READINGS ON EZEKIEL (2)
[p. 201] READINGS ON EZEKIEL (2)
Ezekiel 4: 1 - 8; Ezekiel 5: 1 - 4; Ezekiel 8: 1 - 4
AFM I think you said at the last reading that this book was a book of signs; chapter 4 would confirm that; the prophet himself being the sign.
JT Yes, in a very striking way, for his position foreshadows the death of the Lord Jesus. It says, “Thou, lie upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: the number of the days that thou liest upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity”.
BTF I was going to ask about the commencement of the chapter regarding Jerusalem. Would it be in the same light, as when the Lord was weeping over Jerusalem when on the mount of Olives?
JT Well, here the city is besieged. The Lord wept over it, as you say, and following that bore its iniquity.
ARS Is there an analogy between this and John in Revelation, where he ate the little book? The prophet bore the iniquity of the people, and entered into it at the same time.
JT You have that in chapters 2 and 3. “And I looked, and behold, a hand was put forth toward me; and behold, a roll of a book therein. And he spread it out before me; and it was written within and without; and there was written in it lamentations, and mourning, and woe. And he said unto me, Son of man eat what thou findest; eat this roll, and go, speak unto the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll. And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll which I give thee. And I ate, and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness”. The roll contained the mind of God as to what was about to happen, and therefore Ezekiel, as eating [p. 202] and assimilating it, would himself be the thing subjectively. Not only would he speak the mind of God, but would be the expression of it, as having assimilated the thing. As the Lord in His testimony, when asked who He was, said: “Altogether that which I also say to you”, John 8: 25. One might say the ends of chapters 2 and 3 are intended to qualify the prophet for his testimony, and for the signs he was about to render.
AP Why is he always addressed as “Son of man”?
JT Because God was intimating that he was going beyond the limits of Israel in His operations. That title is found more in this book than in the whole of Scripture; and Ezekiel eating the roll containing God’s mind would represent the Lord in the sense that he was altogether what he said he was; like “the Word” in John’s gospel, meaning that He was the very expression of the mind of God. Not simply that He spoke it, but He was it, being personally “the Word”. It is a very strong expression.
AFM Would the meaning of Ezekiel’s name, “strength of God” be applicable here, in view of his service? He had to speak against great opposition, according to chapter 2: 7: “And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear; for they are rebellious”.
JT I think so. It typifies the Lord as seen in John particularly. He was “the Word”, meaning that He was the expression of the mind of God, and He was also the power of God. He stands out in John’s gospel peculiarly as superior to all evil, and connected with that He was the expression of the mind of God; but then chapter 4 shows that Ezekiel further represented the Lord, as bearing the iniquity of the children of Israel for 390 days, lying on his left side.
AFM What does this number of days [p. 203] mean?
JT It denoted the history of the nation in its responsibility. Each day was for a year, so that Ezekiel, typically, underwent the judgment of God from day to day, as corresponding with the guilt. In the Lord’s case, it was all compressed, of course, into the short period of three hours, but nevertheless, these 390 days were all contained in those three hours. He died for the nation; John 11: 50 - 52.
DMR Would the 390 days represent the time from the dividing of the kingdom in the time of Rehoboam until the destruction of the temple?
JT Just so. Then the forty days that followed were for Judah.
AAT Were the ten tribes in captivity at this time?
JT Yes, they were.
AFM Well, if the 390 days refer to the responsibility of Israel, what about the forty days for Judah?
JT They would have reference to Judah as taken account of separately. The house of Judah had a separate guilt; Judah was, as the later record showed, especially responsible for the betrayal and murder of the Lord.
AFM Would Manasseh’s reign be typical of the house of Judah; he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood?
JT Yes.
DMR Would the scriptures we have read typify what the Lord said about Himself to the disciples, “The Son of man must suffer many things” (Luke 9: 22); the mind of God would be expressed, but it involved suffering.
