All Sermons

The Prophet Moses and the Prophets 2 of 2 By Edward Joseph Young

This is Dr. Jung's second lecture on Old Testament prophecy, Moses and the Prophets.
I want to start this afternoon by looking at a New Testament passage in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the first six verses.
This morning I tried to establish that the prophetic institution was of divine origination,
and I said something about the prophets as being under Moses, and mentioned that I did not think Moses was really to be classified as a prophet.
We now have to ask the question, what was the relationship between Moses and the prophets?
Now this question is of very great importance for the interpretation of prophecy.
And there are two passages particularly which we should consider in this connection.
First of all, then, this passage in Hebrews, the first six verses of the third chapter.
In this first verse, the writer is calling his readers, for the first time, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.
And the chapter seems to be written with a contrast in mind between the position of Christians and that of the Old Testament dispensation.
Moses and Aaron were partakers of an earthly calling, but we as Christians are partakers of a heavenly calling.
Our calling has come from heaven, in other words. It is not merely to an earthly task.
We are to consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, that is whom we profess, even Christ Jesus.
As Moses was the apostle, son of God, and Aaron the high priest, we profess Jesus, who is both an apostle and high priest,
who sums up in his own person the work of Moses and Aaron.
We then, as partakers of the heavenly calling, are to fix our attention upon Christ Jesus, to consider him.
Now the second verse is rendered, who was faithful. I think a better translation is,
we are to consider Christ Jesus as being faithful to him that appointed him, that is as being faithful to God.
Now the word faithful is important in this connection because it is an Old Testament word,
and I ask you to keep it in mind, in the contrast between Moses and Jesus and Jesus Christ,
both are regarded as faithful. Jesus is faithful to God who has appointed him to fulfill his task,
even as Moses was faithful in all his house. Now that's a strange expression,
Moses in his house, in God's house I think it means, and I'm inclined to think that the meaning
of that word house is the divine economy, or the divine dispensation, the divine dealings with man.
That's practically what it is said to be later on, but just keep it in mind for a minute.
In the third verse we are told why it is that Jesus is regarded as having more glory than Moses.
This man, that is Jesus, was deemed worthy of more glory than Moses. Why?
Inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house.
Now that's a truism of course, the man who makes the house
has done something greater than what is created, the house itself.
But Jesus is placed above Moses here. Jesus is the founder of the house and is above Moses.
So what has begun as a comparison is turning into a contrast.
Then you have the truism in verse four that every house is builded by someone,
but he that build all things is God. Now then to come back to verse five,
which has an Old Testament emphasis, and Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant
for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after.
This verse is taken from Numbers 12. Moses was faithful, Christ is faithful,
Moses is faithful in all his house, in all God's house.
In what capacity as a servant? In the first verse of Joshua we read,
Moses my servant is dead. Moses was the servant of the Lord.
And as a servant in the house, Moses is faithful.
But in verse six the contrast with Christ is made more prominent.
But Christ as a son over his house, whose house are we?
Now there you have the contrast. Moses is faithful in the house as a servant.
Christ is faithful over the house as a son. And there is the distinction.
Christ is not a member of the house. Christ is over the house.
Christ as a son is over the house. Moses as a servant is in the house.
Let's look for just a minute at this designation of Christ as a son.
The word here is anarthrous, which is just another way of saying that it doesn't have
the definite article, and I'll try to stop doing that kind of thing from now on.
The word son doesn't have the definite article here. It's as a son, not as the son.
And that's important because that usage of the word son without the definite article
runs throughout the Bible. I think the first occurrence is in the second psalm.
Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Kiss the son.
And in the Hebrew the word son is without the article.
Then you come to the passage, the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 9.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.
There the word son again is without the article.
It is not a mere repetition of the word child. The word child is masculine
and in itself implies that a son is born. But this is more than a son of David.
It is a son par excellence. And Isaiah is reflecting upon the second psalm.
And then I won't mention all the passages, but the well-known passage John 3 16.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
And in the first and second verses of Hebrews, God has spoken to us in these last days,
in a son, en vio, in a son. Here Christ as a son is over the house.
Now what house is this? What is meant by it?
