ADMINISTRATION (4)
[p. 322] ADMINISTRATION (4)
Exodus 3: 11 - 14; Numbers 12: 1 - 10; Exodus 7: 1 - 18
JT As the brethren finished with Joseph at the last reading on the subject of administration, we should now look at Moses, who affords a wide scope for us in the consideration of this subject. His work is very comprehensive, reaching on to the administration of our Lord Jesus Christ. It covers the Pentateuch except Genesis; that is. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. He does not personally enter into what is set out in Genesis. For brevity and conciseness it is thought we should consider what characterised Moses personally, and then what characterised him officially. Personally he was marked by administrative ability early. Fleeing Egypt he linked up with Jethro the priest of Midian and married one of his daughters. He took care of the sheep of Jethro. This was an administrative service which characterised his life. Many others of Israel were marked by this, such as David, pointing to the fact that administration lies in connection with persons. Moses brought the sheep, which are typical of persons, as remarked, to the backside of the desert, to the mountain of God, to Horeb, making way for the great field of administration which the mount of God suggests, including the unfolding of the law, which took place there, and the tabernacle.
The law, the tabernacle and the general ordering of the tribes of Israel are the great features of Moses- administrative services. Then we should further consider the extraordinary relation to God in which Moses is seen. Aaron is with him in this in measure, but not altogether. He is seen as Moses- prophet. The subject before us therefore involves direct representation of God and not simply an official person to do what he is told to do. Jehovah said to him, “See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh”. Not a god but God, showing he had, as [p. 323] we might say, divine prerogatives. The idea of prerogatives enters into the truth of administration, for God has prerogatives and they are seen in this remarkable setting as imparted to Moses. In representation he is God, and Aaron is his prophet, showing what a wide range of authority he had; and it was effective. We spoke of what he was as caring for Jethro’s sheep and how faithful he was in that, and how he led them to the mountain of God, but now he is personally representative of God and as such is envied and opposed and persecuted. This is another side of our subject that is most important and it all points to the Lord Jesus Himself.
In his official capacity as representative of God and also personally, Moses is particularly honoured by the Spirit in Numbers 12: “But the man Moses was very meek, above all men that were upon the face of the earth. Then Jehovah spoke suddenly to Moses, and to Aaron, and to Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tent of meeting. And they went out, they three. And Jehovah came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood at the entrance of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth. And he said. Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I Jehovah will make myself known to him in a vision, I will speak to him in a dream. Not so my servant Moses: he is faithful in all my house. Mouth to mouth do I speak to him openly, and not in riddles; and the form of Jehovah doth he behold. Why then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses? And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against them, and he went away; and the cloud departed from off the tent. And behold, Miriam was leprous as snow”, verses 3 - 10.
These great facts should be before us in view of the service of this great servant of God, and especially the peculiar honours and peculiar nearness to God into which he is called, having almost, we might say, divine [p. 324] attributes. He was a man like ourselves, of course, but one specially favoured by God in the prerogatives given him, which no other man such as he had. He was very near to God and we are to learn what such nearness implies, how it centres in the Lord Jesus, and how the assembly is, above all, near to Christ — the assembly of God in Christ Jesus.
I think what has been said will help us to understand, perhaps, what this great subject is as vested in such a man, that it all points to the Lord Jesus, and to ourselves as of the assembly as having part in it.
JTJr Would you say there is an advance in the subject from Joseph to Moses?
JT Quite, Joseph, I would say, is to be regarded in a family sense although in an administrative sense too. It is a very interesting comparison. Joseph more particularly represents the family line. Moses is a servant par excellence according to the passage in Numbers; but another thing is that he is made God to Pharaoh. Joseph says God had made him a father to Pharaoh, which would be relative. It fitted, however, with the great beneficial place he had in Egypt. He was a father to Pharaoh. But Moses was God to Pharaoh; not simply a god but God. I think that would help as to the distinction between the two positions; and then the abstract sense in which God is presented in the early part of Exodus, involving that Moses came to know God as no other had known Him; that is, in the abstract idea — the “I AM” — as he says in the passage read in chapter 3. When he inquires as to what he is to say to the people, the word is, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you”, meaning that name of God in His Being: I AM; that is, He is eternally I AM, having no beginning or end. It is Deity. He is revealed in this way to Moses.
