THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL (4)
[p. 373] THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL (4)
Numbers 7:1 - 17; 84 - 89; 13:2 - 4, 27 - 34; 14:1 - 10
JT At our last reading we noted that the tribes were seen around the tent of meeting, evidently corresponding to their names on the breastplate, affording a picture of the kingdom of God — God dwelling in an authoritative way among His people. Much follows in relation to that, especially as to the Levites, but chapter 7 teaches us how the position of the testimony is augmented by the wealth and intelligent unity that marked the tribes at the beginning, typical of Pentecost. It is a wonderful chapter, containing 89 verses. Then chapters 13 and 14 show the other side of the picture; the tribes, represented in the twelve men that are sent up, have the opportunity to see the land. It says in Hebrews 4:2, “But the word of the report did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard”. We have the unbelief of the saints seen, tending to disrupt the whole thought of God; so that the positive and the negative sides are before us now, and the bright relief with regard to the latter, in Caleb and Joshua, would represent a remnant standing for God so that the thought of God is secured, and the tribes go into the land, notwithstanding the unbelief here so flagrantly manifested.
JS Over against the general unbelief, the glory appears.
JT That is how God secured His end. Where there is a link in however few, as in Caleb and Joshua who held to the right thought, God will stand by them. The position here is analogous to our own.
JS General declension marked the public body.
JT Yes; the last verse read was that the whole assembly lifted up their voice, and cried. Refusal of [p. 374] the testimony became general. The unfaithful testimony of ten spies brought out the general unbelief that existed.
WGT Would chapter 7 correspond to Pentecost, and chapters 13 and 14 to the general declension?
JT Yes; in a general decline, God has recourse to His own resources, coming in Himself in glory to support the remnant.
WB-w Chapter 7 has the testimony in the wilderness in view, the anointed tabernacle.
JT Yes; it indicates the work of the Holy Spirit in the saints, so that the testimony is everything, particularly the altar; the minds of the princes are on the line of sacrifice in the dedication of the altar.
WB-w Would you link chapter 7 with Exodus 40, where the tabernacle was set up?
JT Yes; it fits in there. There were twelve days devoted to the offerings of the princes, which opens up the great thought before them. It shows what wealth was there in intelligent unity, a wealth that provided discriminately for the Levites, as well as for God Himself. The dedication-gift is the great feature; the gift for the Levites is additional.
AFM Does this chapter suggest the unity of the tribes, in what the princes offered?
JT I think so; you will notice the date: “And it came to pass on the day that Moses had completed the setting up of the tabernacle, and had anointed it, and hallowed it, and all the furniture thereof, and the altar and all its utensils, and had anointed them, and hallowed them, that the princes of Israel, the heads of their fathers’ houses, the princes of the tribes, they that were over them that had been numbered, offered”. It was their own initiative, it was not required of them. They offered on that day, and God was pleased with it and accepted it of them. During twelve days the princes offered, each on his [p. 375] day; all this indicates the delight of God in this particular offering. You will notice the titles of the offerers: “The princes of Israel, the heads of their fathers’ houses, the princes of the tribes, they that were over them that had been numbered”. There is no doubt as to who they were.
CAM In this princely setting, the saints are equally wealthy.
JT Yes; it seems to be that. They are representative men, and so what is presented denotes the condition of the tribes at the beginning — the day on which the tabernacle was completed and anointed.
AAT Are you associating that with Pentecost?
JT I think Pentecost is the antitype. There was beautiful unity with spiritual wealth and power on that day.
HSD I suppose Barnabas would suggest a prince.
JT He would, indeed.
ANW Do you take Pentecost to be the answer to the Lord’s request in John 17:20 - 22: “That they may be all one”? He says, “And 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. And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them, that they may be one, as we are one”.
JT Pentecost answered, in principle, to the Lord’s request for unity in His own, but not literally, for all who should believe on Him through the word of the apostles were not there. But great stress is laid on the wealth and unity manifest at Pentecost.
AFM Would you think the offering in verses 3 - 9 was lower in character than what was offered later for the altar? Why was this more material one placed first?
JT It is on a lower level, and corresponds with [p. 376] our giving in a material way to the support of the Levites.
AFM The Lord’s servants.
