READINGS ON EZEKIEL (4)
[p. 70] READINGS ON EZEKIEL (4)
Ezekiel 12: 1 - 11; Ezekiel 16:1-8; Ezekiel 16:60-63; Ezekiel 19: 10 - 14
JT The section to be covered this evening is quite extensive and follows the record in the end of chapter 11, that “the glory of Jehovah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city” (Ezekiel 11: 23). It had left Jerusalem. These following chapters, therefore, are to be regarded in the light of that solemn fact; hence we have “captive’s baggage” referred to in chapter 12. The first thing to be considered, therefore, is the condition of captivity and what goes with it — captive’s baggage — which, in view of the facts given here, would be very poor belongings.
And then the next chapter speaks of the false prophets and prophetesses; elements which may be expected where the glory has departed. In chapter 14 the responsible element in Israel makes inquiry, and the state of things is said to be so bad that even such godly and honoured servants of God as Noah, Daniel and Job could but save themselves from such a state of things by their righteousness. Chapter 15 teaches that unless there is fruitfulness, profession is worthless — the wood of the vine is of no value save as it bears fruit. Chapter 16 outlines the moral history of Jerusalem as in relation with Jehovah; her unfaithfulness from the outset. She is to be caused to know her abominations. The reinstatement of Jerusalem is in prospect, too; it is a chapter of great length, bringing out the faithfulness and love of God, and the solemn fact that, in return, He received nothing but rebellion and corruption. The concluding chapters of our section, chapters 17 to 19, hinge on the disclosures of chapter 16. Chapter 17 refers to the Babylonish captivity. Chapter 18 shows that sins of the fathers are not now regarded as coming upon people, but each one is liable on account of his [p. 71] own conduct. Then the concluding chapter in this section (chapter 19) speaks of the dearth of rulers. The house of David has failed in rule: “so that it hath no strong rod to be a sceptre for ruling” (Ezekiel 19: 14). Then it says, “This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation” Ezekiel 19: 14; that is to say, right feeling as to the whole position comes in at the end of this section.
CAM The glory having moved from the city would give colour to the whole section?
JT That is right; the glory had departed. So if we apply it to our own times, it would mean that God has left the public profession. He is no longer characteristically there. Throughout these chapters, provision is made for the remnant. In chapter 11, it says: “yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary” (Ezekiel 11: 16). But generally, the glory has departed, and these chapters have to be read in that light.
JS So you would read chapters 12 to 19 into the history of christendom?
JT I think so. Viewed from the standpoint of the captivity, it typifies the world as captivating the profession, which has become just a phase of the world system — the Babylonish captivity. Hence it becomes a question of whether we carry “captive’s baggage”; are we captives characteristically? I am using the word “baggage” because that is how the New Translation renders it: “And thou, son of man, prepare thee a captive’s baggage, and go captive by day in their sight; and thou shalt go captive from thy place to another place in their sight. It may be they will consider, though they are a rebellious house” (Ezekiel 12: 3). The prophet acts the thing; he is a sign in that way. To act at all for God in a representative way, one requires to be priestly. And of course we know that Ezekiel was characterised as being such. He is introduced to us as “the priest” (Ezekiel 1: 3), and that thought runs through the book. The word “burden” has a somewhat varied meaning. Here it would convey the thought of “word” or prophecy. But it is something to be borne — a weight — and the prophet would feel it; we are told it concerned “the prince in Jerusalem, and all the house of Israel that are among them” Ezekiel 12: 10. The prince in Jerusalem would himself go forth as a captive, as, indeed, Zedekiah did, later.
Ques Does the taking of this captive’s baggage refer to what is right, or rather to what is the outcome of the government of God?
JT It refers to the government of God; to the humiliating spectacle of a prince, or king, and the people of Israel going forth in this way.
Ques You do not suggest that in separating from evil we should pursue this line?
JT I would not like to be found with captive’s baggage. Those who have it are persons who are characteristically in captivity. Spiritual persons are not like that; they are dignified, according to chapter 11. They are said to be the brethren of the prophet, to whom God would be a sanctuary in their captivity; for while the government of God involved the captivity, and the spiritual in it would own this, yet I think that the “baggage” is an index to the spiritually sorrowful side of the position.
AFM It would be very humiliating to Zedekiah to be deported with captive’s baggage, deprived of eyesight, to Babylon.
