THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL (7)
[p. 410] THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL (7)
Deuteronomy 27:11 - 14; 33:1 - 29
FL Do you see anything in the groupings here — the first six tribes are connected with blessing and the other with cursing?
JT Yes; the first six, connected with blessing, are more distinguished; these stand on mount Gerizim; they are Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph and Benjamin. The second six stand on mount Ebal: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali; and are inclusive of the children of the maidservants. The moral point is that the acceptance of the responsibility as to blessing and cursing is equally divided. We are prone to put responsibilities on certain ones and to lighten them on others. The passage would teach us that all are to share the responsibility. The matter is in our own hands, as it were, God had brought us to the point of the blessing. The people are to say, “Amen” as the Levites read out the cursings; the blessings are not given here. The mountains were over against each other, so that the geographical setting is remarkable spiritually. The viewpoint of this position was toward the going down of the sun. The allusion to it might help us; it says, “And it shall come to pass, when Jehovah thy God hath brought thee into the land ... toward the going down of the sun ... beside the oaks of Moreh”, (chapter 11:29,30). That is the position indicated by Moses, which they could view across the Jordan before they entered the land. The link is with Gilgal and the oaks of Moreh, so that, spiritually, the geographical surroundings are most advantageous; and as having entered they were to go there at once and put the blessing on mount Gerizim and the curse on mount Ebal. Then the people were to say, “Amen”. But the blessings are left out, sorrowful to say, as if the failure of the people is indicated at the outset; that is, the law perfected nothing, it awaited the Lord Jesus to come in and accomplish redemption before we could have the blessing. But still the blessings were in the mind of God, for the first mention of the tribes in Genesis is that they are blessed, as we see in chapter 33 of this book; they are blessed and are viewed thus.
FL Does not the selection of the first six for blessing suggest that the blessing is held in reserve for Judah, Levi, and Joseph are in it, those whom the sovereignty of God has marked off for blessing?
JT The beginning of chapter 27 makes provision for the blessing; even though it is not immediately, it will be there. That is, “And there shalt thou build an altar to Jehovah thy God, an altar of stones”. “And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly” (verses 5 - 8). The presence of the burnt offerings and the peace offerings and the rejoicing, alongside the writing of the law points to the securing of the blessing, however distant.
FL So the last chapter of the Revelation refers to the “root and offspring of David”; would that follow out what you were saying?
JT Yes; our Lord sprang from Judah, so there is a guarantee in those tribes of the fulfilment of the counsels of God.
AFM Would you mind referring to the next chapter, where there are four references to blessing and cursing dependent upon obedience? It says, “If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of Jehovah thy God” (verse 2), etc.
JT It is brought in there less formally. The ground on which the blessing is is generally stated; but prominence being given to the curse is very sorrowful as pointing to what actually happened, in that the curse fell on the Lord Jesus. This is emphasized [p. 412] to draw our hearts to the One who was made a curse for us.
WB-w There is another idea in verse 2 — “Thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster: and thou shalt write upon them ...”. Do you link these two thoughts together?
JT I think underlying all that is what God had in mind as to His people. The stones not being hewn or squared by human means would refer to the saints as the work of God. The plaster would be the side of our exercises as affording writing material. The stones underlying refer to durability or permanency. Although the curse actually happened, it is met in Him who became a curse, but it is emphasised in this chapter so that our hearts might be drawn to the One who bore it for us. On the very mount of the curse, Ebal, the blessing is secured through the offering of Christ in type, and the permanency of that on which the writing is to be is indicated. The saints themselves as in the new order of things are the expression of the mind of God. Then the writing is to be legible, or “very plainly” written.
WB-w All by way of the altar — is that the idea?
JT Exactly; there is no sin offering mentioned but the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, showing the perfect devotedness of Christ to the will of God, and the consequent result of peace amongst the saints and rejoicing before God. The blessed thoughts of God for His people are very plainly seen on this mountain of the curse. Although the cursings are mentioned, the blessing is infallibly secured. Man, as in the flesh, undertaking the carrying out of the will of God, must incur the curse, and Christ only could meet it.
