WALKING (3)
WALKING (3)
JT The encampments are stressed in chapter 2 which we read yesterday. There is a list of the encampments in chapter 33 which becomes interesting in the light of what we have had, a long list of journeys: “These are the journeys of the children of Israel, who went forth out of the land of Egypt according to their armies under the hand of Moses and Aaron. And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah; and these are their journeys according to their goings out. They journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month. On the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians. And the Egyptians buried those whom Jehovah had smitten among them, all the firstborn; and upon their gods Jehovah executed judgements. And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and encamped in Succoth” Numbers 33:1 - 5. We then have a list of encampments, and the way in which God takes account of our encampments is a matter of deep interest. They are our gatherings, our stopping places, and God takes note of all that enters into each encampment and into the journeys between the encampments. In Israel’s history they are written down, which becomes, as we remarked, interesting in view of the subject of walking, which has been before us. For us they are not necessarily physical journeys but spiritual ones, for the physical are figurative of the spiritual, and yet they are actual journeys made and actual encampments, because the encampment requires that the saints be together and has in view the service of God continuing.
Now this chapter 10 is the journeyings rather than the encampments. Yesterday we spoke of the trumpets [p. 219] which governed movements, but there were also the cloud and the pillar which denoted the divine Presence and these should be before us too because so many nowadays assume to have assembly status in their gatherings whereas there may be no divine Presence, and there cannot be unless the saints are walking in obedience. That is the point that is made in chapter 10. It is said in verses 11 to 13, “And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth of the month, that the cloud was taken up from off the tabernacle of the testimony. And the children of Israel set forward according to their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud stood still in the wilderness of Paran. And they first took their journey, according to the commandment of Jehovah through Moses”. So that each encampment had the evidence of the divine presence in the cloud and in the pillar. And then too when they journeyed the silver trumpet announced the rights of the Lord over them, so that they journeyed at the commandment, at the blast of the trumpet. All is governed by obedience, and hence any assumption to assembly status must be based on obedience. Christendom is full of independence in that regard, the will of God and the commandments of God and the principles which govern the assembly being set aside, and people doing as they wish very largely, although they may be christians. But the divine Presence requires that we should be encamped first and then walk in obedience.
LES Do you think that the matter of the silver trumpets is of paramount importance? It is said, “At the commandment of Jehovah they encamped, and at the commandment of Jehovah they journeyed: they kept the charge of Jehovah according to the commandment of Jehovah through Moses” Numbers 9:23. And then we have the thought of the trumpets as if the prophetic word is needed in [p. 220] order to put the commandment into spiritual force and application amongst us.
JT Quite so. That is made provision for in Corinthians which is very largely our guide book, a christian’s guide book, corresponding with the book of Numbers in the type, and hence stress is laid on commandments and obedience. Paul says, “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. Everything must be governed by that; hence, if I am associated with human organisations, although they read the Bible and the like, I have to find out whether they are governed by the commandments.
CCT You were speaking about obedience. Would the reference to rank, involving marching order, bring in the thought of our all walking alike as to the commandments?
JT That is what chapter 9 has in mind I think, and this chapter too. Chapter 9 takes in the idea of the passover, the keeping of the passover. That enters into each encampment, and for the christian of course the passover is replaced, or at least added to, by the Lord’s supper. We spoke yesterday about eating. Israel was taught how to walk but they were taught how to eat too, and for us the eating includes the Lord’s supper. The passover, of course, is eating too, but it is found in 1 Corinthians 5 while the Lord’s supper is found in chapter 11. Without the Lord’s supper we cannot assume to have any part in the encampments because assembly formation must be recognised as we come together. Paul stresses that some of them were coming together not according to due order. We have to learn to eat the Lord’s supper as well as to walk.
FRA What would answer to the cloud now?
JT It is just symbolic I would say of the divine Presence; of the presence [p. 221] of God.
LES Would you say a word at this point as to the bearing of verse 13 of chapter 9 in reference to the passover?