RH It says repeatedly in relation to Joseph that God was with him. Would “I AM” be more than [p. 325] that?
JT I think it would. He is brought into, you might say, eternal relations. We cannot say that deity is attributable to Moses, but it is very noticeable how he stands related to God in His infinite Being, and that he is operating in that light.
AR God came nearer to Moses than He did to Joseph He was in the bush here.
CAM I think you called attention to the fact that Genesis culminates in a family setting. Would you say now that we are commencing another line of things in connection with the revelation of God?
JT That is a point for us to notice, that we are bordering on revelation. We are considering the area that God was operating in here, and how divine attributes are applicable to a man. I think that is the way the truth stands in Exodus.
CAM It awakens in us the great idea of how great God is, as we start such a line as this.
JT And that He is not content to be alone. He is alone. God is one and needs not to be related to any one. In His essential being He is sufficient to Himself, but He is pleased to be related with His creatures, and Exodus brings out how that is.
APT Is it not interesting and helpful to notice that when Moses gets this revelation, he is thinking more of the people than of Pharaoh?
JT Yes; it is a primary thought that God would speak to His people, and then He would speak to Pharaoh, because Pharaoh affected His people adversely. It is in the light of that, I think, that we have Exodus. Pharaoh was favourable to Joseph, but this Pharaoh is not favourable to Moses, hence “Jehovah said to Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened”, chapter 7: 14. What will God do in the presence of that? Pharaoh is adverse, but adverse in a hardened heart, and hence the extraordinary administrations in the ten plagues. They are extraordinarily suitable to the moment, tempered somewhat [p. 326] with mercy, and yet so as to effect the complete destruction of Pharaoh, and, we might say, his kingdom, in principle. Administration is required in adverse circumstances which serve to bring out the resources that God had to meet every exigency. This came out in Moses’ service in Egypt.
CAM It is a marvellous thing that God, in His absolute greatness, should be using what is adverse to make Himself known. It seems to serve a purpose.
JT Well, I think we get light on these points, because we have to do with the world, and we have the word in view of it, “Behold then the goodness and severity of God”, (Romans 11:22). So that we need to have in mind that God is severe although He is good.
AR God makes Himself known as Jehovah in this chapter. He does not remain alone.
JT Yes; the title is used in Genesis, but God was not known thus in the Genesis period; it is in Exodus that He is known, and it points to the abstract idea of God. It is what He is abstractly, and then that He can come into concrete relations with His creatures.
ANW As to the thought of God, the Lord refers to Psalm 82 saying, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came ...”, (John 10:35). Is the word ‘gods’ the same as Elohim?
JT Yes, as in Genesis 1. It is also applied to man as in the place of judgment; to that extent they are representative of God; but not in the full sense of the word to Moses — “I have made thee God to Pharaoh”. The word there is evidently more than is implied in those to whom the word of God came and who are called gods. The latter would just simply mean that they were made representative of God as even a gifted man now is to some extent representative of God. It is the person to whom the word of God came. Of course, the word of God came to Moses, but that did not in itself constitute [p. 327] him God. He is formally constituted God to Pharaoh by the direct word of God.
CAM Is it the greatest way in which God could be represented by a man? You have said the head of a household is representative of God. Moses, as constituted God in this way, would be the greatest expression of representation.
JT Because it is put just as if he were a divine Person, and the passage in Numbers 12 shows how important that is, because “the form of Jehovah doth he behold”. Of no one else is that said. Many were prophets, but this is not said of any but Moses, that “the form of Jehovah doth he behold”. Moses was unique in this way as a servant.
AR It says in Exodus 3 that he was afraid to look at God. In what way would God be there? “Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look at God”, (Exodus 3:6).
JT He is coming on now. The following part of the chapter shows that God is bringing him on to higher levels; but still he had seen God in the bush.
JAP What is the difference between Moses being God to Pharaoh, and what he was to the people of Israel?
