READINGS ON EZEKIEL (11)
[p. 228] READINGS ON EZEKIEL (11)
Ezekiel 45: 1 - 12; Ezekiel 46: 1 - 15
JT The instructions for the service of God which are found in Ezekiel are unique, as we have already observed. No explanation is given as to why they are so different from other references. There is no formal reference to the instructions in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or other books which treat of the sanctuary; so that the inquiry of the spiritual mind is, Why should we have such a section of Scripture as chapters 40 to 48 inclusive? One lesson to be learned is that the earlier instructions are direct types generally, and to be viewed more abstractly, as the mind of God in regard to something still to be constructed; even the tabernacle was presented as a concept; a thing as yet future, for it was to be built of certain materials, whereas here, the sanctuary is already existent, so that it can be measured in every part of it; and then the instructions as to the services follow. There is no comparison made with the tabernacle or temple, or reason given why there should be such variations from them. It would therefore seem that the Spirit of God would impress us with spirituality — the subjective work of God — that what proceeds is of itself, without any necessity for explanations. If we are spiritual and intelligent, we understand.
Ques Would you say that the nearer we come to what is real, the less need there is for actual law to govern us?
JT It is the uniqueness of the spiritual realm, whether it be the Mosaic system or the order of things in the assembly as we have it today, or what shalt be in Israel in the future, each has a distinctiveness. The present and future are based on the work of God in us, so that we are not hampered by legal requirements; we are in liberty. Those who have part in this great service in the future will be in liberty and shall understand. It is said, “And they shall be all taught of God”, John 6: 45. And in dealing with these matters, unless we are taught of God — not that we know everything, but we are in principle taught of God — we shall fail to grasp the mind of God.
JHE Would we get some help on this in the beginning of the Acts? Nobody told the disciples that they had to select one to take the place of Judas, but they did it.
JT Just so; it was spirituality; they were taught of God. They knew what to do. There was the idea of a standard in what they did, because they said it must be one who had assembled with them all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among them, from the baptism of John until the day in which He was taken up. It was a wonderful standard, but there was no word earlier that they should conform to that; that the Lord’s moving in and out amongst them should be the standard for them.
JTJr Would they have had the thought of spiritual substance in their mind in their requirements?
JT They had spiritual substance really, for the company in the upper room denotes that very thing. They are there expressly as the subjects of Christ’s work. The apostles’ names are first given in order, and then reference is made to certain women, and Mary the mother of Jesus and His brethren. They were possessed, not only of the instruction the Lord had given them, but impressions had been received of the light and grace and example that had come before their notice in all that wonderful time. They were men awaiting the Spirit. They knew that He would come, and instead of going home and waiting for some indication of His coming, they were together. They abode there in the upper room, having come in from the mount of Olives.
JHE The gift of the Spirit would be as if heaven sanctioned what was taking place.
JT That is right; the “parted tongues, as of fire”, denoting how the Spirit came, “and it sat upon each one of them” Acts 2: 3; indicating that He was pleased with them. There was no discrepancy, in principle, in what the Spirit found in them. He did not come to them in the form of a dove, because they were creatures, and having sin in them, but the sin was held under; it was not active.
AR Save what we have as to the bread and cup, we have no direct instructions in actual detail as to assembly order when we are together; as to how the service is to be conducted. I wondered whether that would be in line with what you say, that it is left to spirituality, so that we would move entirely on spiritual lines without having any detailed outline as to how the meeting would proceed.
JT That is a good suggestion at this point. What is done is the outcome of spiritual intelligence; as in the first chapter of Acts, such procedure is approved. They acted without formal instructions, but what they did was approved. The coming of the Spirit accredited what was there; and so in John 20; the Lord came in. There was nothing of which to complain; nothing to adjust. But the account in Luke 24 shows there was something to adjust, for the conditions were not right. The Lord, as it were, takes account of the wonderful period in which we are — a period of spiritual wealth marked by the movements of the Spirit Himself — and as we proceed in our service according to spiritual intelligence, He gives us to understand that we are approved. But we must bear in mind that He must have to say to us, and if He come, will He have to rebuke, or will He approve? While, as we have said, there is no ritual, except what is furnished as to the bread and cup, there are scriptural principles governing the service of God in the assembly which those taught of [p. 231] God understand.