JT Quite. He did not intend that the light He brought into the world should become public property, nor that His followers should be a part of the world system. Things were to be kept private: Israel had a position in the ways of God, but if they rejected [p. 204] Him, then the disciples were not to tell the things that He disclosed. There were “greater things”, as He says to Nathaniel (John 1: 50), and these stood related to the Son of man. He had these things in mind, and they are now involved in the world-wide proclamation of the glad tidings. Stephen saw, and witnessed to, the Son of man, meaning that he saw the Lord’s operations were widening; but the position of Ezekiel in this fourth chapter is, I think, the most important sign of the signs in the book, because it foreshadows the death of the Lord Jesus; as He said to them, when they asked for a sign, “a sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonas the prophet”, Matthew 12: 39. The Son of man was to be three days and nights in the heart of the earth. This reference to being a certain length of time in a certain position, is what you get here; in which position, and time, he was to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel, and of Judah, and not only bear it as laid upon him, but he became the thing which he ate; typifying the Lord, who was made sin for us.
AFM Would the thought you refer to be found in verse 8 of chapter 4? “And behold, I lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thyself from one side to the other, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege”. Would that answer to the whale’s belly?
JT Well, I think it refers to the bands of death. We read in Acts 2 that the pains of death were loosed; a very remarkable expression. He was held there; it was impossible that He could be holden of death, but nevertheless, the bands were there. The Lord was in death, really. He was in the grip of death, He entered fully into it, but He came out of it. Here we have a striking type of the thing: a man lying on one side for 390 days, day after day, and bound down, and in that position bearing the iniquity of the house of Israel; and forty days on the other side for Judah, and eating this [p. 205] extraordinary food.
WLP Did not the Lord Himself give up His own life, it was not taken from Him?
JT In John He did, but Peter says, on the other hand: “the originator of life ye slew” (Acts 3: 15); the men of Israel were responsible. Ezekiel is a type of the Lord as in the grip of death. He was really in it, and in it every day, so to speak.
ANW But are you carrying the bearing of iniquity into the grave?
JT Only in the way of time. Here you have a period of time and position.
ANW The thought of bearing iniquity there that is my difficulty. Peter says in his first epistle, “who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”, chapter 2: 24.
JT I was speaking of His being in death: the time and position of the Son of man was, three days and nights in the heart of the earth. The actual judgment that He bore was in the three hours, I apprehend, when He was forsaken of God, but, nevertheless, the burial of the Lord was a part of all that; it was in the mind of God that, as dying sacrificially. He should be buried, because man had to be buried, “dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return”, Genesis 3: 19. That had to be gone through.
AFM Was there not an element of suffering through which the Lord passed in His Spirit even while in the disembodied state, would you not say? Because “He also descended into the lower parts of the earth”, Ephesians 4: 9. That was not for nothing.
JT He went down. The descending there refers to His burial, I think; I do not think we can speak of suffering save of what He endured as in His body. He was in the heart of the earth; this is how Scripture speaks of it.
BTF Would you say that while the thing primarily refers to Israel and Judah, yet it applies [p. 206] to the Lord as dealing with the whole question of sin?
JT Yes. It was dealt with at once. The food here would mean that what man is in his unfaithfulness to God was taken up by the Lord and dealt with.
BTF The Lord bore all the degradation of sin on the cross.
WB-w Would the early chapters refer to what the Lord was personally while down here; and chapter 4 to His work?
JT Exactly. Ezekiel represents Him, I think, in chapters 2 and 3, according to what He was here on earth. He was altogether that which He said.
WB-w Would the prophet shutting himself within his house refer to the Lord personally upon earth?
JT You see, there is complete identification with the people. He says in verse 22 of chapter 3, “And the hand of Jehovah was there upon me; and he said unto me, Arise, go forth into the valley, and there I will talk with thee”. It is the valley, as you see. Later, I think the whole house of Israel is there, and will be raised up there; but the Lord had first to enter into that personally. He entered into their position as before God.
AFM You refer to the valley of dry bones?
WB-w In verse 25 it says, “They shall put bands upon thee”, showing that he was figuratively to go into death. It refers to Christ’s death.
