"WE HAVE AN ALTAR" (5)
“WE HAVE AN ALTAR” (5)
Exodus 20: 22 - 26; Exodus 27: 1 - 8; Leviticus 8: 11
JT It was made clear that the two altars Moses made of his own volition, had to do with the ministerial side of our position — how the servant worships in relation to his service and its results.
This afternoon we may see that God is now putting forth His claim in regard of the altar. In connection with it there is the assertion of the rights of His love in the covenant. He puts in these requirements so that that love should be regarded and responded to by the saints themselves. The word is to them. “Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: Ye have seen that I have spoken with you from the heavens. Ye shall not make beside, me gods of silver, and ye shall not make to you gods of gold. An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me ...” God had asserted His rights in love in the early part of the chapter. He speaks of the thousands of those who love Him, at the beginning of the chapter, and He wants to retain those thousands, and add to them. They are to be preserved according to the requirements of love.
WM Why do you think the altar of earth is obligatory and the altar of stone is conditional?
JT The first is imperative; there is no worship at all according to God without that. The other is contingent on state or ability. It is a question of whether there is ability, but the altar of earth preserves us in our relations with God.
WM Even if we are not equal to the stone altar.
JT We shall see that — the stone altar is something within our reach, but the altar of earth is imperative. God is not leaving it to us now as to what we shall do. He has already those who love Him. The book of Genesis shows that there are always lovers of God; the book of Exodus formally owns this and is to conserve [p. 408] what there is, however small, and add to it, and maintain it in relation to God according to His own terms. God speaks of the thousands of those who love Him; not those that ought to love Him, but those who do. You have that here, they are what God has in His mind; they are the apple of His eye. So that He prescribes here the kinds of altars that He requires.
ANW Why do you suppose that so much of this chapter is unknown to men, whereas other parts of it are known pretty generally? The first part is generally known.
JT Yes. The young man who came out and kneeled down to the Lord knew these commandments, and even assumed to have kept them. He did not understand the second part — what relates to the altars.
ANW Quite. He was not approaching with his altar of earth.
WM He had a god of gold!
JT He kneeled down. He was an attitudinarian. He was agile in running into the way and as agile in leaving because of the test. He did not accept the idea of the altar of earth. That is to say, Christ is the altar — it is the incarnation, Christ as Man.
ANW I wonder, too, whether he was not approaching by the steps and thus was exposed?
JT Quite so. He did not have any appreciation of Christ really, although he appeared to make much of Him — calling Him “Good Master”, but he did not understand the incarnation.
WM Do you look upon the altar of earth as referring to the incarnation?
JT Yes, Christ as Man. So is the altar of stone; it is the same thought carried on into permanency, into resurrection.
Ques Does the altar of earth involve our disappearance?
JT Yes, through the sacrifice of Christ. He came by water and blood. He came to die.
[p. 409] Ques What would you say of Naaman asking for “two mules’ burden of this earth”, 2 Kings 5: 17?
JT That is the earth that Elisha had stood on, not Syrian earth. We have to discriminate as to what is meant. The Lord Jesus is unique; there is no other like Him. His is a humanity of its own kind.
WM Although He came into earthly conditions, it was this earth — His own unique flesh.
APT What gospel would bring that out?
JT Luke particularly; he sets out the Lord’s identification with man. You get it from the very beginning. The children being in flesh and blood He took part in the same (Hebrews 2: 14).
Ques Do you discriminate between Adam as earth, and the Lord’s humanity?
JT Adam was the ordinary. What our brother alludes to in 2 Kings is “this earth”. It gives it a distinction.
WM Do you not think that the thief on the cross was enlightened as to the humanity of Christ?
JT Yes, I do.
WM That was the altar of earth.
JT That is right. “This man has done nothing amiss”, Luke 23: 41. There was no such Man as that before, and his eyes were opened to that. Again, the centurion says, “Certainly this was a righteous man”, Luke 23: 47. In Luke he does not call Him the Son of God, but a righteous Man — the kind of Man He was. “Wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born shall be called Son of God” (Luke 1: 35); not the Person but the thing — the holy thing — that is substantial. Holiness in Him was substantial; not merely external, as babes of christians are; they are holy, too, but only relatively, not substantially. There was never a substantially holy babe before. That has to be understood in this; it is written for us. Moses would not understand, perhaps; but it is written for [p. 410] us, for those who understand the gospel of Luke. It is a divine requirement now.