JT It is important to bring that up. In fact the chapters that intervene between 2 and 10 are preliminary chapters, speaking of things that have to be done, things that Israel had to do before they set out on their first journey; and included in these things was the celebration of the passover. There is a considerable elasticity attached to it because if they could not partake of it in the first month they were allowed to take it in the second month. That is, a certain elasticity was allowed so that all who could partake of it should, and hence the importance of believers partaking of the Lord’s supper. If they claim to be true followers of the Lord Jesus and claim they belong to the assembly, they should partake of the Lord’s supper; hence the instruction about the passover is very helpful but very solemn because all persons who could partake of it and failed to do so would be cut off. How serious that is — people refraining from partaking of the Lord’s supper!
RRT Is there any sense in which the partaking of the passover, and now the partaking of the supper for us, would furnish spiritual strength for movement?
JT That is the point in it: “But let a man prove himself, and thus eat”, 1 Corinthians 11:28. It does not say to eat first, but “and thus eat”. If there is anything about which to examine himself he is to judge it, but eat. If we do not eat how are we to live? Because we are to live by food.
CCT Is the eating part of the obedience?
JT Clearly. It is a request by the Lord, but still it carries the force of a commandment. If you refuse to acknowledge or respond to the request you are lawless; “Let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14:37.
[p. 222] Those things included what Paul said about the Lord’s supper.
GMacP Is that what Matthew has in mind in the thought of eating, that we would build up a constitution suitable for the Lord’s supper?
JT Yes, “as they were eating”, Matthew 26:21,26 you mean. The Lord’s supper was instituted while they were eating. It develops really out of the passover.
EGMcA But am I right in thinking that unless I eat the Lord’s supper in the light of Luke I really do not move on to the right light of it? You say that the passover is in 1 Corinthians 5 and the Lord’s supper in chapter 11. In my experience, in eating the Lord’s supper years ago it was really in the light of the passover, the forgiveness of sins, rather than what the body of Christ is.
JT Yes, I see what you mean. The chapters intervening in 1 Corinthians are to build us up from the time of the passover to the time of the partaking of the Supper, and what particularly enters into that matter is the question of fellowship. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10:16. The word ‘communion’ means fellowship, and we must recognise the fellowship if we are to partake of the Lord’s supper because we cannot be free-lances, sitting down at the Lord’s supper and doing what we like afterwards. We are in fellowship and are bound up with the brethren and have to learn to walk with them and to be subject to them as they are to us.
FT You would include that whole first epistle among the Lord’s commandments?
JT That is it. “The things that I write to you” 1 Corinthians 14:37 include that epistle.
FT So we must not set aside part of it and accept other parts. That is done in christendom; selection is made of certain things of Paul’s and others [p. 223] are refused.
HAG In regard to what has just been said, there are those that say that washing of the feet in a literal way is just as important as eating the Supper.
JT There is nothing said about feet-washing in 1 Corinthians. Is that not right? It is in John 13, and it is an individual matter: “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me” John 13:8, whereas the instruction about the Lord’s supper is collective. “I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”, 1 Corinthians 10:15.
Rem The passover is connected with the wilderness while the Lord’s supper leads us into the land.
JT The Lord’s supper is partaken of in the wilderness; it is preliminary, but the Spirit leads us into the land really; it is by the Spirit we enter. But I do not know that we all got what our brother had in mind about feet-washing.
HAG There are persons who say, You make a good deal of the Lord’s supper; what about feet-washing? What about the Lord’s washing the feet? Is that not on the same footing? “Unless I wash thee, thou hast not part with me”, John 13:8.
JT I can understand that and I think it is helpful to allude to negatives sometimes for guidance, at least for convenience. But we will have to leave that for another time. There is a time for everything, the wise man says, and the time now is for considering the encampments of Israel which are typical of the saints in the present dispensation coming together. So we are enjoined in Hebrews not to forsake “the assembling of ourselves together, as the custom is with some” Hebrews 10:25. That involves the encampments and all that enters into them and we are not to forsake those things. We cannot say that the instruction about feet-washing is in 1 Corinthians, although it may be there in spirit. I would say the first epistle is the water and the second epistle is the towel. Feet-washing was literally practised when the [p. 224] Lord used it but it is not used in christianity as a literal thing, whereas the Lord’s supper is. It is carried forward in christianity as a literal thing that is done.
HAG Feet-washing would characterise us in our walk and in our relations one with another.