CAM You connect divine teaching with the covenant, do you not? Would it be right to say that the teaching side of the truth goes on to that point in the meeting where we break bread, and after that it is a family setting, as in John 20?
JT That is good so far, but the word “teaching”, I think, should be confined more to the covenant as applied primarily; that is, to the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Their sins are to be remitted and the law is to be in their heart; but as applied to us, what answers to the new covenant takes the form of ministry by divine Persons. Paul’s treatment of it in 2 Corinthians lifts it on to a higher level than that in which it is found in Hebrews where we have its application to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and no doubt it will enter into this service in Ezekiel which is now before us.
In 2 Corinthians the Lord and the Spirit are spoken of in relation to His glory, and as beholding it, we are changed into His image. Then, as to teaching, the gospel of John introduces it almost immediately, and it is teaching by Christ — where He abode. Then later, He says, “And they shall be all taught of God”, John 6: 45. The allusion there, I think, is to more than what is found in the new covenant, because teaching strikingly comes into John 20, in that Mary Magdalene calls the Lord “Rabboni”, that is, my teacher. It is not simply what she might get from Him, known as Prophet, as in chapter 4, but He was her Teacher in a general way. His teaching fitted her to carry the message which He sent to the disciples. The message, we may say, was the consummation of His teaching.
AFM Would you link on the thought of the ascension of Elijah in the Old Testament? The conditions were that he was to be seen going up, and Elisha saw him. Would there be an illustration in the attitude of Elisha when Elijah went up?
JT [p. 232] That was in advance of what Elijah had taught him. He had visited certain places in company with Elijah and would get the mind of God from him in those places, but he desired more; he sought a double portion of that man’s spirit. And to get that, Elijah says, “if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee; but if not, it shall not be so”, 2 Kings 2:10. And that is what is seen in Acts 1; they saw Him as He went up; and the two men in white stress the point that they should see Him come back as they had seen Him go up.
CAM What you have been saying is illuminating to me. It impresses me that the divine thought is really arrived at, and then taken account of; also, as to the covenant, that divine Persons take charge of it as to us, and make it effective, Of course, that is greater than its dispensational application.
JT That is what we have now, I think, and it is set forth in the types we get in these chapters. The thing exists, especially as to the house itself and the approaches to it; but then God is measuring them, and He is seeing that they conform to His measure. We all want to be like that. A spiritual man would say, I would like to be up to the measure. The ministry to the Ephesians is to bring the saints up to the divine measure. The measuring in Ezekiel is to show that God is accepting what is there, approving of it. And He looks for the same now; He found it in the beginning of our dispensation, as we see in Acts.
CAM Education leads up to and fits us for the blessedness of sonship; it is really that side of the truth that you have before you, is it not?
JT Quite so. We are not even told in general what materials were used here, yet immense stress is laid on what materials were to be used in the tabernacle and the temple. Here it is just what there is. I am not speaking now as to chapter 45, because that is instruction [p. 233] as to what was to be done, I am referring to the measurements of the sanctuary and its approaches.
JHE In Acts 3: 4, Peter and John could say, “Look on us”.
JT The work of God was there. Properly, christianity is not a development; it is presented in Christ first; it is “That which was from the beginning”, 1 John 1: 1. And according to Acts 1, it was there in the saints. What was in the mind of God, to be effected, was there. So that what marked those who believed Peter’s testimony is stated thus: “And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles” (Acts 2: 42); that is, the thing was there. The Lord had put what was witnessed in Christ there; it was in the apostles and their teaching. Those who believed came into it; they “were added”.
