THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL (2)
[p. 333] THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL (2)
Exodus 6:14 - 16; 24:4; 28:9 - 21
AFM It appears that there are not many references to the twelve tribes in this book.
JT Not many; the scriptures read, I think, cover the references fairly well; those in Numbers are more numerous. In Exodus the teaching relative to the tribes centres in the priesthood. At our last reading, we dwelt on Genesis, which gives, to use the figure, the source of the river. In chapters 29 and 30 we looked at the account of the birth of the sons of Israel in Padan-Aram, with the exception of Benjamin, who was born near Bethlehem. We noted that the circumstances of their birth were incongruous, and not such as would promote good family manners, feelings, and affections; for there were four mothers, two of whom were maidservants. We noted specially that in spite of these adverse conditions, God proposed to develop in the family of Jacob the greatest evidence of love. We also saw that they went down into Egypt grouped under the four heads of their mothers, but they went down as blessed; at least, Genesis speaks of their blessing. It actually took place in Egypt, but the setting of it is in Genesis; and that book deals with the three patriarchs and Joseph, and it furnishes us with the blessing of Jacob. He blessed the tribes; indeed, the first mention of the tribes is as blessed.
JEH Would you say again what the thought of the tribes is.
JT Well, it alludes to rule, whether moral or official; what is worked out in them is the greatest thing morally. It is love under God’s hand, and that, in the nature of things, eventuates in rule; it must be predominant. We see it fully in the heavenly [p. 334] city; not only that it is officially the place of rule, but morally it is great enough for it, being predominant because of what it is, as having the glory of God, and coming down from God out of heaven.
CB Do we have the Israelites as representative of rule when under the heads of their fathers’ houses?
JT I think that is what is worked out. The name “Israel” which Jacob acquired from God, has to do with rule, too; and so the idea of rule is seen both in himself and in the tribes also.
AFM At our last reading we had the thought that Jacob hands on, as it were, the tribes to Moses, as blessed.
JT That is how the truth stands; they are blessed according to Genesis 49. The links are clear in Exodus 1:1: “These are the names of the sons of Israel”. It also adds, “With Jacob had they come” — showing that the link between the parent and the tribes is established. Then we should see that the subject is worked out in relation to the priesthood. Exodus is a ministerial book; the very existence and development of the tribes depends on the maintenance and continuance of the priesthood; everything in this respect centres in the breastplate.
WB-w It says, “And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons”, (Genesis 37:3). Would that show love working in Israel as a parent?
JT Exactly; the golden thread of love is the thing that runs right through because it is of moral excellence: “... the greater of these is love”, (1 Corinthians 13:13).
WB-w Israel did not love Joseph only, but evidently Joseph had a special place.
JT Joseph is a type of Christ there. It says, “The Father loves the Son”, (John 3:35). Thence divine love works out.
[p. 335] AAT You were speaking of rule. Is there a distinction between rule and administration?
JT They are allied. Rule is based on what is moral. Administration is the opening out and application of rule. Psalm 1 is the basis of Psalm 2; the former sets forth the moral qualities of a godly man; the latter, the official place that man has in Christ.
CAM When God gave to Jacob the name of “prince”, after the night of wrestling, it would involve the idea of rule, I suppose?
JT Yes; rule in one who is able, as having power with God.
FL You spoke of Exodus as being the mutual link between the priests and the tribes. In relation to Moses, in chapter 24:4, etc., his position there would be an exception, would it not? Would it bring in the thought of headship?
JT It is interesting to bring that in, as the subject should be taken on in that way, I think. With regard to the sons of Israel, their names are given, showing that they were in right relations with their father: “With Jacob had they come”; not Jacob with them. Then in chapter 6 the thought is to bring in the tribes, and give them a distinctive place in the mind. “These are the heads of their fathers’ houses: the sons of Reuben”, etc. Then the Spirit of God proceeds no further than Levi the third tribe, which corresponds to what we get in Genesis 37 in connection with “the generations of Jacob”, where the Spirit of God proceeds no further than Joseph for moral reasons — as if nothing formative could be brought about in the tribes until Joseph was owned by them. Things hinged on Joseph as to their sustenance. They must all die unless Joseph is owned, and he is owned. In Exodus 6 the Spirit stops with Levi for a similar reason — that the priestly [p. 336] tribe must be owned first, if the tribes are to be maintained.