JT Yes; to apply it today, it would be like the paraphernalia which is to be seen in the profession about us, as compared with what the saints had at Pentecost. What moral dignity attached to the early saints as in Acts 2! They were not in captivity! It was a new order of things in deliverance from the world. The same dignity in a moral sense attaches to those at the end, having the character of a remnant.
JS Is this an added burden put upon them in the government of [p. 73] God?
JT Clearly; humiliation attaches to the position now, I think. If anyone is awakened to what is current abroad, he sees that the cathedrals and choirs and organs and paid ministers and other accompaniments and paraphernalia are just a mark of the world, a mark that the profession is in captivity. There is nothing of spiritual dignity about it.
ABP The use made of possessions by the saints at the outset was apparently so pleasurable to God, that a lie in relation to it met with stern judgment.
JT Just so; and in Luke the Lord’s teaching would show that if we have temporal things, we are to use them in view of the future. The world uses money in view of the present, to add to self here, whereas the “unjust steward” used what came to his hand in view of the future; the Lord using what he did to teach us to use temporal things in relation to what is eternal. Luke speaks much of money, especially after chapter 15.
Ques Would this baggage be like the systematising of certain features of the truth, possibly to the point of naming it, such as the naming of denominations today?
JT Yes; such names are marks of the world.
AR Does the sign, which Ezekiel becomes, represent the faithfulness of God, appealing to Israel as a nation before they go into captivity?
JT Just so; it is a testimony to them beforehand; and nothing appeals to and affects one more, in reading the prophets, than the pains taken by Jehovah through His prophets, bringing things to bear upon the people from many different viewpoints; using so many different similes, and symbols; resorting to such a variety of things in order to get at them, so that they might judge themselves.
ANW So that if they refuse to hear they are given opportunity to see. All this is to be done [p. 74] in their sight.
JT The verse reads, “In their sight shalt thou bear it upon thy shoulder, and carry it forth in the dark; thou shalt cover thy face, and thou shalt not see the ground: for I have appointed thee for a sign unto the house of Israel” Ezekiel 12: 6. It is a characteristic of the captive. He is not showing himself He depicts the shame of such circumstances.
AR Does John’s gospel fit in with Ezekiel, in that he employs signs? “This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee”, John 2:11.
JT Quite so. It marks his ministry. The other evangelists are marked by works of power — miracles — but John confines himself to the word “sign” in his gospel; and then in Revelation it is the same thought — “Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his bondmen what must shortly take place; and he signified it”, Revelation 1: 1. It is presented by signs and symbols by His angel through His bondman John. Signs are a feature of John’s ministry.
Ques Do you regard this sign as partly ironic and partly right? Would the captive’s baggage be ironic, and the hiding, what the saints should be doing today?
JT The whole thing is a sign as to what would mark an ordinary captive. It says in verse 7: “And I did so as I was commanded: I brought forth my baggage by day, as a captive’s baggage, and in the even I digged through the wall with my hand; I brought it forth in the dark, and bore it upon my shoulder, in their sight. And in the morning the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, hath not the house of Israel, the rebellious house, said unto thee, What doest thou? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: This burden concerneth the prince in Jerusalem, and all the house of Israel that are among them. Say, I am your sign: as I have done, so shall it be done unto them: they shall go into exile, into captivity. And the prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the [p. 75] dark, and shall go forth; they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby; he shall cover his face, that he see not the land with his eyes. And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare; and I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezekiel 12: 7 - 13).
What Ezekiel did as a sign, was just what happened to Zedekiah later; a most humiliating thing for a man of such dignity. Christendom in the same sense has become captive. The Roman power captivated christianity; that is what is meant. And all this baggage — this paraphernalia that we get today in the form of cathedrals and other things already mentioned — would correspond to the captive’s baggage. Spiritually the whole position is most humiliating and degrading.
JS In Luke 10, the seventy went out as being free from every burden.
JT They were to carry nothing. They had no captive’s baggage; they were representative of Christ. “When I sent you without purse and scrip and sandals, did ye lack anything?” Luke 22: 35. So that the more baggage we have of this kind, the more we show that we are subservient to the world. We have to comply to the world’s requirements. What belonged to the people in Jerusalem is now in Babylon.
JS Showing that the glory has been entirely lost sight of, and hence all these accoutrements are outside.