The passage itself answers that question, whose house are we? We are that house.
In other words, the house of God, you might say, is the divine economy,
the people of God throughout history. That's another way I think of stating it.
There is an Old Testament period in which Moses is faithful to God in that house as a servant.
For Moses is a member of the house. Moses is himself one of the redeemed,
and he belongs to that house. In the task that was assigned unto him,
he is faithful, but he is in that house as a servant.
Christ, however, is over that house. Christ is not one of us.
Christ is not a member of the house, but as a son, the unique son, he is over the house.
We are that house.
Now notice how the writer blends doctrine and ethics here.
Our temptation is to set doctrine and ethics over against one another.
Some people say that doctrine is unimportant, but the main thing is that you live right.
Well, we know well enough that we cannot live right if we believe wrong.
On the other hand, there may be some who say the only important thing is what we believe,
and we're going to be saved anyway, so it doesn't matter too much how we live.
That, I don't think very many people come right out and say that in the open,
but sometimes we act that way, and certainly the Bible does not permit that.
The Bible maintains a rather remarkable blending together of doctrine and ethics,
and some of the most profound doctrine in the Bible is given in an ethical setting.
I want to point that out again in just a few minutes,
but here you see we have been taught this wonderful truth,
that Christ is a son over the house, and we are that house,
but that gives us no warrant for saying,
well, I'm safe, and there's nothing to worry about.
I can just about live as I please, for he goes on to say,
if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
There is our human responsibility.
Even back in Amos Day, people were saying we are the elect,
and then implying that everything automatically is all right.
When a man says I'm elect, and then implies it doesn't much matter what I do,
I think there's great question as to whether he is elect.
For those who realize their election the most earnestly
are the ones that are most conscious of their own unworthiness and sinfulness.
And to them it is ever a matter of wonder that they are elect,
that God has chosen such as they are.
The hymn puts it, they that feign would serve thee most are best,
our conscious most of wrong within, and I think that's true.
And so the writer here guards against any false security,
any idea of saying we are that house, Christ is over us, everything's all right.
We are that house if we really are that house,
if we really hold fast unto the end the rejoicing and boldness.
Now there's the great contrast.
Moses and Christ, after all there is one plan of salvation,
one house of God so to speak, call it dispensation or whatever you want,
economy, whatever term you choose to judge,
the Old Testament is one manifestation of it, the new is another.
And Moses and Christ are contrasted.
The Old Testament age is the age of Moses, but he is only a servant in the house.
New Testament age is the age of Christ, and he is over the house as a son.
Therefore Christ is highly exalted above Moses in this passage,
and yet this is the highest honor that can be paid to Moses,
that he can be contrasted with Christ in this way.
Now just setting it forth like that gives us a picture of the unity of the Bible,
but there is something else that is stated here that is very important it seems to me,
for the whole question of the interpretation of prophecy.
What is the function of the Old Testament age?
What is the purpose of Moses and the prophets?
I think it's stated here in this fifth verse,
Moses is faithful in all his house as a servant,
for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after.
Now the Greek text reads there,
Asmarturion, for a witness.
A witness can be a witness to himself, or he can be a witness to something else.
Seems to me that that's rather obvious,
and right here that Moses is a witness to himself is excluded,
because it says for a testimony of those things to be spoken of.
Those things to be spoken of after.
Moses then in the Old Testament dispensation is not a witness unto himself,
but he is a witness to something else, to the things to be spoken after.
That is to the house over which Christ is a son.
The Mosaic age, if I interpret this verse right,
the Mosaic age then is a type or a foreshadowing of Christ,
and of the Christian age of the house of God over which Christ is the son.
That means that the Mosaic age does not exist in and for itself,
but it will come to an end.
It is only a witness.
It only points forward.
It points forward to something that is far greater,
to those things to be spoken of after,
to the time when Christ will be over the house as a son,
and we are that house.
In other words, the Mosaic age, the age of the Old Testament,
is a witness even unto the present, even unto Christ who is over his house.
Now, I want to stress that because there are those who seem not to pay attention
to that particular emphasis of scripture.
We have heard of the parenthesis view of the church,
which has been set forth in a number of writings.