JT Quite so, because we contract defilement and we need to have it washed away; that is by the water of the word, not by literal water, whereas the Lord’s supper, the bread and the cup, are literal elements. Neither washing the feet as a literal sacrament nor keeping the passover as a literal thing were carried over into christianity, they are spiritual matters. We have to distinguish between the types and the anti-types and see whether there are any types literally carried into christianity. I used the word ‘type’ for things that the Lord instituted or recognised even while He was here. Feet-washing was hardly His institution for it was practised of old. The Lord said to Simon the Pharisee, “Thou gavest me not water on my feet, but she has washed my feet with tears”, Luke 7:44. Washing His feet with tears or with a basin and towel is not carried over into christianity, but it is carried over spiritually, and I believe 1 and 2 Corinthians teach what it means. In the first epistle we are set free from defilement through the washing of the water by the word and in the second we see tender care for the saints typified in the towel, wiping away the effect of the washing so as to make us comfortable and at ease with one another.
LES The widows put on the list would have those spiritual features attaching to them, as having washed the feet of the saints.
JT Quite so, such would wash the saints’ feet. Feet-washing is an old thing, as I said. The Lord alludes to it, it was done in Old [p. 225] Testament times.
FRA Why is it that in John’s gospel we do not get the Supper formally but we get the feet-washing in connection with the passover?
JT I think the allusion is to contact with the earth. We were speaking last night of sonship; sonship takes us to heaven, whereas the relation of children of God is down here. “Beloved, now are we children of God”, 1 John 3:2. We walk through this earth as children of God and should see that our feet are clean. “He that is washed all over needs not to wash save his feet, but is wholly clean”, John 13:10. Even the most spiritual of us need the application of the word of God to keep us right. It is a question of what is spiritual.
EGMcA It is interesting that Abraham brought water for the heavenly visitors. You would hardly think they would need it, but it shows the importance of it.
JT Quite so, I was thinking of that. Besides the removal of defilement, feet-washing is comforting and induces restfulness.
RRT In regard to what you were saying about the Lord’s supper and the passover, it says in regard to the eating of the Supper that they partook of it as they lay at table. Would that correspond to the encampment? And then after the Supper it says they went out to the mount of Olives. Would that correspond to the journey?
JT Somewhat. I do not know that you would call it a journey, although it was so in a sense, but it was an ascension. We have the distance given from the mount of Olives to Jerusalem: it was a sabbath day’s journey and I do not think that is what is meant in moving to a new encampment; the journeys were much longer than that. The journey primarily from mount Sinai to the land was eleven days, whereas the distance from the mount of Olives to Jerusalem was only a sabbath day’s journey, which [p. 226] was, I should think, the distance between the tabernacle and the camp, because there was a distance between the actual tabernacle position and the tents of Israel. I should think it was about that, because that was all they were allowed to travel on the sabbath day, whereas the journey from one encampment to another took a much longer time. Therefore the going from the position in which the Lord’s supper was celebrated to the mount of Olives would be a spiritual matter, like travelling from Corinthians to Colossians. It is an upward trend as the mount of Olives is an upward trend from Jerusalem.
RRT So it would be a spiritual movement forward but yet not corresponding to these journeys in the wilderness?
JT That is what I would say. There was the journey that the two disciples took from Jerusalem to Emmaus. That would be a distance enough to be regarded as between two encampments, but, alas, there was no proper encampment at Emmaus; the Lord only went there to get them to go back to Jerusalem.
RRT It would be spiritual disaster for one to remain at an encampment when the people had moved forward.
JT It would, indeed. The position at Emmaus was sixty furlongs away which would be seven or eight miles. That was about, perhaps, the distance between Corinth and the port of Corinth, which was Cenchrea, where the sister Phoebe resided. That, I think, would be a good example. She had the experience of going from Cenchrea to Rome, and it was a very long journey to take. She evidently carried a letter on that journey, so that she maintained her contact with the heavenly all the way across the Adriatic to Rome.
EGMcA What would be the difference between an encampment and the camp in Hebrews [p. 227] 13?
JT That is another good point. It is a question of going outside the camp there, “Let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach” Hebrews 13:13. Primarily it means that God had left Jerusalem or judaism and it had become a godless camp, a place without God. For a while God remained with the Jews; the Lord had told the apostles according to Luke to tarry in Jerusalem showing that God was still there. The services of the temple went on; God mercifully and graciously recognised them, and the disciples went to them. But when Paul wrote that letter to the Hebrews, the Jewish christians were to leave judaism altogether and go outside the camp. That is what is meant. And so it is that if I now belong to a system professing to be christian and yet worldly in its ways and principles I have to say, God is not there, and therefore leave it. “Let us go forth to him without the camp” Hebrews 13:13. And so in 2 Timothy it says, “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity” 2 Timothy 2:19. That would be religious iniquity, the recognition of false principles, human principles, in the service.
