READINGS ON EZEKIEL (12)
[p. 249] READINGS ON EZEKIEL (12)
Ezekiel 47: 1 - 12; Ezekiel 48:1-7; Ezekiel 48:20-35
JT These chapters are a fitting close to the book; chapter 47 calling our attention to the river of life; a necessary adjunct to the millennial day of blessing. Following on that the borders or border of the land; no effort to make it appear large, but rather to suggest the exclusiveness in the land; and then the tribes. The Spirit of God reverts to the book of Genesis, the divine thought being carried through; and instead of a formal list of names, it is each in his inheritance. “And these are the names of the tribes: From the north end along the way of Hethlon ... shall Dan have one portion” (Ezekiel 48: 1). So that instead of names formally given, we have the extent of each tribe’s inheritance; as if the name of each would enter into his inheritance. The inheritance would be an integral part of what was involved in the tribal name. Much stress is laid on the extent of the heave-offering also, in keeping with what is in these two chapters; for grace underlies the results in us, in the people of God, in the river — the river of life. So that we have the whole extent of the heave-offering. It is a square, as we note in Ezekiel 48: 20: “The whole heave-offering shall be five and twenty thousand by five and twenty thousand; ye shall offer the holy heave-offering foursquare with the possession of the city”. Much is made of it — what is for God; and finally the city in which God is, Jehovah Shammah. It is four-sided, with the prince’s part on each side, so it seems that the Spirit of God would give us enlargement in looking into these two chapters because they furnish the conclusion in a spiritual sense. The fulness of the truth in the people both Godward and manward.
Ques Would the greatness of God’s thoughts as seen here in Ezekiel correspond with the Revelation?
JT [p. 250] Yes. There is a link between the two books, particularly in the two closing chapters of the book of Revelation: the city and the river. The river in Revelation comes after the city, but flows out from the throne in keeping with the teaching of the book of Revelation, the throne of God and of the Lamb, the city having prominence: here the river comes in before the city is described. I think the Lord might, by the Spirit, bathe our souls in the thought of this river as that which meets conditions; that which in grace meets conditions that would preclude our having part in the heave-offering and in the city and in the house.
WFK The source of the river is from the house in Ezekiel, but in Revelation it is from the throne. Is there anything in that?
JT Yes, there is. It is more love proceeding from the house of God in Ezekiel; the threshold is the first feature, and would allude to walking. There is the suggestion of walking either in or out. The activity of love, I suppose, when the Lord Jesus came in and went out amongst His own; and then “south of the altar”. In order to make the love, that shone in Him here, effective in us in grace there must be the altar.
Special attention should be paid to the reference to “waters” (Ezekiel 47: 1). It is not called a river as thus coming out; it comes out in a small way. Attention is called to the place from whence it comes and how it passes south of the altar — the favourable side; but the threshold I suppose would allude to love’s walk; love’s activities, which have striking exemplification in the ministry of Christ. The conscience is met in the altar, but love is behind it; the residence of love, too.
Ques Would John have this in mind in his gospel: “for of his fulness we all have received, and grace upon grace” (John 1: 16), as if the ministry was in mind?
JT Quite so. The disciples were immediately the recipients. The fulness was there infinitely. The [p. 251] first disciples followed Him as walking; attention is called to Him as walking. And He calls attention to the river of grace Himself in John 7.
As the water begins to flow, the prophet is taken around by the north to see it. That is where you feel the cold — the opposition. Instead of diminishing outside, in the scene of adversity, you might say, it increases; external conditions bring out its character. It increases, whatever the conditions, and goes on to infinitude — “a river that could not be passed through”. We all know how we tend to shrink up when we get away from the source, whereas this increases and increases; it becomes large as outside.
Rem The source of it is in the sanctuary (verse 12).