JT He is never said to be God to them. It is a given power before Pharaoh. God is pleased often to elevate His people for immediate purposes; not for permanent or eternal reasons, but for the sake of advantage which a title may give to a man. Sometimes we hear of persons being elevated in rank because their governments would give them increased power. It would be to the advantage of the government that they might have that increased power; not simply to the advantage of the man. So Moses is made God; not a god, as was said, but God; so that he is directly God to Pharaoh, and does things in a divine way as God would do them, and what is in mind in reading so much of chapter 7 is to bring out the power of Moses- authority. His authority was represented in [p. 328] the staff being turned into a serpent. Jehovah says, in verse 15, “take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him; and take in thy hand the staff that was turned into a serpent. And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying. Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; but behold, hitherto thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Jehovah: In this shalt thou know that I am Jehovah — behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand”. Notice this, Jehovah said “in my hand”, whereas in truth the actual holding of the staff was in Moses- hand, showing how completely identified God was with His servant in order to afford His servant increased power so that the staff was now said to be in Jehovah’s hand, and Pharaoh would have to reckon with Moses accordingly. Now notice the staff already is spoken of as Aaron’s staff, whereas when we come to this verse, it is God’s own staff in His own hand, whereas in truth it was Moses’ staff and in Moses- hand; but Moses is completely identified with God.
JTJr This is a direct action by God in administration. He is acting directly through this man and especially through his hands. Over against this there is the public government of the world represented in Pharaoh as the king of Egypt.
JT I thought we should see how this all has been seen, in principle, during the past few years when our young brothers have morally represented God to the authorities. Our position corresponds, in that way, with the position Moses occupied before Pharaoh, except that now it is mysterious, and we are little or hardly known, whereas Moses was well known in Egypt. Then the government itself is representative of God, so that they are God’s ministers to believers for good, as Romans 13 says. That is to say, those who are directly engaged in government are said to be “God’s minister to thee for good”.
[p. 329] APT When the President asserts authority, he says, “... according to the authority vested in me”. He gets his authority through the constitution and also the Congress, but it is really from God. He would not know that it was from God.
JT Perhaps not; perhaps some of those in authority may, but we know, and we pray for them. We know that he does represent God although he may not know. We shall see that when we come into the study of the truth of administration in the hands of Nebuchadnezzar or in the hands of the Romans, or the Greeks. It was passed over into those hands, and yet retained its divine authority. That is because they are “God’s minister to thee for good”, (Romans 13:4).
APT Did Moses understand the position in this chapter?
JT He would understand it and act accordingly, because as we proceed to investigate what was said about the plagues, we see that Moses understood well enough what they meant, and he threatened Pharaoh with what they meant. And moreover he went from Pharaoh in great anger as if he were an equal with Pharaoh; as if Pharaoh had to do with him. Furthermore he became greater and greater in the eyes of the Egyptians, showing how authority becomes real in the hands of those who exercise it.
CFE In chapter 3: 12 God says to Moses that they were to serve God upon the mountain, but in chapter 7: 16 the people are to serve Him in the wilderness. What are the two thoughts there as to service? The passages read, “When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain”, and then, “say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying. Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness”.
JT I do not think there is very much difference. The service in both cases is to God, only one is in this [p. 330] mountain which would denote a certain place taken on by God, whereas the other is just the wilderness. It is just a historical fact, but very important, that the service is to be carried on outside the realm of Egypt. They were not to serve in Egypt properly. They were to serve in the wilderness. God is saying, I will have My service, but I will have it where I please. Pharaoh is not going to force God into any disadvantage. If God wants the wilderness for service He will get it.
FNW Is the culmination of Moses- greatness seen in chapter 11:3 It reads, “Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt”. Does that link on with Numbers 12 — “The man Moses was very meek”?
JT I was thinking of that a moment ago. He increased in power, which would be expected if God made Moses God. He was not simply a servant, but he was made God to Pharaoh.
ANW Then, too, he takes a very exalted stand in Deuteronomy. He says, “Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me”, chapter 18:15. That is very exalted, but perhaps it may not arise from the position we are speaking of here.