JT Yes. That is the lesson in chapter 12, and then what follows would go with it. What followed upon the Romish captivity of christianity was false prophesying — a system of man-made ministry, especially from the time of Constantine. He himself had to do with the formulation of the creed. Think of the emperor himself having to do with it! The very councils were a testimony to the captivity of the church! Think of an unbaptised man — possibly unconverted — [p. 76] a murderer really — presiding at the christian councils! Thus in chapter 13, as I said, you have a system of false prophets and false prophetesses, too. Jezebel herself (Revelation 2: 20), was a false prophetess.
AR Did the judaising teachers introduce the idea of baggage, in trying to bring the saints back to circumcision?
JT I think that would be the thought. Under the Roman emperors there was complete captivation of christianity; and concurrently with that, there has been introduced the system of false prophecy — persons assuming to be prophets who are not prophets in the true sense.
JS Is not christendom today full of false prophets and prophetesses?
JT That followed historically; chapter 13 presents that feature. The conditions are seen to be so bad that there is no hope. Jehovah would have spared Sodom for ten righteous persons, bad as it was; but there is no hope for Jerusalem here. If Noah, Daniel and Job were there, they could only save themselves by their righteousness. That seems to me to be very much like conditions under Jezebel. The position is given up. There is no hope at all.
RWS Why is this ministry given to the captivity here? At the last reading, we noted that Ezekiel was in Jerusalem, but now he is taken back in spirit to Chaldea, and gives this ministry there; “And the Spirit lifted me up, and brought me in the vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity; and the vision that I had seen went up from me. And I spoke unto them of the captivity all the things that Jehovah had shewn me” (Ezekiel 11: 24, 25).
JT The captivity of Jerusalem had not yet actually occurred, so the people there were ministered to. It is a ministry to them, but calling attention to what is about to happen to the city. It is in vision, of course.
[p. 77] During the vision the prophet is transferred by the Spirit into Chaldea. Then the vision went up from him and he spoke of it to those of the captivity. The actual testimony of the prophet would reach all in this way.
It says, “And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not, which have ears to hear, and hear not; for they are a rebellious house” (Ezekiel 12: 1, 2). His ministry is to the rebellious house. In chapter 14 we have: “And there came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all by them?” Ezekiel 14: 1 - 3. Here we are in the presence of the representatives of Israel — the elders.
CAM The matter seems to become intensely individual; the citing of these men who could only save themselves, would seem to make it a very strenuous matter, and intensely individual!
JT Yes; and I think that if we apply the prophetic part of this to the history of the assembly, we shall see how the captivity is followed by a system of false prophecy; by a ministry that is false, as seen in chapter 13; so we have in verse 8: “Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Because ye speak vanity, and have seen lies, therefore behold, I am against you, saith the Lord Jehovah. And my hand shall be against the prophets that see vanity and that divine lies: they shall not be in the council of my people, neither shall they be written in the register of the house of Israel, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the Lord Jehovah. Because, yea because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace! and there is no peace; and one buildeth up a wall, and lo, they daub it with untempered mortar — say unto them [p. 78] which daub it with untempered mortar that it shall fall; there shall be an overflowing rain, and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall, and a stormy wind shall burst forth. And lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing with which ye have daubed it? Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will cause to burst forth a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing rain in mine anger, and hailstones in fury for utter destruction” (Ezekiel 13: 8 - 13).
It seems to me, as having an application to our times or to the history of the assembly, that the captivity was followed by the establishment of a false system of teaching, both in men and women. Then in chapter 14 we have a condition that is so bad that no one can influence for good or save anyone but himself by his own righteousness. But they were building; there was a building going on in connection with that system, “And lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing with which ye have daubed it?” Ezekiel 13: 12. That, we might say, is over against the real building of the house of God by the Spirit. That sort of thing had gone on, and it is to be tested, and I have no doubt that God has brought one scourge after another in the history of christendom to bring some back to righteousness. So that the Saracens and the Mohammedans, for instance, were allowed to come in, in the public history of christianity to almost overrun christendom. God, in faithfulness, allowed that, in order to bring some to repentance, as it says in chapter 13: “Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will cause to burst forth a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing rain in mine anger, and hail-stones in fury for utter destruction. And I will break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered mortar, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered; and it shall fall, and ye shall be destroyed in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah” (Ezekiel 13: 13, 14).