JEH Why are Reuben and Simeon brought in?
JT Because that is the order of the tribes. The Spirit of God works down the genealogical line until He comes to the priestly tribes, and then passes on to Phinehas, who represents, par excellence, the idea of the priesthood; the covenant with him was an everlasting covenant. The meaning of this is that before we can advance as Christians so as to stand in relation to one another before God, the priest must have his place. We must depend on the intercession of Christ in heaven in order to be maintained here in testimony.
AFM Is that why in verse 26 it says, “This is that Aaron and Moses”? Aaron is first and then Moses.
JT That is right; in verse 26 it is Aaron and Moses, and in verse 27, Moses and Aaron, showing that the priest comes first.
FL The covenant with Levi is referred to in Malachi.
JT Malachi gives the ends of the threads about to be connected with the New Testament, and what is said commendably of priesthood corresponds with Phinehas.
WGT The selection of Levi in Exodus 6 would be in view of the breakdown.
JT That is right. The breakdown in chapter 32 brings him into evidence (verses 26 - 28): “And Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, He that is for Jehovah let him come to me. And all the sons of Levi gathered to him ... And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses”.
WB-w His name means “joined”. Things are joined. Is that what God has in mind?
JT Yes; the linking up of things. We see the practical application of this in that there can be no [p. 337] answering to God in relation to one another aside from the priesthood of Christ.
ANW Are you suggesting that in Exodus Aaron takes priority over Moses?
JT Moses has his own place, which is unique to him as a type of the Lord as Mediator; hence there is no restriction on him with regard to the tabernacle, but in the setting of chapter 6, which stresses the priesthood, Aaron is mentioned first.
FL So far as we know, Moses might go in and out of the tabernacle at any time.
JT Yes. Numbers 7:89 shows that Moses went in freely to speak to God, and that God spoke to him. “And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him, then he heard the voice speaking to him from off the mercy-seat which was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim; and he spoke to him”.
CB If God is to receive pleasure from us, it is according as the priest gets his place.
JT We need His support. He is “a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God”, (Hebrews 2:17), and gathers up all the saints in His heart. But in the breastplate, it is not the saints as in the order of their birth, but as in the counsels of God, which is a greater thought. It is greater that I am preserved in relation to the counsels of God than that I am preserved as one loved of God.
FL I was wondering whether you could help us as to the relative place of the head and the priest?
JT We do not get headship in Exodus. No doubt, the germ of it was in what Moses did in chapter 24. You get something of it in him, in Deuteronomy, but, as far as I understand it, we have to await David for headship.
ANW Would “king in Jeshurun” suggest headship?
JT Well, it reaches on to it. Where Christ has [p. 338] a place in the affections of the saints as in authority, we are very near headship. Kingship is not headship, but subserves it; the king becomes head, as in David, who speaks of headship in 1 Chronicles, addressing God Himself as Head.
CAM Is it is not remarkable that in those days the priest was the greatest man?
JT He was, after Moses. In the expression, “Apostle and High Priest”, the apostle comes first; that is from the divine side, to assert the divine rights.
ANW Do we not turn to Exodus for the apostolic work of inaugurating the system?
JT That is right. The apostle introduces the system, and the priest maintains it; but headship, in a sense, goes beyond both. Headship is in the king. The “king in Jeshurun” establishes the basis for headship. It means that Christ is recognised by an upright people. Jeshurun means an upright people, and where you get that condition among the saints, you may look for headship.