The idea of that parenthesis view is that the Old Testament age is a witness unto itself.
Now, I don't mean that the advocates of that view actually state that.
I'm not sure that they have faced up to this particular verse,
but we are told that when Christ came to this earth,
he came with the intention of setting up a Jewish kingdom,
and his own rejected him.
They received him not, and then instead of setting up the Jewish kingdom,
the church age was instituted.
That, we are told in the Scopeal Bible, was a mystery hidden in the counsels of God,
not prophesied.
That is, the church corporately was not prophesied by the Old Testament prophets.
The present age then is a parenthesis, we are told, in God's dealings with Israel.
And when this present age comes to a conclusion,
then God will continue his dealings with Israel.
In other words, the Old Testament age will continue again.
Now in all fairness to advocates of this view,
it must be said that they do not maintain
that the Old Testament age will be precisely the same as it was before.
They do want at least to make room for the cross of Christ.
And so when there is mention of the sacrifices,
as for example in the last chapters of Ezekiel,
Dr. Schofield has a note to the effect,
doubtless these sacrifices will be memorial looking back to the cross,
and he makes it very clear that these animal sacrifices
do not have the power to put away sin.
But in effect, the Old Testament age will resume its course,
and the present age, the church age,
is but a parenthesis in God's dealings with his people.
Now I don't want to go into the merits of that view exegetically at present,
because we shall plan to do that later,
but I simply want to point out that to me,
that approach conflicts with what the Bible plainly teaches.
And I think that if we hold that the Mosaic age is a witness,
that is testifies to, points forward to,
this age over which Christ is a son,
then I do not see how we can say that the Old Testament age
is really an end in itself,
and that the present with Christ over the house as a son
is simply a parenthesis that will come to a conclusion,
and then the Old Testament age will begin to run its course again.
Now again, it's only fair to say to advocate,
about advocates of that view,
that there are differences of emphasis,
and there are differences in the manner in which that is presented.
Some are presented more boldly than others,
as though to make it appear that the destinies of Israel are all earthly,
and the destinies of the church are all heavenly,
and yet anything that would make of the church a mere parenthesis
in the dealings of God with his people,
seems to me at least to go against what is stated here so clearly in Hebrews.
But I'm just trying to lay the foundation now,
and ask you earnestly to consider this phrase,
es-marturian, for a witness,
because in those two words,
the purpose of the Old Testament age is really set forth.
Now with that brief glance at the third chapter of Hebrews,
let us turn back again to the Old Testament,
to the book of Numbers chapter 12.
Numbers chapter 12.
This is the passage upon which the third chapter of Hebrews is based.
This chapter records an event that took place after the Israelites had left Mount Sinai,
and were wandering on their way toward the promised land.
I spoke a few minutes ago about the way in which the Bible links together doctrine and ethics,
and this again is an example of the same thing.
The picture that is given here is really tragic.
Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married,
for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
You'll notice that Miriam is mentioned first,
and the verb that is used, wakedaber, is a feminine verb.
So it would seem that Miriam was the instigator of this complaint.
Furthermore, you will look at the end of the passage,
and see that Miriam alone is punished with leprosy,
and so she seems to have led her brother into this.
Now they complained about Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman.
I don't know what that means.
I do not think that the reference here can be to Zipporah, who was mentioned far earlier.
She had probably had died, and this Ethiopian woman is a second wife.
I cannot see that in doing this Moses had broken the law.
There is no law that would preclude Moses from taking a second wife.
But why is she called an Ethiopian woman?
Ethiopia was south of Egypt,
and certainly Moses had not gone down there as far as we know.
In all possibility, this was a woman that had joined the Israelites, who was a sojourner.
Now I don't think we can say that with any dogmatism.
We don't know.
That may very well have been.
But the medieval Jewish commentators simply took this phrase Ethiopian woman
to mean a woman that was extremely beautiful.
There's no warrant for that interpretation either.
And so we really don't know what had happened,
except that Moses had married this Ethiopian woman.
That's stated very plainly, but the circumstances are unknown to us.
As far as we know, there is no evidence that he had broken the law.
Now this wasn't really the thing that rankled in the minds of Miriam and Aaron.