[p. 79] It seems to me that there is a remarkable analogy there to what has transpired in the public history of christianity.
Ques Would the words, “untempered mortar”, used to hold the parts together, be in contrast to the idea of tempering in 1 Corinthians 12: 24, “But God has tempered the body together”?
JT That is the contrast. This untempered mortar is the false thing; it is very much like the slime that was used for mortar at the building of the tower of Babel. It is the same sort of thing that goes on here. It is the whole Babylonish system that has been built up, according to the history we have, since the captivity by the Romans; there is the false system of teaching and the building attached to it, and then the terrible scourges that have followed, which are premonitory of the final judgment.
JHE How faithful of God to bring the wall down, to discover that the foundations were not right!
JT Yes; 2 Timothy 2: 19 speaks of the firm foundation of God that stands. That is in contrast to this foundation that does not stand.
JS Would the untempered mortar be like the doctrines of today that cannot hold the sects together?
JT That is the idea; the so-called councils and the hierarchy and all that kind of thing which was designed of man to hold things together; but God brought scourge after scourge to show there is no true foundation, and presently the whole thing will be destroyed. I think it is well to see that, and then the terrible consequences which follow in chapter 14; the state of things being such that men like Noah, Daniel, or Job could only save their own souls. They could not have done so much as could have been done in Sodom in Abraham’s time.
Ques Does the plain of Ono, referred to in Nehemiah, enter into chapter 14 — the idea of compromise?
[p. 80] These elders sit down and try to find out what is the mind of God.
JT In a certain way, for they are not judging themselves. They are, no doubt, under pressure. “And there came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me”. Ezekiel 14: 1. They are ready to listen to the prophet. “And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all by them? Therefore speak to them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumbling-block of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet, I Jehovah will answer him according to this, according to the multitude of his idols: that I may take the house of Israel by their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols” (Ezekiel 14: 2 - 5).
There is no answer from God in spite of their inquiry.
It is important to see that in these chapters there is an analogy to what is current today, so that we may get practical gain out of them. We want to get gain for our souls. These scriptures refer to the history of the assembly, and chapter 14 is a condition of things that is irremediable. Even men like Noah, Daniel and Job, in such circumstances, could do nothing but save their own souls. No doubt there were saints right through the Middle Ages that did save their souls by faithfulness, but Jezebel being allowed, there was no hope. Even the Reformation did not change the position in this sense. God did much through it, making way for the remnant, but the judgment on the professing body remains.
JS So eventually it will end up in the Laodicean condition which the Lord will spue out of His mouth.
AR Revelation 18 says Babylon has fallen, and God appeals to the saints: “Come out of her, my people” Revelation 18: 4.
[p. 81] I suppose this would be an invitation to leave the thing, would it not?
JT Yes. There were those that saved themselves, morally, at least, right through from the very outset of the captivity, through their righteousness; that is what counted. The ecclesiastical system was hopelessly involved. This section contemplates the glory having departed from Jerusalem; the state of things that ensued is in mind. But in our times it is what has come down in the history of the assembly. The condition has become hopeless. And then in chapter 15 we have stated the uselessness of the wood of the vine. What is a merely nominal christian more than a Mohammedan or a Hindu? He is not a bit better. Mere nominal christianity has no value in itself. The wood of the vine is of no value unless it bears fruit. Nominal christianity in itself has become a worldly religion on the same level as Mohammedanism. What really differs is the new man, and that is connected with another order of things; it is a new creation.
GMacP Is this what the apostle had in his mind when he said: “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2:19? The system itself was under judgment.
JT Quite so.
RWS The end of all this is given in verse 4 of chapter 15: “Behold, it is given to the fire for fuel: the fire consumeth both the ends of it, and the midst of it is burned” Ezekiel 15: 4.
JT That is very striking. The question of humanity comes out in the history of the assembly. The so-called ministers, the priests and nuns and the like take up a religious attitude. But what is the humanity underlying it? Is it the natural man or the new man? Jude says of them, “These are they who set themselves apart, natural men, not having the Spirit” (Jude 19). What is taught in the chapter before us is, that unless there is real fruit for God the profession of christianity is [p. 82] of no value at all, any more than Mohammedanism, for instance.
JS Except that they are much more responsible.