WB-w In Exodus the twelve tribes have in view a system of administration. In Genesis the administration is through Joseph, but has not God in mind a system?
JT Quite so; our thoughts this afternoon ought to be in relation to the priest. In Genesis, Joseph is maintaining things; it is Christ in either case, whether in Joseph or in Aaron. For while Moses is the apostle, we have to regard the two persons as one in the antitype, and I have no doubt that the Spirit of God wishes us to understand this in the transposing of the names of Moses and Aaron in verses 26 and 27.
FL That is, you could not understand the apostle without the high priest, or the high priest without the apostle.
JT How can I be sustained in the presence of God without Christ in His sympathy and support?
He is “a merciful and faithful high priest”; the heart is thus assured — “Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace”, (Hebrews 4:16).
AR So the book of Exodus does not give the external position of the tribes, but what is internal.
JT It gives just the inside workings. Numbers will give us, as it were, the hands of the clock, and Exodus the works of the clock; so that everything centres really in the breastplate.
ANW Would you say a little more as to why Reuben and Simeon are mentioned, to arrive at Levi?
JT God would indicate that He has the tribes — all His people — in mind. As if He were to say to a Christian, ‘I have you in mind for blessing, but I want you to understand that everything depends upon Christ’. This passage brings that out. Whether in Joseph, Moses, or Aaron, Christ stands out in relation to the tribes.
WFK Has God in mind here to use Levi for rule and administration?
JT He has in mind to bring out the real priest; Phinehas stands for this later, but Aaron is the idea officially; he is Christ officially with the breastplate on His heart.
WB-w Did Moses revert to the priesthood when he built the altar at the foot of the mountain?
JT Well, that is seen in covenant, or love setting. The germ of headship is there, and what you will notice is that the priestly service is carried on by youths. It is to show that youthfulness marked Israel’s beginnings; the youths are the priests in Exodus 24. It is as though God would bring in the idea of youthful service into the midst of the great expression of love that is there typically, because the blood of the covenant is not only for sprinkling on the altar, it is in volume, having been put in basins. “And he sent the youths of the children of Israel, and they offered up burnt-offerings, and sacrificed [p. 340] sacrifices of peace-offering of bullocks to Jehovah”, (Exodus 24:5).
FL There is nothing like it anywhere in Scripture.
JT Nothing like it. Too, the people were willing. They said, “All the words that Jehovah has said will we do!” and that sets Moses in movement. He took them at their word, wrote all the words of Jehovah, built the twelve pillars, and then sent the youths. It is a beautiful setting.
AFM Do the youths here suggest the youthful character of the people, as of a new generation?
JT That is the thought exactly; the youthful side of things, and that is what you get, too, where God’s love comes into the heart in relation to the covenant; it produces youthful freshness.
CB The people were willing, the pillars seem to answer to that.
JT It is twelve pillars, a visible testimony to the divine thought, which will go right through. Pillar here is the idea of something set up. These pillars represent what goes through to the heavenly city. It is a question of love developed in God’s people under His hand.
AR After these offerings were made, Moses took the book of the covenant and read it in the ears of the people. I suppose it is not the law, but love.
JT It is a question of love; not so much the ten commandments as the book of the covenant.
FL With regard to rising “early in the morning”, do you think there would be a suggestion of the resurrection day to make all this effective?
JT No doubt. Rising early, here and elsewhere, would imply that a great matter was on hand. What can be greater than the testimony of God? Half of the blood he put in basins and half he sprinkled on the altar. As in basins, the blood of the covenant is seen in volume; with this he sprinkled the people, they having said, “All that Jehovah has said will we do and obey”; and according to Hebrews 9 the book was sprinkled also. Then Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu went up; and they saw the God of Israel. It is a most wonderful chapter!
WB-w Would you link it on with the Lord’s supper?
JT That is the setting of it, but it is not the shining of Moses’s face yet; that comes into the Supper also; here the great testimony to divine love is seen in the volume of blood.