JT Yes. It flowed out from under the threshold of the house eastward. The mention of the sanctuary is to bring out the holiness of the river, but the house is the love side; and the threshold indicates, I think, the movements of love. It is a river that cannot be passed over; but nevertheless one that can be appropriated. It is a regulated thought. The first river “went out of Eden”, we are told, “to water the garden” Genesis 2: 10. That is, instead of issuing from an ordered state of things, it is out of Eden, and enters into an ordered state of things, and thence becomes parted into four heads. The ordered state of things in the garden amplified and diversified it; made it more available universally.
APM What is the idea of waters to swim in — a river that could not be passed through?
JT Well, I think the infiniteness of it increases in the mind as it meets with what you might regard as the sphere of need. It is small in its own home sphere; it increases in the sphere of need. That is the idea of it, I think. It is therefore a remarkable suggestion of the gospel; it issues out in an apparently small way, but its innate power is seen in that it increases as it meets need; instead of diminishing, it increases.
JTJr Verse 1 says, “And the waters came down”. Would that fit in with what you have in mind in the gospel?
JT Yes; on the south side of the altar: “And the waters came down from under, from the right side of the house, south of the altar” (Ezekiel 47: 1). The coming down would mean sacrificial descent, the source of everything being in the abode of love, but the altar must be in view. It is the right side of the house; that side would be toward the south, and the prophet is taken toward the north; the prospect of the house was toward the east.
ABP Would 1 Corinthians 13, which says that love never fails, suggest that the river seen in the Lord’s ministry in the gospels was still available in the day of the Spirit?
JT That is right; there are other rivers in the prophets. The Lord alludes to them in John 7: 38, “as the scripture has said”. What He quotes cannot be found literally, but it is there, and probably includes this; it is rivers of living water in John 7, and the prophets contemplate that, too. Zechariah contemplates one toward the west and one toward the east (Zechariah 14: 8). It is the fulness of grace in the one towards the west and the one towards the east, but in fact, the river of grace in christianity is toward the west. The eastern side of the field is very little in view in the account of what the Spirit did, for the Acts is the account of what happened. It is not that God formally directed it; although Paul says in coming into Europe that the Spirit did not suffer him to go elsewhere. He would have him go that way, but Zechariah contemplates the full thought of God. Here, we have the east in keeping with the millennial thought. I suppose the direction for blessing then will be the east. The general directions given by the Lord Himself, it should be noted, contemplate all nations, the fulfilment of which requires a later testimony than what [p. 253] Acts records.
CAM Regarding the river, do I understand that the result of it really enriches God?
JT Yes; it brings out what love is; that love increases, as it were, in its own use, its own service. God has pleasure in the gospel. There is nothing in which He has more pleasure, in that sense, than the gospel. It is love, so that in the power of the Spirit it becomes greater and greater.
JHE Do we not get that in Luke 7? The woman loved much for she was forgiven much. There is a greater return.
JT Quite so; that thought is here, as remarked — the feet, the movements of the feet. She anointed His feet, and kissed His feet — evidently because they were the means of bringing grace to her. They came from the realm of love, carrying love. “The Father has sent the Son” (1 John 4: 14), sent Him out as Man here on earth. It was love and the realm of love, the Father and the Son; the woman in Luke 7 evidently discerned that: she stood at His feet, washed His feet, wiped His feet with her hair, kissed His feet, and anointed His feet.
Ques Should the local assembly be the residence of love?
JT Quite so; Paul said to the Philippians, “Because of your fellowship with the gospel, from the first day until now” (Philippians 1: 5); not that they were preachers, but the whole assembly had fellowship in the gospel. Love should be amongst us in this way.
Ques Are the first five verses of Ezekiel 47 to impress the servant with what is available?
JT Yes; as experiencing it himself. He is coming into it gradually, from the ankles, then the knees, and then the loins, and then swimming. The whole person is immersed in it.
Rem There is a contrast to this in the so-called evangelisation that is going on in the world today, which is on a much lower level than what is exemplified [p. 254] here.