ANW Why are the sin offerings omitted?
JT I think to bring out the devotedness of Christ. It is the bright side of things, understood [p. 413] only by the Lord Jesus having come in; this happy state of things was in the mind of God for them.
AFM Would chapter 33 be the great answer in blessing to Jesus having borne the curse?
JT Yes. It is the mind of God now corresponding with the stones that were plastered.
FL I was wondering whether the burnt offerings and the peace offerings are illustrated in the recovery of Benjamin at the end of Judges? The curse was there, but then Israel is in a humbled state; they approach God with burnt offerings and peace offerings and then get their brethren; but there is no sin offering.
JT Burnt offerings and peace offerings without sin offerings would imply that sin has been dealt with — that the saints are now occupied with Christ according to what He is in effecting the will of God, we being brought into this.
WB-w We usually look at the land of Canaan from the side of purpose, but here you are speaking of responsibility.
JT The moral element must enter into the idea of purpose, for Canaan typifies what we enter into now rather than heaven in the future. We must not omit the moral element. The purpose of God is not like Eden in innocency, the moral element is there. This applies even eternally: “Then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him that God may be all in all”, (1 Corinthians 15:28). The moral element is never out of view; it only enhances what Christ was here as Man. The cross is the great witness to the moral side and everything is held on that principle. In the eternal state there is no more curse.
TA It says in 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If any one love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha”. Would you connect that in any way with this [p. 414] scripture?
JT Yes. The idea of curse thus comes home to one; if God has brought us into blessing, as He has, it is in a collective relation. The idea of the land involves this, but how is it to be held? As Moses looked across Jordan, these two mountains stood out, as it were, in the very centre of Canaan, and Israel were to divide themselves according to this scripture, the one taking the position on mount Ebal and the other on mount Gerizim, standing to bless or to curse; and the people were then to say, “Amen”. So it is quite evident that God was saying to them, as it were, ‘I have brought you to a land flowing with milk and honey, but it is to be held on the principle of obedience’. The law as the assertion of Jehovah’s rights was to be plainly written on the plastered stones. And the fact that the curses are so prominent points to the need of the Lord Jesus coming in so as to sustain them all, in order that the land should be held on the ground of the fulfilment of moral obligation.
AFM What would be the reference to the sun going down? It would not be simply a matter of a point of the compass.
JT Well, it was that, but it is a remarkable form of expression. The view from where Moses stood would be right toward the west, where the sun went down. They entered from the east. If they entered from the west the outlook would be toward the sun rising, that was the position of Judah in relation to the tent of testimony, and is the means of the fulfilment of the will of God. There is hope in the sun-rising, but if I look toward the west the sun is going down. How is that to be met? Well the Lord Jesus went down, but He arose.
CAM The line of responsibility has just two issues, either blessing or cursing. God puts our responsibility and His purpose together in a remarkable way.
JT [p. 415] God would bring us to this point; He has brought us to the blessing in a collective way — because the idea of the land and eternal life involves our relations with one another. That is the form it takes now, but how is that to be maintained? We are in the very centre of Canaan here, between these two mountains, and the tribes are divided, and in their amens they express their obligation, as committing themselves. Thus the land is to be held on the principle of obligation to God.
ABP Do you have the sun-rising in Luke 2:32? I was thinking of “a light for revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel”. It was like the sun coming in in all its strength.
JT And then going down. Simeon points to His going down: “And even a sword shall go through thine own soul”, (chapter 2:35). The Lord Jesus was to go through death, and Mary would feel it. We really approach things from the east towards the west. There is the full shining of the sun, but it is going down, and Moses sees it going down, and the tribes are to carry out this order between these two mountains in that connection.
FL When Mary wept at the cross, she would see the going down of the Sun.
JT But what a glorious rising! So that the going down precedes the rising; the rising sun is the Sun that went down.