JT That is important and it is very good to bring it up now. It is the Lord Jesus Himself that is in view prophetically there.
RH Would this thought of his being God link representatively with the name Jesus in the beginning of Matthew?
JT Quite so. Hence, what we have said is true, that all our inquiry points to Christ. The retrospective view from Christ back to a person in earlier days greatly helps in the understanding of things.
JTJr Moses had to start right from the bottom, with everything against him; whereas Joseph came into a system of things more favourable. He was put right [p. 331] into the top position. Everything in Egypt was against Moses and also unbelief in the Israelites.
FHL Did they not both have a secret history that led to God taking them up? You referred to that at the outset.
JT Certainly Moses had a secret history, and, indeed, the history began when he was very young — in the ark of bulrushes. He advanced gradually and so we are told how old he was when he actually entered on the service in this chapter. He was eighty years of age. Another matter to be considered in the administrative service of God is that a man should be mature.
ANW We would like to hear you say more about administration in relation to shepherding. That seems to be new to me.
JT It is very obvious that it is a great part of it; the saints are in the hand of the Lord as a Shepherd, and Moses and Aaron represent that. God led them like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron. Jehovah led them like a flock. That is a most precious side of the administrative service of any of us. It is seen in David and, of course, in the Lord Himself, the great Shepherd of the sheep.
CFE The shepherding side is the personal side.
JT Quite so. But still he is a servant in it too. Moses served his father-in-law in a personal way, but only to indicate what he could do and what he was qualifying for. He was to feed and shepherd God’s flock.
SW One must qualify and measure up to a certain standard in personal service in order to be fitted for public service.
JT So we are hopeful in regard to all the young brothers that are coming in from the forces and camps, that God will take them on, and we are hoping that they are ready for it, because there is great need for them. And so it is that all the sons of Jacob had that training.
[p. 332] You will all remember how Joseph selected five out of the whole number, and these were to appear before Pharaoh, and that is exactly what is going to happen now in the brethren serving in the forces. They are to appear before Pharaoh; that is, before the Lord as to the kind of service they are going to continue in, and the point that is made is, that the five sons of Jacob that Joseph chose to present to Pharaoh were shepherds. They were told to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds, and that they had been always occupied with cattle. That was their occupation. Pharaoh says, “What is your occupation?” Joseph told them to say, when Pharaoh used these words, that they were shepherds; that their occupation was with cattle; and surely it was that they should continue in that; and hence although the Egyptians abominated cattle, yet Pharaoh said, ‘I have cattle’, showing what a mixture there was even in Egypt. When the question of occupation came up the Hebrews were not in reproach, because Pharaoh had cattle. He said, ‘I can use them’ and he did use them; and I believe that is what is going to happen. The brethren who have been engaged in military service are being trained, and now the Lord is going to continue that, only in another sense. It is another kind of thing; that is to say, to look after the saints.
AR Paul speaks of shepherding the assembly of God in Acts 20.
JT That shows how the military side is turned into service in the younger men, to look after the saints. They are to be elders. There are two words used for eldership. One is because the man is old and experienced, and another is that he is able to superintend. It is important to know how to superintend even though it be a small matter. The idea of a bishop is one who does that.
RH Would care for the church of God be [p. 333] shepherding?
JT That is what I was thinking. Eldership does not so much convey skill or authority as the word for bishop does. The word for bishop represents the idea of a superintendent; one who can look after others and tell them what to do. He is not to rule over them, but to tell them what to do, and how it is to be done well.
CAM When you think of the saints as sheep and the flock of God, would it be right to say you are thinking of them in a suffering character? Moses had a lot to do with them in a military way too.
JT The military side is in Numbers. Over six hundred thousand of them became soldiers. It was a big army and Moses was commander of all of them, but they were segregated and governed according to the principle of Numbers. It was a question of getting things right, teaching Ephraim to walk, to maintain military order and to serve God.
ANW Do I understand we are not to confine our administration to the collective assembly position, but it also devolves upon us as individuals?