JT Yes; this is normal. No doubt the evangelists of the coming day will experience something like this; that is, they get what they present from its source. Modern so-called evangelists can hardly be said to touch the source of power in the true sense. They do not practically acknowledge a divinely ordered state of things, but move in relation to human organisations. Failing to recognise the order God has established, we do not go inside, and have to depend on what those who do go in bring to us — even if we wish to preach the gospel. This marks generally what is called “missionary enterprise”. But Ezekiel was inside the house of God, and saw the waters issuing forth; and then was taken round by the north gate, then to the east gate, and saw the waters running out on the right side. Thus he could render a true testimony: “And we have seen, and testify, that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world”, 1 John 4: 14. That is the full thought; divine love is behind and in the gospel; it is announced in love in the power of the Spirit, the Spirit being here in the assembly.
WB-w Is passing through the river the test of the depth each one has — what he has reached in grace in his soul?
JT That is the thought. “And he measured a thousand cubits, and caused me to pass through the waters: the waters were to the knees” Ezekiel 47: 4. If it is only to the ankles, you may be able to preach the gospel, but it would be more in terms than in feeling, less affecting than an Ephesian gospel — the latter would bring those who received it back to the Source, as the prodigal came back to his Father.
NMcC Your soul experience enters into all this?
JT That is the point; it is soul experience, and the man that experiences each thousand cubits, the depth reached in each, is he who goes around by the north gate; he has seen the waters issuing out of the house, before they touch the scene of need at all — seen the [p. 255] thing in its own sphere — and then how it enlarges as it gets into the sphere of need. You can understand how full Ezekiel would be of where he had been; the house and the threshold of the house would be in his mind. Some feet would go in and out over the threshold. Whose are they? What are the impressions? All is entering into this figure of waters, emblematic of grace coming out and meeting need. It is whence it came; and this man sees it and he is brought round to the north gate, where you get the blast of the north wind, as you might say, and then he goes round to the east side. Will he find this again? That is the point; he did find it. Then the measuring begins.
JHE You referred to the prodigal. No doubt he crossed the threshold many times and never appreciated the grace. But in the far country it was magnified, and when he came back he would make a very good preacher.
JT Exactly. And when he came back he got into the house. We ought to consider this measurement. The Spirit of God is measuring what is; and He is showing us that the thing is increasing and increasing in the sphere of need; instead of being driven back and diminishing, it is increasing and increasing.
WR Would you say this entered into the preaching of Philip to the eunuch? He preaches unto him Jesus and the eunuch says, “Behold water; what hinders my being baptised?” Acts 8: 36.
JT Yes. You see how it worked out there. The water was a divine provision, only it was for baptism; but this is also grace. In Samaria grace works in a man who had no commission save that of a deacon. But the Spirit of God takes him on definitely. He reaches deeper depths as he goes on.
RWS The length of the river given here is only about a mile and one-half. Would the prophet be impressed with the rapidity with which depth is reached? I wondered if there would be an application as to the [p. 256] rapidity with which the work of God is reached at Philippi; beginning with the women in connection with prayer and business and attending to the things spoken by Paul, and then terminating with Paul visiting the brethren. Would that be something like it?
JT That is good. It is a suggestion that when things are normal as at Philippi or Ephesus, depth is reached quickly. Whereas at Corinth apparently it was not reached. That is, Paul could not go far because of the conditions. But he had reached the depths reached by Ezekiel; he says, “for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God”, 1 Corinthians 2: 10. But the Corinthians did not follow him: they were content to stay on shallow lines, as many are. They do not follow on; but the depths were there. The Spirit was ready to conduct them into the depths of God, but they were holding back. And so the apostle had to hold himself back. He had to confine himself to the depths of the ankles. “For I did not judge it well to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified”, 1 Corinthians 2: 2. “And I, brethren, have not been able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as to fleshly; as to babes in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3: 1).
Ques The knees were understood a little at Philippi. I was wondering whether it would fit in with prayer before the gospel on Lord’s day evening?