JS Our outlook toward man is either the blessing or the curse, there is not neutral ground.
JT Just so: “To the one an odour from death unto death, but to the others an odour from life unto life”, (2 Corinthians 2:16).
JTJr We get that thought in Romans 6:23, of death and life; “The wages of sin is death; but the act of favour of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”.
JT A man of faith like Caleb here would say, “Knowing the people as I do there is nothing to expect but the curse”.
FHL The altar was at Ebal.
JT Exactly — where the curse is to be; so the blessing is secured in spite of the curse being there, but you can understand a man like Caleb being there, and that he would say, ‘I have been forty years with the people and I know what is there, and if it is a question of our responsibility, what can we expect but the curse?’ But then he would say, ‘Look at this altar and at these stones, look at this plaster, what does all this mean?’ Faith would see something there that God had in His mind; we can see it now.
APT In Joshua 8, when this is brought about, the ark is present.
JT Yes. There the people come first; it says, “And all Israel, and their elders, and their officers and judges, stood on this side and on that side of the ark”. “There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua read not before the whole congregation of Israel, ... and the strangers that lived among them”, (Joshua 8:33,35). The blessing and the curse are read.
WB-w Would the gift of the Holy Spirit come in here? In Acts the Holy Spirit is given to all who obey Christ, who, as the Sun, went down and rose again. The Holy Spirit is given on the principle of obedience.
JT Exactly. The ark on mount Ebal comes in in Joshua; it is not mentioned in Deuteronomy in this connection. Joshua brings in the ark, and the people were on this side and on that side of it, so you have a new setting of things now; that is, the fulfilment of everything depends on the ark. That belongs to the book of Joshua, which we shall consider later, please God. It is important to [p. 417] see the position the ark has when this commandment is carried out.
ABP It is said of Jacob that as he set out for Padan-Aram he reached Bethel after the sun went down. As he returned we find a reference to the sun-rising, after he is adjusted, having wrestled all night — is there any connection?
JT I think so. He wrestled till “the rising of the dawn”. (Genesis 32:24) I think the sun going down is Christ going into death. John gives the names of those who were at His cross and His grave, including Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus. They had to do with that. It is a mark of distinction that the work of God in these two men shines at the Lord’s burial — as the sun went down. Mary of Magdala saw where He was laid, and was occupied at His tomb very early in the morning, while it was still dark; as yet she had not faith in a risen Christ; for her the Sun had not yet risen.
AFM In Mark’s gospel Mary of Magdala, with others; came to the sepulchre, the Sun having risen. I suppose Mark would emphasise the early resurrection of Christ.
JT Yes. The Lord did not remain any longer in the tomb than was necessary; by the way the facts are stated you get the suggestion that there is no delay.
JS Referring to Mary, are there not many beloved people of God just where she was — “while it was still dark” (John 20:1)? They do not see things clearly.
JT Yes, and there is no doubt that the darkness remained with her until the Lord calls her, “Mary!” She had said to the angels, “They have taken away my lord, and I know not where they have laid him”, (John 20:13). There is no light in that. Then, supposing that Jesus was the gardener, she says, “Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him” (verse 15). The dark part still remained with her, and I think that is the case with many Christians.
[p. 418] AFM They need to hear Jesus call them by name and to recognise Him as “Rabboni”.
JT What you notice in Mary of Magdala is that she does not investigate. There are thousands and thousands of Christians who do not “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21); they take in certain features of the truth, but are in darkness as to other features; whereas Peter and John investigated, they entered into the sepulchre and believed — because of what they saw.
APT The two on the way to Emmaus were in unbelief.
JT “We thought”, they said; they were in darkness really.
FL Much teaching in Christendom is expressed in “I know not where they have laid him”; that is their attitude.
JT Whereas the normal Christian says, “We know the Son of God has come”.
ANW Are you putting Peter and John ahead of Mary, in John 20?