GMcP Luke enlarges on the peace-offerings, so that we have the peace-offering and the burnt-offering. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men”, Luke 2: 14.
JT It will be well for us to keep in mind that God has the thousands of those that love Him. They are to worship in spirit and in truth. The epistle of John brings out those that love God, but we are in danger of turning to idols nevertheless. This altar would keep us from turning away from God.
Ques Did Moses in the seventeenth chapter build this kind of altar?
JT We are not told. The earlier altars are left to the builders in that sense, but now God is stating what He requires. He has thousands of those that love Him, and He indicates the line on which they are to be kept. There is always the danger of idolatry. God’s love has come to light, and we may be sure that the enemy would do all to turn His people away from Him. The practical thing is that we are among the thousands of those that love God and He wishes us to continue in that, and if we are to continue in it, we must have this altar.
WM How do you connect continuance with the altar?
JT It preserves the kind of humanity that is according to God. We get confirmation in the letters to Corinth. The apostle stresses the kind of Man Christ was. “For other foundation can no man lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”, 1 Corinthians 3: 11. It is not the Son of God there, but “Jesus Christ” — the kind of Man. The Corinthians were not going on with that Man. Earlier he said that he determined to know nothing among them, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Here he says, “Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry”, 1 Corinthians 10: 14. We are in danger of it. We [p. 411] are always in danger of it, and the corrective and preservative for us is the kind of Man that came out in Christ.
Ques Do we get the idea in Peter: “for Christ also has suffered for you, leaving you a model that ye should follow in his steps”, 1 Peter 2: 21.
JT We are sanctified “unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”, 1 Peter 1: 2.
WM Is it not more the order of the Man than the character?
JT Yes, the order; of course this is proved in what came out in Him.
Rem The second Man out of heaven.
JT That leads us further, although in keeping with what we are saying.
ANW It would involve the exposure of the kind of man I am. Does that go with it?
JT It does. The early part of the chapter is the assertion of God’s rights, and in that assertion, the prohibition of all that is contrary — prohibition in the ten words. The ten words judge the man in the flesh: “for by law is knowledge of sin”, Romans 3: 20. It is characteristic. “But the commandment having come, sin revived, but I died” (Romans 7: 9); the commandment is the tenth. He was slain by the commandment.
WM Is it not rather remarkable that the ten prohibitions, when viewed spiritually, characterise those that love God?
JT They do. The Lord abridges them. He says: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy understanding. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law and the prophets hang”, Matthew 22: 37 - 40. So that you can see what is in mind in this chapter.
WM That is another way of looking at it. Would [p. 412] you say that the order of Christ’s manhood is hidden in those ten prohibitions?
JT I think so. You might say to Jehovah, You have talked about these thousands who love you. Where are they? But God says, I will give you an example of one person, and that is in the next chapter. The Hebrew slave is the first man that says, “I love”. Look at what he does. God sets out His lovers in Christ. Christ is the great Model of the lovers of God. That is chapter 21, and that model is worked out in chapters 21, 22, and 23, the idea of love in the most difficult circumstances. Love is worked out in those chapters.
AHP Would there be any correspondence between the altar of earth and “Jesus Christ come in flesh”, 1 John 4: 2? We are told in the second epistle of John that there would be many that would deny that.
JT Quite so. “Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God”. That is the test — what He is in flesh. John speaks of Him coming in flesh, Luke speaks of Him born, “that holy thing”. We get the full thought of His humanity in Luke.
WM Would the thought of “Jesus Christ come in flesh”, carry you back to His origin?
JT It is really an assertion of His deity. From John’s point of view, the incarnation is an act of His own, but Luke has: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee”, Luke 1: 35. It is the act of God. It is the human side here — obedience; growing up as a tender plant, so that you get every view of humanity in Him — humanity in all its steps in infinite perfection.
GMcP He emphasises the Man Christ Jesus.