JT Yes, financially or otherwise; it is not equal to what follows, but fits in here as showing that the Levites were on the hearts of the princes in approaching God at the dedication of the altar. These princes had the general support of the testimony before them, and although the first offering is on a lower level, so to speak, than the second, it is of essential importance. The offerings for the Levites, however, are not included in the aggregate. “The dedication-gift of the altar” is more spiritual, typically.
FHL Are not the princes representative in a peculiar way?
JT They are representative of the tribes here, but on moral grounds. Their gifts, therefore, indicate the general state of Israel as the tabernacle was anointed.
JS Not on an official ground, but what they were morally.
JT They are official in a sense, but not exactly like the Levites, or priests. They denote spiritual and moral power acquired.
JEH Yes, wealth would be the result of what they were morally; that is to say, a prince is a man that has acquired power, like Jacob. “For as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed”, (Genesis 32:28).
AAT At the beginning, we can see that these princes had their place, but in a day of breakdown, such as today, would you expect to see them?
JT Yes; the maintenance of the things of God always hinges, very largely, on such men, who show that they have to do with God, like Elijah. You have no mention of him until he appears in service; but according to James, he is a man of prayer, and that gave him power. He could say, “There shall not be [p. 377] dew nor rain these years, except by my word”, (1 Kings 17:1). He had acquired that power with God, secretly. We do not know whom God may be raising up now, but one may be sure He has His men as need arises; it is a question, not so much of gift, as of moral power to lead amongst the saints. A leader according to God is one who has initiative and goes before the saints, as the ark did in the wilderness. This is much more than “suggesting a subject” and taking a lead in a Bible reading.
Ques Do you not think these princes offered in the light of the whole assembly?
JT They did; it is a most remarkable expression of unity. There is no evidence of premeditated arrangement, although actually there may have been this; but they spiritually represent saints living in many parts, not in the same town. It is general unity expressed in the most substantial way; all had the same apprehension and appreciation of Christ. The work of God in various parts of the world is seen in this way.
AFM I suppose it is really as these princes purposed in their hearts, so the result came out in this peculiar unity.
JT Christ being supreme in every heart, unity is bound to prevail in what we offer.
AR That is what takes place here; they come from every point of the compass to one centre.
JT Today we have to spread that over the whole world. These men were at different points of the compass in relation to the testimony, three from the standard of the camp of Judah, three from Reuben, three from Ephraim, and three from Dan; thus in the antitype they represent the saints universally.
FM I was just going to refer to the early part of Acts, as to whether certain men that came to light correspond with these princes; those in chapter 6, for [p. 378] instance.
JT They do. All through Acts you have such men coming into evidence. For instance, when Paul was about to sail to Syria after his work in Asia, Macedonia, and Greece, it says, “And there accompanied him as far as Asia, Sopater (son) of Pyrrhus, a Berean; and of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius and Timotheus of Derbe; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus”, (Acts 20:4). These would be great men, spiritually. They witnessed the fruit of the Spirit’s work in their localities through Paul, and accompanied him from Greece. They represented the rich results of the work of God in their respective localities. Each is mentioned in this connection. As was remarked, Barnabas was a signal instance of a prince. He laid at the apostle’s feet what would provide wagons for the Levites, but he was also possessed of spiritual wealth available for the assembly.
JS Peter standing up with the eleven would show the unity of the twelve at the outset.
JT Yes; it was observed by the crowd that heard him preach that those who stood with him had something also; the converted ones spoke to the eleven as well as to Peter, showing that they had discernment. Hence where God works with souls there will be discernment as to the divine provision made, whoever the vessels may be.
ABP Peter and John had something: “... but what I have, this give I to thee”, (Acts 3:6).
JT The needed wealth was there; that is the idea.
RDG Is it not significant that each wagon was offered by two princes?
JT Unity is also expressed in that. Two princes offered a wagon, and each one a bullock. Note that these bullocks were not to be sacrificed; but to draw the wagons through the wilderness, as burden-bearers, like the Levites [p. 379] were.
FM Would the deacons appointed in Acts 6 be on the level of Numbers 7?
JT Yes; the seven men full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom were marked by princely wealth and power. Their service, of course, was not to offer to God, but to minister to the temporal needs of the saints; that is, they ministered what others gave. In this there is a link with the early part of Numbers 7, only the princes provided the oxen and wagons themselves. They were givers. Those at Antioch who were “well off” determined to give, and they gave, but they sent it to the elders in Jerusalem by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, who served as deacons.