RRT Do we get an example of this spiritual movement in the way in which the testimony was shifted from Jerusalem so that there was that which God was recognising in Antioch? There had been a spiritual movement of the testimony and if some were not willing to recognise it, it would mean disaster spiritually. I mean, the testimony had moved on from Jerusalem to Antioch.
JT That is what we get here. The tabernacle must move. It is not simply that the people move but the tabernacle must move. So we see in chapter 10:21 that “the Kohathites set forward bearing the sanctuary: and the others set up the tabernacle whilst they came”. Certain of them went forward to set up the tabernacle where the encampment was assigned to be so that when the sanctuary came in [p. 228] the hands of the Kohathites (they carried it on their shoulders) they could put it inside.
GMacP Does this journey indicate the way we take on the ministry?
JT I think so; we move with it. God is moving, as said, from Jerusalem through ministry, because it is a question of Paul’s ministry. That is the test. He was undoubtedly the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, and there he says, “Let us go forth to him without the camp” Hebrews 13:13. The time had come for the Jewish believers to leave judaism.
HB Would the principle of an encampment be seen in Acts 20 where it says, “And the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread”? Acts 20:7.
JT That was an encampment; just so. There were certain brethren there who were the evidences of Paul’s work; the great point was that it was Paul’s labours.
EGMcA How do you apply the setting up of the tabernacle for the reception of the sanctuary today? Would it be the acceptance of divine principles in order to make room for the whole truth regarding Christ and the assembly?
JT Just so. That raises the question of the difference between doctrine, or principles, and persons. It is a question of whether I am governed by the persons, that I like them well enough to go and stay with them because of themselves, or whether I am also governed by the principles or the doctrine. Many make much of the persons and little of the doctrine, and some make little of the persons and much of the doctrine. It is quite clear that we must have persons for the encampment; there must be the idea of meeting. The tent here is called the tent of meeting, or the tent of witness; witness would refer to the truth. The brethren here in this town have to meet together because the testimony is not fully expressed unless they meet, and therefore we see the [p. 229] idea of the encampment and the tribes coming together to the tabernacle as set up. The Levites carried the parts of the tabernacle and set it up before the Kohathites came with the sanctuary which was peculiarly the symbol of the divine Presence because the ark of the covenant was there and the cherubim. So that when the tabernacle was set up and the ark came the cloud covered it. The pillar was a formation, the cloud was not a formation, but we must have both these things; the cloud and the pillar are the public evidences that God is with us. Inwardly, the priests would know when they got inside whether the divine presence was there, because the fire would come down to show that God was there. There must be some evidence that God is amongst us or we can have no claim to the assembly position.
LES John would know something of the distinction between principles and persons and how they are blended according to his second epistle where he says, “The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not I only but also all who have known the truth, for the truth’s sake which abides in us and shall be with us to eternity” 2 John 1,2.
JT So that the second letter is to the elect lady and her children. They had love for the truth, that is the point; but besides that there is the idea of persons, the lady herself and her children; and then the question of anyone coming to her wherever she lived, persons who did not have the doctrine. She was not to receive them into her house nor bid them Godspeed.
LES “Whosoever goes forward and abides not in the doctrine of the Christ has not God. He that abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son. If any one come to you and bring not this doctrine, do not receive him into the house, and greet him not; for he who greets him partakes in his wicked works” 2 John 9 - [p. 230] 11.
JT I thought we ought to bring that out because there are many who think that if you are individually right it does not matter who is in the congregation you meet with, even if there are people who are not christians or who have bad doctrine. There are those who claim that so long as you are right yourself you can partake of the Lord’s supper anywhere, whereas that is contrary to this epistle. Certain ones are not to be received into the house or even be bidden Godspeed.
TS In connection with Paul being a tent-maker, would that fit with his line of teaching, to enable us to live tent-wise?