JT They are not ahead of her in devotedness and affection, but there are many who, like her, have devotedness and affection for the Lord, and yet are suffering from being in darkness. There are others who have light and investigate; they have Bible readings, written ministry, and look into things; but nevertheless they go to “their own home”. I think that is the way the matter stands. There is a certain balancing between them. I think Peter and John have been discredited somewhat unfairly; for they made investigation at the Lord’s tomb; Peter entered into the sepulchre and took notice of the cloths. If the Lord had been stolen, the wrappings would not be there, or if there, would not be in an ordered condition. Christ having been raised by the power of God, the cloths would be just as they were on His body, there would be no change in their position. That is what Peter found, and evidently believed, John entered in and “saw and believed”; that is, he believed because of what he saw inside the tomb, not simply that it was empty of Christ, but because of the orderly condition of the cloths and the handkerchief.
AFM Peter would be ahead of John by the fact that he entered the tomb and investigated.
CAM According to John 20, John was the first confirmed believer, and that is just in line with his gospel.
JS Whereas Mary required further adjustment.
JT You would have said, if you had been her: I think I will ask Peter and John something about this matter. These are brothers, why not ask them about this great matter, as to what they saw in the tomb? There is no evidence that she made any inquiry, or that they stayed to help her either. That is how matters stood. There are many devoted people, who go off on missionary work; and they get results. There are also brethren who go in for Bible readings, but they do not get in touch with one another and so certain darkness remains with them. The Lord sees the heart of Mary and calls her by name; she gets that honour, and the message which they did not get.
FHL Say a word about Thomas.
JT He came in after the Lord had been in the midst of the disciples and refused their testimony. He represents a class; he is neither of the Peter and John class nor of the Mary class. He says, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe”, (John 20:25). He neither accepts the testimony of circumstances — which marked Peter and John — nor the testimony of persons who had had the Lord in their very midst. And he is making terms; there are a lot of people [p. 420] like that; they are hard people to deal with. They come to the meetings, but make terms.
JS They say, “Show me”.
JT They put the responsibility on you and make the matter very hard.
APT What is in your mind in saying, “They went to their own homes”?
JT The light should be taken to the saints — it is to shine in the temple. What anyone has from God belongs to the brethren. The two who went to Emmaus were on a path of unbelief, but they came back in an orderly way with light in their souls. They did not go to their natural connections, but “found the eleven, and those with them gathered together” (Luke 24:33) and made known the light received. It was to Mary’s credit that she remained at the sepulchre. Peter and John going to their own home are in contrast to her.
Ques . Even if the saints are defective in taking in the truth, the Lord adjusts?
JT He does. She remained at the sepulchre, and the Lord revealed Himself to her as risen.
JS She remained in the place of divine operations.
Rem Even if we all have not the ability to take in the truth like John and Peter, He is equal to adjusting us.
JT If we let Him. The dark part remained a good while; she said, “They have taken away my Lord”; and clung to that right up to the time when the Lord spoke to her.
JS She would be guilty of the same thing of which she accused others: “Tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away”, (John 20:15).
JT Why should she take Him away? Of course her thought was to care for the precious body of the Lord; but she was in unbelief as to His resurrection, and there was a corresponding want of balance in [p. 421] her words.
WB-w What did John actually believe?
JT The fact that it is left open is significant. The resurrection of Christ is, of course, in view. Characteristically, he believed the testimony so far as it was there, so far as the sepulchre afforded evidence of it.
AFM What would the handkerchief folded by itself indicate?
JT Peter would inquire in his mind, “Why should this be?” And his conclusion would be that some reverential hand had done that — some hand that had great regard for the Person that laid there. The idea of headship also would enter into it. Peter would think of it in that way.
AFM Whose reverential hands would they be that folded the handkerchief?
JT Mary would have an inkling of whose they were as having seen two angels sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Angels had attended the Lord in Gethsemane and they are now in His tomb; who but one of them would have folded the handkerchief? If Mary and Peter conversed about it afterwards, that undoubtedly is the conclusion they would arrive at.