ANW What is the practical benefit in the recording of this perfect condition of things, if recovery of it is not to be expected?
JT There is recovery in principle. I think recovery is through the glory appearing, compare Numbers 14:10; Numbers 14:16-19, and kindred scriptures. Philadelphia is a remnant, no doubt, but then the Lord clothes it with the whole thought. “I also will keep thee”, (Revelation 3:10) He says. So that if we break bread today, we break bread in the light of all the tribes, so to speak; that is, the whole church. We do not break bread in relation merely to ourselves. We should never lose sight of all the saints. The loaf represents the whole church.
AP Here there is just one altar dedicated.
JT “Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of Jehovah came saying, Israel shall be thy name; and with the stones he built an altar in the name of Jehovah”, (1 Kings 18:31,32). He had the whole thought of Israel in mind.
ABP Does the Lord suggest the need of princely service in Luke 10:37, in saying, “Go and do thou likewise”?
[p. 380] He had provided the oil, and the wine, the beast, and the two pence.
JT Exactly; he would effect princely bounty and mercy in the neighbour.
AP What do you make of the fact that two wagons and four oxen were given to the sons of Gershon, and four wagons and eight oxen to Merari?
JT Moses did that, Jehovah having generally directed it. It is a distribution of wisdom; in the curtains Gershon had a lighter burden to carry; these were not so heavy to carry as the boards, pillars, etc. Merari had the heaviest burden; there is consideration in wisdom and in love to provide more for a servant according to his work. If a man has to take a long journey to reach the field of his labours, you would give him more money than to one going a shorter distance; that is the way this type works out. The saints ought to think of these things as interested in the work of God. Thus although the first part of the offerings here are not on the level of those for the dedication of the altar, still they are of great importance because you cannot expect burdens to be carried unless you help the carriers. In other words, if we wish the work of God to prosper we must provide these material things for the workers.
JS It is the principle of equalisation of the burden.
AFM What about the sons of Kohath?
JT Their burdens were lighter, literally, than those of Gershon and Merari. They were to carry, “upon the shoulder”, the holy things pertaining to “the service of the sanctuary”. It typifies that part of our service that is more spiritual; it is almost priestly; in fact, the Kohathites are called priests in carrying the ark over Jordan.
AP Would the fact that the wagons were covered allude to the idea that in ministering to [p. 381] servants, we have in mind much more than the fact that they have need? It is a covered wagon.
JT Yes; they are fully cared for. There is also a certain secrecy attached to Levitical service implied in covered wagons.
WFK Do the things the princes bring suggest the death of Christ?
JT They do. The fine flour mingled with oil is the humanity of Christ. The “oblation” is His perfect manhood, but offered to God — the fire bringing out its perfection. It is mingled with oil — not anointed. There are two silver vessels; one of a hundred and thirty shekels, and the other, seventy, containing the fine flour; and one golden vessel of ten, which is full of incense. What is offered in these vessels alludes to the humanity of Christ, but the animals refer to the burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering.
AFM What is the difference between the silver and the golden vessels? The latter contained the incense.
JT I suppose, as has been often remarked, the silver alludes to the Lord effecting atonement in His holiness and rights of love. The cup of gold is a very much smaller vessel; it denotes Him as from the divine side — Man, but His Person is implied. It is what He is inside for God — incense.
CAM How very suitable this gift was at this juncture!
JT It is a remarkable presentation of the work of God coming out in intelligent unity.
FHL Would the fact that they were all equal suggest that the Spirit of God would take what is of Christ in us all, and put a perfect valuation on it?
JT Yes; God would show how His work develops in unity. What is offered denotes, typically, a wonderfully mature and full apprehension of Christ. God, at the beginning, thus shows what He can effect.
[p. 382] Even if failure came in afterwards, as it did, alas! He has established that point. It is human responsibility that leads to the failure, but God shows what He can effect. What we see here did not last long either in the type or antitype, but in it God makes clear that He can effect His great thoughts. In spite of human failure either in Israel or the church, all the divine thoughts are yea and amen in Christ. If these can be maintained for a month or a year, they can be maintained eternally.
WB-w Why does it take twelve days to get the offerings completed?