JT Well, that is the first thing here, and I believe the Lord would especially stress the idea of lovers of God — do we belong to them? God is conserving them. He is jealous of them that there should be no turning aside from Him. He says: “Ye have seen that I have spoken with you from the heavens”. Elsewhere He says: “ye heard the voice of the words, but ye saw no form”, Deuteronomy 4: 12. In this sense they were brought into a faith system; although it was not properly the time of faith. But Hebrews 11 shows that the lovers of God always had faith.
ANW Why are those two verses addressed in the plural? The rest of the chapter is “thou”.
JT All these verses are addressed to the people really. I think it is not so much Moses as in chapter 25. You will find in the first part of that chapter that the people are to make a dwelling; they are even to make an ark, but otherwise all the way through it is “thou”, that is Moses. You scarcely ever get the plural in the first part of the section giving the instructions for the sanctuary. It is all put on Moses; but when you come to the making of the parts you get the plural, meaning Bezaleel and others, all wise-hearted people. We have much recurrence of the words “he made”, referring to Bezaleel. But here (chapter 20: 22) the word is directly to the people. There is not much difference between the “ye” and the “thou”, save where the latter applies specifically to Moses or any particular person. In this God is dealing with the people expressly in view of idolatry, lest their hearts be turned aside. We know what they did later, according to chapter 32; it was there that the people turned aside. Aaron made the calf, but at their instigation.
WM It is the responsible side.
JT It is. Moses would take it to himself, but it is a general word from God to the people.
WM What would you say about: “in all places where I shall make my name to be remembered, I will come unto thee, and bless thee”?
JT That keeps God before them, as it were, in freshness. Israel was not to have one appearing to Moses, and then a long period in which they would have to live on words, on what had been done or said. It applies to christianity, for christianity is maintained [p. 414] in life by divine appearings, or comings. “I will come unto thee, and bless thee”. It makes christianity a living thing, for it is christianity that is in mind here. Wherever God is, where His name is caused to be remembered, there He comes, and there He blesses His people; it makes christianity what cannot be claimed by any other religion; it is living, made so, of course, by the continual presence of the Spirit, but also by divine appearings, by the Lord’s continuous comings.
WM So that saints do not choose the place where God is to be remembered.
JT He chooses it, He keeps matters in hand. He has a sharp look-out for those who love Him lest they turn to idolatry. His presence is a rebuke to idolatry.
GMcP Would Matthew 18 fit in here, where He speaks of two or three coming together and He being in the midst of them?
JT Matthew does not speak of coming. The Lord says: “And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”, Matthew 28: 20. That is a great general thought. Matthew does not speak of the Lord coming to us, but John does. That was not anything new, because it was His way during His life down on earth, to come in and out among the brethren. He inaugurated that principle. “The Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John” (Acts 1: 21), meaning from the beginning. He continues that in a spiritual way. There was public ministry until He was received up into heaven. It maintains us in freshness, for every time He comes it checks any tendency towards idolatry.
APT The Lord says: “If ye love me, keep my commandments”, John 14: 15. Is that the responsible side? The privilege side comes in later when He says “He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me” (verse 21). Is that the way it works?
JT The way the matter stands in John 14 is: “If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will beg [p. 415] the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him nor know him; but ye know him, for he abides with you, and shall be in you”. That is a divine Person. He is to come and stay. He does not come and go. The Holy Spirit is here during the dispensation, but it is on the principle of our keeping the Lord’s commandments, as loving Him. The Lord says that the world does not see Him nor know Him. He shows that the world is unable to see Him or know Him, but yet we see Him. “For he abides with you, and shall be in you”. Then He says to them: “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you” (verse 18). That is additional. The Holy Spirit is to come, to remain, which would be in accord with Matthew. He remains with us. But the Lord says, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”. That is another thing. Judas says: “Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us and not to the world?” That is the question. That requires spirituality; it cannot be understood by the natural mind. One can understand the Holy Spirit coming down and staying, but how will the Lord come? “I am coming to you”. Not for you, but to you; that means that according to the appointed time we are to stay here. That is the position in John; we are to be here as lovers of Christ, the Holy Spirit with us, and the Lord will add to that. He will not leave us orphans, because the Holy Spirit cannot take the place of Christ in the sense of actual relationship with us, in the sense of parental care. It requires a Person, known among the disciples as Christ was. He says: “He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; but he that loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him”. It is a question of love. The link right through is love.