JT Exactly; but as regards the wood, what is it? “Son of man, what is the wood of the vine more than any wood, the vine-branch, which is among the trees of the forest? Shall wood be taken thereof to do any work? or will men take a pin of it to hang any vessel thereon? Behold, it is given to the fire for fuel” (Ezekiel 15: 2 - 4). It is a very striking figure.
Ques The beast and the false prophet, who represent the heading up of this system, are cast into the lake of fire. Is that the final public judgment?
JT That is very striking. That gives particular force to the meaning of the fire, undoubtedly. That sort of humanity has not been helped by christianity.
WR Does Simeon take on the character of the new man in the second chapter of Luke’s gospel? He holds the Babe in his arms.
JT That is the thought exactly. The new man is the only hope now. And God has graciously brought that in, as seen in the epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians.
Rem Christendom expects special favours from God; whereas, these and other scriptures show that God is against it.
JT Exactly; Israel had the place of the vine, but there was nothing there for God; it is judged and burned. Now christendom has taken that place according to Romans, but it is only fit for the fire. There is no fruit and the wood is of no use. You cannot make anything out of the wood of the vine. It is only of value as bearing fruit (compare John 15).
AR Perhaps the contrast to what you are saying is seen in Aaron’s rod as laid up before Jehovah; it budded and blossomed and ripened almonds in contrast to the other eleven rods.
JT [p. 83] It was the only rod of real value in that sense, that is, as representing true priesthood.
Chapter 16 is the history of Jerusalem from the outset; it goes back to the beginning — what Jehovah had been to her. As applied to ourselves, it is what God was to the assembly in the early days; and, alas! what the result has been; which corresponds to what we have been saying. It is the practical, or responsible, history of christendom. There was nothing but corruption, utter faithlessness on the part of her who was so highly favoured and cared for and ornamented by God. So that she corresponds with what we have just said, that is, the wood of the fruitless vine, as compared with Sodom and Samaria. She is just on the same level. At one time, she would not take their names into her mouth in pride; but now God says, You are just on that level. Sodom and Samaria are looked at as her sisters. It is the profession as corrupt, viewed in this light. The marital relation with God must be abandoned. She is utterly unfaithful. That is what chapter 16 means, but with the beautiful promise at the end that she is to be restored on the principle of the covenant. “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. And thou shalt remember thy ways, and be confounded, when thou shalt receive thy sisters who are older than thou, together with those who are younger than thou; for I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by virtue of thy covenant. And I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah; that thou mayest remember, and be ashamed, and no more open thy mouth because of thy confusion, when I forgive thee all that thou hast done, saith the Lord Jehovah” (Ezekiel 16: 60 - 63).
I think it is a beautiful ending of a long chapter, beginning with what the assembly was in its brightest days. I suppose the ministry of the twelve would refer [p. 84] to Israel as a whole, but this is Jerusalem. It is not simply the church of Pentecost; but Paul’s church, I think, would be the analogy in christianity. How beautifully ornamented she was, when God took her up and made a covenant with her! It was a time of love and He covenanted with her, and said, “and thou becamest mine” Ezekiel 16: 8. It seems to bring out the place the Lord’s supper has in the history of the assembly as seen in Paul’s ministry; the public result, on the other hand, is dreadful unfaithfulness, so that she is compared with Sodom and Samaria.
ABP Would this beginning, then, be the assembly as seen in Antioch?
JT I think that is the way we may look at it. It not Israel brought out of Egypt; it is Jerusalem — the most delightful and ornamental side of the position — and what God effected there.
JS The epistle to Ephesians would give us the heavenly ornamentation.
JT That is what I was thinking. That is why I think it is Jerusalem here in contrast to the idea of Israel. The elders of Israel came to the prophet in the beginning of chapter 14, but this is Jerusalem; that is, it is the brightest and best side of Israel’s history. Applied to the present time, God wrought in love, beautifying the assembly wonderfully, but this is the public result down here.
Rem God had already spoken through the prophet to Israel in chapter 12, and then to the prophets, and then to the prophetesses, and then to the elders of Israel, and now to Jerusalem.
JT It is the best side of the position, the brightest and best side of the assembly’s position that is in mind in this chapter. Paul brought out in his ministry, in a peculiar way, the love that was lavished upon her.
Ques Is this covenant made with the remnant at [p. 85] the end?
