LEADERSHIP (4)
[p. 162] LEADERSHIP (4)
Numbers 3: 32; Numbers 4: 16; Numbers 16: 36 - 40; Numbers 19: 1 - 4
JT Eleazar is our subject this afternoon. Eleazar became high priest as his father died, but the passages read do not allude to him as high priest; his father is still living, so we have to consider him from the standpoint of being a feature of priesthood, not representing the whole idea. As recorded in Numbers 20, his father dies and he becomes high priest, and then, of course, he presents the priesthood fully and his service runs along with that of Moses and Joshua; but these passages contemplate him as subordinate. Yet a peculiar and essential feature of priesthood is worked out in him in this position, made clear from the meaning of his name, which is ‘the help of God’, or ‘God helps’. The more spiritual features of priesthood are seen in him applying first to the Levites as a whole; he is seen as “the prince of princes of the Levites” (Numbers 3: 32), alluding to his moral greatness. He is over certain things in chapter 4, “the oversight of the oil for the light, and the fragrant incense, and the continual oblation, and the anointing oil, — the oversight of the whole tabernacle, and of all that is therein, over the sanctuary, and over its furniture”. He is, therefore, a remarkable person as having to see to the most sacred and exalted things of God, in fact the whole tabernacle in which God dwells; and yet his father is living. We have to learn by these facts, and I hope we shall — how he represents a special service that enters into the service of God in the most sacred and precious way by affording ‘help’ always; as much as to say, we have the general thought, but we can always reckon on this influence which extends and expands as it goes on. The expression “prince of princes” reminds us at once of a personality, the word prince denoting that, adding to what already exists, adding dignity and greatness and glory, affording [p. 163] help always, never retarding the progress of the service of God. It may be remarked that Eleazar has very little place in Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy; his service is practically all in Numbers. That is, it is the movement side, the carrying side; the service goes on in spite of great obstacles and opposition, so that there is always the assurance of help, we can always reckon on it.
LES Would the principle seen in Hebrews 10: 9: “He takes away the first that he may establish the second”, apply here as to the first two sons being taken?
JT Yes; Nadab and Abihu suffer judgment according to Leviticus 10, and Eleazar comes into more responsibility there so that the weakened priesthood would be enhanced. The loss of these two would be felt, as the chapter teaches; Aaron and the other sons would feel the serious breakdown that had taken place. The chapter shows that the sin was divinely pressed home on them. Eleazar, as seen in Numbers, no doubt indicates the gain of the pressure and exercise. In him personality is brought out and priesthood is greatly enhanced.
CHH In Revelation 1: 5 the Lord is spoken of as “the prince of the kings of the earth”.
JT That is the idea. It is to be noted in Ezekiel in the person of David in view of millennial times.
AEH Is personality a matter connected with sovereignty, or is it a question of learning to adapt oneself to the society in which one lives?
JT In divine things it is developed in relation to God, that is, it begins with Jacob who was made weak by God. He was made strong first and proved his strength in wrestling with the angel and prevailing. He would not let the angel go until he blessed him; Jacob must have blessing, that is the principle of a prince. He has power with God and with men.
[p. 164] WL Would Eleazar be more on the moral side, whereas Aaron would suggest the official side in priesthood?
JT Yes, Aaron is the official priest. Eleazar is often called “the son of Aaron”. He comes in here in chapter 3 where the Levites are classified according to their services, where they are seen receiving their charges. “Prince of princes of the Levites” is a remarkable title.
GAT Why did you call our attention to the fact that his father was still alive?
JT Well, his service is not official. We are not dealing with him officially, but in what he is personally. It alludes in the antitype to the personality developed by the Spirit in the assembly. The presence of this element would secure blessing. I think God is showing us how it works out in meetings for fellowship and ministry; almost universally we get blessing.
CAM Does Romans 16 suggest this sort of priestly consideration? Those in that chapter are referred to as helpers and so on. The apostle cites a number who are carrying things, and they had help and were helps in their service.