JT I think so; wherever the work is to be done. “Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do with thy might”, (Ecclesiastes 9:10). We sometimes have to come down to small things; not always standing on our dignity as elders or bishops We do work that needs to be done. And so whatever came to his hand, Paul would do, even if it were gathering sticks to make a fire.
DP How do you reconcile Moses caring for the sheep with his authority in dealing with Pharaoh?
JT Well, I think we have been dealing with that in measure. If Moses is made God to Pharaoh, well then he will deal with Pharaoh as God, and so we have severity in the ten plagues. It is said, as we have already alluded to it in verse 17 of chapter 7: “Thus saith Jehovah: In this shalt thou know that I am Jehovah — behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river, and it shall be [p. 334] turned into blood. And the fish that is in the river shall die; and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall loathe to drink the water out of the river. And Jehovah said to Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy staff” (we are coming down to a lower level now than Moses, it is Aaron) “and stretch out thy hand upon the waters of the Egyptians — upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone. And Moses and Aaron did so, as Jehovah had commanded; and he lifted up the staff, and smote the waters that were in the river before the eyes of Pharaoh, and before the eyes of his bondmen; and all the waters that were in the river were turned into blood. And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank; and the Egyptians could not drink the water of the river; and the blood was throughout the land of Egypt”, verses 17 - 21. You can see the difference there between the service of Moses and Aaron against Pharaoh, and how Moses treated the sheep. It was a real thing. Moses was really God in that sense. He was constituted God to Pharaoh and acted against him, and eventually Pharaoh was destroyed. The severity was gradual.
SW Would not Moses leading the sheep to Horeb be a type of the assembly coming under administration?
JT I would think that. The children of Israel were constituted the assembly, typically, in Numbers. Numbers is the great book for the order of service in the tribes. They were segregated into four groups of three under leaders. There is a great point made of leadership in Numbers, and then, too, priesthood in Eleazar, because he represents the great idea of priest. It was not only in his father, but spiritually he represents the great idea of priest in the assembly. It is the grace of the Lord in acting amongst us. And the book of Numbers [p. 335] runs right on to the military side first set up under four leaders, in the South, and West, and North and East. And then there is the service of the Levites, which is the service of God in the sense of hard work; not simply military, but hard work, looking after the things that relate to the tabernacle. All that is administrative, but under Aaron or Eleazar. Eleazar was “prince of the princes of the Levites”.
RH How does this matter of the plagues work out now? Is it one of testimony now against the world?
JT I think so. You will notice that there is a certain element of grace seen throughout until the hardening of Pharaoh becomes unbearable, refusing to let the people go and asserting his rights over against God’s rights; God is against that, and He uses Moses against it. It is said that Moses “went out from Pharaoh in a glowing anger”, chapter 11:8, showing that he was advancing in power against the evil.
CAM Do you look at all this as going on amongst the saints in view of their leaving this world?
JT Well, that is a good suggestion. “There shall not a hoof be left behind”, so that when we baptise our children, that is in mind. We are not leaving one of them behind; they all are to go out.
RH It speaks in the Psalms of the effect of these signs on the people and I wondered if that might be the case now. The administration of Christ amongst us and our judgment of the world would be in view of the salvation of the saints.
JT That would all be in mind. We begin with baptism, and it is all in view of our going out of the world. Presently we shall be taken up to meet the Lord in the air, to complete supremacy, and come out in the coming world, because our testimony is not ended in this world. It is here, but it is in the future world too — the world to come. We shall administer there [p. 336] as well.
JTJr The character of the judgment is changed in Exodus over against what we have had in Genesis. We had the flood, which was one act, and then the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was also one act. Here it is a protracted idea; the lengthening out of the plagues. Is there a change in that way which might correspond with what is happening in our times?
JT I think it is tempered with grace. We shall see that in the examination of the plagues; they are tempered with grace. God is patient and gracious, even to the Egyptians who took sides against Pharaoh.
ANW “He that feared the word of Jehovah among the bondmen of Pharaoh made his bondmen and his cattle flee into the houses”, chapter 9:20.
JT That is good. I am glad you brought it up, showing how God’s government is now tempered with grace and mercy. It is not peremptory. When the people were to go into Canaan, the Canaanites were to be destroyed. Joshua was given a mission of destruction, but under Moses it was not that, and under David it was subjugation. The time for destruction really has not come.