JT That is the way it is stated. First it says, “I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant” (Ezekiel 16: 60). It seems to me that it applies, typically, to Paul’s ministry in relation to the Lord’s supper; how the ministry comes into that. It is not so much a question of the new covenant or of the old one that was given at Sinai, but rather the idea of a covenant that God made with the saints; how His love is brought to the attention of the saints through Paul’s ministry, and then we see the public consequences of unfaithfulness in the whole chapter, and at the end the promise of recovery. This promise is very applicable in our own times.
Ques Would we get the force of that in 1 Corinthians 11? There seems to have been a falling off in regard to the Supper; whereas the apostle says he received it from the Lord, emphasising the freshness of the Lord’s love.
JT Quite so; the Supper was celebrated from the outset, but it was not seen in relation to the assembly. The idea of the covenant was not stressed in the ministry of the twelve; it is developed in Paul’s ministry.
Ques Would not the whole chapter help us to be very humble as to the conditions that have prevailed since Paul went off the scene?
JT I think that is the lesson; that we might see what has been expended on the assembly, particularly in Paul’s ministry. We are apt to regard this as referring to the beginning of Israel’s history, but it is Jerusalem that is in mind; typically the brightest and best in the history of the assembly, which would involve the full disclosure of the truth through Paul.
ANW Would you say a word about the name Lord Jehovah, in which He repeatedly presents Himself in these chapters? What is the significance of the title?
JT It is Adonai. It is a name of God; authority expressed alongside the covenant name. 2 Corinthians 3 [p. 86] carries the thought, perhaps as concretely as any passage we can get. There the authority of the Lord is allied with the ministry.
AR Does the end of the chapter suggest that God remains true to Himself in spite of the unfaithfulness of the church? He says, “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee” Ezekiel 16: 60.
JT That shows His faithfulness; “and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant”; meaning that it goes through. That is very comforting! We are now on the ground of the covenant that carries us through all time.
WR Would you say that many who fell out in the early days of the recovery, one hundred years ago or so, were not prepared to take on the covenant?
JT That is true. God is faithful on His side, and He has established a covenant; not only for time, but an everlasting one. He will carry us through on the best terms. It is a very comforting thought.
RWS Would the word “youth” being mentioned here suggest how short-lived assembly fidelity was, even in the apostle’s day? He saw the deflection coming in.
JT The greatest and very best assembly — the greatest result of his work — was Ephesus. It was with Ephesus the Lord began when He says in Revelation, “I have against thee that thou hast left thy first love” Revelation 2: 4, showing how short-lived the result was. For Paul says, all they that are in Asia have turned away from me. The love of union — the real personal affection of the assembly thus viewed — lapsed very early.
Ques The breaking of bread was neglected for many centuries, was it not?
JT Exactly. The state for it was not there. In stressing the lordship of Christ in the epistles to Corinth, Paul was seeking to promote and maintain assembly conditions suitable for the Supper. He also stressed fellowship and the faithfulness of God. “God is faithful,
[p. 87] by whom ye have been called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”, 1 Corinthians 1: 9. That thought runs through the two epistles. So the assembly under Paul had an excellent start. It could not have had a better, but how quickly it lapsed, not only in Corinth, but in Ephesus! It would seem that almost as soon as he left Ephesus, the personal touch was lost! “All who are in Asia ... have turned away from me”. 2 Timothy 1: 15.
AFM This passage (verses 60 - 63) must involve that great depths are reached in repentance to enable Jehovah to make overtures to them in regard of the covenant.
JT He is asserting His own faithfulness to His covenant. And then He will make an everlasting one which will carry us right through. God is faithful; that is how 1 Corinthians begins. God is true to His own engagements, but then He goes beyond that and says, I will make an everlasting covenant with you.
AR Would the knowledge of the everlasting covenant help us to depend on God as long as the assembly is here on earth, knowing that He will be true to His promise?
JT That is the one side of the position; He is faithful. But He goes on to an everlasting covenant.
ABP Do the last two verses of chapter 16 suggest the proper attitude of the saints, considering the public breakdown, so that we should go on in shamefacedness and humility?
JT “And I will establish my covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah; that thou mayest remember, and be ashamed, and no more open thy mouth because of thy confusion, when I forgive thee all that thou hast done, saith the Lord Jehovah” (Ezekiel 16: 62, 63). It seems to bring home to us the idea of humiliation in the light of past history. After all, whatever we are or have, God has effected it. And He is going beyond that to an everlasting covenant, which, as I said, is very assuring — that He will take us right through.