JT Paul attested that certain were helpers of himself.
AR Do you mean to say the element of help is greater today than it was twenty-five years ago?
JT Well, I do not want to make it too personal in that way, but I think that in current meetings of the saints help from God is unfailing. There has been promotion of universal contact giving more scope to the Spirit, so that the Levites who can help, not simply those who go out to preach but those who can really help in the things of God, in divine teaching, are increasing. Surely God alone is to be thanked.
JTJr “There were many lights in the upper room” (Acts 20: 8). Would what you are saying suggest the upper room at [p. 165] Troas?
JT Yes. There were those present who represented the work of God through Paul in different sections; seven persons are mentioned who were products of his work from different parts. They were there with him and he is now speaking. Luke says, “We being assembled to break bread ... there were many lights in the upper room”. I think that is what is alluded to, the product of the work was there adding to the position. Their presence would add to Paul’s ministry — affording ‘help’.
JS Taking it as a type, are princely features being acquired?
JT I think so. The princely idea begins with Jacob who says, “I will not let thee go except thou bless me” (Genesis 32: 26). The determination that God approves of obtained the blessing.
Ques You could not have princeliness without having the whole tabernacle in view, could you? You have alluded to the past: at one time there were many special lists among the brethren, some for instance that only preached the gospel and had little regard for the whole tabernacle.
JT Yes. They declined certain other services, whereas Eleazar is over the whole system. He is “prince of princes of the Levites”, and then he has the oversight of the whole tabernacle system; so that he would see to it that the Levites attended to their service, which had the whole tabernacle in mind. Officially it would be his father’s matter, but moral power is suggested in Eleazar.
JD Referring to our brother’s point, Exodus 7: 1, 2 says, “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 [p. 166] that were over them that had been numbered, offered”. Would that be the idea of having in the present day the abstract thought of the whole tabernacle system and princes maintaining it?
JT Just so. These were princes of Israel, men of wealth in the sense of giving. The Levites had princes too, over which Eleazar was.
AB Chapter 3 suggests the persons: “he had the oversight of them that kept the charge of the sanctuary”. It seems to be more things in chapter 4 — the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, and so forth.
JT Well, the first thing is the persons as you say, “prince of princes of the Levites”. Eleazar had the oversight of them and they kept the charge of the sanctuary. In chapter 4 we have things, the oversight of the oil for the light alluding to the Spirit, to see that room is made for the Spirit; and the fragrant incense for God, and the continual oblation. These are the most precious things that he is over, included in “the oversight of the whole tabernacle, and of all that is therein, over the sanctuary, and over its furniture”. He, therefore, would influence all sections related to the service of God. He realises that he needs help, his name means ‘help of God’. You can reckon on that.
AB Would that be in mind in Hebrews 13: 7 where it says, “Remember your leaders”? The verse says, “taking courage, we may say, The Lord is my helper”, the principle of Eleazar carried forward.
JT Just so.
Ques According to Exodus 6, he comes in as a third of the four sons. Is there any point in that — being the third member in the family?
JT Well, the genealogy is given in view of Aaron and Moses. We have, “And Aaron took Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon, as wife; and she bore him Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar” (Exodus 6: 23). The third, you mean, would [p. 167] have a thought of something reached, as with Enoch, the seventh from Adam. His place is stressed in that sense. There is something reached and then the genealogy runs on, “And Eleazar Aaron’s son took one of the daughters of Putiel as wife; and she bore him Phinehas”. So that it is an outstanding line, a branch of Aaron’s family. Eleazar and Phinehas — God is, I think, calling attention in the records to these two men.
CHH Would the third chapter answer to Romans, and the fourth chapter to Colossians in the tabernacle system?