ANW Would you carry the thought just one step further, “and we will come”?
JT The next thing is Judas’ question, how He was to manifest Himself to them and not to the world. So He says: “If any one love me, he will keep my word”. By the keeping of the “word”, I believe He means tabernacle conditions, and hence the Father and Son are free to come. It affords conditions for divine Persons.
FI Would that be connected more with the altar of stone than with the altar of earth?
JT John 14 is a question of Christ risen. It is more the altar of stone.
FI I thought “He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me”, would suggest the idea of intelligence and desire so that the altar of stone is built although not demanded.
JT Yes. It is if; the “if” implies that God is making allowance for small stature among us. We are not unchristianised, nor unchurched by the absence of it — we are still owned. “And if thou make me an altar of stone ...” It is a question of whether you can do it. If you can, do not let a human tool come upon it. Do not let the natural man in it at all. It is Christ risen.
WM It is seen in Colossians.
JT It is a question of being risen with Christ. “In which ye have been also raised with him through faith of the working of God who raised him from among the dead”, Colossians 2: 12. It is thus a question of the power of God.
WM And in Colossians Christ is everything.
JT Colossians is the prohibition of the human tools and steps.
Ques Why do you think that the altar of earth is unconditional but the altar of stone is conditional?
JT It is just what we have been saying, the altar of earth is imperative — it must be, otherwise you are not on christian ground at all.
Rem Yes, but you said the one is Christ in incarnation and the other is Christ in [p. 417] resurrection.
JT But God accepts us as on christian ground even while we are still in flesh and blood. We are not risen in Romans nor are we said to be risen with Christ in Corinthians, but in Colossians we are risen. We are said to be risen “through faith of the working of God”, but we may not all be able to take that ground; God however does not unchristianise us because of that, nor does He prohibit our worship. But if you go on to Colossians He is the more pleased. We are however to see to it that no human tools are employed upon it and that we do not go up to it by steps. Human innovation is always a danger.
Ques. Like creeds?
JT That would be the expansion of it. Public christendom now is a sorrowful testimony to the wholesale disregard of these instructions.
WM What of the altar on the wilderness side of Jordan?
JT It was an altar of “grand appearance”, for which there was no divine warrant. It was testimony on the part of the people who did not enter the land that they did not wish to go in, but would retain a title there. God does not care for that; He is insisting here on two kinds of altars, an altar of earth and an altar of stone, and He is refusing any human innovation. If there be an altar of stone, there must be no addition to it.
JWD Why do you think that we do not all move on to the idea of the altar of stone?
JT It is a question of spirituality. I suppose in most of our meetings we scarcely ever get on to the altar of stone. It is a question of being “raised with him through faith of the working of God”. That is to say, I believe that as Christ has been raised by the power of God I am raised, too. It is only a question of time. It can be thus laid hold of in assembly as God’s mind for us. I take that ground. It is not merely theory, but faith. Besides being raised, we are said to [p. 418] be quickened in Colossians. This is not said to be by faith; it is actual.
SMcC In chapter 32 they prefer something carefully chiselled — the golden calf — which would stand in contrast to this. It was carefully fashioned with a chisel.
JT That is very striking. It is remarkable how God uses what He has set in His creation as a language. The word earth, an altar of earth, spiritually understood as acceptable to God could only be Christ. It could not be Adam. We arrive at the truth at times by the principle of elimination. It could not be Adam nor any child of Adam. What God accepted on that principle could only be Christ, and Luke gives us that.
ANW The altar of earth is enhanced by what is placed on it. Not so the altar of stone.
JT Yes. “And shalt sacrifice on it thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen”.
ANW I was thinking that the altar of earth was outwardly of very mean appearance.
JT That is the thought — a contrast to all the great things men have built up for show. The altar of earth is obscurity here, littleness. The altar of stone spiritually is out of sight; it is Christ apprehended as risen from the dead. It means permanency. Stone in Scripture in this sense is permanency; it abides.
APT Would Peter’s confession of the Lord fit in with the idea; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”, Matthew 16: 16?
JT It would. There were both altars included in that. The Christ is what He was, anointed by God. The Son of the living God is what He is declared to be by resurrection; He is declared to be that. Faith is based on the declaration, but Peter had both these thoughts by revelation of the Father.