EE How do you regard Paul’s discourse in Acts 20 in relation to what you have been saying?
JT The whole truth was there. “For I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God”, Acts 20: 27. The whole matter was there; the assembly develops through that; the saints are brought to it and sustained in it. What is presented to us in testimony is perfection.
Ques Is the object of teaching to bring us on to worship?
JT Quite so. It is to give us to understand what is. I think the quotation in John 6: 45, “And they shall be all taught of God”, includes more than the new covenant. The new covenant is brought to christians in one who was made of God competent as a minister of it. And then the Lord Himself is the Spirit of the covenant. The thing is brought to us and made effective in us by a divine Person who is the Spirit of it, which lifts it up to a level beyond Israel.
CAM I am glad you stressed that. If we do not get hold of the bearing of the service of the Lord and [p. 234] the Spirit in the new covenant, we shall lose the blessedness of the present moment.
JT It has often been said, christianity is Christ; that is, Christ expressed; worked out subjectively in the saints. As to the covenant, it is said, “Now the Lord is the Spirit”, 2 Corinthians 3: 17. He is in it authoritatively. And it goes on to say, “but where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”; because the thought is to let what is of God develop and show itself. There is liberty under the Spirit of the Lord; He affords liberty for all that is of God. He would restrain all that is not. It is pleasing to the Lord to see even any little thing that is of Himself expressed livingly amongst us. God approves and measures that. So that we can say, That is right so far. It is a great thing to have a sense of that in assembly, that God approves of what is there.
GMacP Would the words “transformed according to the same image” (2 Corinthians 3: 18), suggest the saints as coming up to the measure seen here?
JT Certainly; the same image — that is Christ in us. God approves that.
AR What is the thought in chapter 45 of dividing all this territory in the land — the sanctuary and the other portions referred to?
JT “And when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance” (Ezekiel 45: 1). It is a mutual dividing. The priest does not do it. Much is made in this section of the prince, and the priests; that is, the great spiritual measures amongst the saints, but the mutual feature is also in evidence. The word “ye” would include the prince, the priests, and the Levites, as well as the whole house of Israel, but it is, “when ye shall divide”. That is a beautiful mutual thought. It appeared when the foundation of the earth was laid: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”, Job 38: 7. There is no leader mentioned. It is a mutual thought, and God is pleased with it in [p. 235] His people and gets His portion from it. In the heave-offering unto Jehovah here, there is spontaneity in a mutual state of things. We are to love one another, but that love moves Godward; that is the principle.
JTJr Is that seen in 2 Corinthians 3? Is the Spirit of the Lord seen in a mutual state of things first?
JT Well, there is restraint, for it is, “the Lord the Spirit”; and then the judgment reached in chapter 5: “having judged this: that one died for all, then all have died; and he died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who died for them and has been raised”, 2 Corinthians 5: 14, 15. That brings us on to mutual ground as living; and in Colossians, the apostle says, “the love which ye have towards all the saints” (Colossians 1: 4). And it was “love in the Spirit”, Colossians 1: 8. I think that is a remarkable tribute to a mutual state of things in a local gathering.
FSC The cities of the land which, according to Joshua, were for the Levites are all gathered in one thought here. The heave-offering would appear to include all.
JT That is right; it is all concentrated. The inheritances, involving personal distinction, are concentrated. The heave-offering includes the portion for the priests, the Levites, and for the prince. All the greater distinctions are provided for together; all related to the sanctuary and the city. That is an important matter as to the work of God. If it is greater in Paul than in any other, then Paul must be recognised. The work of God must be recognised in the heave-offering. Whilst we are mutual in offering, we make full recognition of special distinctions.
Ques Does Exodus 25 suggest that the whole tabernacle system is a heave-offering?
JT Yes; it is the same idea. The saints are taken account of in that way, that their hearts are to move Godward. The word “heave” means that.