JT The bands there refer, I think, to the rejection of the Lord by the nation; in chapter 4: 8, to the actual position of the Lord in death. We read in Job 37 of the waters being straitened; meaning that death was peculiar in the Lord’s case; it was not only death, but there were bands, by which He was held, it was so real.
WLP Is that the same as “taste death for every thing”, Hebrews 2: [p. 207] 9?
JT Yes.
JM'D Showing the infinite merit of His work.
JT Quite so.
Ques What was meant by the prophet laying siege?
JT It meant that Jerusalem was the occasion of all this judgment; the siege was what was due to Jerusalem, and what indeed came upon it, but you see, Ezekiel himself bears the thing. That is the marvellous testimony that comes out here. The Lord, whilst making plain that the judgment of God was falling upon Jerusalem, said to the women, “do not weep over me, but weep over yourselves” (Luke 23: 28); the judgment of God was coming on them; but at the same time. He was entering into it sacrificially, and that is presented in chapter 4.
Rem In order that Israel might be eventually saved.
JT It was the only way; He became a Victim in their stead; but notwithstanding, the siege went on.
Rem I was thinking of verse 8, “till thou hast ended the days of thy siege”.
JT It refers to the judgment of God, whether in its corrective or punitive form. Jerusalem has undergone it; and will undergo it again; but only to the end that they should be saved, and that could only be on the ground of the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus. He died for the nation.
Ques Does that go on to the present time as applying to the Lord?
JT The whole question of sin was settled then, but what is before us here is the kingdom of Israel and that of Judah. What you find in chapter 5, is that in the light of the death of Christ the hair is shaved off. “Son of man, take thee a sharp knife; a barber’s razor shalt thou take; and cause it to pass upon thy head and upon thy beard: and thou shalt take balances to weigh, and divide the hair”. This [p. 208] means that if we are to be in the good of the death of Christ, we cannot retain our natural distinctiveness: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3: 6); it must not continue now. There is to be the shaving off of the hair of the head and the beard. These refer to appearance and dignity, you know.
BTF Would that be the same thought as walking in newness of life?
JT Yes. Newness in the way in which the gospel has been received, and connected with man as he is; it indicates that this has added to him; but he must no longer retain his hair and beard.
AFM Is this shaving connected with chapter 4; or does it follow it? It looks to be subsequent to it.
JT Oh, I think it is the teaching that follows the death of Christ; we are all born anew. One’s natural distinctiveness has to go. We cannot retain it, nor any position in this world, and be in accord with the teaching of the death of Christ.
WLP Is that what is seen in connection with the Nazarite?
JT Quite. You get it there in an opposite way: Here it is a question of your appearance. With the Nazarite, the hair had to grow long, and was not to be cut, for that would be a reproach to him; but here the hair is to be cut off, which means I have got to give up my natural features and distinctiveness, and take character from Christ.
JM'D The features of the new man.
JT What we find in chapter 5, is the shaving off, and the discipline of God following on that; but then we get another growth of hair in chapter 8; the prophet is taken by a lock of his head.
DMR Would chapter 5 imply what was said as to the leper communicating with the priest?
JT Yes, because the sin would have occurred in that connection; it really does occur in connection [p. 209] with what we are naturally, therefore the hair has to go.
WB-w It is not a question of the glory of the hair?
JT It is the removal of the hair and beard; and it has to be done effectively therefore with a barber’s razor.
AFM That is an interesting connection between chapters 5 and 8; the hair has grown.
JT I thought we might see in that the figure of resurrection. He is lifted up by a lock of his head between the earth and the heavens. That is another position; no longer lying on his side. He is lifted up by a lock of his head, meaning that there is innate power. If we apply it to Christ, He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father; but He could raise Himself up, because in Him was life: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”, John 2: 19. He spoke of the temple of His body; so that the hair in chapter 8 is evidently a symbol of the power of resurrection in Him; whereas the hair in chapter 5, is that I am reminded of what I am naturally; and there is nothing of value in that!
BTF Would you say that this is the ‘water’ aspect of the death of Christ? that is to say, we have the blood, but there is also the water.