I don't think they cared one little bit about this.
But this was merely a pretext.
And the reason they use it is simply that they were jealous.
And this passage illustrates very clearly the nature of jealous minds.
The real truth comes out in verse 2, and they said,
Have the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?
Have he not spoken also by us?
And the Lord heard it.
Now there is the thing that rankled in their minds.
It was the matter of revelation.
Moses received revelation from God.
But said Miriam and Aaron, God has spoken to us as well.
Moses isn't the only one that has received this revelation.
That is the thing that rankled in their minds.
And they, being jealous, simply mentioned the other as a point of criticism.
Now this passage, it seems to me, presents us with some very profound doctrine.
The doctrine of the position of the prophet in relation to Moses.
But I want you to notice that this comes to light and to expression
in what we may call an ethical situation.
The ethical situation gives rise to this prominent teaching.
And that is the way the Bible always handles these matters.
Because our lives are bound up with what we believe.
And we can make no greater mistake than to think the only important thing
is that we believe right and we be careless about the manner in which we live.
Jealousy can do a great deal of harm.
Jealousy in the work of Christ can do a tremendous amount of harm.
It never accomplishes any good.
It certainly doesn't help the person who himself is jealous.
And yet, it simply deflects attention from the work of Christ.
Moses had been highly honored of God.
But so also had Miriam and Aaron.
Just look at it.
In this one family, Aaron was the high priest.
Aaron alone could go into the most holy place with blood upon his fingers.
He alone could approach the mercy seat as Moses could not do.
He was the representative of the nation before God.
And Miriam was the prophetess.
Miriam could speak to the women of Israel as a prophetess.
Most highly exalted of any of the women of Israel.
And yet there was jealousy.
Has God spoken only with Moses?
Hasn't he spoken with us also?
Now in the work of Christ, when jealousy enters in,
what we are really doing is complaining about the way God has administered his gifts.
God gives every Christian certain talents.
And there are certain things that each one of us can do that others perhaps cannot do.
We're placed in a certain position of service for Christ.
And if we begin to complain because somebody else seems to have more preference than we do,
we're objecting to the way God has distributed his gifts.
I feel that one of the greatest blessings I have in life
is to be associated with a group of ministers
who are really, as far as I can tell, just about free of jealousy.
I thank God for that and I pray God that it may continue.
Our men seem to appreciate one another.
I haven't seen any evidence of jealousy of one another.
Oh, there's plenty of disagreement.
Of course, they're human beings.
But I haven't seen any evidence of jealousy.
And I thank God for that because then men can work together.
Then they can do something constructive for God's kingdom.
But I have seen the tremendous harm that jealousy can do in the ministry.
I can remember how one man seemed to be consumed with this.
It just seemed to rankle if anybody else received any kind of preference.
He wanted to be on all committees.
He wanted to speak at all functions.
He wanted practically to be in the center of everything.
And that, of course, is wrong.
It wasn't helping him.
Others could see right away what was troubling him.
This belittling everybody else.
Well, we could do it better than he could.
What did they put him on that committee for?
He doesn't know this.
He doesn't know that.
That running down of other people like that, that does not do any good.
And this man suffered because of that.
That does not advance the work of the kingdom of God.
And my friends, if in your hearts you sometimes feel that way,
remember this, God has given you a work to do that no one else could do.
And that man who may be the object of your jealousy
might completely fail if he had to do the work that you are called upon to do.
We do not have time to be envious and jealous of other people in Christ's work.
God has honored us by giving us certain work to do.
And what we need to do is to do that work to the best of our ability
and not worry so much about other people.
And I plead with you, if that is a temptation to you to notice this passage,
here the three most highly honored among Israel are the victims of jealousy.
And being that way, they are ready to find fault with everything.
And so when Moses marries this Cushite woman, why they complain about that,
even though in their heart of hearts that wasn't the thing that really troubled them.
Now I think it's true, we're not always going to get a square deal in this life.
And I think we make a mistake if we expect that.
There are going to be times when we will not be treated fairly,
when men will take unfair advantage of us.
Men are sinners, and we have no right to expect that we will always be treated in a fair way.
It's a sad thing, but I think it's true.
