READING IN EXODUS
READING IN EXODUS
JP I suppose that the opening language of the chapter would indicate that we have here the beginning of things on the side of the people.
JT Yes. The testimony begins earlier on the part of God, but then you do not get a direct effect produced in the people until you come to chapter 12. The testimony rightly apprehended in the soul of man produces movement, and I think it is from that point you get the beginning on our side. This chapter announces the judgment of Egypt and its gods.
WHF Is chapter 3 the beginning from God’s side?
JT Yes, and to rightly understand the book of Exodus I think we have to go back to the first chapter and compare it with the closing chapters of Genesis. What you will find is that there is a complete change in the ruling-power.
W.H.F. As to Pharaoh?
JT Yes, the change of the ruling-power brought about altered conditions for the people. At the end of Genesis, in connection with Joseph, the people were in the land of Goshen. They were well taken care of. Deliverance from Egypt would have been out of place then. Their going into Egypt was a question of the preservation of the people, but the change in the ruling-power brought about conditions that necessitated the intervention of God for deliverance from Egypt. Egypt, in connection with Joseph, is God’s provision for the people in view of the famine in Canaan; but in the book of Exodus it is deliverance from Egypt with Canaan in view.
GWH In consequence of another king arising [p. 381] in Egypt the people were in great bondage, and in the furnace of iron.
JT Yes, as a consequence of another king arising who knew not Joseph.
RSS What is the application of that at the present time?
JT I think Egypt represents the world-system of the flesh as under the domination of Satan. How he got control would be another consideration, but the fact that presents itself is that he is actually in control. The crucifixion of Christ proves this: Satan is the “prince of this world”. He is in the place of rule, and the effect of that is that men are suffering; men are in bondage and it is to that condition of things the gospel applies. He did not get that place exactly in Genesis 3, although he did gain a footing here at the beginning through man’s disobedience, but I think that strictly the gospel applies more to the conditions resulting from Satan having a footing in the place of rule over man. God has intervened to meet these conditions, hence the gospel announces Christ as in the place of rule — “Christ Jesus Lord”, You cannot have the conditions down here altered without One in rule who is favourable to man, and that is what the gospel introduces. It introduces a change in the place of rule, which is the kingdom of the heavens, and the result of that is good for man down here.
Ques Would the Scripture, “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world”, (Galatians 1: 4) furnish proof for what you say?
JT It proves what was in the Lord’s mind, but of course that passage does not give you the kingdom. His thought was to deliver us from this present evil age according to the will of God our Father; but deliverance comes to pass really through the kingdom.
Ques Do you connect the gospel with [p. 382] the kingdom then?
JT Yes, you could not have the gospel without the kingdom.
RSS In fact it is the glad tidings of the kingdom.
JT With one in control who is malicious, and has nothing at all in his mind but the overthrow of what is good, and the suffering of man, evidently the only way of deliverance is by the in-coming of One who is greater, and so capable of overthrowing that malicious being from the place of rule. This is seen in Christ.
RSS Was rule or government first brought in in connection with Noah?
JT There is no record of it in Scripture before that.
RSS It is in connection with God’s command: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”. Genesis 9: 6.
JT Yes. There was a new element introduced in connection with Noah, and that was the element of government, and it is in connection with that the present world exists. God has never deviated from that principle, but Satan I think has seized it, and he has got a footing in the place of rule. The gospel announces that the Man who is now in the place of rule is One who had been tested down here, and in every sense proved Himself to be man’s Friend, so that you can expect nothing for man but good and blessing.
RSS I was struck with what is in the next chapter in regard to Nimrod. There I think you get the first thought of a kingdom — Nimrod, who was “a mighty hunter before the Lord”. Genesis 10: 9.
JT Nimrod’s kingdom continues, and conveys to us the idea of the present world-system — Babylon.
RSS I think the statement in Genesis 10 is striking: “He began to be a mighty one in the earth” ... “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel”. Genesis 10: 9,10.
JT “Nimrod” probably means “rebel”, and that would bear out the thought pretty much that it [p. 383] is the world system under a ruling influence that has rebelled against God.
RSS What is your thought as to his being a mighty hunter before the Lord?
JT I think it was simply that God was cognisant of his exploits. It does not at all convey the thought that these were favourable to God.
RSS “Mighty hunter” conveys the thought of one who was regardless of life. That would be characteristic of the beast, as we may see foreshadowed in the first Napoleon. I suppose he was responsible for more bloodshed than any other man in the world.