JT I suppose you might use it figuratively, the fact that he was a tent-maker the same as the man and wife with whom he stayed — Aquila and Priscilla. They were all of the same trade. There is no doubt there is an allusion to building in it.
GMacP What does John have in his mind in connection with “the doctrine”?
JT It would be doctrine in connection with the Person of Christ. “Whoever denies the Son has not the Father either”, 1 John 2:23.
LES Does not the whole position hinge upon right appreciation of the Person of the Lord Jesus? If I am not clear in my soul as to the truth of His Person I am wrong in my associations and my church links.
JT Therefore the whole question of gathering comes into our subject. When we encamp, who are the persons sitting down with us to partake of the Lord’s supper? Who are sitting down with us? Are they christians? And even if they are christians, do they hold the right doctrine and is their walk right? We ought to challenge ourselves and not claim to be in the fellowship of God’s Son if we are [p. 231] sitting down and eating with persons who are not christians. It is a question of what the bread and cup mean: the bread is the communion of the body of Christ, and the cup the communion of the blood of Christ. So that we cannot be partakers of the Lord’s supper and be contrary to it.
FRA Is that suggested in the light from heaven that shone on Saul of Tarsus? It shone on him and those who were with him, showing what his associations were.
JT Quite so.
RRT Would it be right to say that the apostle Paul in setting matters right with the Corinthians, was doing there the work of Gershom and Merari preparatory to bringing in the sanctuary?
JT Quite so. The place was being made ready.
EGMcA Would you say that verse 42 of Acts 3, “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” Acts 3:42, is the counterpart in christianity of what would be covered by this chapter 10 in Numbers?
JT Just so, and the doctrine comes before the breaking of bread, it is a question of the doctrine and then the fellowship. The doctrine must be there first and then the fellowship, which implies persons. We cannot assume that just because a person is a christian, and I know him to be a christian, he is fit for the Lord’s supper, because in fact the man in 1 Corinthians 5 was a christian. The sequel showed that he was genuine because he was restored, but could he continue to break bread because he was a christian? No, he had to be put out: “Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves”, 1 Corinthians 5:13. So that we can see that the fact that a person is a christian is not everything; he must be clean.
CCT I think you said a few months ago in regard to those who sought fellowship that we should [p. 232] find out from them what they know about the circle of the fellowship of saints.
JT There is the matter of mixed marriages. Someone might go out and marry a person whose conduct was not right and yet was undeniably a christian. This would be denying the truth, because cleanliness and purity must precede all these links. So that it is the doctrine of the apostles and then their fellowship.
LES So that marriage in the Lord would be covered by the commandments of the Lord — the matter of the journeys.
JT Quite so.
EGMcA If I were seeking the right place I would be governed by this order. I would have to enquire as to the doctrine held by those with whom I should like to associate and then see what there was in the fellowship. The doctrine would surround and protect the truth of the person of Christ. Would that also bring in the statement of yesterday morning, “Shall two walk together except they be agreed?”, Amos 3:3.
JT These are all most practical considerations especially as there are many amongst us who are exercised about entering into a marriage contract or into the fellowship, because the fellowship involves a contract too. Fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers; that is the order.
CCT What is the contract involved in the fellowship?
JT Baptism in a certain sense leads to it. In 1 Peter 3:21 it says, “Which figure also now saves you, even baptism”, 1 Peter 3:21. There is a certain saving principle in baptism and we have attached to it the idea of a contract as suggested in the note to that verse. That is, if you are baptised by someone you are introduced publicly into christianity and you are committed to something, you are professing to be a real christian. We are alluding now to adult baptism;
[p. 233] household baptism involves the same idea, because the parents must be in fellowship or in the contract, as it were, and that leads up to the breaking of bread. These are the two public sacraments, as we might call them, baptism and the Lord’s supper, and they are literally done, one by water, and one by bread and wine.
FT It would seem that the Lord’s supper is a precious privilege which is guarded by the fellowship.
JT It is guarded by the fellowship which means that there are persons involved, and the doctrine precedes both. For the idea of fellowship and the breaking of bread you must have persons.
GMacP The idea of a contract suggests the thought of being bound.
JT One is bound to the brethren. At Pentecost they were all together, and the Spirit came upon them and they were bound together in holy fellowship, the apostles’ fellowship. But the doctrine was there too, the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers. Thus they were obligated to one another and persons would not say in those days, I can do as I like; I can marry whom I please. Paul says, You cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Christendom can do it, but if I am a righteous person I cannot do it for righteousness forbids me.