JT The water applies to what I am, but the blood to what I have done; so that the removal of the hair would remind one what the action of the word leads me to renounce, even all that I am naturally; there is to be a new beginning; the bearing of iniquity is finished in the 390 days; but I want to be in correspondence with Christ now as risen; because He has relinquished His relations with Israel as after the flesh.
JM'D There is no power except in resurrection.
JT You see that the power that lifts us up between the heavens and the earth is [p. 210] connected with a different growth.
AFM No power can be connected with the hair of chapter 5, hence it must be shaved off but now a new lock comes to light in chapter 8, suggestive of resurrection power in Christ, and applied to a new order of man.
JT You see, in chapter 8 he is sitting before the elders. We have a date in that chapter. We have two dates also in chapter 1. Dates really, I think, indicate the divisions of this book; and I have no doubt that they likewise indicate the beginning of certain spiritual histories; evidently resurrection is the date we begin from.
JTJr Would that apply to what the apostle refers to in Philippians 3: 7, 8?
JT Yes, it is an excellent illustration.
JS That is, all that marked Paul personally is surrendered.
Ques In Joshua 5 the Lord told Joshua to make sharp knives, in view of circumcision. Does that have any application here?
JT Yes, only there the power of the flesh is dealt with; but Paul, who as usual, is the model for us, relinquishes all that attached to him, and was of gain to him; indeed, whatever he could pride himself in; and then he says, “If by any way I arrive at the resurrection from among the dead”. The lock of hair in chapter 8 involves resurrection; it is the power by which I am lifted up from the earth.
DMR Does one’s personal identity remain in resurrection?
JT I think it does; the third part of the hair in chapter 5 is bound in the skirts. It says in verse 3, “Thou shalt take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts; and thou shalt take of these again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; from it shall a fire come forth against all the house of Israel”. “From it”, means the last “third part”. That is, I apprehend, judgment [p. 211] will come forth from the disciplined remnant, for the whole house of Israel. The identity that remains and all that distinguishes them is not lost, they are bound in the skirts, meaning that they are taken care of. I am taken care of by this process. God’s hand is on me, the discipline goes on, the fire goes on, and yet my identity remains.
BTF Would you say that this sets forth what Israel will yet pass through; but also sets forth what the soul passes through at the present day?
JT So that these dry bones are “the whole house of Israel”. They come into life, the identity of the nation remains.
DMR What do you say about the glory which is again mentioned in this eighth chapter?
JT We have a date, first of all, which it is important to notice, because I think it refers to the Captivity. It is as you accept the Captivity that you come into the good of the ministry. We must accept the Captivity. Christians around us in the systems do not. They take no notice of it, and so do not date from it; whereas the man who is humbled, and is with God recognises the Captivity. In chapter 1 it says, “It was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity”. In this chapter it is the sixth. In the recognition of the government of God in the Captivity, we come into the good of resurrection; “And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth of the month, that as I sat in my house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, the hand of the Lord Jehovah fell there upon me”. Now you see, Ezekiel is in the recognition of the Captivity, he is in his house, and the elders of Judah are before him. In other words, they are the responsible persons at the present time. They are taken into account, and this is where the great testimony of the resurrection comes in; “the hand of the Lord Jehovah was upon me”.
AFM If we date from the Captivity, all we say and do will be characterised by 2 Timothy and John’s gospel.
JT Quite so. There is the idea of dates throughout this book. They afford a sort of key to the understanding of it. If we accept the Captivity as before God, we come into the light and good of the truth. Ezekiel gives a date here. He was sitting in his house, and the elders of Judah were before him, and it was a great opportunity for them.
JS Why “the elders of Judah”?
JT Israel was gone. These elders represented Judah; which was to be judged.
AFM So the judgment fell on them in the next chapter.
JT Just so.
AR In chapter 1. Ezekiel speaks of sitting amongst the captives. Is there any distinction in that?
JT Quite. He accepts the captivity, and identifies himself with the captives. These elders of Judah represent responsible Judah; and it was for them to see that they got this light. God takes account of the position, and the prophet says, “he stretched forth the form of a hand and took me by a lock of my head; and the Spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heavens”. In other words, what is now before us is the great testimony of the resurrection; and it is resurrection that brings us out of pollution.