JT Well, I think the elevated character of the things mentioned would go further than those epistles — to Ephesians. The Levites would be in mind as in Romans in those who help. Colossians contemplates personality in the service, especially in prayer, so that Paul agonised for the Colossians although he had never seen them. They must have been helped through priestly intercession for them of the Eleazar character. And prayer is greatly stressed in Ephesians.
Rem There is a reference to Eleazar in 1 Chronicles 24: 4, “And there were more head-men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar, and thus were they divided”.
JT That is a good reference. The line is greatly stressed, especially through the son, Phinehas. Now we come to the personalities, first, those of the Levites; this element of priesthood we are considering takes special account of persons. We have the three families of the Levites enumerated; as we look at them we shall see how the persons come into evidence and what they have to do. They are all under Eleazar. Being a great personality himself he would have regard for other personalities, subordinates: for the princes of the Levites, and then for the whole family of the Levites. Then we have these precious things which are essential to our service. There would not be any want of light [p. 168] on a matter with this priestly element present, no rationing of the oil, plenty of room made for the Spirit as shedding light on things. One brother after another may speak and light is shed on the position. At Corinth the first thing about which Paul remonstrates with them involved leaders; each selected his own leader, Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc. Later he says, “Do ye not know that ye are the temple of God?” (1 Corinthians 3: 16). That is how things are solved — not by partisan influences.
APT In Acts 15 James says, “listen to me”. Would that be any help on this line? Would that bring light to bear on the present position?
JT Yes, and James would be a prince. He alludes to Peter, one may say, as a prince: “Simon has related”, he says, and now, “Listen to me”, and he cites David. That is, light is thrown in on the matter. “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” is the conclusion reached, Acts 15: 28. The letter written to the gentile believers brought the Spirit in — it involved the Spirit.
JD The result of it was that “it seemed good to the apostles and to the elders, with the whole assembly, to send chosen men from among them with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Judas called Barsabas and Silas, leading men among the brethren, having by their hand written thus” (Acts 15: 22, 23); a good result, showing a priestly administrative spirit.
JT I think that occasion in the Acts brought out the princes, men who acted nobly. Certain gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. They were pillars standing by the truth in a personal way. Victory was reached — for the truth and unity; so that the letter defeated the wicked one, and the Holy Spirit had part in it. “Our beloved Barnabas and Paul”. “Leading men among the brethren;” such are fine expressions.
AR There has been ministry of late about everything being done in the dignity of the anointing. Would that be Eleazar’s service? Whether a brother stands up to read the Scriptures, or whatever is done, the power of the anointing should be there.
JT I think that is good, everything should be by the anointing, adding to the dignity of the moment. The Lord stood up to read and another handed Him the book; He read by selection and sat down. The eyes of all that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him. Divine dignity was there.
AR That is the passage I was thinking of. It says, “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me”. Everything should take character from the Lord Jesus.
JT Quite so, He is anointed. I suppose that is the idea, that our meetings would all take on this feature of the priesthood. If we have difficulties and questions — what day we shall have our various meetings, and such matters — this feature of the priesthood enters into all that. It is not exactly what is commanded, but what priestly feelings would recognise as right and what is known to be advantageous. You can test what is proposed by experience.
GAT Would you say a word as to what the dignity of the anointing means to us?
JT It is the Spirit. “No one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”. That is the idea. That is 1 Corinthians 12: 3, and in that chapter the assembly itself is called “the Christ”, that is, the anointed vessel. Everyone is speaking in the Spirit.
JH Referring to these leading men among the brethren — Judas and Silas — it says in Acts 15: 25, 26, “it seemed good to us ... to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Were these men who were giving up their lives — Barnabas, Paul, Judas and Silas — [p. 170] princes?
JT I would take them all to be princes. The element represented in Eleazar would be especially seen in Paul in all that chapter. Paul and Titus were there (Galatians 2), and Paul said those at Jerusalem did not insist on Titus being circumcised. He was calling attention to the manifest expression of the work of God that was in Titus; he was a levitical prince that could not be excelled in Jerusalem. Why should they insist on circumcision? They did not do it because of the power that was in Titus. The spiritual power in the brother overcame the legal spirit, the Judaean spirit; that is what Eleazar would mean, the princely power among the brethren. You do not even need to quote a scripture, the power is there.