[p. 88] Rem And especially in view of the fact that the sin committed was worse than Sodom and Samaria. It is a most remarkable thing.
JT Jerusalem’s sin was not worse than the history of the assembly; “the depths of Satan” Revelation 2: 24. There is really no worse conduct than that of the public assembly.
Rem Mr. Darby has a reference to Deuteronomy 21, where the elders of the city prayed for forgiveness on the ground of sacrifice.
JT Yes. There is a note on the word “forgive”, or “make atonement for”, as in Deuteronomy 21: 8. All is therefore on the most solid basis for Jerusalem.
And then, after this great ministry of chapter 16 which we have sought to apply, carrying it down to our own times, to an everlasting covenant, chapter 17 brings in a “riddle” and the allusion is to Babylon: “And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel, and say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: A great eagle with great wings, long-pinioned, full of feathers, which was of divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar. He cropped off the top of its young shoots, and carried it into a merchant’s land; he set it in a city of traders. And he took of the seed of the land, and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, he set it as a willow tree. And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, so that its branches should turn toward him, and the roots thereof be under him; and it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs. And there was another great eagle with great wings and many feathers; and behold, from the beds of her plantation, this vine did bend her roots unto him and shot forth her branches toward him, that he might water it. It was planted in a good field by many waters, that it might bring forth branches and bear fruit, that it might be a noble vine. Say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Shall it prosper? Shall he not [p. 89] pull up its roots, and cut off its fruit, that it may wither? All its fresh sprouting leaves shall wither, even without a great arm and many people to pluck it up by its roots. And behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? It shall wither in the beds where it grew” (Ezekiel 17: 1 - 10).
And then we are told the king of Babylon and Pharaoh are in mind; that is, these great powers look at Israel from their point of view, to see what they can make out of it for themselves; showing that the powers of this world would endeavour to reap from whatever there is of God. We must not overlook that.
And then we have in chapter 18, “What mean ye, ye who use this proverb of the land of Israel, saying, The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord Jehovah, ye shall not have any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all the souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18: 2 - 4).
Now we come to a point where everyone is responsible. Let us not be talking of inherited sin or inherited judgment! Whatever happens to me is because of what I am, so that I have to see to myself. That seems to be the lesson of chapter 18; not to bend towards Babylon or Egypt, but to see to myself as responsible individually before God.
Ques Is there a link between chapters 17 and 18?
JT I think so. “All the souls are mine”, God says. At the present time certain governments of the world are making a great deal of their subjects. They are making their subjects mere pawns for their own use, but God says, They are all mine; every one is mine, and the soul that sinneth it shall die. The thing for us is to be in right relations with God in the midst of all these things.
Ques Do you connect chapter 17 with Zedekiah in chapter 12 — the carrying away of the baggage?
JT [p. 90] Yes. Zedekiah is the one in mind, but we are bringing the teaching down to ourselves; and in chapter 17, after the wonderful ministry of chapter 16 looking to recovery in an everlasting covenant, we have the great powers of the world endeavouring to have this vine look toward them, to contribute to their greatness. It was for God, but they want to make it yield something for themselves. That seems to be the lesson of chapter 17.
J.S. Is it commercialism?
JT Exactly; each of these great monarchs makes as much as he can out of this vine.
ABP Does not John, in chapter 9 of his gospel, in indicating the recovery of the truth of sonship, suggest that the disciples were hindered by this thought of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children? The disciples asked, “who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” (John 9: 2).
JT Quite so; that is the point raised here. “Neither has this man sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God should be manifested in him” (John 9: 3). The Lord selected this man for a purpose. I must recognise God’s claims. “All the souls are mine”, God says Ezekiel 18: 4.
ABP Does not the teaching of John 9 apply practically to the present day?
JT Yes; the man in that chapter is an example. He stands up by himself. He has not a bit of support from anyone, not even from his parents. That is the man, as cast out, that the Lord takes up. He represents the only man that will stand.
EEH Is that Timothy’s line: “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”, 2 Timothy 2:19?
JT Yes. John 9 is a very concrete example of one who stands in the presence of opposition, excommunicated. No one supported him at all, not even his parents, but the Lord took him up.
Ques Job, Ezekiel and Jeremiah would be in good company with that man in John 9, would they [p. 91] not?
JT Just so. A man in whom the works of God are manifested. The works of God manifested in one person!