JT I think God is so pleased with the procedure that He would spread it out. Every one of these men deserved a day, all their hearts being, typically, full of Christ, and each offering being identical.
ANW The Spirit had His own pleasure in each, for He repeats the procedure twelve times over.
FM It is very remarkable that it all comes to light without any appeal being made for it.
JT This feature should mark us all; it brings out the spontaneity of the work of God, and shows how the subjects of it are regulated by the light that comes to them. There was no irregularity, but perfect unity, expressed in the appreciation of Christ in certain of His varied glories as Man; He is seen here in His personal excellence as Man and in His great sacrificial features.
WB-w Would you say it would take great power in a prince to keep God engaged for a whole day, as seen in each of these offerings?
JT We may thus learn how God’s beloved Son engages His heart; and not for one day only, but for eternity.
AP Psalm 119:164 says, “Seven times a day do I praise thee”. Would that suggest a whole day?
JT Quite; it is the perfection of the service.
[p. 383] God intends that He should be sustained in the affections; the morning and the evening lamb (Numbers 28), had the same value; and the same accompanying offerings.
ABP Would not the wrestling of Jacob all night result in his being for the pleasure of heaven all day?
JT There is very little done amongst us unless there are men that wrestle with God. The man that does so is sure to be for God’s pleasure. Jacob was conscious of this as he poured the drink offering on the pillar at Bethel.
AR In the oblation offering coming before the animals — does it suggest that each man corresponds with Christ here in manhood?
JT It does; not as men often talk about Christ, and put Him above all other men and the like, instead of seeing that He is an entirely new order of man. Cain’s offering was a meat offering, but he did not have the accompanying sin offering; but these men had all the offerings. Whilst each prince was himself occupying God and His people for the day, it was Christ really, presented in this four-fold way.
JEH Do you think the glory of the tabernacle system as set up was fully entered into by the princes, spiritually, and that they were thus equipped with wealth and ready to offer?
JT You cannot say much about what they understood; but at Pentecost the saints understood, and so knew what they were doing. The types do not present the substance, but the shadow.
RAL Typically, do we bring the sin offering at the Lord’s day morning meeting?
JT You could not be there aside from it. If it were a question of our approaching God with respect to our sins, you would have to bring the sin offering first. As applied to us, they are taken up in the reverse order of that in which they appear in Leviticus; the order of the sacrifices in Leviticus has the divine [p. 384] appreciation of Christ in view. The meat offering is first here (Numbers 7), showing how full these men were of appreciation of Jesus as Man.
AFM Say a word about the place which Moses occupied in verse 89.
JT Well, I think the aggregate of the offerings from verse 84 to the end of verse 88 is remarkable. First you have each man’s offering by itself, then the aggregate — called “the dedication-gift of the altar”. It is, I think, to show that God is pleased with this aggregate of so much wealth in unity. It is not a lot of wealth presented by one man, and a little by another, but wealth in intelligent unity. And Moses went in to speak, but God would speak under these circumstances, because delighted with the scene; and that is what I understand to be the value of spiritual ministry early in the assembly as convened; it stimulates the worship of the saints. Moses intended to speak, but God spoke first, and in majesty; Moses “heard the voice speaking to him from off the mercy-seat which was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim”. It is God speaking according to all that He is in Christ. This no doubt indicates the manner generally of the divine communications to Moses.
CAM Say a further word about ministry coming first.
JT Well, ministry may be right at any time in the assembly, but a word like this, where God is pleased, often floods the hearts of the brethren so that the worship is augmented.
JS The worship would thus be on a higher level.
FM In the last clause of the verse, “... he spoke to him” — Moses spoke to God.
AFM Does Moses, in this case, represent a brother? I mean in application to us.
JT It would be authority. It is remarkable that in the end of Exodus, as the glory filled the [p. 385] tabernacle, Moses could not enter, which would mean that authority is not necessary, because after the glory fills the tabernacle, it means, antitypically, that the saints are filled with glory. You do not need authority there. It is not that Moses’s authority is set aside, but it is not needed under such circumstances. If the saints are filled with glory, there will be worship. Here God speaks first; then Moses speaks.
AAT Is that how God communicates His mind today?
JT This is the principle of His speaking, as conditions please Him. Sometimes He has to rebuke us; but where the state is pleasing to God, then you get something in the way of direction for the assembly.