FNW Would there be the danger of the clerical principle intruding in relation to the oversight of the oil?
JT I think the clerical principle according to Galatians would grieve the Spirit and shut Him out. That is what the apostle is working against. The princes would all disappear if there is not room made for the Holy Spirit if the oil is ‘rationed’. The work of God among the gentiles is great, and there is Titus: you cannot bring forth one in Jerusalem more representative of the work of God than he. So that the brethren there did not insist that he should be circumcised.
Ques Is the reference in 1 Timothy, elders taking care of the assembly of God, on this level?
JT I think so. The suggestion is that one aspires to the position of an overseer, but then he must have the needed qualifications, and these would be princely.
LES Would Paul’s word to Timothy in the second epistle, “the same commit thou to faithful men”, bear on this in connection with the service of Zadok later on?
JT No doubt Zadok is a continuance of the line.
[p. 171] His sons will be the priests in the millennium — the princely time; that will be the time of princes.
FC Do you think that the word in Titus by Paul bears on this? He speaks of “the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour” (Titus 3: 6, 7); that is, the pouring out on us would emphasise this.
JT It is the lavishness of the Holy Spirit; plenty of it poured out.
Ques Did Peter act in a princely way when he went with the brethren to Cornelius? Was he not in princely power there? The Holy Spirit fell on those assembled; there was a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
JT Quite so, particularly when you come to Peter’s preaching. The Spirit fell on those who heard the word. I think it was heaven honouring them at the moment, the gentile being brought into the greatness already there. Peter would say, I recall what happened at Pentecost — the pouring out abundantly of the Holy Spirit, which “fell upon them even as upon us”.
JHE Even as Peter walked, his shadow would bring results; and napkins taken from Paul would bring results as having been in contact with him.
JT Paul had in mind in Ephesus (Acts 19), that the work should begin in a princely way. There were twelve men there, and he made inquiry, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” That is Eleazar, that is his service, the oversight of the oil for the light, and the fragrant incense, and the continual oblation, and the anointing oil. This inquiry was in accord with Eleazar’s service. It was not simply converts Paul was seeking, persons who simply confessed the Lord, but those who would take on princely character and qualities. Philip’s work in Samaria came short of that. The Samaritans were rejoicing in the light they had, but the oil awaited Peter and [p. 172] John.
AR If we understood this verse in chapter 4 would it deliver us from local or sectional practices? Eleazar is over the whole tabernacle system and thus what is done is universal in character.
JT Yes, there must be universality in things that are done. No local rules are to be brought in. Everything is to be in keeping with what is universal. I think that would enter into what we are saying.
AR There is no such thing as a parish assigned to a Levite, is there?
JT He stands related to the whole tabernacle system and Eleazar is over it, which means he is attending to the matter of the light and the Holy Spirit.
TWD Do you think that the scripture in the Song of Songs, “Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense”, would be an Eleazar feature? It says, “Who is this, she that cometh up from the wilderness?” (Song of Songs 3: 6). Is not that a Numbers’ setting?
JT It is. All the grime of the wilderness is out of sight. Eleazar tends to that so that we present ourselves aright in the assembly.
TS You mentioned the fact that Eleazar’s service was carried on when there was movement. Would that mean that it called for greater care and watchfulness?
JT Well, you can understand how the parts of the tabernacle would become damaged as they were being taken down and set up. The grime of the wilderness would have to be met. And so it is, “Who is this, she that cometh up from the wilderness?” She is attired suitably for Christ; He is supreme there. Not that they did not rest at times in the wilderness according to Numbers, but characteristically there was movement. It is remarkable that Eleazar’s service is almost wholly in the book of Numbers.