AR [p. 236] Would the same thought be suggested in Luke 24: 41,42? The Lord asked, “Have ye anything here to eat? And they gave him part of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb”. Would the fish represent the sovereign provision in the assembly, the greater thought, and the honeycomb, mutuality?
JT That is good. There was something there to offer. “Have ye anything here?” He asked.
CAM The way they come into the inheritance here is really the opposite way to that in Joshua, since all that relates to the sanctuary is first given.
JT Well, exactly; you might enquire, Where is Jerusalem? Where is the city of David? Where is the city of the ancient temple? The answer is, This is the thing now! There is a region which does not admit of such questions. God makes all things new. You are sensible in the midst of all this that everything is right. You do not want to be diverted from it. It is a spiritual state of things; the work of God.
Rem There is no speaking from the throne here.
JT No; it is rather the prince, but then he is a prince; he is a great personality. It is not his official title so much as his personality that is in view. The measurements in chapter 45 need close attention; and what we have in verses 1 to 8 is taken up again in chapter 48. What is called the “holy heave-offering” here in the subdivisions is measured together there, and viewed there in relation to the division of the land to the tribes, and is a part of the “heave-offering”, which was a portion of the land between Judah and Benjamin (Ezekiel 48: 8, 23).
FHLC Does the fact that the prophet Ezekiel is spoken of as being at the river Chebar with the captives, show that he had learned this great principle of merging with the brethren; the principle of mutuality?
JT Yes. God usually takes up a man He can use for a particular purpose. He puts him through the necessary discipline and education to bring him to this.
[p. 237] It is important to get the thought of the heave-offering; that we are on mutual lines, and our hearts are affected. We love one another like the Colossians but when we come to Ephesians, we are on elevated ground, “raised up together”; provision is made for the work of God. The mutual line is not enough. In the mutual state of things there is also distinction; that marks the testimony of God from the beginning. The work of God is graded; it must be seen in all its beautiful varieties, and it blends. And so in this heave-offering there is recognition of it and provision for it. The sanctuary is already specified in previous chapters; but it is included here in the more extended thought, namely, the provision for the priests, for the Levites, and for the prince. We are now on the line of graded distinction. On the mutual side we are not claiming to be all alike, all having the same measure; because Romans would teach that every one is to know his measure: “as God has dealt to each a measure of faith”, Romans 12: 3. And if he does, he will be humble and recognise greater measures. After the Supper, the Lord Himself evidently participated in the mutual side; they sang a hymn and went to the mount of Olives. But now the time comes to mention distinctions; and in mutuality you must mention distinctions, or God will not like it; and the distinctions here are, the priests, the Levites, and the prince.
JTJr Would the allusion in Ephesians 3 to the apostle’s own intelligence bring out his distinction? It says, “according as I have written before briefly, by which, in reading it, ye can understand my intelligence”, Ephesians 3: 3, 4.
JT Just so; that is a good illustration. It is in parenthesis, as you know. Evidently the apostle, when he began to write that section of the epistle, did not calculate to introduce the contents of that parenthesis He had, no doubt, the plan of the letter in his mind; but when he came to the question of his prisonership, his heart became enlarged; and the Spirit of God [p. 238] operated in it to call attention to himself You may say, Paul is occupied with himself; but the Spirit of God is occupying him with himself, and Paul must be subject. He would not have done it of himself. He says, elsewhere, that he was ashamed to speak so much about himself. But as he proceeded to write the letter, the Spirit of God caused him to speak of himself. The Ephesians were well taught, and might say, in effect, that they were learned men. They might think too highly of themselves. The apostle had declared to them the whole counsel of God. But still he knew much more than they, and it is well that they should be aware of this. “By which ... ye can understand my intelligence in the mystery of the Christ” (Ephesians 3: 4). It is wholesome to know and recognise that somebody possesses from God more than oneself. Paul knew more of the mystery than the Ephesians; he had indeed the whole truth of it.