APT Romans 1 gives you that. It sets you on a firm footing.
Ques What is the difference between “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1: 26), and the Lord Jesus as “image of the invisible God”, Colossians 1: 15?
JT The word “likeness” was added in Genesis, but it was never applied to Christ. He was always the image. He is representative of all that the invisible God is. He is representative of that here.
Ques Was that ever seen in Adam except in figure?
JT He was made after God, after His likeness. There was a limited representation of God; Christ is this infinitely. I think what has been said about the altar of earth, practically, is that our worship is small, there is nothing showy about it. It is the humanity of Christ. We approach on that line, through Him, through Christ, once known here in obscurity, and put to death. But then there is the further thought of what He is in resurrection. That is, that Man died, but He is in a new and permanent condition now. He is raised by the glory of the Father. Peter says: “who has raised him from among the dead and given him glory, that your faith and hope should be in God”, 1 Peter 1: 21. We are brought into a realm of spirituality, a realm of faith where we see things that men do not see, and we are content with that. All that is hidden; Colossians is what is hidden. It is not in public view. The danger was “philosophy and vain deceit”, but faith sees no need for any addition. All the fulness of the Godhead is in Christ and we are filled full in Him towards God. Man does not see it at all. A person coming into one of our meetings may say, “God is among you”, but he does not apprehend what we have in our position God-ward.
FI Would the altar of stone be that which would take us from wilderness conditions to the other side, or is the altar of stone on the other side of Jordan?
JT Yes. That is where it belongs. Christ risen is over Jordan. Joshua built “an altar of whole stones,
[p. 420] over which iron had not been lifted up”, Joshua 8: 31.
Ques Going back to the altar of earth, does that extend to the question of fellowship? Are we obligated as christians to put our hand to all the responsibilities connected with fellowship?
JT Yes. The Lord’s supper is publicly a dead Christ; that is our solemn position, involving fellowship. We show the Lord’s death till He come. But the altar of stone is beyond that; it is Christ risen; thus we know Him in the assembly.
ANW So that while the altar of earth is small, it is seen, whereas the altar of stone is hidden.
JT That is right. It is out of view of the natural mind. The Lord says, “The world sees me no longer; but ye see me; because I live ye also shall live”. We are identified with what is poor and despicable. Look at Him on the cross, suffering the jeers of His enemies, and He went down into the grave. They did not see Him in resurrection. What He is as risen is a matter of faith, apprehended and realised by the Spirit.
EGMcA Do we get an illustration of that in the altar, “To the unknown God. Whom therefore ye reverence, not knowing him, him I announce to you”, Acts 17: 23? And then he brings in the resurrection, the altar of stone.
JT Yes. It says, “he announced the glad tidings of Jesus and the resurrection to them”, Acts 17: 18. The Greeks came up to see Him, saying, “we desire to see Jesus”, John 12: 21. That was intelligible to the Greek; but the Son of God — they cannot go that length.
FI I should like to ask a question in regard to the dead Christ. Do we at the supper remember a dead Christ?
JT No. His death is before us; we appropriate it — feed on it. But we remember Him, the living One who is absent. It is not at all the idea of [p. 421] remembering a dead Christ.
FI The public side is a dead Christ.
JT That Man died. “Jesus Christ, and him crucified”, 1 Corinthians 2: 2.
WM We do not remember His death, we remember Him.
JT We remember the absent One — the Person. The eating of the bread and drinking of the cup by the saints is a testimony; it shows the Lord’s death till He come. God thus maintains testimony to the world’s crime. Identification with Christ as put to death here marks our fellowship.
Ques Is the altar of earth provisional?
JT Yes. The Lord Jesus became flesh and blood provisionally, not to stay in that condition. It refers to the days of His humiliation, what He was as humbled here, and that Man died; that is what we are identified with. Any one could see this testimony at Corinth. I have often pictured to myself the Jewish synagogue, the heathen temple, and the meeting room of the christians. A man comes into the latter after being at the other two. What does he see there? What altar have they? It is seen in the Lord’s supper. Paul’s ministry there stressed this — Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The incomer may not understand, but nevertheless there it is. It is a testimony. But beyond that view, there is this other thing, the wholly spiritual side of the position — Christ in resurrection; God is approached and worshipped on that line also. We get into association with a risen, living Christ.