JT Very good; the knees reached in this river would lead us to pray in our houses before the gospel. It is a practice that is much used throughout the world, and it seems to me that God is honouring it; especially in the families of brethren; prayers in the households before the gospel.
AR The apostle in writing to the saints at Philippi says, “because of your fellowship with the gospel, from the first day until now” (Philippians 1: 5). Would that be like the depths — starting at the ankles and going right [p. 257] on?
JT They were fully with the apostle. It was a remarkable time there; a unique time. The testimony was sown in tears; and in truth it began by the river-side. That is a beautiful link. That is where the prayer was going on. The roots of the testimony at Philippi were laid in the river, as it were. I believe Lydia represents the depths there, because it was a question of what Paul had to say, and the depths of God were there.
GVD Does Romans 5 fit in here? “By whom we have also access by faith into this favour in which we stand” (verse 2), and then going on to “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (verse 5).
JT Yes. That shows how progress is made, according to Romans. It runs on in an objective sense until we reach chapter 6, where we reach everlasting life. That is the order of the truth from chapter 5 to the end of chapter 6. And then the conditions of soul afterwards. Chapter 7 is to bring out the depths of our souls, and chapter 8 develops the truth of the Spirit; not only shedding the love of God abroad in our hearts, but the Spirit of adoption; also that “The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are children of God” (Romans 8: 16), establishing inward relations with God, so that it is understood that “all things work together for good to those who love God” (Romans 8: 28). That is definite progress.
AFM What about the “double river” (verse 9)? “And it shall come to pass that every living thing which moveth, whithersoever the double river shall come, shall live” Ezekiel 47: 9. Does it refer to abundance besides what we have had?
JT I think so. The word “double” is difficult perhaps to follow literally there, but I suppose it alludes to the fulness or greatness of what is presented. The plural often contemplates intensity and completeness of what is mentioned, and if it be Romans, it would be the objective on one side, what we have just been [p. 258] speaking of, what the Spirit is to us, what He is to us from God, and then what we are to God by the Spirit. Both these things are in Romans; there is the double action of the Spirit; first, the Spirit serving us in shedding divine love abroad in our beans, and then the reaction of the Spirit in us, so that we love God. In chapter 5 God is seen as loving us, and would have His love in our hearts, but chapter 8 is that we love God.
JTJr Would the suggestion in causing be like the Spirit having His way with us as in subjection to the truth? “And he caused me” (verse 3).
JT Quite so; whatever the power used, causation is intelligently exemplified. In 2 Corinthians 3:18 we get “the Lord the Spirit” by whom all is effected; so that there is authority with it, and there is a result — a spiritual change. There is a cause, compelling the movement; not that there is any resistance. It is normal, but it is causation. The prophet is not doing it voluntarily.
JTJr Bringing us back, as he says in verse 1. “And he brought me back to the door of the house”. It would indicate that the prophet is subject to this person, typically, the Lord Jesus.
JT Exactly; you feel you have to be brought back, as we do not learn all that attaches to a matter at once. Here the prophet comes back to learn a collateral truth, to what he has been having. Of all that Ezekiel saw in the measurements, there is a result outside, the waters issuing towards the east. It is a wonderful thing, going out and increasing in power as it runs through the sphere of need.
Ques Do you think that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, is standing on the banks, as it were?
JT Quite so; he gives an account of the great stream that was flowing. He says, “but this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel”, Acts 2: 16. He was calling attention to something more tangible,
[p. 259] present there before his hearers. I think that is a good reference.
FSC Is the river of life, as referred to, a more original thought than the tree of life?
JT Well, yes; it comes directly from the divine source. The tree of life, as a figure, is a growth. The idea of a river generally is influence; here it is issuing forth from God. In the antitype it comes through appointed channels, the twelve apostles, Paul and others. Basically it is the Holy Spirit, but taking character from the divinely appointed vessels through which it comes. The first preaching of Peter at Jerusalem, and how it appeared at Pentecost, furnishes the needed instruction. It was a public matter, and Peter, having already quoted the prophet Joel, gives a further account of it. “Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which ye behold and hear” (Acts 2: 33) — a tangible thing, but coming in mediatorially; that is, through appointed means; whereas John in Revelation 22 characteristically deals with the feature of life, to stress the tangibleness of what came in through the Spirit; referring to millennial conditions.