G.MacP, Would he be like the prince here?
JT Quite so; Paul is like a prince. The idea of the prince in our scripture would reach out to the Messiah; the Lord Himself. Earlier, we get David mentioned as king, prince, and shepherd; that is, he was typical of Christ in those characters. But one is only called the prince here; and the designation may be typical of others than Christ — subjects of the great work of God in those days, for “princes shall rule in judgment”, Isaiah 32: 1. Some will be greatly enlarged in the knowledge of God, as in the present day. And it is important that the saints generally should understand that there is such a thing as others having more knowledge than they have, even today.
GMacP David recognised that he was set among princes.
Ques Would you help us as to the distinction between gifts and services?
JT They are spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12. “But there are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit”,
[p. 239] 1 Corinthians 12: 4. The gifts are exercised in the power of the same Spirit, though distinct one from another. In the assembly there are apostles, prophets, etc.; not all on the same level. “And there are distinctions of services, and the same Lord”. The Lord is over the services. “And there are distinctions of operations, but the same God who operates all things in all” (1 Corinthians 12: 6). That is, we are told that the Spirit, the Lord, and God — three divine Persons — are occupied in this matter.
Ques What would a “service” be?
JT Any service of God; all come under the Lord; the preaching of the gospel comes under the Lord. As to the gifts, there is variation: the Spirit gives them according to 1 Corinthians 12: 4, Christ gives them according to Ephesians 4, and God sets them in the assembly, according to 1 Corinthians 12. All services are under the Lord.
AR Would that be suggested in the priests that are mentioned, “who draw near to serve Jehovah” (Ezekiel 45: 4), and the Levites “who do the service of the house” (verse 5)?
JT Yes. Even the prince has to provide certain of the offerings. Every person in the land is to provide the heave-offering for the prince, and then it says, “This is the heave-offering which ye shall offer: the sixth part of an ephah out of a homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah out of a homer of barley; and the set portion of oil, by the bath of oil, the tenth part of a bath out of a cor, which is a homer of ten baths, for ten baths are a homer; and one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel; — for an oblation, and for a burnt-offering, and for peace-offerings, to make atonement for them, saith the Lord Jehovah. All the people of the land shall be held to this heave-offering for the prince in Israel. And it shall be the prince’s part to supply the burnt-offerings, and the oblation, and the drink-offering, at the feasts, and at the new moons,
[p. 240] and on the sabbaths, in all the solemnities of the house of Israel: it is he that shall prepare the sin-offering” (Ezekiel 45: 13 - 17). Important personally, as he is, he does something. But he gets the means of his service from the people. This particular service is to be marked by princely dignity; all tends to general unity and enjoyment. The provision of all this includes the contribution of all the saints. Mutual feeling and bounty underlie the service, because what the prince is working with is what the saints provide. It includes today in principle, all that we contribute in assembly; and even the money we contribute. All that comes into what is public greatness and dignity; it challenges us as to what we are able to do in the service of God. What we give for the Lord’s servants, or for the poor or needy should be given in a princely way, not in a niggardly way. “Enriched in every way unto all free-hearted liberality, which works through us thanksgiving to God”, 2 Corinthians 9:11.
WR Jeremiah 30: 21 says, “And their prince shall be of themselves, and their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them”, [there is a footnote on the word “prince” saying it means “excellent”] “and I will cause him to approach, and he shall draw near unto me. For who is this that engageth his heart to draw near unto me? saith Jehovah”.
JT That is another view and aids in what is before us.
ABP Would the doxologies in Scripture suggest the character of the princes’ offerings?
JT Well, spiritually they would. As to material things, Barnabas and Saul in Acts 11 denote the princely side. What they carried to Jerusalem was the offering of those that were “well off”.
Ques When you speak of giving to the levites, are you going back to verse 5 of our chapter?