AFM It is remarkable that based on all this, Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. This upward movement was not based on the Decalogue, but on that which foreshadowed the new covenant.
JT The terms employed are very beautiful — “the nobles of the children of Israel”, “the youths of the children of Israel”, etc. The chapter, as you will observe, begins with: “And he said to Moses, Go up to Jehovah, thou and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship afar off”. That is what is in the mind of God — that we should go up and worship.
FL So as the Lord’s supper is instituted there is the going up to the mount of Olives, and then the idea of ascension: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend” (John 20:17) — all on the line of going up.
AAT Is the climax when they see God?
JT Yes; they saw the God of Israel. What a wonderful privilege! And they ate and drank.
WGT That would be the Ephesian position that we arrive at after the breaking of bread.
JT Yes; we are regarded as nobles there. But the covenant precedes. There is the thought of going up at the beginning of the chapter, but the covenant comes in before they actually go up; so we go up in [p. 342] the liberty of the love of God and we are there in the dignity of sons.
WB-w What would you say about the youths here? Why not Aaron and his sons?
JT I think it is to bring out the character of the priesthood as in the freshness which the love of God produces and maintains.
FL Does priestly service require perpetual youthfulness?
JT It does. The holy city retains her youthful freshness. After a thousand years, she is “as a bride adorned for her husband”. (Revelation 21:2) There is no deterioration.
WFK Does it teach us that there is no age limit to priesthood?
JT Yes; no age is prescribed either as to when a priest should begin or end his service.
ABP What is the connection between this covenant and the everlasting covenant with Phinehas?
JT Well, the latter is the covenant of the priest. This is a covenant with the people. The twelve pillars denote the unity in the dignity of love which God works out in His people.
ANW Wherein lies the difference between this and the new covenant?
JT This is a foreshadowing of it. In Hebrews 9 this is treated typically rather than contrastively.
ANW “All the words that Jehovah has said will we do” is the counterpart of our drinking the cup?
JT Yes. The “cup of blessing which we bless” (1 Corinthians 10:16), involves committal.
WB-w Priestly service is to be continued in youthful energy to the end.
JT Yes; we are not to get old and fat like Eli, and fall backward; (1 Samuel 4:18).
WGT There are burnt offerings and peace offerings, but no sin offering. Would that be in keeping with the breaking of bread?
JT Yes; as we understand it now, by the Spirit [p. 343] we can see great richness foreshadowed in this chapter.
ABP Do we see this energy maintained in chapter 32 in Levi coming forward having greater love for God than for his natural relatives?
JT That is how it works out. Moses alludes to it in his blessing of Levi: “Who said to his father and to his mother, I see him not” (Deuteronomy 33:9), showing that the father and mother were not in his vision. He views himself spiritually, taking sides with Jehovah the God of Israel.
AR What is offered up in this chapter is bullocks; I suppose there is significance in that?
JT Yes, largeness of appreciation of Christ is indicated, as we have often had it. It is to bring out what God found in Israel at the beginning; He says, “I remember for thee the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land not sown”, (Jeremiah 2:2).
APT Barnabas was a Levite. I was just wondering whether there was in him a suggestion of the wealth that is here? He contributed to the great wealth that was already in the assembly; (Acts 4).
JT His monetary contribution was, of course, valuable, but he himself was a greater contribution.
FL You had the breastplate a good deal before you?
JT It is the great central thought in the book as regards the tribes. What we have said is preliminary, but chapter 28 brings the tribes in in a unique way as according to their birth, their names being on the shoulder-pieces of the high priest; and then in the breastplate according to their tribes. I think what has been remarked ought to be specially noted, that the existence of the tribes in Genesis depended on Christ as seen in Joseph; and when we come to Exodus, we depend on Christ as seen in Aaron. Joseph was not a priest, but was a great provider. A believer requires to know Christ as the great [p. 344] Provider; then he requires to know Christ as the antitype of Aaron, the priest, if he is to be among the tribes.