AAT But through a brother?
JT Of course; the Spirit, as here, speaks through the saints.
JS A word directly after the breaking of bread would be quite in order.
FHL In chapter 8:1, Jehovah spoke to Moses specifically.
JT If we counted up the number of times in which Jehovah spoke to Moses, they would be very impressive. The last clause of chapter 7 does not say what Moses said. It is just the fact that Moses had liberty to speak in the presence of the majesty presented, for God had set him free.
AAT Why did He not communicate through Aaron?
JT He did in some cases, but Moses is the apostle. There are communications through Aaron that refer to priestly authority, but generally God speaks to Moses and the speaking through him is clothed with divine authority, like 1 and 2 Corinthians.
ANW Is there any significance in the fact that the name of the divine Person speaking is not mentioned? It says, “Him” twice.
[p. 386] JT It is, I think, to bring out the majesty of the occasion; like Colossians 1:19: “In him all the fulness was pleased to dwell”. The fulness represents the Deity without this being stated.
GL How does the prayer meeting compare with what we are speaking of?
JT Prayer is made at the golden altar. The ground for this would be in the golden cups full of incense.
FM You made a reference to a word in the assembly. We have thought that a word should be given only when the meeting is rather low, but here it would seem there has been a very good expression of the fulness of the hearts of the saints Godward, and now He wants to say something to us.
JT That is the thought. There is nothing low about this position; it is on a very high level, typically.
CAM Do you not think in connection with that we might be over anxious to take part in a morning meeting; whereas, it would be more profitable to hear a word from God, giving a sort of key to what He would engage us with?
JT That is right. The passing of the bread, the cup, and the box requires prolonged silence, especially in a meeting of sixty or seventy, and this necessitates spiritual power. The memorial does not require any activity; it is a calling to mind of Christ, which requires silence in power, and I believe this gives the Holy Spirit an opportunity to effect a condition of readiness for divine communications. God would speak and give great impulse to the procedure of the worship.
A.A.T. At that moment?
JT Yes; it is the assembly; we sit there in the freedom of sons. Of course, a word might be right later in the meeting too, but I think if the conditions [p. 387] are suitable, God would give a word to stimulate and regulate our minds and affections.
AFM You mean directly after the elements were passed around, there would be liberty for a brother to arise and communicate the mind of God.
JT I think so; if done in a priestly way, without prolonging it, it would have a very great effect. Brevity helps, as in all participation in the assembly.
CAM I take it the speaker would be brief, inasmuch as he would he impressed by the wealth that was there, and would make room for it.
JT Here the first prince that offered would understand that eleven others were to follow! God would have participation in the assembly spread out, all His sons being, normally, delightful to Him. He knows the wealth is there and would have it expressed in variety. The wealth is in the whole company, not only in those who take part audibly.
APT Is Nahshon indicative of one who gives a good lead? He is first in the order of service.
JT Yes; he represents one who understands that his position is given sovereignly — a most important matter in the assembly. It is remarkable, in this connection, to see how the names of the offerers are emphasised.
WB-w Would you say the dedication-gift for the altar was higher than the gifts to the Levites?
JT I think so; the latter are not included in the aggregate. Verse 84 says, “This was the dedication-gift of the altar, on the day when it was anointed, from the princes of Israel”. Then you have a list of their offerings, which does not include the wagons or the burden bullocks.
CAM I want to ask as to the box in the morning meeting: Would it be right to bring that into the first part of this chapter?
JT I think so. This chapter is a warrant for the box as standing in relation to the Lord’s supper.
[p. 388] AR It is put on a high level. In verse 3 it says, “They brought their offering before Jehovah”, and at the end of the verse it says, “... presented them before the tabernacle”, Then it says, “Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Take it of them, and they shall be for the performance of the service of the tent of meeting, and thou shalt give them unto the Levites”.
JT Jehovah’s acceptance shows the value of this gift. It was evidently a question as to whether it should fit in here. Moses, it seems, waited, and Jehovah says, “Take it of them”. I suppose that is the kind of hesitation there has been about the box. Jehovah says, “Take it of them”. It is worthy of such an occasion — these burden bullocks and covered wagons. It is not quite up to the level of the dedication-gift that alludes to what is entirely spiritual, typically.
AP The standard of measurement with regard to the dedication is a little different — “according to the shekel of the sanctuary”.