AR Do you think that the idea of trees on either side of the river would suggest what you are saying: that there is growth, development and formation there?
JT Yes; it is the fruitfulness of the area. This is more John’s side of the truth, as already said. It is tangible evidence. If you have not life today, what have you? Of course, the profession abroad has more or less the doctrine of the gospel. You may have that without having the Spirit. What Scripture presents is the truth, including the doctrine of the gospel, presented in divinely qualified vessels in the power of “the Holy Spirit, sent from heaven”, 1 Peter 1: 12.
JS The Spirit would maintain [p. 260] the power.
JT That is the point to recognise, especially in our time. Of course, it was the same always, but it is stressed in John’s ministry as bearing on times subsequent to the failure of the public body.
WB-w The second section of our chapter, verses 6 - 12, refers to the river of life, but the first section refers to the river of grace more. Is that the idea? This second section brings in life and healing with it.
JT Just so; so that you have what is more tangible there. There are the fruits. “And by the river, upon its bank, on the one side and on the other, shall grow all trees for food, whose leaf shall not fade, nor their fruit fail: it shall bring forth new fruit every month, for its waters issue out of the sanctuary” (Ezekiel 47: 12). That would mean that the river is kept at the source in holiness. “And the fruit thereof shall be for food, and the leaf thereof for medicine” (verse 12). We can see a link with Revelation 22. The allusion there is undoubtedly to this passage.
Ques Would you say that in the gospels, the life is seen in Christ; and in the Acts and epistles, the life is seen more in the saints?
JT That is the thought, so the word “Acts” is rightly used; there is practical evidence of the activity, in the apostles and others, of the Holy Spirit. It was to show what there was in a living way in their service and testimony. Generally all was right. God approved it by taking up Luke, who gives a measured account, not overlooking certain discrepancies. The testimony of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit, is clearly set out in the service of the apostles and others. Today the doctrine of the gospel is professedly held in the denominations; Rome, for instance, holds everything nominally, even the Bible is professedly held intact, but with doctrines and practices that are utterly at variance with it; and all the so-called “orthodox” people have the doctrine of the gospel, but practically disassociated [p. 261] from the Spirit, and largely, alas, connected with bad doctrines and worldliness. John’s ministry shows that the Spirit must be associated with the gospel. Indeed, this is generally the thought in Scripture. Peter says, “which have now been announced to you by those who have declared to you the glad tidings by the Holy Spirit, sent from heaven”, 1 Peter 1: 12.
AFM Why is there necessity for medicine as well as for food?
JT “The leaf thereof for medicine”, showing that every fruit of the Spirit in believers has virtue in it. This marks the very profession of true christians, for the leaves refer to that. The Lord cursed the fig tree; the leaves were there, but the time of figs was not there; the fruit was not there, although it should be. But these trees refer to those who have the Spirit characteristically.
CAM The leaves are the clothing of a tree. Perhaps it would be exemplified in Paul’s garments, which had a healing effect.
JT Quite so. I think leaves are profession; but it may not go on to fruit. The fig tree had the leaves, but the Lord cursed it. The trees in our chapter have fruit for food, and hence they are truly living and their leaves are for medicine.
JS Is that not what we have in christendom today — plenty of profession but very little virtue?
JT That is right. There is no virtue in that because of the relation of it; whereas with a person who is characteristically indwelt by the Spirit there is virtue in everything; his profession is virtuous.
Ques Jude says, “praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 20, 21). Would that be the way the leaves are seen, and help all by influence?
JT Quite so. “Keep yourselves in the love of God”. Those kept in the love of God bear fruit for food and leaves for medicine.