Perhaps every one of us could testify that at one time or another
he's received what we call a raw deal.
But if that is so, we must not let that thing rankle in our hearts.
We must not allow it to make us bitter against other people.
If we do that, we are simply hurting ourselves far more than the other people.
Even more important than that, we're hurting the work of Christ.
Now when they utter this complaint,
Has not the Lord spoken unto us also?
The Lord answers right away.
The Lord heard it.
Now there occurs this third verse,
which is regarded by many as a very difficult verse,
but I think its meaning is fairly clear.
The man Moses was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.
Now the higher critics tell us that Moses would never have written it that way about himself,
because that's like patting yourself on the back.
We know of people who are proud of their humility,
and they would say that this is exactly what Moses was doing.
If I say I'm the meekest man on the face of the earth, why, I'm pretty good.
And so they say Moses couldn't have written this.
Well, I think that is a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the verse.
I'll grant that if Moses had spoken that way, it would have been out of place surely,
but that isn't what Moses means.
Sometimes when we hear these objections to the Bible,
it helps a great deal just to go to work and find out what the Bible actually does say.
When Moses says he is the meekest man upon the face of the earth,
he does not mean that he is meek in the sense that he hasn't the strength to come out and say
anything or that he's afraid of everything.
What he means, according to the original Hebrew,
is that he is the most humbled man upon the face of the earth
because of the position that he occupies.
He has been most exalted of men in the divine economy,
and because of that exalted position,
he personally is a base so that he cannot come out and defend himself.
It is his position, his high position, that makes him the most humbled of all men.
He writes of himself here in an objective tone as he does throughout the Pentateuch.
And that's the reason why he cannot come to his own defense.
There is another, even Jesus, who also was faithful,
who when he was reviled, reviled not again.
He did not come to a personal defense because had he done so,
he would have deflected attention from the work that he was seeking to accomplish.
And if at this particular point Moses had defended himself personally,
he too would have deflected attention from his position in the divine economy.
And that is why he does not speak.
If anyone thinks that Moses is boasting here,
remember that it was none other than Christ who used the same language and said,
Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavily laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek.
Praus, the same word that is used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew here.
Christ says, I am meek and lowly in heart.
And we do not think that he is boasting when he speaks that way.
It is because he is meek and lowly in heart
that he invites us, rather commands us, to come unto him.
And so when Moses says he is the meekest of men,
he means he is the most humbled of men.
Because of the exalted position that he occupies, he cannot come to his defense.
And therefore the Lord speaks suddenly.
The Lord speaks in defense of Moses.
Now if we go down to verse 6, we can see the words of the Lord.
Hear now my words.
If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision,
and will speak unto him in a dream.
My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches.
And the similitude of the Lord shall he behold.
Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses.
Now just a superficial glance at these verses shows
that there is a contrast here between Moses and the prophets.
Verse 6 is very difficult, and I'm going to translate it literally,
that is just as it is given in the Hebrew.
If your prophet be the Lord, I will make myself known unto him in a vision,
and will speak unto him in a dream.
If your prophet be the Lord.
Now what is meant by that?
Well a number of possibilities have been suggested.
If your prophet be of the Lord, if your prophet be from the Lord,
if your prophet belong to the Lord, and so on.
I'm inclined to think that this is a case where we should just let the word stand as they are.
If your prophet be the Lord.
That is an emphatic way of saying if your prophet be a true prophet,
a prophet whom the Lord has truly sent.
Let me give some illustrations, but I think this is a Hebrew idiom.
In the Psalms we read, I am peace.
Now what does that mean?
It means I am peaceful, or I am prayer.
Now the psalmist doesn't mean that.
How can a human being be prayer?
What he means is I am prayerful.
Or when in the 45th psalmist says thy throne is eternity and everlastingness.
It doesn't mean that, it means thy throne is eternal and everlasting.
But these are strong ways of saying that a thing is peaceful, a thing is prayerful, and so on.
Or Isaiah says he shall be a covenant of the people.
Now a man can't be a covenant,
but I think what that means is that he is the very essence of the covenant.
It identifies the subject with the object,
and in so doing it characterizes that subject.