JT Yes. It describes the allotment to [p. 241] the Levites.
CAM So that all these services, gifts, etc., are taking us further and further away from mere ritual of religious systems around us today.
JT Quite so. The book of Acts shows the same thing. The book is entitled “The Acts of the Apostles”. That title is not inspired, but it is a good one; not that their acts are exclusively there, the acts of others are there, too. Precedent is in mind for those who were to come into the truth later; and God would exalt the fruit of His own work in calling attention to it. The book is not marked by arbitrary injunctions; it sets out how things were done. As the Lord says, “learn from me”, Matthew 11: 29. We are to learn from the apostles, too, both in their instruction and examples.
GMacP Does the quality of the princes come out in Numbers 7, as seen in what they offered?
JT Yes; unity in princeliness is seen there. Each one offered the same things as the others, and then God accepted all. The beautiful thing is that God accepted their voluntary offerings in the aggregate. And that is the idea in the book of Acts, the Spirit of God writing down what was done, as generally approved. Of course, there were discrepancies, but the spiritual mind understands.
RWS Why does God call attention in the chapter before us to the unprincely conduct of earlier princes of Israel — their oppression of the people (Ezekiel 45)?
JT That was to make a then present application. And it is for us here tonight; it is for this meeting. God in unfolding His mind for any period would make it a present application.
Ques Is it a reference to Nehemiah 5 — they were to oppress no longer?
JT Yes; Nehemiah saw what the nobles were doing; oppressing the people; lending money to them for usury. It says, “And I consulted with myself; and I remonstrated with the nobles and the rulers, and said to them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother!
[p. 242] And I set a great assembly against them” (Nehemiah 5: 7). He brought the brethren around to oppose them in this nefarious conduct. It is humbling as we get power, we are apt to misuse it.
FSC Will you say a word about verse 6 of our chapter?
JT “And ye shall appoint the possession of the city five thousand in breadth, and five and twenty thousand in length, alongside of the holy heave-offering: it shall be for the whole house of Israel” Ezekiel 45: 6. That is the provision made for the city. It is the administrative side, but it is for the whole house of Israel; they have access there. This is one apportionment. It is only five thousand in breadth as compared with ten thousand in each of the measurements for the priests and Levites.
Rem The feast of weeks is omitted here.
JT Yes; what is contemplated is not the gift of the Spirit as we have it; although the Spirit will be present in the millennium, it is not in mind here; it is on lower ground. The feast of weeks refers to the gift of the Spirit as in Acts 2 — as in the present period.
FHLC Did the daughters of Zelophehad show princely qualities in asking for their inheritance? Jehovah honoured it, and it becomes the occasion of a statute.
JT Just so; it shows how heaven approves what is done, being the fruit of God’s work, it is a most precious thing. So that, as something is done, someone may say, You do not have a word for that. But, if it is the fruit of God’s work, God approves it. He shows that He approves it. That is the idea. God approves the fruit of His own work, and this will never be out of accord with His word. There is much more, of course, that we could say as regards these feasts. We have reference to the first of the month in verse 18. “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: In the first month, on the first of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock, without blemish, and thou shalt purge the sanctuary” Ezekiel 45: 18.
[p. 243] That is a variation from anything we get before. The year starts with this; it gets an excellent start; the sanctuary is purged. And then we have the passover, and the feast of tabernacles. But the feasts are wonderfully augmented by the offering of bullocks every day, and other offerings as specified; wonderfully augmenting these feasts as compared with those that Moses inaugurated. The prince offers for himself and for the people during the passover and the feast of tabernacles.
And then in chapter 46 we have instruction as to the worship by the prince. The prince is again brought into view; how he enters by the east gate, and how he worships, and then how the people enter; coming in by the north gate, they go out by the south; coming in by the south gate they go out by the north. That is an instruction God has been using in our own times. We have often referred to this passage in correction of the custom of closing the meeting for the breaking of bread by prayer and an announcement of the gospel, or in some other formal way. That is, we then went out by the same gate by which we went in; whereas the instruction here is distinct light on the position; when you come in by the south gate you go out by the north. You go out a different way; you go out on a higher note really.