FRA Would you say that Moses took up the contract? When he came to years he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, but chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God. He entered into the truth of baptism.
JT He had been regarded as of Pharaoh’s household, but he renounced the position and refused to be called that any more.
CJ In these encampments, if the tabernacle and all that was in it were to be properly [p. 234] protected an Israelite could not pitch his tent just where he pleased.
JT There was protection there, as you say, and he must pitch in his own assignment. There was divine protection in the cloud and the pillar all the time; the presence of God involves that.
FT Will you say a little more about the taking up of the cloud and the cloud standing still? Does it suggest that we must ever be ready to take on the spirit of the ministry?
JT Quite so; it is a question of seeing the thing. I believe the passage already alluded to in Hebrews 13 is the best illustration you can get. The cloud had moved from Jerusalem out among the gentiles at Antioch and the Jewish christians were called upon to go out, not necessarily actually, but to go out in fellowship and heart and affections towards the believers among the gentiles.
FT I was thinking of applying that in our day. The Spirit of God is always moving forward and we are not getting the same ministry we had twenty or forty years ago; we must be up to date.
JT Quite so.
FT You said the cloud was not a formation but the pillar was?
JT It fitted into the night. I think the idea of formation must apply to the pillar. Anyone can see by thoughtfulness that — whatever the substance was — there was something there more formed than a cloud. A cloud is more loose; I think the pillar would be a more limited thought. It is remarkable that it moved behind Israel when the Egyptians were attacking, and was a protection. The Israelites could see it, indicating that this formation is on our behalf. And then this cloud is not just any cloud; the universe might be filled with clouds, but not with this pillar and the cloud that was over the tabernacle. They were discernible so as to be [p. 235] a guide.
FRA Do we get the thought of this cloud in 1 Corinthians 14 where the man coming in would say that God is among us?
JT That is it. He would report that God is among you of a truth.
CJ In these journeyings the tribe of Dan and his host brought up the rear. Might that be suggestive of meetings a little bit reluctant to take on present ministry in relation to the testimony?
JT I do not know. Dan’s position was as much assigned by God as Judah’s. It was a question of the will of God. I believe the points of the compass are intended to help us in that respect, and they are seen more particularly when the people are encamped. Judah was toward the sunrising; Reuben was toward the south, a warm and favourable setting. Ephraim was toward the west, which would be a solemn idea because there the sun sets. They faced the going down of the sun. It is said of Abraham that a horror of great darkness came over him at that time. Dan was toward the north, his assignment involved the bitter, disciplinary winds of the north. Ephraim had the tendency to discontent and unbelief. We know that matters in the camp of Reuben would be favourable, suggesting a favourable position for us. And then Judah would observe the rising of the sun, and all would be hopeful. The points of the compass are intended to affect the human mind in just that way, I believe, and to the christian it is all spiritual.
EGMcA Is it worth noticing that the tribe of Dan’s encampment included Asher and Naphtali? They had a spiritual outlook.
JT Just so; Asher’s foot was dipped in oil.
GMacP Would it suggest the truth in relation to the universality of the testimony worked out in four different [p. 236] camps?
JT The points of the compass, I think, would help us as to what we are assigned to in the will of God. If I am in a small meeting I am more likely to be attacked and to be discontented, so that it needs more exercise. We can work it out in that way.
Chapter 10 is not encamping, although they did encamp, but the point stressed is the journeyings, and they are enlarged upon in chapter 33. What we see here is the place that the tabernacle had, how it fitted in between the two sets of encampments, and how the Kohathites carried the sanctuary. It would all raise the question as to whether we are attending the meetings, because we are essential to the meetings.
GMacP I do not want to divert you but I was wondering whether the apostle Peter took a very definite journey in the apostle Paul’s ministry; speaking of him as “our beloved brother Paul”, 2 Peter 3:15.
JT Yes, that is good. Peter never mentions the Son of God in his ministry except in the second epistle, so that he came into the good of it clearly, although he had had the light earlier. There was a distinct revelation in Paul inwardly, “God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me”, he says, Galatians 1:15,16. It was an inward matter with Paul, whereas it was to Peter.
