirit, and as he held the Child in his arms, he was enriched; and the whole race is enriched by it. It is the appropriation of the Child, in the presence of God, in that He would be a light for the revelation of the Gentiles, meaning the unveiling of the Gentiles, and then, “the glory of thy people Israel”, Luke 2: 27 - 32.
AFM That is clearly the order. What would you say about the title “Son of God”?
JT John presents the Son of God as in the bosom of the Father — not in Simeon’s arms. He is from God’s side to bring God before men. God approaches us, in that way, in His Son.
BTF Would you say that Ezekiel sets forth [p. 195] the life-giving power of the Son of God, as John’s gospel does?
JT I think so. Resurrection is the great testimony to the Son of God. He is “marked out Son of God in power, ... by resurrection” (Romans 1: 4); and that is developed in this book.
AFM Would the Son of man be first in the way of our appropriation and then the Son of God?
JT From our side, the Son of man is first, but then you come into the light of the Son of God, which involves an entirely new order of things.
WM That was the revelation of the glory of Christ which came unto Paul.
JT The Lord says, in answer to his inquiry, “I am Jesus”, but when he preached, it says, “he preached Jesus that he is the Son of God”, Acts 9: 5, 20.
DMR What have you to say about the four living creatures?
JT I think what dominates the symbols is the thought of man, that is the general appearance of them; and then their feet are straight, like the sole of a calf’s foot, meaning, I suppose, firmness. In the further description, “the likeness of their faces was the face of a man”, and further, the four had the face of a lion on the right-side, and the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle, but we are not told where that face was. These symbols mean respectively: intelligence, strength, firmness and rapidity with which the government of God is carried on at the present time.
RSS Corresponding, to a considerable extent, with Revelation 4.
JT Quite so.
RSS Which is another link between the writings of Ezekiel and John.
JEH Is it the thought that these features of the living creatures were found in perfection [p. 196] in Christ?
JT Yes, and they are also found in every divine agent at the present time. You would look for these features: intelligence, strength, firmness, patience and rapidity in the work and service of God. That is often the difficulty with us: many of us are apt to hold back; but if there is intelligence, and strength, and patience in regard to what you propose doing, do it — without delay.
AP Are those four features seen in the four gospels?
JT I should not like to fit them in, in that pronounced way, although, no doubt, they forcibly appear in the Lord’s ministry on earth.
AFM Would you connect all this with the opened heavens? The book begins with the statement that the heavens were opened. You might say a word about that.
JT That feature dominates the whole book: we are governed from heaven; it is heaven asserting itself, and when heaven is acting directly, no earthly centre is recognised. That is what is meant by the light, and the voice, from heaven in Acts 9; and the sheet from heaven in Acts 10; all is to call attention to where the seat of God’s government is now, and to its activities.
NL Would not Acts 8, Acts 9 and Acts 10 confirm that as to the race, the government of God, and the like? I mean the activities that are seen there.
JT I am sure it would. What you see in chapter 8, is that Philip went down to Samaria and preached the Christ. There is action. We are not told that he was sent to do it, but, on the face of it, he did the thing in the light of these symbols: he was intelligent, strong, and careful, and energetic too, for the thing was done, and Philip did it.
And then the first part of the race that comes into evidence in this new movement, is the African, that is, the Ethiopian; the second part is the Asiatic, that [p. 197] is, Saul; and the third is the European, that is the Roman centurion, so that practically the whole race of man is representatively brought in in this new movement, after Stephen sees the Son of man in heaven.
Ques You have just given a striking illustration in Philip of the four living creatures. Would the four have any bearing upon the gathering of the elect from the four winds of heaven?
JT You see unity in the wings being joined together. Of course, it is well to see that these are symbols, and in order to understand them we must have the thing they symbolise. If we are not in possession of that, then they will not be understood, but if we are in the apprehension of Christ in heaven and the Spirit of God upon earth, we then have the thing symbolised, and having the thing we can see the application of the details.