WL Is that why the priestly thought underlies what is levitical? Eleazar was the son of Aaron the priest, not the son of Aaron [p. 173] the Levite.
JT Well, that runs through. He was the third in the family, as remarked; the first two die, showing that the great burden of the exercise would develop him. I believe special priestly features are contemplated in Eleazar so that we have him presented in Numbers in this way. He must fill up the void; two are lost, and he and Ithamar were a sort of remnant idea, Aaron’s “sons that were left” (Leviticus 10: 12). The more you realise the remnant idea the more dependent you are on God and the more things are worked out in you. God helps you, that is, ‘Eleazar’. In addition to the anointing oil, there is “the oversight of the whole tabernacle and of all that is therein, over the sanctuary, and over its furniture;” so that provision is made for the Spirit and for other things as well.
WL Is this not especially necessary today, a remnant time?
JT It is, because, as you say, we are in remnant times; “the continual oblation”, the personality of Christ, to keep that in evidence. I believe that is one of the greatest things in this revival — that everything is attended to. The Lord is insisting that everything must be attended to that belongs to the tabernacle, and extraneous things must be refused.
HB Is that why the light is the first thing mentioned?
JT The light is the first thing. It is light from the oil, not from the letter of the Scripture, but from the oil.
AEH There seems to be an element of recovery in Eleazar’s service in chapter 16, recovering the censers out of the burning.
JT We are going on to that. This is a wonderful matter that we are dealing with, especially here, in that it comes in in connection with what was left of the priesthood. In Leviticus 10: 12 it says, “And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons that were left”. That is what I was thinking of, that applies to remnant times — what is left. Something has happened and the burden of all this is now on the third son. Of course Ithamar had his part, but Eleazar functioned in a much greater way. In Enoch’s time it was the seventh, but this is the third, I believe there is something in that. This is a turning point in Israel. Aaron’s services were more restricted after this. The priesthood had failed, but the great service committed to Eleazar indicates that he gained through the sorrow.
Rem It is easy to see that as the Eleazar side of the service is functioning there will be more for God in the service of the sanctuary.
JT That is what I was thinking. God has been helping us for many years, even in the times of the revival, in stressing the oil, that is, the Holy Spirit. It is largely a question if there is anything good; we must carry on only what is according to the Scripture; we must make room for the Spirit. There is insistence on the recovery of the truth of the Spirit. “Do you not know that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” Let us work on those lines. That is what Eleazar would insist on. So the apostle insists on the Spirit in 1 Corinthians.
WL Does it suggest, too, that there need be no let-down even in remnant times?
JT That is the idea in those “that are left”. Eleazar would insist on the oil for the light, and the fragrant incense, something for the nostrils of God. Exodus lays down what these things are, but Eleazar would insist on their use in the service.
AM Acts 8 says there were believers in Samaria, but the apostles had to go there and pray before they received the Holy Spirit.
JT Yes. At Ephesus Paul attended to that himself, he made it the first thing. He inquires, What about the [p. 175] Spirit? The disciples of John had certain light, but he says, “Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye had believed?” (Acts 19: 2). They say, We did not hear about Him. The Eleazar service had been absent and Paul brought the truth in, and the light, making way for the oil: so that they got the Spirit. The matter was settled there, but at Samaria Philip did not settle it; he did not raise that question. Many evangelists — so-called — have neglected that side; the Glanton exercise in result stressed that side of the matter; since then the Lord has specially helped us to make room for the Spirit.
LES The insistence on the Spirit in Revelation 2 and 3 would be basic in regard of the recovery, would it not? It is what the Spirit says to the assemblies.