JS So in Genesis we have in Joseph a type of Christ among the Gentiles at the present moment.
JT That is right, as the great Provider; so that He provides for us and maintains us in everything for God.
JS Following upon that, you have the saints serving God in a priestly way.
JT Quite so. Exodus has the ministry in view. Genesis is the patriarchal book. Saints want to see that they are to serve God, but how? Christ must be brought in, and that is the teaching of Exodus 6. God begins with the heads of the fathers’ houses, and when He arrives at Levi, the priest, He stops. Thus if we are to serve God, we must know Christ as Priest, and our place in His heart.
BTF How would you apply the thought of the tribes to the Christian now?
JT It is saints viewed in Genesis as a family, carried through in spite of adverse maternal conditions, and then provided for, typically, by Christ in the presence of the famine. He is the great Provider for the saints; otherwise, we should all die — that is the idea of Genesis. Even Jacob would die and everything would be lost, aside from Joseph; but then, the next thing is — Am I going to serve God, and be amongst those who serve Him? For this I must know Christ as Priest, and know that I have a place in the breastplate; not simply a place according to my birth on the shoulder pieces, but according to God’s thought of me as set in relation to all the brethren.
JS If we are to serve God, as seen in Exodus, it means moving out of Egypt — leaving this world.
JT Exactly; we cannot serve God in the world. That is pointed out at the beginning of the book;
[p. 345] Pharaoh would have Israel to serve in Egypt, but Moses said, We cannot serve in Egypt. God says, “let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness”, (Exodus 7:16). They were to serve God on the mountain in the wilderness; and so no one can serve God in the true sense who is related to a worldly organisation; he must leave it and go out of the world. The great general thought of God is, “Let my son go, that he may serve me”. They were to serve God on the mountain and in the wilderness, but the balancing thought is that those who serve Him serve “as priests”. What our brother remarked should not be passed over — that we cannot serve God in Egypt. Exodus presents the ministerial side of the truth, and it means that if the saints are to be brought into the service of God, they must leave the world — even the religious world.
ABP Do you connect the intercession of Moses on the mount, when he was prepared to be blotted out of God’s book for the people, with priestly service?
JT Yes; but it was more than priestly; it was sacrifice. He was prepared to sacrifice himself. He was priestly, but more a type of Christ willing to sacrifice as giving Himself for us.
ANW He is the mediator.
JT Yes; he loved the people and would die for them. It is a fine thought; he was ready to be blotted out from the book of God for His people.
JS Does the book of Hosea refer to this section in Exodus — “When Israel was a child, then I loved him”, (chapter 11:1)?
JT Quite so. “And out of Egypt I called my son”, it says. He was to serve God as son. That was a great general thought which involved the priesthood; so in Christ, the Son, the priesthood is secured.
AAT Why do you speak of the wilderness in connection with [p. 346] service?
JT The idea is that we are to serve in a contrary scene. One of the greatest deceptions is that Christ is accepted in this world. Cathedrals, religious organisations, etc., all assume that He is accepted in this world, but He is not. It is a delusion. The idea is that we are to serve God in a scene where Christ is rejected.
APT In chapter 16, when they had just come through the Red Sea, it is said that when Aaron spoke to the people, they turned toward the wilderness and saw the glory cloud. Was that an indication of the mind of God for them?
JT It shows the effectiveness of the priestly service. They were thinking of going back to Egypt, and then Aaron spoke to them (typical of Christ alluring our hearts away from the world), and as he spoke to them, they looked toward the wilderness. It is a fine moment with any Christian who is inclined to go back to the world, when the service of Christ diverts him, and he looks toward the wilderness; but then, he sees more than the wilderness; he sees the glory. The wilderness is not worth looking at, except we accept it as the will of God for us. But the glory is worth looking at, as seen under the circumstances mentioned.
JEH I suppose the wilderness becomes very irksome unless the glory of God is seen.