ARS The fact that the glory departed, would show that the earthly centre was discontinued and now everything is being directed from heaven; there is no earthly centre today. Is that correct?
JT Exactly.
FL Would you say that whilst the thought of the Son of God brings in sonship, the Son of man is more universal, including every dealing of God with man, governmentally and in adjustment, and as bringing to pass in man a sphere of pleasure according to God?
JT One can refer to one’s experience in moving about, and observing the different races into which the human family has been subdivided, and one is impressed with the force of the term, “Son of man”. You see the most degraded subdivision of the race, and yet this term applies to it. Take any of the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands, or of Australia and New Zealand, the question arises. How did they get there? It seems physically impossible in some [p. 198] instances; but I think that the reference in Genesis 11 explains it: “Jehovah scattered them thence over the face of the whole earth” (verse 8). It seems to me that that explains the universal position of the race, and this beautiful term applies wherever you see a man, and however degraded he may be.
RSS This beautiful term, “Son of man”.
AFM So that in the government of God, He scatters, but in the Son of man, in grace, He gathers.
JT And He brings His Son into manhood so as to inspire hope and confidence in every human heart.
GWH And in the gospel, He presents blessing to them. It was God making available to men the blessing of the gospel for them.
FL It is doubtless the point of Luke: The genealogy of the Lord there reaching back to God “of Adam, of God”, Luke 3: 38. The grace of God, in Luke, carries man right back to God; so that, as you say, however degraded the creature, he has to be regarded as possessing a divinely given spirit, and God never relinquishes His title.
JT It is very beautiful; God has given man a spirit. Take the aboriginal of Australasia, if God has given that man a spirit, and He has, according to Scripture, will He not take account of him in every other detail?
DMR Would you say of man universally that that is what is implied in Psalm 8?
JT The question is raised as to who the Son of man is, and the coming of the Son of God into manhood explains it.
ANW Referring to the firmament, the appearance of the man is above it. It is separated from the appearance of the wings and wheels. Why is that? They are found connected with the four faces but separated in the firmament.
JT Do you not think that is quite in keeping with the truth? The Lord is to be regarded in His own personal distinction; He says, “The Son of man who is in heaven” (John 3: 13), and yet He was on the earth. And then again, “If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before”, John 6: 62. There seems to be room made for His personal distinctness, and the appearance of fire and brightness are said to be from His loins upward, and from His loins downward; that is to say, as I understand, He is great enough to reach up to God, and yet condescending enough to reach down to man, indeed, to the uttermost extremities of the race of man.
ANW And what is below the firmament is visible to man, but the Son of man is not visible.
JT So that all is actuated now from heaven, and is under the control of the Lord in heaven.
WM Do you think there might be an allusion in the hands being under the wings to “the Lord’s hand was with them”, Acts 11: 21?
JT Yes, indeed.
AFM The wings are the last things mentioned in connection with these living creatures. Do they suggest swift movement?
JT I think so, and a means by which we express our humility. I think the more power you have, the more you will express it in humility, “they let down their wings”.
FL “Bind on humility”, 1 Peter 5: 5.
JT The more conscious, I think, one is of power, the more one hides oneself.
WM What do you say is meant by “they turned not when they went”?
JT It is the way we should move onward; you have no second thoughts, but are thinking entirely of the will of God.
WB-w “The spirit of the living creature was in the wheels”. What does that refer to?
JT All is actuated by the same spirit. The term “living creature”, is to suggest life in sympathy with God, and the wheels, the means of carrying out the will of God. The living creatures are identified with the wheels, and do not turn back. When in the service, carrying out the will of God in its varied forms, we must not be discouraged and turn back. Of the Father of lights it is said, “with whom is no variation nor shadow of turning”, James 1: 17. Take Mark, and others, they turned back, but these do not, they go straight forward. The service of God is carried on now, in a universal way, under the direction of Christ in heaven. The thing for us is to go straight on, and to be marked by no “shadow of turning”.