JT Room is made for the Spirit and He is speaking. If room is made for Him, He will be speaking. Our brother raises the question of Samaria: why did not Philip mention the Spirit? He did not, and in the interim before the Spirit was given, the oil brought in, Simon Magus acquired a place, a big man after the flesh; and when the Spirit was given he suggested that it could be bought with money. He perverted the truth, whereas the Spirit coming in would have shut out this man altogether. Peter says, “Thy money go with thee to destruction” (Acts 8: 20). It is a question of refusing what is extraneous to the position.
JTJr Would there be a similar matter in the room made for Tobijah in Nehemiah 13? Instead of making room for the Spirit as a priest should, Eliashib made room for Tobijah.
JT Quite so, that is a good reference. The priest’s business should be looking out for the Spirit and making room for Him.
JHE What does John mean when he says, “try the spirits”? Is there a possibility that other spirits may seek to take the place of the Holy [p. 176] Spirit?
JT Clearly. So Paul gives you tests and so does John. He indicates what marks the Spirit of God, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God” (1 John 4: 1, 2). That is his test. Paul says, “no one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12: 3). That is a severe test. There is hardly time for much more, but this is a wonderful passage, this matter of the oil for the light, the fragrant incense, and the continual oblation. Eleazar would insist on the personality of Jesus: that is the oblation before God, “Jesus Christ come in flesh” — that is the meat offering.
JS Paul says in 2 Timothy, “But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus”. Does that apply?
JT Just so. The fact is his whole service is marked by this Eleazar spirit, looking after things for God, the most precious things cared for. And the anointing oil is distinct from the oil for the light. Oil for light is one thing, but oil for anointing is another. It is the Spirit in both cases, but the anointing is outward dignity.
CAM Did I understand you to say that the oil for the light refers to the ministry? It is like a candlestick throwing light on the greatness of Christ.
JT Quite so.
JWD Whereas in regard to the oblation, oil and fragrant incense would be connected with that. What would you say about that?
JT Well, the oblation would imply all that. Eleazar would see to all that. The incense also accompanied the lighting of the lamps. The oblation refers to Christ, His personality, whether here in the flesh,
[p. 177] or in the forty days, or as He is now. And then it is oversight of “the whole tabernacle, and of all that is therein, over the sanctuary, and over its furniture”. Nothing is left out of all that pertains to the tabernacle. The priests “that were left” applies to our own times, remnant times. Thus there are those who can attend to all these matters.
Then going on to chapter 16, we have a very interesting bit of service as to the censers that Korah and his company had used. “And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning; and scatter the fire afar; for they are hallowed, the censers of these sinners who have forfeited their life; and they shall make them into broad plates for the covering of the altar; for they presented them before Jehovah, therefore they are hallowed; and they shall be a sign unto the children of Israel. And Eleazar the priest took the copper censers, which they that were burnt had presented; and they were made broad plates for a covering of the altar; as a memorial to the children of Israel, that no stranger who is not of the seed of Aaron come near to burn incense before Jehovah, that he be not as Korah, and as his band, — as Jehovah had said to him through Moses” (verses 36 - 40). I think it is a most remarkable service. It applies peculiarly to our own times because this rebellion of Korah and his band is christendom; it is rebellion against Christ as the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. What they used in their opposition was in itself right, the things were hallowed and used, and not to be forfeited. Their lives were forfeited because of their rebellion, but it brings out that right things do not lose their rightness by being used by alien hands. What is of God is to be gathered and secured as witness. However it has been used in christendom, whatever is of God must be maintained all down through the ages. It is to be [p. 178] gathered and secured. So that I think this remarkable testimony should be among us. We should never allow clericalism among us, but whatever of God that has been used by it should be preserved.
JH In what way do you say the censers were hallowed?
JT Well, they were hallowed in that they were used. The fact of the matter is, the truth has been carried on in these hands; it has not lost, the truth is the truth, the Bible is the Bible. Many things that have been used in a lawless way will not lose their value, as in themselves of God they retain their value. The spirit of Eleazar will see that they are not lost, but brought in and used at the altar.
JH What do you say about these 250 men being princes of the assembly?