GMacP It is a great thing to realise the encampments of the Spirit of God in our journeyings.
JT We may look for these on the first day of the week because it is a question of the beginning of days.
Ques In connection with the journey, is it a military idea?
JT Yes; and in that connection we get something here as regards Moses’ father-in-law. That is, Moses felt he needed a man to help him in the wilderness. It says in verse 29, “And Moses said to Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, We are journeying to the place of which Jehovah said, I will give it unto you: come with us, and we will do thee good; for Jehovah has spoken good concerning Israel. And he said to him, I will not go; but to mine own land, and to my kindred will I go. And he said, Leave me not, I pray thee, because thou knowest where we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou wilt be to us for eyes. And it shall be, if thou come with us, that whatever good Jehovah doeth unto us, so will we do to thee”.
[p. 237] Now I just refer to this paragraph because it brings in something that we are likely to make too much of, that is natural relationships in the things of God. Moses’ father-in-law was useful, according to chapter 18 of Exodus; he served well in pointing out to Moses a state of things that would tend to wear him out, and Moses took his advice and God evidently blessed him. But now Moses is seeking his help again and this time he does not help, nor does he even indicate that he cares much for the saints. He says, “I will not go; but to mine own land, and to my kindred will I go”. Now the only point I am making is that natural relationships are not to be trusted in the things of God. Moses is finding out here that although the relationship with his father-in-law was good, and profitable too, yet it did not last; it could not be trusted. We are not to trust our natural relationships, we cannot rely on them, and hence what follows is that in verse 33 it says, “And they set forward from the mountain of Jehovah and went three days’ journey; and the ark of the covenant of Jehovah went before them in the three days’ journey”. Instead of Hobab we have the ark of the covenant. Our natural relatives are not trustworthy, but the Lord is trustworthy; the ark of the covenant is trustworthy. The thing for us is to come into the knowledge of divine Persons, just as we have been saying; the doctrine of the Deity, the Persons of the Godhead as John presents Them in his epistle.
[p. 238] Let us be sure about those things and not keep company with persons who do not hold the truth of the Deity of the Person of the Son of God.
RRT Would you say that what entered into this matter was a turning to the wisdom of men rather than of God? Moses said to him, “Thou knowest where we are to encamp in the wilderness” (verse 31), which was God’s matter alone.
JT Moses was evidently trusting him and expecting that he would serve him, but I think the passage shows that we cannot rely on such; but we can rely on the ark of the covenant which came out of its place. Earlier verses show that the ark of the covenant was in the very centre of the journey but here it came out and went to the front, showing that divine love will never fail us.
GMacP Does John 13 indicate that? “Jesus ... having loved his own who were in the world, loved them to the end” John 13:1.
JT That is a good passage. They were in the world, in the wilderness too.
HB In Acts 15 Barnabas proposed to take his relative, John called Mark, but Paul comes forward and takes Silas, and they are committed to the grace of God.
JT God was with Paul and Silas.
GMacP What would you say about the ark moving out of its place?
JT I think the Lord would tell us about that now. What love is in God! “Love never fails”, 1 Corinthians 13:8.
EGMcA Verse 34 says, “The cloud of Jehovah was over them by day when they set forward out of the camp”.
JT Beautiful! And then Moses’ blessing comes in, something akin to chapter 6, where Aaron is brought into it. As the ark set forward Moses said, “Rise up, Jehovah, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thy face. And when it rested, he said, Return, Jehovah, unto the myriads of the thousands of Israel” (verses 35,36).
[p. 239] These are words for us all, especially where we are gathered in very small numbers; what a comfort that God is there!
EGMcA Does this indicate that Moses, despite his slight defects in regard of his father-in-law, is fully recovered in the power of leadership now?
JT I am sure that is true. Love settled the matter. Moses is a good example of that; he recovered himself quickly.
FRA In verse 33 the ark seeks out a resting place for them, not an encampment; it was really a resting place for the ark.
JT It is the ark that does it, the Lord is before us, and I suppose we should look for this on the first day of the week, that the Lord will take the lead forward as He comes in. We may be counting on one another and say, Such and such a brother will be there, but they may fail us. The Lord is available, that is the idea, and love never fails.
LES What a difference between the eyes of Hobab and the eyes of Jehovah! “The eyes of Jehovah run to and fro through the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him”, 2 Chronicles 16:9. That is the idea of the ark.