JT If a man is careless as to the lower creation, the next step is that he is careless as to humanity itself. In Genesis 9 God makes a covenant not only with man, but with the beast of the field and the earth as well. That is, God takes in every part of the creation in kindness and in goodness. Hunting (using God’s creatures for the gratification of one’s desire for sport) goes with rebellion. A man who will treat the lower animals thus will not stop at humanity itself if he has the opportunity.
RSS It is well to bear in mind that God was the originator of government; and it is striking that this of it which we have been speaking appears in the very next chapter.
JT Satan is not an originator; he is an imitator. He does not originate anything except sin. But government in itself is good, and so of God; but Satan, I think, has seized the idea of it and imitated it.
JP We could hardly understand what chapter 12 brings before us except in the light of this change of rulers, and the conditions consequent upon the change.
JT We do not reach the kingdom directly until we come to chapter 15, but nevertheless the power of the kingdom was in activity from chapter 3. This is particularly seen if you apply the typical teaching [p. 384] here to Christ, in whom, as become Man, we get verified, “I am come down to deliver”. Exodus 3: 8. The power of the kingdom was manifested in Him all the way through. I think that the kingdom of God is not connected so much with territory as the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of God is not so much a question of God ruling over a given sphere, although they are sometimes interchangeable expressions in the gospels. I think the kingdom of God is more God intervening in power where evil is, in order to relieve man of the evil in the presence of evil. In Matthew the kingdom of God is connected with the presence of Christ here on earth, whereas the kingdom of heaven had in view His being in heaven. The Lord says, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you”. Luke 11: 20. God was acting in power down here in Christ for the overthrow of evil, and this sets forth the true idea of the kingdom of God.
Ques Do you think there is any illustration of new birth in the second verse we read in Exodus?
JT I think the title of the book aptly sets forth the teaching up to chapter 15. It is a question of movement out of Egypt. This comes later in the history of your soul than new birth. New birth in itself would not produce movement. It is the gospel that produces movement. Directly the gospel comes to you it opens up an outlet from that which is prefigured in Egypt, and the believer readily avails himself of the outlet, and that is the beginning for him.
JP There is a Scripture in the Acts that sets that forth. It was the Lord’s command to Paul. He was sent to open their eyes, that they might turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God.
JT Yes, that is really perhaps the most characteristic passage as setting forth the effect of the gospel received in the soul: it leads to conversion. You are [p. 385] turned, but you would never be converted without something presented to turn to. New birth does not present anything to you. It refers to the sovereign act of God in us, and it is not a question of light. It is a question of a new principle being introduced in the soul that demands light, and the gospel brings the light to you that your soul demands, and the effect of that is that there is movement.
Ques Is there not an exercise of soul Godward in new birth?
JT I think so. There is a desire and demand for light, for God and the things of God, but light is properly by the gospel.
Rem Some one has said there might be a cry at new birth.
JT Yes, but light is properly by the gospel, so He says, “to open their eyes”. That is by light and then the effect of the light is that you turn, which is properly conversion. “That they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me”. Acts 26: 18. The last part of that quotation is what is least understood amongst us as far as I am able to observe. “Receive ... inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me”.
Ques Would you explain that?
JT I think the idea of inheritance of necessity goes with the glad tidings, for everybody wants an inheritance. Everybody wants something, and you want an inheritance, and God includes the thought of inheritance in the gospel. The next thing is, where is the inheritance to be found? The statement goes on to say, “that they may receive ... inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me”. Acts 26: 18. The inheritance is received among them that are sanctified. Literally it is not obtained whilst we are here, but we have the earnest of the inheritance:
“[p. 386] Having believed, ye have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance to the redemption of the acquired possession to the praise of his glory”. Ephesians 1: 14. But the reception of the inheritance is connected with the sanctified company.
Ques No one would enjoy an inheritance alone, would they?
JT Each one of us is an heir, “if a son, then an heir of God”, (Romans 8: 17) but when the inheritance is taken up it is taken up jointly in connection with Christ, We are “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” Romans 8: 17.
Ques Do forgiveness of sins and inheritance go together?
JT Forgiveness is the negative side, but you have an inheritance, which is something positive.
CWH When God called Abraham He promised him an inheritance.
JT There must be something for us. God considers every thought and desire that would naturally arise in our hearts, and the gospel meets them. The inheritance refers to the coming age, when God takes up all things in heaven and in earth in Christ, and we are joint-heirs with Him.