JT Their princely position, no doubt, led them to believe they could join successfully in Korah’s band against Moses and Aaron. Being princes, “men of renown”, they had distinction and lent great weight to the rebellion. In the history of the assembly, especially at the outset of general clerical leadership in which Christ’s authority and the presence among the saints of the Holy Spirit were, in principle at least, set aside, this movement was seen in antitype. That is not what the early leaders among the saints were like. “Remember your leaders”, we are told, but they were not like that. But the subsequent leaders are described in Acts 20: 30, “from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them”. They turned away and rebelled against the truth. These censers were hallowed as in use. In christendom up to the time of the revival it was not, in some sense, open apostasy; there was something in it. The point here is that the censers are gathered up and used as a testimony for all time against lawlessness.
[p. 179] Ques Would you on that principle accept the baptism performed by a clergyman?
JT I should indeed, even if it is by a Roman Catholic priest — assuming that the words employed were expressive of the truth.
Rem Balaam used the altar and rams and bullocks in connection with Balak’s desires, but the things were right in themselves.
JT The most beautiful prophecies came from a man who said he would never see the Lord. What he said God caused him to say.
AR These censers were moulded together into broad plates. It was apparently in view of keeping persons from coming near to the altar.
JT That is, that Korah’s conduct should never be repeated. “That no stranger who is not of the seed of Aaron come near to burn incense before Jehovah”. Antitypically this means that no one who has not the Holy Spirit should serve as priest.
GD Was there an attempt on the part of king Uzziah to do what Korah had done when he went into the sanctuary to burn incense and was stopped by the priests?
JT Yes, that was the sort of thing. It was one who was not a priest. These men were not priests; they were Levites, just men having to teach or to preach and they presumed to act as priests. Such men become trained at schools and colleges, become ‘ordained’, acquire a ‘flock’ and act as priests. Many of them have not the Spirit of God. That is exactly what marks christendom. Such a man acting in the office of a priest is setting aside the apostleship and priesthood of Christ and the Spirit of God.
JHE In going out of Egypt God allowed the children of Israel to take things with them that were used in the tabernacle. They were right things, were they [p. 180] not?
JT Utensils — silver and gold; and so in Jericho the metals were preserved. These were not gifted men really, but they based their claim on that; they claimed the priesthood, the position of Aaron. So that christendom is full of priests. The clergy generally are called priests. But they set aside the true priesthood — believers who have the Spirit. Believers are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 2: 5.
AR In the days of Uzziah the priests burned incense before God on the altar, and they would allow none other to do so. Would that be an Eleazar feature?
JT Exactly. They were very bold too; they forced the king out. Indeed he left himself. His evil was exposed to himself, which is important.
JD The point comes out in Numbers 16: 40 that the broad plates were made “as a memorial to the children of Israel”. The divine idea of representation is kept up and this is a witness of God’s judgment.
JT Upon any who would act as Korah did. We have had that sort of thing since the revival; the movement in Plymouth involved clericalism, and the leader morally under the sure government of God suffered. God does not change His mind about things in the remnant.
Now a word about chapter 19, the red heifer, something that you might expect to fit in under this service: that is, the wilderness and how it is met in Christ. Christ was different from men in this world, manifestly different. The colour undoubtedly has an allusion to that. “And Jehovah spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, This is the statute of the law which Jehovah hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without blemish, wherein is no defect, and upon which never came yoke; and ye shall give it to Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring it outside the camp, and one [p. 181] shall slaughter it before him. And Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and shall sprinkle of its blood directly before the tent of meeting seven times. And one shall burn the heifer before his eyes; its skin and its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall he burn” (Numbers 19: 1 - 5). It is a subjective allusion because it is a heifer, a female. It is a question of the state of the saints, and Eleazar would deal with that in bringing in and enforcing the death of Christ as it is viewed in this remarkable type; an unusual type, not only because it is a female, but because of the unusual colour — red.