ANW Why did the Lord favour Mary of Magdala at the sepulchre and not Peter and John?
JT Love is the greatest thing. He values our affections and the instinct that goes with them. She remained where there was likely to be something more. Here it is instinct; the Spirit tells us that she turned backwards after the angel spoke to her. Why did she do that? We would have thought that she would have been intensely interested in those heavenly beings but something diverted her from that. Then the Lord says, “Mary”, and she turned round, it is not that anyone told her. I think the allusion is to the instinct of the divine nature.
ABP These various features coming out show how necessary the “whole twelve tribes” are to bring out the complete work of God.
JT In view of what we have been saying we are led to the consideration of the whole twelve tribes as blessed, but not merely in an arbitrary way as Jacob blessed the tribes, but in their characteristics. Everyone has characteristics that indicate blessing.
WGK Does Moses represent the Lord in blessing the assembly?
JT Moses would represent the Lord in authority as “king in Jeshurun”, as recognised in affection by a righteous, or upright, people.
WB-w Would this, “rose up from Seir” and “shone forth from mount Paran”, be the idea of the Sun shining?
JT Yes. Certain settings are in view. First, we have: — “Jehovah came from Sinai, And rose up from Seir unto them; He shone forth from mount Paran”. He came, He rose, and He shone. It is a remarkable thing that the divine shining is in wilderness settings peculiarly, as in mount Paran; that is the way through the wilderness toward Canaan the people had begun to move. The cloud stood still there in the wilderness of Paran after Sinai; (Numbers 10:12).
WGT Moses would have the wilderness in view entirely.
JT The land is not mentioned here. God came from Sinai, which is a question of His rights over us. He rises up from Seir, which would point to the nearest way into the land itself. It is an eleven days’ journey that way; as if He were to say, ‘The way in is short and in My love for you I would have you go that way’. It alludes to the Spirit. As we are in the Spirit, wilderness distances vanish. The Red Sea [p. 423] and Jordan are thus the one death of Christ for the saints. The wilderness, short or long, is needed because of the flesh in us.
AR Is that what God intended at first in Numbers 13?
JT Yes, rising up from Seir seems to be God indicating the way in, it is like a great beacon light showing the way in.
WGT Shining would be grace there, not law.
JT It would be grace — what God is to us in the wilderness.
FL “And he came from the myriads of the sanctuary”.
JT There it is the Lord amongst His people, holy myriads, really the priesthood — the saints viewed in priestly trim where God is worshipped in holiness.
AFM “He loveth the peoples”, which, according to the footnote, is “tribes”. They are seen now as loved.
JT Balaam thus saw them in their tribal setting in the wilderness.
GMcP Would this correspond with what we have in Ephesians 2:10: “We are his workmanship”?
JT Exactly; only Ephesians views us in the land.
WB-w Why does it say that “Jehovah came from Sinai”?
JT Mountains are symbols of strength and elevation.
WB-w The idea of bringing them up on these mountains would be to take them above the deserts.
JT It is moral elevation and is the way God operates. How above the level of man He is! So that at Sinai He says, “Ye have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, and how I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself”, (Exodus 19:4). He is now proposing terms, wishing to enter into covenant relation with His people. Sinai is a [p. 424] question of His love viewed in that way. Mount Seir is as if He were to say, ‘I will shine as you go in’ — the shining way Paran is what He will be to you on the way because, according to these verses, it is the middle of the journey.
AFM There is thus every encouragement for us to take up our heavenly position as the tribes.
JT If God has, so to speak, brought us into tribal blessing, let us put on the features indicated: Levi says to his father and mother, “I see him not”. This is a most important side of the position — to cut away from what is natural and take my place in relation to God’s purpose. Levi fitted into his place; this negates all that is natural and it is on this that blessing practically hinges. God loves the tribes; that is, the saints in relation to each other in love according to His ordering. He looks at them as Balaam saw them according to His own setting, and the blessing here means that every tribe is characteristically answering to the mind of God; not simply in place around the tent of meeting, but each having his own characteristics — that is, the work of the Spirit in the saints is contemplated.