FSC There never was any hope for Pharaoh, was there?
JT Well, he hardened his heart. That is the definite statement of Jehovah in chapter 7:14. “And Jehovah said to Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened: he refuseth to let the people go”. That is a fixed matter, and God is dealing with him from that point onward, but at the same time all is tempered with mercy, because something of God is going on in the Egyptians; that is shown in the very beginning of Exodus. There was something going on in Pharaoh’s daughter.
EEH In what way does the staff enter into assembly administration today?
JT It is a symbol of authority, but it was what Moses had, you know. That is. God takes up whatever [p. 337] marks us according to what we are constituted governmentally. Whatever marks us. God says, I will use that but I will use it in My own way. And so the staff is changed into a serpent, but it is changed back into what it used to be; showing the change is in Moses. The serpent is changed back into a staff again. The man Moses is the great servant; the great shepherd. It is the product of what comes out of God’s discipline in the saints. We come to a man: “For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus”, (1 Timothy 2:5).
AR Did Paul have the right to use a staff?
JT He hesitated to use it, but he said he would come. “What will ye? that I come to you with a rod; or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?” (1 Corinthians 4:21). That is what he asked the Corinthians and the government of God requires that the rod must be used.
WWM It says in Romans “For the scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very thing I have raised thee up from amongst men, that I might thus shew in thee my power, and so that my name should be declared in all the earth. So then, to whom he will he shews mercy, and whom he will he hardens”, chapter 9: 17, 18. So that what is adverse gives God an opportunity for His name being owned in all the earth.
JT That is good. What you have quoted is typical language transferred into New Testament language. We are at home in our own language. It is very good, too, to see how Romans develops us from the hardest features as set out in the flesh into the most lovely spiritual features in chapter 12.
AR I was wondering if Mr. Darby’s ministry, in principle, overthrew the world.
JT Well, quite so. I suppose the apostolic ministry did that at the beginning of Christianity. It broke down the world. It was a question of God in the apostles, but we have to leave that for we shall hope to have some [p. 338] readings in the New Testament. We will get into our own language and our own ways there. The apostolic epistles are the final word in everything. The gospels are not final. The final word in everything is the apostolic epistles. You might say Paul’s word is final everywhere, for it is through him the word of God is completed. It is the completion of the word of God. So that we come down to our own apostles. “Your apostles” they are called in Peter, and we feel when we are dealing with them that we are at home, we understand the language.
APT The Lord seems to give great stress to Moses: “But if ye do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:47). The Lord supports his ministry.
JT That is good and shows pretty much what we are dealing with; how Moses was constituted God. The Lord measures Moses- writings with His own; in fact, putting Moses- writings above His own, which is remarkable; as if God would do that for us; put words into our mouths for a purpose even maybe for a little while to accomplish something. We might have a brother help us and the Lord may remove him. I mean to say that He is sovereign in what disposition He makes of us; He uses one after another.
FHL “For he persevered, as seeing him who is invisible”, (Hebrews 11:27). Is that coming to light from this point on?
JT “Seeing him who is invisible”. That is a good point; so that it is a question of seeing God; and in a way we see God in Christ and we see God in one another, because we are enjoined, “Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, even as the Christ loved us”.
FNW Is the greatness of Moses carried forward in the latter part of Exodus? Aaron seems to drop out of the picture and Moses does all the speaking.
JT When we consider Deuteronomy we will see [p. 339] more of that. At our next reading we should come to Deuteronomy and we will come to eulogy in the last chapter.
AR Had you something to say about Numbers 12?
JT We cannot comment on that now. The thought will be to get on into Deuteronomy as we see how Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus work out; but Deuteronomy is final. We see how Moses places the tribes; how he writes his song before he dies, and when he is about to die he is as strong as he was when he was young: “his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated”. We can all reckon on the extended mercy of God in our circumstances if we are needed; and he was needed. Aaron lived one hundred and twenty-three years, but he is not said to have retained freshness and energy in his old age as Moses did.