JT Quite so. As the hymn says, “In the desert God will teach thee What the God that thou hast found” (76:6).
AAT As a Christian, am I in the wilderness or in Egypt in my business?
JT Egypt, type of the world, becomes the wilderness. To illustrate: Here is a young man whose birth, upbringing, and start in business were in a certain place, and later God converted him; he did not change his house or office or mode of travel; he met the same people he had met before; in his view [p. 347] these people are changed, but really the change is in him. The wilderness thus started for him; the change being not in the world but in him. It is conversion to God that makes the world a wilderness to him. As Paul says, speaking of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, “Through whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world”, (Galatians 6:14). That is the idea, and we have to serve in those circumstances, as being immediately under reproach. Then “upon this mountain” (Exodus 3:12), implies that abundant resources of God will be available. God will supply all you need; you do not need to go to the world’s resources: for, “On the mount of Jehovah will be provided” (Genesis 22:14); that is what these books show; God provides so that His people might serve Him.
WB-w The death of Christ makes the difference. The Red Sea separates Egypt from the wilderness.
JT Quite; baptism is now accepted. I was illustrating the case of a young man being converted. He is baptised, and that is the gulf between him and the world, outwardly; but it has to be maintained, “we also should walk in newness of life”, (Romans 6:4).
FL So the types refer to literal and physical phases, but their application refers to a spiritual state of mind.
JT That is right; the change comes about in believers, not in the world.
CB I suppose the fact that He bears us on His breast collectively, would move us onward in this pathway.
JT That is what is before us this afternoon — to grasp the idea of the breastplate — the place we have in the heart of Christ; not only on His shoulders; as on the shoulders, we are viewed as belonging to the same family, and are supported there; but as on the breastplate, we are according to our position as the [p. 348] tribes. The allusion, doubtless, is to the position of the tribes around the tabernacle according to Numbers.
AR It has sovereignty in view.
JT Yes; it is not a question there of birth, but of the ordering of God; that is to say, the saint begins to see that he is not only a child of God, but that he has a place in the counsels of God, and in the testimony according to divine ordering. This is hardly known amongst us — that each has a place according to divine ordering in relation to the tabernacle of witness.
BTF It would no doubt be God’s ordering, taking into account the peculiar trials we have to meet here in serving God.
JT That is right. The tribes were arranged around the tabernacle. Judah had the advantage of being on the east toward the sun-rising, and Ephraim had the disadvantage of being on the west toward the sun-setting, but both positions were assigned by God who makes no mistakes; He knows you are there and will support you there. My position around the tabernacle corresponds with my position on the breastplate. I believe that is the setting of it.
CAM It is remarkable that God emphasises our tabernacle position at the present time. It enters into the boundary question and that of our residences; that all should have a right setting in view of the coming of the Lord.
JT Numbers brings that into prominence Every young Christian should see that he has a place, not only in the counsels of God in heaven, but also a place here in relation to the testimony. This is developed in Numbers; what we get in Exodus prepares us for it: showing that God is taking account of us, in bringing in the priest, one man, typical of Christ, taken out from all the others.
CAM In going on to Numbers in the exercises of our souls, we must have our Genesis and Exodus,
[p. 349] especially in relation to the priest. These books are thus in order, are they not?
JT That is right; so the word to Moses is, “Aaron thy brother”, in chapter 28: “And thou shalt take thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons”. Aaron had the breastplate; he is the outstanding man; and so Exodus prepares us for Numbers in that we see that God has taken out one man. Aaron did not take it upon himself; he was called of God, as we are told in Hebrews 5:4 - 6 — “And no one takes the honour to himself but as called by God, even as Aaron also. Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself to be made a high priest; but he who had said to him, Thou art my Son, I have today begotten thee. Even as also in another place he says, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec”. His personal greatness is an outstanding feature in Hebrews, yet as saints we are to come into it, if we are to occupy a place in the testimony according to God. “We have such a one high priest who has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens”, (Hebrews 8:1).