JTJr Would you get this shining and the shining of the face of Moses when he came down from the mount linked up with 2 Corinthians?
JT Just so. Divine shining is always a question of what God is.
TA Is it necessary to be in fellowship to have a tribal position?
JT It is; that is implied in earlier typical teaching. I suppose it is one of the greatest things for us at the present time, if God has brought us into any little bit of blessing, to see it in the tribal position; thus we answer practically to the mind of God. The first setting of the tribes is in the breastplate and then their position around the tabernacle;
[p. 425] that is Exodus and Numbers. But Deuteronomy is more than that, it is what we are as of the tribes characteristically.
CAM It would be a great thing to get hold of that. It would seem as if it were a distinct thing in the mind of the Lord at the present time.
JT If God has brought us into blessing He wishes us to take up tribal features and relations. Let the saints take up the part God has assigned to them apart from natural relations, whether father, mother, wife, or brother, or sister. All that is wiped out by what is seen here in Levi. Thus there will be no rivalry or clashing with each other. It is a question of the sovereignty of God and His work in us. The tribal position is God’s ordering, and is sustained by the high priest. In this sense the saints are peculiarly on the heart of Christ. What is intended in the tribes is worked out from that position.
JS We are to move on relatively in respect of our brethren.
JT Yes. Every tribe has its setting. For instance, Reuben: “Let his men be few”. They are not in a mass, they are orderly and living, so that you can count them. Every one has distinction. “Let Reuben live, and not die”. Life always distinguishes its subject.
HSD The stones in the breastplate would be all of different colours.
JT That is another point. Instead of names you have precious stones. It is a remarkable thing, you get the number of the tribes but not individual names. A precious stone represents and distinguishes each one.
JEH The difference in the stones would correspond with the different references we get to these several tribes here — different [p. 426] features.
JT That is what comes out, everyone has his own distinction. The first idea is life: “Let Reuben live and not die”. And then Judah: — “Hear, Jehovah, the voice of Judah, And bring him unto his people” — he is not to be isolated, or with others than “his people”.
AFM I was wondering whether one person could not be marked by each of these features, as being the result of the history of the soul?
JT Normally every Christian bears all these features. The chapter is a constructive setting out of the work of God in its results in all the saints.
JS How do you view Moses here?
JT He would represent Christ as “king in Jeshurun”. Not simply as King on the throne, but King in the affections of His people. He, as proved in His wise and gracious rule, is loved by His people.
ANW “All his saints are in thy hand”. Who is the “thy” and the “his”?
JT I suppose, Jehovah. It is a question of whose hands the saints are in. We know they are in the hands of the great Shepherd of the sheep — in the hands of Christ.
WGT “And underneath are the eternal arms”. Would that be the same thought?
JT That is more general — referring to God.
APT “Yea, he loveth the peoples”. Love in activity, exercised all the time. Is that the way you look at it?
JT Exactly. The footnote would indicate that He alludes to the tribes — the saints viewed in this way; although the original word is not the ordinary one for tribe, but it has this meaning. The setting as in this chapter rather confirms that it refers [p. 427] to the tribes.
APT Going back a bit — Moses in speaking to the people said that God did not take them up because they were great, but because He loved them. We are taken up on the principle of God’s love.
WGT The Corinthians did not answer to the “king in Jeshurun”.
JT They did not give Christ His place, but the second epistle would show that they were coming to it.
AFM “And they sit down at thy feet”. Is it like Mary as sitting at the Lord’s feet? Is the “thy” Moses or Christ?
JT The Spirit has Christ in view. The introduction of Christ explains many pronouns in the Old Testament. John uses pronouns referring to Christ as Man and passes on to speak of God by the use of the same pronouns without mentioning any names — showing how fully the Person was in his mind.