JT Yes, and the material, silver and gold, is different from wagon material. There is nothing said as to the size or quality of the wagons, nor of the age of the oxen. I think God would have us to differentiate between what is excellent and what is more excellent. The dedication-gift is more excellent; it is the highest order of giving; it is worship. The vessels are full, too.
CAM Besides, there is no thought of meeting any need, or any kind of requirement, in it.
JT No, it is spiritual wealth yielded to God in the spirit of sonship. The priests, of course, got their portion out of these offerings; and in that way, the whole system was being ministered to.
AP Would you say, possibly, that there will not be any need for the first part in eternity; whereas, the substance of the dedication-gift will go through?
[p. 389] JT The gift, of course, is the fruit of love. The love behind it will go through; only this expression of it will not go through. There will be no need for it there, but there will be the need of ministering to God there.
AFM The notices, I suppose, enter the administrative side of the assembly, and the box would stand in that relation.
JT Just so; what the box contains is administrative, it is to provide for Levitical and other needs.
CAM In principle, we are not ready to go to heaven, to have part in the assembly in the true sense, until that side of the position is attended to.
JT That is right; righteous obligations must be met. The epistle to the Romans says nothing about going to heaven; it is a question of righteousness — how believers are adjusted as to it and how it is fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after Spirit: Then we can go up, compare Psalm 15.
ABP Judas Iscariote, (John 12), brought in the thought of the poor having need, when the affections of the saints (represented in Mary) had been drawn out to the Person of Christ.
JT Consideration for the poor has its own importance, but it should not be introduced when the saints are engaged in worship. Thus the collection is rightly at the threshold, so to speak, of the assembly. We know the Lord did not neglect the poor, but He would not allow Judas to divert those present from Mary’s service by bringing in the subject of their need.
FM Would this be in keeping with the wilderness position?
JT Quite; this is the wilderness book. But while the external position is the wilderness, we are in the precincts of the sanctuary — in it indeed- — -and, spiritually, what is presented enters inside. At the end Moses went in. God speaks there, and Moses speaks to Him. Then, chapter 8, we have the lamps [p. 390] lighted over against the candlestick. The quality and beauty of the candlestick are in evidence. How fitting it is after the instruction about the tribes and their relation to the tent of meeting, the Levite’s service, the purging of the camp, the law of trespass, the law of jealousies, and the law of Nazariteship, that this should come in. This wealth accrues from all these exercises. In the next chapter the Spirit of God goes back to the Levites again, and they are presented as a wave-offering to God. You can understand it from this chapter. The saints are worthy to be presented to God; they are so full of wealth. Chapter 7 is full of Christ seen in the offerings.
WFK Why does God speak from the mercy-seat, which was on the ark, from between the cherubim?
JT It would denote mercy; the ark is simply Christ personally as Man here; and then the cherubim are God’s judicial attributes. It is a wonderful combination entering into this setting, and gives character to the speaking.
HSD It inspired the heart of Moses with liberty in approaching God. The mercy-seat is there.
JT That would allay what might cause fear — “perfect love casts out fear”, (1 John 4:18).
FM After all this the passover comes in (chapter 9); why is this?
JT It is to rebuke any who are neglectful as to the divine requirements. Such are amenable to discipline. It also makes provision for those who may be weak or hindered by circumstances. The passover is the groundwork of everything and God would insist on it, for He would have all His people near Him and in the spiritual wealth of which we have been speaking. No one should be absent. In Acts 2 they were all together in one place; none was absent. That is to secure the unity. There is much neglect [p. 391] and carelessness amongst the people of God, which He would rebuke. Chapter 9 is to this end. If will is not active a provision of mercy is made, so that one can keep the passover in the second month instead of the first.
FM But if one deliberately stays away and says, ‘It is no matter to me at all’, the Lord is displeased with him.
JT He is cut off from his people. Here it is what you are not doing — you are not partaking of the passover. You are not attending the meetings, so to speak, owning with your brethren the rights of God.
RDG Would you say that since Pentecost the aggregate has never been equal to the standard?
JT In a general way you may say that. I would not exactly say “since” Pentecost, because the closing verses of Acts 2 cover a comparatively long period. The Holy Spirit gives a description of the conditions among the saints in Jerusalem, to which the Lord added.