Ques What would answer to the steps today?
JT It is, I suppose, approaching God in a humanly convenient way. By this we are exposed.
WM In connection with the altar of stone, there are no directions given as to what offerings are to be offered.
JT Just so. It seems to indicate the kind of service we shall be engaged with eternally: “to him be glory in [p. 422] the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3: 21.
Rem It is Himself. The burnt-offering and peace-offering suggest what He has done, but the altar of stone may suggest Himself.
JT The altar of earth does, too, but Himself in the lowly condition, here, the conditions in which He died. But the altar of stone is His permanent condition, what He is and ever will be. What He was in the early chapters of the Acts, He will be for ever.
AHP “The stone which the builders cast away as worthless, this is become head of the corner”, 1 Peter 2: 7.
Ques What is the difference between the altar of stone and of acacia-wood?
JT That is another thing and which brings us to our next scripture, chapter 27. “And thou shalt make the altar of acacia-wood, five cubits the length, and five cubits the breadth; the altar shall be square; and the height thereof three cubits”. This is Christ as bearing the judgment. It is the bearing power of the Lord, not now His humiliation, but the moral power He has to sustain even the very judgment of God to its utmost extent. That is another view of the humanity of Christ. “And he went out, bearing his cross”, John 19: 17. He is able to do that. “Who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree ...”, 1 Peter 2: 24. It is His bearing power. The acacia-wood is supposed to have the greatest strength of any wood.
SMcC Would there be a suggestion in Psalm 78: 61, “And gave his strength into captivity, and his glory into the hand of the oppressor”? The strength that marked Him in Gethsemane.
JT Quite. It is Christ as the ark.
Rem The glory is the gold that overlaid it.
JT Yes.
Rem Here the altar is overlaid with brass, or copper.
JT The acacia-wood was in both the ark and [p. 423] the altar. The same idea is in the ark of the covenant, covered over with gold — bearing the testimony before men; all that God is was sustained there in a Man. But in the altar all that God is against sin was sustained.
WM “The reproaches of them that reproach thee have fallen upon me”, Psalm 69: 9.
JT God was there. “They have both seen and hated both me and my Father”, John 15: 24. It was all there, sustained in a Man. “He that has Seen me has seen the Father”, John 14: 9.
AHP Peter got a glimpse of these two features in the Lord: “testifying before of the sufferings which belonged to Christ, and the glories after these”, 1 Peter 1: 11. The One capable of sustaining the sufferings would be the One capable of sustaining the glory.
JT Quite so. The ark is Christ here. It is a question of Christ here in power sustaining all that God is before men, and incurring all the reproach which that drew forth, representing the power by which we are placed in the inheritance. The altar is of the same wood but covered with brass, or copper, and it is to sustain the whole weight of divine wrath against sin. Both bring out what He is as Man.
GMcP Why are the dimensions of this altar given and none for the altar of stone or earth?
JT When you come to the divine dwelling there must be measurements. Everything must be according to the mind of God in accuracy. The measurements here would mean that Christ was crucified in weakness but lives by the power of God. The weakness would be in the five cubits, and the power of God in the three.
WM You say the five cubits represent weakness and the three His power?
JT That is what I understand. You will be struck with how normal everything was in all the facts related in the gospels, from the time the Lord was apprehended until He was put into the grave. There was nothing miraculous. When He said, “I am he” (John 18: 6),
[p. 424] they fell to the ground, but He went through all as Man; so much so that He is said to have been “crucified in weakness” (2 Corinthians 13: 4), but “the weakness of God is stronger than men”, 1 Corinthians 1: 25.
WM What is the meaning of that?
JT It was real humanity, but in such power as to overcome. He felt it that He did not have any sleep that night; He could not have eaten much; He felt the buffeting; those awful blows of the Roman soldiers affected Him, they must necessarily have weakened Him. But He had strength to go through.
Rem “If it be possible ...”, Matthew 26: 39.
JT That shows the feelings He had. He measured what the forsaking meant. It was moral perfection to shrink from that, but to take it up in His perfect knowledge of it was His perfection, too.