CAM Does not the epistle to the Hebrews run on these lines almost entirely?
JT Yes; it brings in Melchisedec, whom we get in Genesis, but not here, showing the personal greatness of the priest early in the Scriptures before you get the functional side.
AR In Hebrews 8 you get the full official side. In the previous chapters we have the Lord’s personality in order that He may stand out in His greatness.
JT Quite so; chapter 2 presents to us the humanity of Christ — One who could be touched with the feelings of our infirmities. Then we have the quotation from Psalm 110:4 “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec”. Viewed as a divine Person, He is “without father, without [p. 350] mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life”, (Hebrews 7:3). Melchisedec is thus “assimilated to the Son of God”, in order to show that Christ is none less than a divine Person.
ANW Would you say chapter 1 gives us His deity?
JT Unmistakably.
ANW The reference to Melchisedec is another phase of it.
JT Chapter 1 gives His deity; chapter 2, His humanity.
CAM The greatness of the Person is a basic thing before the other things are opened up in the testimony.
ANW What does “without genealogy” mean to you?
JT He is not like Aaron; His priesthood does not hinge on parentage, “without father, without mother”. The allusion could only be to a divine Person. Melchisedec is made like the Son of God, and so is just a type. Christ only is in the mind of the Spirit.
AFM Going back to chapter 28, would you say a little more in detail about the shoulder-pieces?
JT They allude to the place we have as of the family of God: “See what love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the children of God”, (1 John 3:1). We are children of God. That is the idea, I think, of the names on the shoulder-pieces; but then the names in the breast-plate are of the same persons, viewed in relation to God’s thoughts as to where each one is to be in relation to His testimony.
JS Hence, it is called the breastplate of judgment.
JT Yes, and the tribes are brought in. You do not get the word ‘tribes’ in relation to the shoulder-pieces.
WGT Would Reuben have first place on the shoulder-[p. 351] pieces?
JT Yes; he, being the first-born, would have the first place there, but not on the breastplate — Judah would have that, and the other two tribes with him. Reuben would come in on the fourth place on the breastplate.
APT Peter had no difficulty about the shoulder-pieces, but possibly he had some difficulty about the breastplate. He asked the Lord, “What of this man?” (John 21:21).
JT John 21 tells us that seven servants had gone fishing; they were not in the places to which they were assigned, but had removed from them. It is a picture of Christendom today. Thousands of Christians are not in their assigned positions. “I go to fish”, Peter said. At early morn the Lord is on the shore, and at length brings them all again into relation to Himself. First, He takes up Peter and probes him as to his course. The secret of his denial of the Lord, as well as his going to fish, was that he was away from the Lord. He had love for the Lord, but he had a will — “I go to fish” — and so the Lord probed him thrice and then gave him work to do; virtually saying, I have not changed My mind about you; the position I had for you is still there, and you are to occupy it, and finally, to do what you said you would do — die for Me.
It is beautiful to see him as brought into line with his assigned place in relation to the testimony. But everything was not clear to him. He said of John, “What of this man?” It is as if Judah, as set on the east side of the tabernacle, were to say, What about Rueben? What about Ephraim? What about Dan? Well, Jehovah would say to Judah, That is not your matter at all; your responsibility is on the east of the tabernacle; that is your place. So that John is taken care of; he knew the breastplate; he was in the bosom of Jesus and leaned on His breast; so there is no need of Peter asking about [p. 352] a man like that, who knew his place. The Lord says, “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee?” Whatever the Lord’s will might be, He does not disclose it to Peter; but John has his place, and so has every one of us. The point is to find it; if I exercise my own will, I shall not find it, but go to fish instead.
CB Does not John 17 suggest the breastplate?
JT It does, and shows what the Lord thought of His own. He prayed for His disciples, and also for us, as He said, “I do not demand for these only, but also for those who believe on me through their word; that they may be all one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”, (John 17:20,21)