WB-w Peter says, “in your faith have also virtue” (2 Peter 1: 5); it was to the end, that they should be “neither idle nor unfruitful as regards the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 8). Would that bring out fruitfulness?
JT Quite so. “He led me, and brought me back to the bank of the river” Ezekiel 47: 6. Notice that: he “brought me back”. It is always well to be brought back to a thing; because there are usually collateral lines of truth to the main one in any subject. “When I returned, behold, on the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other” (Ezekiel 47: 7). That would mean that there is life-giving power in the river. The soil is enriched by the river. The trees are one thing. They in themselves testify to the power of life, because they grow out of the ground. There would not be any tree without life in the ground, or without water and moisture, but then the fruit is touched on in verse 12.
FHS With reference to pools, would Bethesda be a contrast to the river? You were referring to John’s line.
JT Yes. It was stagnant. There was not much there. There was a little, but very little. Whereas in John 9 it is Siloam. The comment in connection with Siloam in the prophets was that it flowed “softly”. So that in chapter 9 you have positive testimony in the man as to its virtue; he says, “and having gone and washed, I saw” (John 9: 11). That is the beautiful testimony. It is Siloam, a pool, of course, but it means ‘’Sent’’.
Ques The Spirit of Jesus did not suffer Paul to go to the east. I was thinking of these trees by the banks of the river; as if that would suggest that the river is moving towards the west, to territory that is fertile. Do you not think that was borne out in the way the apostle went, toward Philippi?
JT I think that indicates the dispensation in which we are. The river has flowed toward the west; flowing,
[p. 263] as we might say, in the language of Peter, “and it came even to me”, Acts 11: 5.
But now we must go on to Ezekiel 48, to see a little of what follows on what we have had spiritually. It is the border of the land Israel is coming into. The extent of it. We might say, how exclusive it is! for that is the idea. It is not the greatness of the extent of it, but rather the exclusiveness of it. And what a large portion of it is appropriated for a heave-offering! It is the extent of the heave-offering that is stressed; a square of twenty-five thousand cubits; the figures given impress the mind with the idea of largeness. It is large proportionately, and of course this must add to the richness spiritually of the whole land. I think it is to call our attention to the reciprocal workings of the whole position. The land itself is exclusive. We are not told the exact acreage or extent of each inheritance, it is just the whole width of the land. There is nothing about the width of the particular allotments, until we come to the heave-offering. Then everything is measured most carefully in regard to the heave-offering. The portion for the sanctuary, the portion for the priests, the portion for the Levites, the portion for the prince, and the portion for the city. I think the Lord would give us instructions on that line, that we are brought into a place of exclusiveness — richness; a large portion devoted to God.
CAM Is that emphasised in the way the Lord has for some years been stressing the boundary question? Satan has made a special effort to nullify the principles involved.
JT You may be sure of it: where this question of boundary is ignored there is rebellion at the bottom of it. It is emphasised strongly here: the boundaries of the land. We do not come into the good of the things of God except as we abide by divine boundaries. The reciprocal working out of things is contingent on that.
[p. 264] Ques Would the acceptance of the diminutive size as in contrast to the size of the whole world be important?
JT It is a very small bit, so I think the point is exclusiveness, and then a large portion of this small bit of land is for divine use, what God appropriates is called the heave-offering; so that the people are viewed as thinking of God: they are thinking of Him, and of His servants, the priests, the Levites, and the prince, and they are thinking of His city. All that God has specially before Him, they are providing for.
Ques And the tribes are mentioned first; what is the force of that? Seven are mentioned first, and then the heave-offering, and then the remaining five are brought in.
JT I think it is a reference to the working out of love. “These are the names of the tribes” (Ezekiel 48: 1). That is first in your mind; a class of people that are in tribal relations; they love one another. And then each man’s name is identified with his allotment, that the name enters into the allotment, and the allotment supports the name; that God has apportioned everything so that each of us is fully satisfied. All is divinely fixed, and there are no irregular boundaries; we have no needs. There is no cause of friction, and then there is plenty for God in the heave-offering, for one verse, you will notice, is devoted to size. From verse 20 we see that it is a square. There is a finished thought in a square.