Ques When He said, “I am”, and they fell to the ground, does that exemplify divine power as seen in manhood? There has been some suggestion as to the thought of the Lord reverting back to the thought of deity as in manhood here.
JT He was God. The deity shone out when He says, “I am”. “I am” is deity. “I am”, in John 8: 24 and John 18: 8 really implies deity. If they sought Him, “I am”, He says, and they went backward and fell to the ground. But generally He is the Man, He is the Sufferer. He was crucified in weakness. That is the position — it is real humanity.
WM There was full testimony to the power that was there. An angel appeared from heaven strengthening Him.
JT That is Luke. That brings out what we are saying, that He was a real Man, and accepted all these ministrations.
JWD Was His actual physical death the result of physical weakness?
JT No, it was not. The Spirit of God is careful [p. 425] to guard that — no one dying in physical weakness could give a loud cry.
Rem He says, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit”, Luke 23: 46. Does that not show that He did it.
JT Yes. The power is in the loud cry. Matthew says, “having again cried with a loud voice ...”, Matthew 27: 50. The centurion noticed that. It was different from any death he had seen, and no doubt he had seen many deaths in such circumstances.
Well, there is a great deal that could be said about the measurements, the utensils, and all that. Every item has its meaning in this great subject; but what should be noticed in Leviticus is the appreciation of all this that evidently was with Moses. It seems to me that Moses was capable of appreciating something of what was there. One can understand that Moses in his measure at that time would think of these things — What does all this measurement mean, what does this brass mean, what does this fire that is to be burning on the altar all the time mean? I think all that enters into his action in Leviticus 8: 11. It says: “And he sprinkled thereof on the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all its utensils, and the laver and its stand, to hallow them”. It seems as if he says, There is something there that is different. Although he was told to anoint the altar, there is no record that he was told to sprinkle the oil on it seven times. It is to bring out that there was one who had an appreciation of Christ as the Sufferer. It should be a word to us as to whether we have any little appreciation of Christ as the Sufferer. God must have instructed Moses in some way, so that he furnishes an example of one who has a great thought of this. He sprinkled the oil on it seven times. Moses says, There is something here that is different from anything else. It is a suffering Christ, One capable of sustaining the whole weight of divine wrath. That ought to touch every heart.
[p. 426] Ques Did Mary of Bethany have that in mind when she anointed His feet?
JT She did. The Lord said: “Suffer her to have kept this for the day of my preparation for burial”, John 12: 7.
WM She expended so much that she was criticised.
APT Naaman had to plunge seven times in Jordan. Would there be a suggestion that he had to learn something of the sufferings of Christ in a full way?
JT The passage reads: “And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, Go and wash in the Jordan seven times ...” (2 Kings 5: 10), or, as the footnote says, “bathe”. In verse 14: “Then he went down, and plunged himself seven times in the Jordan ...” It is very like the action of Moses in going beyond what was required, showing how thoroughly he had taken it in. He would not miss any virtue that was in Jordan. I think it is in accord with Moses sprinkling the altar seven times. It shows how Moses’ mind was on it.
Throughout Moses’ writings you find things that he did of himself in addition to what he was told to do, as if God was bringing out the thought that, although it is a time of imperfection, one man was seeing things beyond. In Exodus 12 he tells the people to use hyssop to put the blood on the lintel and door-posts. From verses 1 to 20 we have what the people were to do, and from verses 21 to 28 we have Moses’ epitome of it. He tells the people what they are to do from his own point of view, and he says, “take a bunch of hyssop” (verse 22). That is not found in the instructions. You may depend on it, it was the sense of his own littleness which he had. There are other instances of this kind. It is to bring out that the ministers are listening to things. Get your own view of it and give it out according to your own estimate of it. That is where the power lies. Moses has been going over the ground with God, and this one item strikes him peculiarly, and he sprinkles the oil on [p. 427] it seven times.
SMcC He adds to what was required.
JT It gives spiritual touch and buoyancy.
Rem Paul says something in 1 Corinthians 7 of his own, which is recorded as the holy writings.
JT Yes, he tells us it is his own judgment.
AHP To provide the ointment that Mary had, she would value the Lord and all that He was to pass through.
JT She represents one that sees beyond, she anticipates His burial.