Ques Then it is really being in the good of something to come?
JT Already by the Spirit, who is the earnest of it, we are partakers in the inheritance, but it is properly known and enjoyed “among them that are sanctified”. Acts 26: 18. Outwardly, the Lord was cut off and had nothing, but through the gospel faith recognizes Him as Heir of all things, and those who believe on Him now share with Him when He comes into His possessions.
Rem In Peter the inheritance is looked at as being reserved in heaven, but now we can be in the good of it in a measure of the Spirit.
JT That is the idea.
Ques Does the inheritance involve [p. 387] new creation?
JT All things will be made new in principle even in the millennium, but the inheritance refers to what has come out in testimony as belonging to God in connection with this creation. The church is outside of this; although she is seen in this creation in the way of testimony, she does not belong to it — she is an entirely new and heavenly creation. As such she shares the inheritance with Christ. I think the true idea of heirship is seen in Isaac. There was much to be inherited from one who was himself heir of the world; besides, Abraham already was blessed of the Lord in flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses. Isaac, as heir, would come into possession of all this but as heir Isaac was a son, and as such was the object of Abraham’s affection; Sarah had borne him to Abraham when she was old, hence Abraham gave unto Isaac all that he had. Rebecca was not a part of Abraham’s possessions: she was from another country, but was akin to Isaac and so fit to be his wife and thus to share the inheritance with him. This foreshadows the church’s place with Christ, who is the Heir, and to whom, as Son, the Father has given “all that he hath”. Genesis 24: 36.
Ques Do you make a distinction between a gift and an inheritance?
JT The inheritance is a gift in a sense, but we come into the inheritance because we are sons “If a son, then an heir of God through Christ”. Romans 8: 17.
Rem Gifts might be given to anyone (Abraham gave gifts to the sons of his concubines), but it gives me great joy in my soul to know that I shall share jointly with Christ in the inheritance.
Ques Is the thought as to the inheritance in Acts 26 the same as in Ephesians 1:11 and 14?
JT Yes. Acts 26 announces that there was an inheritance to be obtained among those sanctified by faith in Christ. It is not actually taken possession [p. 388] of yet, otherwise it would not be on the principle of faith. This is for the individual. Ephesians 1 presents what is collective: the saints had obtained an inheritance in Christ, and then it is said that the Spirit was the earnest of this inheritance until the redemption of the acquired possession. Then lower down in Ephesians 1 God’s inheritance is spoken of. The saints were God’s inheritance.
Ques Was not your thought to emphasise the sanctified company?
JT That is a very important point. It is “among them that are sanctified”, showing that divine things are placed in relation to sanctification. The element of sanctification is always essential to divine things.
JP You could not touch anything of God without sanctification.
JT It is said, “without which (holiness) no man shall see the Lord”. Hebrews 12: 14.
Ques Would you apply the word “sanctified” to all believers?
JT I think from the divine side every one having the Holy Ghost is sanctified of necessity. A man must be clean before receiving the Holy Ghost; you could not think of God giving the Holy Ghost to an unclean person; but sanctification is more the effect of the Holy Ghost in us.
GWH Do you connect Romans 3 with Exodus 12?
JT Exodus 12 does not go so far as Romans 3. Romans is more than simply meeting human need. Romans 3 is God vindicating Himself in respect of the justification of man. This is in connection with the mercy-seat, which we do not get in the types until the tabernacle was constructed. In Exodus 12 the blood was placed on the individual’s door, in virtue of which he was exempt from judgment, but on the Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16, the blood was sprinkled [p. 389] upon the mercy-seat. The blood on the mercy-seat is for the whole universe. It is to Leviticus 16, Romans 3: 26 refers: “Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a mercy-seat, through faith in his blood, for the showing forth of his righteousness”. Christ risen is the mercy-seat. God looked down upon Him, and now that Christ has died His blood, so to speak, is upon the mercy-seat. God is thus vindicated, and redemption is in Christ. In Romans 3 it is only applied to men, but redemption is in Christ for the whole creation. This is foreshadowed in Leviticus 16. Therefore, although the believer readily sees from Romans 3 that he cannot, as justified, be judged with the world, yet he sees more, namely, that he has a footing in the very presence of the holiness and majesty of God.
WHF The security of the people was assured before God deals with the enemy.