JS He finishes up as a worshipper!
Ques Would the chapter we are considering show that christians should avoid all appearance of being national?
JT It is a question here of God’s rights. “All the souls are mine”, and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” Ezekiel 18: 4. Individual responsibility to God is stressed.
CAM It is remarkable that John 9 goes back to the very beginning: “One thing I know, that, being blind before, now I see” (John 9: 25). It is really like the “new man”, is it not?
JT All that he says shows that he is, in principle, a new man. He is so different!
Ques Do you think there might be a prophetic view in Paul in relation to “the powers that be”, in that Felix wanted him to lean towards him, whereas Paul refused? In desiring a bribe, he wanted Paul’s branches, as it were, to lean towards him.
JT I have no doubt that the Roman emperor Constantine wanted the assembly to lean towards him. Instead of destroying the christians, he evidently decided that he could use them.
Rem Do you get the same idea with Micah in Judges 17? Micah said, “Now I know that Jehovah will do me good, because I have the Levite for priest” Judges 17:13.
JT Yes; he had a Levite as priest in his house to serve his idolatrous system, and assumed, on that account, that Jehovah would do him good.
Rem Referring again to Felix: he says, “I will send for thee; hoping at the same time that money would be given him by Paul”, Acts 24: 25, 26.
JT He intended to make something out of the matter. It is an apt incident to apply here, for he represents the powers that be as making something out of the [p. 92] people of God.
ANW Pharaoh, too, used God’s people for his own ends, and God claimed them from him, saying, “Let my son go, that he may serve me” Exodus 4: 23.
RWS What is this “lamentation” in Ezekiel 19: 14?
JT The teaching in the parable, or simile, is “for the princes of Israel”. The chapter begins and ends with it. There is no ruler of the house of David (verse 14). The want of a ruler and of true rule among the people of God is great today. Of course, Christ is the true Ruler, but He has been displaced, and the public body is wanting of true rule. The Pope might say he is the ruler, but he is not. The whole position as regards rule is withered up, so it says at the end of the chapter, “And now it is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground; and a fire is gone out of a rod of its branches, which hath devoured its fruit; so that it hath no strong rod to be a sceptre for ruling” (Ezekiel 19: 13, 14).
JS They have lost all sense of connection with heaven.
JT I think that is it. Christ is displaced. It is a wilderness position. Babylon is seen as a wilderness. There are no springs there to produce anything for God; that is the position.
AR Like Daniel’s vision; the toes were mixed with iron and clay.
JT That is what the idea of rule has come to. Outwardly there is none to bear rule in the house of God.
Ques Who are the lioness and the two whelps?
JT They would represent Israel and such as the princes that had arisen in Israel. There had been Zedekiah and his like, but there are none now. The chapter finishes with that; there is no branch, no rod, to be a sceptre for rule. And the word for this is “lamentation”. It is the lamentation with which the chapter began, concerning the princes, but in verse 14 it says, “This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation” Ezekiel 19: 14. There is nothing to follow it in the public sense. We [p. 93] may thank God for anyone who laments. That is a saving element, I believe.
WFK Should we lament the position of the assembly today?
JT I think that is the idea. God furnishes the lamentation for us and we should take it up.
WFK It has moved away from the lordship of Christ.
JT That is right. You feel there is no one to rule for God. Every true christian feels it.
NP Do we get a similar thought in Judges? “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21: 25).
JT Exactly. Here the “lioness” refers to Israel, and she produced rulers, but now she is failing to do so. The whole position in this sense is withered up.
RWS The Lord lamented, weeping over Jerusalem.
JT The principle of lamenting is important in the history of the testimony. It is strikingly seen in relation to Josiah. There was more lamentation for him than for any of the other kings. This chapter alludes to his posterity. The line died out. Zedekiah was the last, and there was nothing there for God. Of course this does not interfere with Matthew 1, where the royal line is seen as having come down and is established in Christ.
ABP Is there some significance in the lamentation being introduced in the early part of Matthew, the kingly gospel? It says, “great lamentation: Rachel weeping” (Matthew 2:18).
JT I am sure there is. The link with Rachel, mother of the son of his father’s right hand, is striking. This chapter is the end of the section which has been before us and it ends with a lamentation. We shall get other features as we go on. We should never tire of keeping the truth in a variety of phases before us so that we might be affected by it.