JTJr Does it bring out that we are not thinking of ourselves, but of God?
JT That is confirmed by the greatness of the place given to the habitation of God in the epistle to the Ephesians. You get it nowhere enlarged on as you do in Ephesians.
FSC The word “shall” is used from verse 8 on in the chapter constantly. Why is that?
JT It is future, but that it must be [p. 265] so.
WB-w Have you any thought as to the end of chapter 47? The tribe of Joseph’s portion is mentioned before you get the names. Chapter 48 opens with the names, but chapter 47, verse 13 says, “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: This shall be the border whereby ye shall allot the land as inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions” Ezekiel 47: 13. It starts with Joseph.
JT That is the boundaries, the border; “ye shall allot the land as inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions” Ezekiel 47: 13. It evidently alludes typically to Christ, who is always distinguished as among the brethren. In every connection we must give Christ His true place. Joseph’s two sons are found in the actual allotments, but his name is not mentioned in these; but his name is in the gates; he and Levi are both in the gates, so there is a wonderful reciprocation in the whole matter. It is all a love matter; God has things in His own hands, and man’s will is not there.
Ques Why does it start from the north in verse 1 of chapter 48?
JT It is to show how that love is at work, for Dan did not deserve this. He is not mentioned in Revelation 7; he did not deserve it, but he is getting it in Ezekiel.
Ques How do you contrast the use of straight lines here in the inheritance with the inheritance given in the days of Joshua, which were bounded by rivers and mountains?
JT There is no need of testing; the allotments in Joshua admit of possible causes of testing or annoyance between us. We are tested by each other as near to each other. The peculiar boundaries of Joshua, I think, are to bring that out, so that love might be tested and worked out in us, that we might judge ourselves; that if a brother is not pleasing to me, I might judge myself, the cause may be in myself. I think that is what [p. 266] is meant. It is love in a state of things that admits of what is contrary, in Joshua; whereas here, it is love in a pleasing state of things, you might say. There is nothing to ruffle your spirit. You are not even told how much you are getting, because the point is, what you are getting you will find is right and you are not questioning it.
Ques Do you think that Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in John 11 would be like the Joshua setting; and John 12 would be like the Ezekiel setting?
JT Very likely. Each is in his place and there is no complaint at all; whereas in the early part of chapter 11, the sisters are wondering and almost complaining. “Lord, if thou hadst been here” (John 11: 21). There is an implied criticism in that, that the Lord should have been with them.
FHL Why is the numeral five emphasised so much — two thousand five hundred, two hundred and fifty, etc.?
JT There are seven tribes on the north above the sanctuary, and there are five on the south, but the numeral five has a great place throughout all the measurements, as you say. Five refers really to what lies at bottom of man morally, the exercise of his senses. There are five senses that go to make up a man, and it is the exercising of that that makes him, in a moral sense. “Have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil”, Hebrews 5: 14. Then his fingers and toes point to his ability for action as in dependence upon God.
JHE Six — six — six would be a man rising above what he should be — independence of God.
JT Yes. That is not a normal condition; the idea of a super-man, such as is now coming into evidence. No doubt the Philistine men with six fingers and six toes suggest this idea as over against David, who was marked by the idea of five — dependence on God.
[p. 267] Ques Do you think that Levi being mentioned as having part in the gates (verse 31), is to show the part the levites have in any administrative matters universally?
JT God is reverting to His primary thought in the twelve tribes. You did not get Ephraim and Manasseh when the twelve tribes came out of Egypt. This is sovereignty; taking up two tribes and putting them on a level with the others, and then the manipulation of two others. Joseph disappears and Ephraim and Manasseh are included in Ezekiel 48: 1 - 7. Levi is taken out for another purpose.