JS We are to go straight ahead, and not turn back to where we began.
JT Quite so. Why should we drop from the high level we have reached? Going out by the north gate we strike cold or adverse circumstances and need to be fortified by the warmth of the assembly. As going out we need the heavenly touch. And even if we go out by the south, perhaps to favourable, or perhaps affluent circumstances, we need to be fortified; not to live in such circumstances, while giving thanks to God for His mercies. We are to set our minds on things above.
WR John says, “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day”, Revelation 1: 10. Are there not special privileges granted to us on the Lord’s day as suggested in the four references to the sabbath here (Ezekiel 46:1; Ezekiel 46:3,4; Ezekiel 46:12)?
JT Quite so. There is distinction made here between the sabbath and the working days. I do not think we get that expression under Moses. It contemplates that people work. The millennium will be the rest of God, but still there will be wholesome employment. But there is the sabbath, and the idea is, I think, absorption; lying fallow so as to absorb all the wonderful things that are presented to us. We are to take them in; and take them on, too. We should take colour from them. I believe that is the idea.
Ques Would coming in by the north gate be like announcing a meeting for discipline at the beginning of the morning meeting? God would be favourable to us as we state such matters at the beginning.
JT The announcements have to do with public testimony, and they really belong to the gates. So that it is right to make the announcements at the outset. And when the things announced are attended to, spiritual power is needed; they require to be done according to the sanctuary, according to the anointing; and therefore the necessity to go out in heavenly power so as to be able to do things in a heavenly way.
AR Evidently the prince acts in a different way from the people.
JT He does. He comes in by the east gate, and worships in the east gate. To make it simple, he came in by the outer east gate. Then it was closed, for he only could come in that way. It was wonderfully honoured in that the glory came that way. Then he walked across the court and worshipped in the inner east gate. He did not go beyond that. That is to say, special spiritual power is not exactly priestly power; the priestly side must be added to draw near to God. Princely power, in itself, does not go so far; it is for publicity, for distinction in testimony, so that the prince here does not go beyond the gate, he worships [p. 245] there, and the priest does the service for him, Then on other days at special convocations he goes in and out among the people. He is one of the brethren after all, however great he is. So that when they sat down at the breaking of bread at Troas, Luke says, “and we came to them to Troas in five days, where we spent seven days. And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread”, Acts 20: 6, 7. Paul, as amongst them, would be there with the others. That keeps us balanced. Applied to the Lord, this instruction would be that on certain occasions He comes in with us, or is there from the outset until the end.
AR Is verse 10 suggestive of mutuality? The prince comes in amongst them and they go out together.
JT Yes, as was noted, Luke says, “we being assembled”. Paul did a great deal, showing how princely he was in that meeting, but he came together with them.
Ques Does this chapter suggest, in the main, the public side of things rather than the inside? They did not worship inside the sanctuary.
JT You get very little of the inner features of the house here; going into the holiest is not even spoken of. It is rather the public side; for it typifies the carrying on of the great service of God in the millennium and it is a question of what His work is, in a graded way. If it be represented in a prince, he is what he is. He is mentioned as there.
Ques Is the actual breaking of the bread by an individual a public service?
JT I think so. He is doing what has to be done. It brings Christ in. It is to be done as He did it. It is part of the service. In the “systems” they bring in fragments of bread; but that is not the idea at all. The idea is breaking bread; there is nothing said of eating for the memorial; of course, eating is mentioned, for this is necessary for the Supper. Acts 20: 11 says, “Having broken the bread, and eaten”; the Lord’s supper requires giving of thanks for the loaf and breaking it as part of [p. 246] the service. This brings Christ in. It is what He did. “This do”, He says.