JT This is a very victorious chapter. One often feels how one fails to lead as one considers this matter of Moses and Hobab. Hobab was a good man in a way, but he failed Moses. Now Moses is filled with the idea of Jehovah and the military thought: “Rise up, Jehovah, and let thine enemies be scattered” — that refers to leaving the encamping places — “and let them that hate thee flee before thy face. And when it rested, he said, Return, Jehovah, unto the myriads of the thousands of Israel”. We sometimes quail before the smallness of our numbers, but [p. 240] we are going to have great numbers. Enoch speaks of the holy myriads, “Behold, the Lord has come amidst his holy myriads”, Jude 14.
TS Does this help us in the many difficulties that may face us in these days? They are not our enemies, but God’s. I was thinking of unions and the like; God is taking care of us in these matters, they are His enemies.
JT I am sure the brethren have proved that. No doubt you have seen it. I never had much to do with trade-unionism, but I have known about it and I believe God has taught us much through that very thing. The combination of men belongs to Shinar: “And they said, Come on, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, the top of which may reach to the heavens; and let us make ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth”, Genesis 11:4. They left God out and wished to do things themselves; that is trade-unionism. God has taught us much about that and I believe this passage is just to show us that God will never fail us even in a military sense. He is there to protect us.
CCT Would you say that at the beginning of chapter 10 there is great activity and at the close of the chapter there is rest and peace?
JT Jehovah is returning. It is a question of the persons now, not the principles so much as persons. “Return, Jehovah, unto the myriads of the thousands of Israel”.
CCT He receives something now from the persons.
JT Just so. Aaron’s function in this respect was in chapter 6 where he was directed to bless Israel: “And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel: saying unto them, Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee; Jehovah make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them” Numbers 10:[p. 241] 22 - 27.
Thus the saints are preserved in blessing.
LES So that we may be small as to our public position, but spiritually we are very great and expansive. God refers in Exodus 20 to the thousands of them that love Him and keep His commandments.
JT God has the persons in mind. So much does He think of them that in the priest’s breastplate their names are given in precious stones. How precious they are to God!
HB Is this principle of resting seen somewhat in John 20 on the side of privilege? Jesus came to where the disciples were.
JT That is the same idea. He says, “Peace be to you” John 20:19,26 twice in John 20.
RRT If we are to get the gain of this I suppose we have to come into it company-wise. The thought of “the myriads of the thousands of Israel” sets aside individuality. There is the individual setting and the merging, but still it is Israel that moves forward. It is company-wise.
JT And it is a very great number, for God has great numbers in His mind. He ordered that there should be three thousand converted in the first stroke of the gospel preaching showing that we can have large numbers and how quickly it can come about too. But now we have small numbers for it is a day of small things, but the Person is with us.
GMacP Would the great numbers suggest the Ephesian idea, every family named of the Father?
JT Just so, every family.
EGMcA Would the thought in the end of our chapter link with Colossians 3:15, “And let the peace of Christ preside in your hearts, to which also ye have been called in one body, and be thankful”? [p. 242] Colossians 3:15 I would say that.
GMacP If divine principles are recognised in each locality, He is there however small the numbers may be.
JT “For where two or three are gathered together unto my name, there am I in the midst of them”, Matthew 18:20.
Rem Balaam viewed them from the top of the rocks in chapter 23.
JT He puts his thoughts into poetry, which is a very interesting thought in Scripture. The devil would not do that. The devil supported Balaam but the Lord took him out of the devil’s hands for the moment and filled him with His own thoughts and he put them into poetry.
RRT Is not the fact that the ark is referred to as the ark of the covenant instead of the ark of the testimony in line with what you have been saying about God never failing?
JT He is a covenant God. “The word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, and my Spirit, remain among you”, Haggai 2:5.
Ques Is this seen in the end of 2 Corinthians? “Be at peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you” 2 Corinthians 13:11.
JT I do not know how many times “the God of peace” is mentioned in the epistles, especially in Romans: “But the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” Romans 16:20. So that we are encouraged that God will see that Satan, if he is allowed to attack, will be bruised under our feet. The reference in Romans is to the woman’s seed: in Genesis 3 it is said that the woman’s seed shall bruise the serpent’s head.