FNW Is there a point in the fact that Judah is next to the heave-offering?
JT It is between him and Benjamin, as it was at the beginning. It is to call attention to the peculiar working out of love between Benjamin and Judah. You go back to the history of Benjamin and Judah. They are strikingly linked together. Judah had a beautiful touch in regard of Benjamin in speaking to Joseph. So that as they were situated in the land in Joshua’s day, evidently Jerusalem was actually in Benjamin’s territory (Joshua 18: 28). How did it come to Judah? Benjamin gave way. It is the principle of giving way. Love will give way. It will not contend for its rights. There was an excellent relation between those two tribes. It was said of Benjamin, “The beloved of Jehovah”, Deuteronomy 33:12. The beloved of Jehovah will give way. But then it says, the Lord will “dwell between his shoulders”. That is, He honoured him, but in result the sanctuary was in the territory of Judah. Jerusalem was the city of the great King and the great King belonged to Judah. I think it is to bring out what these two men were: Judah and Benjamin; the beautiful relation between one and another; and now here they are, Judah is on the north. As soon as he is mentioned you must have the sanctuary because he is that kind of man. Benjamin is the other kind of man [p. 268] that will give way, and make room for a greater than himself.
AR Does the reference in verse 8 here go back to Psalm 114: 2, “Judah was his sanctuary”?
JT I think it does. “Judah was his sanctuary, Israel his dominion”. We have to find out how that was, because the facts in Exodus do not show it. No doubt the allusion is anticipative of the place that Judah would have in David and Solomon and the final position of the sanctuary.
Rem When Paul went up to see Peter the lines were straight; but when Peter came down to Antioch the lines were ragged, and they had to be straightened.
ABP Would you say that Luke 10: 25 suggests the matter of the neighbour must be settled before the matter of eternal life can be enjoyed?
JT Quite so. Brethren dwelling together in unity, as the basis for eternal life, confirms this (Psalm 133).
AR What have you to say about verse 30?
JT “These are the goings out of the city. On the north side, four thousand and five hundred cubits by measure. And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel: three gates northward: the gate of Reuben, one; the gate of Judah, one; the gate of Levi, one. And at the east side four thousand and five hundred, and three gates: the gate of Joseph, one; the gate of Benjamin, one; the gate of Dan, one. And at the south side four thousand and five hundred cubits by measure, and three gates: the gate of Simeon, one; the gate of Issachar, one; the gate of Zebulun, one” (Ezekiel 48: 30 - 33). The twelve tribes are now in another setting. It seems to me that our minds ought to be on the tribes in this chapter; because it is the finish. “These are the names of the tribes”. And then their allotments and then their positions in the gates, as if they are the ones. They are the climax of all this instruction, and you want to be amongst them, each having his place in the city.
WFK [p. 269] Would you say a word on the heave-offering?
JT The heave-offering is, as we said, presented on a large scale. We have a large square, showing the fulness of it, and variety of it, too. Every interest is taken care of; every distinctive interest such as the priest, the Levite and the prince. They are all taken care of in the heave-offering; meaning that the saints are thoroughly in the mind of God. The saints are co-operative with the brethren who are serving; ready to support them freely, and in doing so they are ministering to God. So this is the finish, and it seems to me, a wonderful finish. The tribes are in their place and it is in the city; corresponding with Revelation, and then “Round about it was eighteen thousand cubits; and the name of the city from that day, Jehovah is there” — Jehovah Shammah (Ezekiel 48: 35). He can be there under those conditions. It is the saints viewed in this dignified way under divine manipulation. You are just where God would have you, and I am just where God would have me. And God says, I am satisfied with that; I am there.
CAM Is that not what all the current ministry is tending to? The culminating thing is the presence of God.
JT Quite so. What is it if there is not a place for God? Ephesians gives us the full thought in regard to the habitation of God in the Spirit. He is really there according to all His blessed feelings and interest in us in detail.