AFM What is the actual significance of breaking the bread?
JT It is to bring Christ in. It is what He did. How lovely to think of that as exactly what He did! It is in the breaking of bread that the memorial lies.
CAM This prince is really representative of Christ, is he not?
JT Quite so; in the sense of personality. As the apostles represented Christ, they represented personality in the public service.
AR Would you say a word as to the cup? It says of the bread, “This do in remembrance of me”. But, in referring to the cup, “this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”, 1 Corinthians 11: 25. What did the Lord refer to in relation to the cup?
JT I think the blessing of the cup; the giving of thanks. It says, “In like manner also the cup”. The word “manner” is the link with what He had already done. “After having supped”, would mean that He had finished with the Jewish passover before He said this — “after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” 1 Corinthians 11: 25. The drinking is added there; whereas, eating is not added in regard to the loaf.
AR Would “this do” be the thanksgiving?
JT Quite so; this is His part in it, but I think, “as often as ye shall drink it” brings in the happy, blessed side of the position; the drinking is satisfaction, alluding to the Spirit’s part in the service. So the remembrance involves our happy condition and state in calling Him to mind; that we are satisfied in the position.
JTJr Would the north gate and the south gate be illustrated in Acts 16, in the jail? Paul and Silas came in through the north gate, as under pressure,
[p. 247] and I suppose they went out by the south gate into the jailor’s house.
JT Quite so, and when they were let go, they went to Lydia. That was the highest point in the place; “whose heart the Lord opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul”, Acts 16: 14. That was spiritually the highest point in the position. “And having seen the brethren, they exhorted them and went away” (Acts 16: 40). They went off full. They were not disconsolate.
CAM When you refer to the fact that one goes through to the opposite gate, going out that way, you imply that he has taken on colour.
JT Yes. There is a hymn in our book that I think the brethren are misusing. It is hymn 300 (Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Little Flock, 1932 edition). Some are making that a closing doxology, and that is not right. Nobody should assume to finish the meeting. Let the Lord do that. The most spiritual man in these latter times said his difficulty was to know when the Lord went out.
JTJr You mean that going out by the opposite gate is not some act of the brethren, to indicate that the meeting is over, but it is when the Lord goes out.
JT Quite so; it is a spiritual touch.
Ques What do you understand by, “That ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please”, Song of Songs 2: 7?
JT The reference is to love. Let it act from its own side. Love will do the best for us. Let it act when it pleases; for instance, the Lord remained away from the scene at Bethany. Love acted as it pleased. The sisters would have hurried the Lord, but the point was, He would come as He pleased, and the result showed that love in Him did its best for all.
Rem You need no laws governing a situation like that.
JT No; “he whom thou lovest is sick”, John 11: 3. He knew all about it. He remained there [p. 248] until Lazarus died, and then He came and did far beyond their expectations.
NP We read in our scripture that the prince is to worship at the threshold of the gate, and the people at the door of the gate before Jehovah. What is the meaning of that difference?
JT The prince went further in, although not exactly into the inner court. It is to mark off the distinction of spirituality in the service of God. We are to keep that in view, and yet to remember that after all the most spiritual man is a brother and comes in and goes out with the rest (Ezekiel 46:10).
AR Does the portion in chapter 46 suggest that wealth spiritually comes specially through daily offerings?
JT “And thou shalt daily offer a burnt-offering unto Jehovah, of a yearling-lamb without blemish: thou shalt prepare it morning by morning. And thou shalt prepare an oblation with it every morning, the sixth part of an ephah, and of oil the third part of a hin, to moisten the fine flour: an oblation unto Jehovah continually by a perpetual ordinance. They shall offer the lamb, and the oblation, and the oil, every morning for a continual burnt-offering” (Ezekiel 46: 13 - 15). There is no evening lamb, you will notice, as in Numbers 28. There are morning and evening lambs in Numbers. The millennium does not stress the evening.