JT And then another thing comes out: if the people are to go out it would be in a subjective condition morally suitable to God; as to the flesh they differed in no way from the Egyptians, but they were not to go out of Egypt as characterised by this state — that which brought down the judgment of God on the Egyptians must be judged not only in the slain lamb (the blood on the lintel witnessed to this), but also in their souls. Their eating the roast lamb with bitter herbs signifies this side of the truth.
RSS After they moved they had to stand still. What is your thought about that?
JT That raises the question of salvation, which is a distinct thing from the blood on the lintel, although you could not possibly have it without the blood; but “the salvation of the Lord” is in chapter 14. There it has reference to Pharaoh and his hosts.
Rem When the people got across the Red Sea they were saved from their enemies, but they would find other elements from which they would need to be saved — they had not as yet got into [p. 390] Canaan.
JT The Red Sea is figuratively the death and resurrection of Christ by which the enemy is destroyed for faith. Thus the believer is no more troubled from Satan in the Pharaoh character; but subsequently he will need deliverance from him as working through the flesh and worldly association. So that salvation in the fullest sense involves our going through Jordan into Canaan.
RSS That is anticipated when they said: “Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation”. Exodus 15: 13. So that the wilderness comes in by the way, as a parenthesis.
JT Yes. Chapter 15 celebrates God’s side, hence all is regarded as already accomplished, for time and obstacles are not taken into account when His work is in question: things that be not are spoken of as though they were. The actual position and state of the people are another matter. There were many obstacles in their way. We all know how true this is, although assured that by the almighty power of God (in the light of which, in Christ’s resurrection, we have begun our course), our feet shall be planted in the mountain of His inheritance.
Ques You said that chapter 12 gives immunity from judgment. Does that not directly connect it with the gospel? In having nothing to fear from God, one sets his face toward God in order to get out of the clutches of the enemy.
JT I think so; and then what you find is a way divinely opened up for you, and it is a way opened up to God Himself, for that is the point in this section of the book of Exodus: “ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself”. Exodus 19: 4.
JP Again referring to Acts 26: “that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God”. Acts 26: 18. The very language there implies that [p. 391] in connection with their eyes being opened God has come out in light and in power, so there is a way from darkness to light, and from Satan’s power to God.
Rem Then we have, “for Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God”. 1 Peter 3: 18.
JT I think the answer to Exodus strictly is that the soul is brought to God; but then another question arises, and that is, a place for the soul. That question has its answer later, which is Canaan. But the soul is brought to God first.
Ques Is the soul’s appropriation of Christ signified by eating the lamb?
JT Yes; it is appropriation of Christ as the One who suffered for sin. The lamb was to be roast with fire. What goes with this are the bitter herbs and unleavened bread. These are proper accompaniments of appropriation of Christ in that light. The manna, the shew-bread, and the old corn of the land all speak of Christ: each, in its own connection, represents Him as food for the believer, but the beginning is evidently with the roast lamb. While the soul is still in Egypt it appropriates Christ as having been subjected to the judgment of God on account of sin.
JP It is Christ our passover who has been sacrificed for us. What is set forth here takes place in Egypt. It is in type the history of what takes place in each individual soul. You do not get to what is properly collective until you reach chapter 15. These moral foundations must be laid in our souls, otherwise we cannot reach, according to God, that which is collective. I think if we attempt to take up what is collective apart from the work of God in us individually, which is set forth in type here, the result can only be what we can see on every hand — wretched failure.
Ques What distinction do you make between the passover and the Lord’s [p. 392] supper?
JT They present quite different thoughts. The passover, as we said, represents Christ as having borne the judgment of God on account of sin; hence it is introduced in 1 Corinthians in connection with the allowance of leaven in the assembly. Christ had suffered for sin: why, then, were the Corinthians allowing it in their midst? “Christ our passover is sacrificed”, etc. 1 Corinthians 5: 7. The feast is to be kept in Christianity, but it is not limited to the assembly as convened: the sense that the Lord has suffered for sin has to be maintained constantly; and we have ever to be truthful and sincere.
But the Lord’s supper refers, not to Him as bearing sin, but to Him as in self-sacrificing love giving Himself for us. It is Himself that is before us, as seen in His love in dying for us. “This is my body which is for you: this do in remembrance of me”. 1 Corinthians 11: 24. The “you” is collective: it is the Lord’s love for the assembly that is really before us. The saints are not spoken of as “in assembly” in 1 Corinthians until chapter 11, and it is in this connection the supper is introduced. The supper, evidently, cannot be celebrated in an individual way.