Ques The next book, that of Daniel, begins with a date. Daniel speaks largely of dates; is it a parallel idea?
JT Quite. It is most important to take account of the dates of Scripture.
AFM One is thankful for the explanation as to dates; they have great moral value and give the divisions of the book.
[p. 213] AR In the light of this new date would it involve a call to separate from all that which is corrupt?
JT The testimony was to be taken account of: “He said unto me. Son of man, seest thou what they do? the great abominations that the house of Israel commit here, to cause me to go far off from my sanctuary? and yet again thou shalt see great abominations”. Now, this testimony is to deliver me from these abominations; they exist, but: “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2: 19. The prophet is led to see the iniquity; God also exposes for us the iniquity that is going on in professing Christianity around.
JM'D But there is no corporate testimony now.
JT What we are dealing with here is the abominations which Israel committed. If we follow the scripture, we shall get help. The prophet is brought to Jerusalem in the power of resurrection; it is in that power we have to do with these things. It says, “He stretched forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of my head; and the Spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heavens, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entry of the inner gate that looketh toward the north, where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy”. You see, I am brought to see these things in the power of resurrection, otherwise I shall be engulfed in them.
AFM In 2 Timothy 2: 8, the apostle says, “Remember Jesus Christ raised from among the dead”. In verses 17 and 18 of that chapter we have those who said the resurrection was already past. We must be on our guard.
JT Yes, in chapter 1 of 2 Timothy it says, “Our Saviour Jesus Christ ... has annulled death”. That is the power in which we face these things. In the next chapter there were those who said the resurrection had taken place, that is, they would do [p. 214] away with the glory of it, that it might lose its power, whereas that is what I am to be in the power of.
AM'N Does the being lifted up by a lock of hair connect with that?
JT You have the light of God, and are in power in dealing with these things.
WB-w In the power of resurrection, we can face these things now.
JT Yes, and effectively. Then, in the next chapter, you see the power that comes in to effectively deal with the thing.
Rem As stated in 2 Timothy 1: 7, “God has not given us a spirit of cowardice; but of power, and of love, and of wise discretion”.
JT Yes. That is the power in which you deal with these matters.
DMR And is it not important to see that we cannot deal with these things successfully except in the house where the mind of God is?
JT Quite.
AFM What would you say about verse 3 of chapter 9, “The glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub”, etc.?
JT Well, I think that would be as testimony to His patience; God was still there; we know that His glory was there. John says that he was a fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience in Jesus. The patience of God is a wonderful thing.
AFM Like, “The word that I covenanted with you ... and my Spirit, remain among you”, Haggai 2: 5. Do you mean that His glory shines in His patience?
JT Yes. It is part of His glory. John sees seven golden lamps, and in the midst of the seven lamps one like unto the Son of man; that was a wonderful thing. The Son of man, in all His power and glory, is there, notwithstanding the evil existing; and in the last assembly He is standing at the door [p. 215] and knocking; a wonderful testimony to His patience. The Lord of glory was there knocking.
WB-w Is the point, not so much how we get delivered but, that we should fully recognise that the thing exists?
JT We recognise that it exists. We find later another sign is, he has a captive’s baggage. Now, there is a great deal of that kind of baggage to be seen.
BTF Would you say a word regarding the image of jealousy?
JT It is that which disputes the rights of God, it is idolatry; the Lord, as presented to our affections in 1 Corinthians 10: 14 - 22, would prevent this, but in Thyatira idolatry existed; so that it is wonderful to see how the patience of God continues to testify to man; the glory was still there. Later, we see it had departed.
There is a thought as to the captive’s baggage in verse 4 of chapter 12, it refers to people going into captivity and having all the baggage that belongs to it, the paraphernalia that goes with current religion.
BTF The thought being that that sort of thing should not characterise us as having light from God.
JT I think a captive’s baggage is a most humbling thing to have.
AFM Daniel did not carry any.
ANW The baggage would hamper us.
JT We do not enter into the position in which God has placed us with captive’s baggage, it does not fit in there.