CAM The altar is not stressed here.
JT It is not mentioned. The provision here is for the saints rather than for God. However, God’s claims are recognised in the sprinkled blood. “Eleazar the priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and shall sprinkle of its blood directly before the tent of meeting seven times”. It is a question of keeping the relations of the people right with God; it is the tent of meeting, not the altar. The whole position would be affected by worldliness in the people — defilement through contact with a dead person. It is no question of doctrine now or of open lawlessness as in chapter 16; but of uncleanness through touching the dead body of a man. The heifer is a subjective idea, it suggests the need of a state suitable to God. The water of purification is provided in this remarkable way and if one becomes unclean as stated, and fails to purify himself as prescribed, his case is most serious — “that soul shall be cut off from Israel”.
FNW Would Eleazar’s service seen here link with Micah 6: 4, 5 — Eleazar acting in relation to worldly principles?
JT It would. That was the kind of thing that was dealt with after Balaam’s prophecy, after the great light that came in through Balaam. Micah 6: 5 says, “My people, remember now what [p. 182] Balak king of Moab consulted, and what Balaam the son of Beor answered him, from Shittim unto Gilgal, that ye may know the righteousness of Jehovah”. ‘Righteousnesses’ is really the word, it is plural. It is how God came in in relation to Balaam and Balak when it was in mind to corrupt the people through Balaam’s counsel. God answers him and overthrows this principle of worldliness, of mixing with others, of mixed marriages and social links: “that ye may know the righteousness of Jehovah”. This would enter into the service of Eleazar here in meeting the state of worldliness by this remarkable type of Christ — the red heifer, alluding to the subjective condition of the saints. There is a means of cleansing set there permanently in the ashes of the heifer with the running water; that is the means of cleansing, and unforgivable aggravation of the evil is in the refusal to use it. “That soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation, for he hath defiled the sanctuary of Jehovah: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled on him”. There are two periods mentioned, three days and seven days, verse 12. We alluded to three in connection with Eleazar, but here it requires seven also; seven is the complete exercise. It is a subjective matter, and if one is defiled through evil associations he has to go through solemn exercises before God, judging the state involved, as feeling it, for seven days. He must purify himself with the water of separation on the third day and on the seventh day.
AEH We hear it said sometimes that we cannot deal with state, we can only deal with overt acts that are the result of state. But what you are suggesting is that the person involved does deal with the state.
JT He does. The person that is defiled has to deal with it, and if he does not he is cut off. That is the point in this chapter. The death of Christ as attested in the fullest priestly way — in the power of the [p. 183] Spirit — is available, and one who is unclean and fails to use it must be cut off. It is most solemn.
JS This all emphasises the uniqueness of Christ.
JT Yes, there is no one like Him. How manifestly different from men of this world He is!
GD Would that come into the Lord’s prayer in John 17 as He takes account of the saints as not of this world, though in it?
JT Just so. He says, with the deepest feeling, “Righteous Father, — and the world has not known thee” (John 17: 25). The Lord felt that. So John says in his first epistle, “Love not the world, nor the things in the world ... all that is in the world ... is not of the Father” (1 John 2: 15, 16).
JD Would John seek to touch the feelings of the saints to draw them to Christ when he says, “This is he that came by water and blood?” Would that have in view the appreciation of Christ in this character?
JT Quite so. John saw the blood and water flow from the side of the Saviour and the Spirit bears witness. All that would be, so to speak, Eleazar’s part. Eleazar, as a type, enters much into John’s ministry.
JH Another distinctive feature is, “upon which never came yoke”. What do you say about that?
JT That would mean that Christ never came under the yoke of men or the world: He never came under adverse influence. He was infinitely free for the maintenance of the will of God; always doing the things that are pleasing to the Father, (John 8: 29).
HB Hebrews says, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners”.
JT That is right, “Such a high priest became us” (Hebrews 7: 26).