And so here when it says if thy prophet is the Lord,
that is the strongest way of saying if thy prophet is a true prophet,
a prophet whom God has genuinely sent.
In other words, it is not talking about false prophets,
but about the true prophets of the Lord, men like Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Now if your prophet be the Lord, a true prophet even like Isaiah or Jeremiah,
how will God speak unto him?
He says I will make myself known unto him in a vision and will speak unto him in a dream.
There are the two media of prophetic revelation, dreams and visions.
Now we'll come back to see what those words mean.
But Moses is different.
The Hebrew here again is forceful.
Lo, Cain of the Moshe, not so is my servant Moses.
Not like the true prophets.
Moses is distinct from the true prophets.
God will not speak to Moses in dream and in vision,
for Moses is faithful in all his house.
In other words, because of the exalted position that Moses has,
God does not reveal himself unto Moses as he does to the true prophets.
How then will he speak to Moses?
I will speak to him mouth to mouth.
That is, as two men speak together plainly,
or again in Deuteronomy it says face to face.
It will be a plain speaking between Moses and between God and Moses.
And apparently, now the word mare there means that which can be seen.
And I think it probably means that God would appear to Moses
in human form as a theophany and thus speak to him.
But then there are some negative statements, not in dark speeches.
The word means enigmatic sayings, ambiguous sayings, riddles.
Not that way will I speak unto Moses,
but the implication is he will speak that way unto the true prophets.
Furthermore, he will behold the similitude of the Lord.
In the manner of revelation then, there is a profound difference
in God speaking to Moses on the one hand and to the true prophets on the other,
not the false, but the true prophets on the other hand.
And the reason for that lies in the position which they occupy in the divine economy.
Moses is faithful in all God's house.
And for that reason, to have complained against Moses
was to have committed a serious sin.
And that is why they are punished.
We are told in verse 10, Miriam became leprous, white as snow.
And Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.
And that leprosy remained, we are told, for seven days before finally it was taken away.
Now this has a great deal to do with the interpretation of prophecy.
Let's look at it for just a minute.
It seems to me we are justified upon the basis of what is taught here
in maintaining that the prophets were under Moses.
That means that the prophets were men of the Old Testament dispensation.
They were under Moses.
And being under Moses, they spoke in the language
and used the thought forms of the Old Testament dispensation.
Furthermore, inasmuch as they were under Moses,
and the Mosaic age is a witness of that which is to come,
the whole prophetic institution was also a witness of what is to come.
They were types.
They were types of the great prophet who was to come.
Now I think it's essential that we realize that.
The prophetic body was for a time.
It was pointing forward to the accomplishment of God's purposes.
It was not looking forward to a time that would be similar to its own age,
but it was a witness, a pointing forward to the great prophet, even Jesus Christ.
And we have to realize, therefore, that the prophets spoke as types.
We sometimes say that the prophets wrote history in advance,
but that isn't exactly accurate.
Nor can we expect them to write in the language of 20th century prose.
They didn't do that.
They used the figures of speech of their own day,
and I want to develop this thought a little bit more, perhaps in the morning.
They used the figures of thought of their own day.
They spoke then as types.
Let's take just an example.
You have those last chapters of the book of Ezekiel, and everybody acknowledges,
I think everybody has agreed upon this, that they are difficult chapters.
But what are they talking about?
What is Ezekiel saying there?
Well, we have the Wellhausen view, of course,
that this was a kind of a pattern that was used for the tabernacle later on.
I don't think we have to accept that view.
We have the view that this is a millennial temple that Ezekiel is picturing here.
Then we get ourselves into difficulty
when we start to carry out the dimensions of the temple.
I don't know if you've ever tried to do that,
but if you will take the 48th chapter and you'll place Jerusalem where it is,
then you begin your measurements.
The first great question that you have to meet there is,
what is the unit of measurement?
Is it the cubit or is it the rod?
The rod apparently was six feet long.
The cubit is 18 inches long.
It makes a difference.
If then you put the city of Jerusalem where it is,
you're likely to have the temple outside of Jerusalem
on one arrangement in the Mediterranean Sea,
on another arrangement in the Jordan Valley.
And if you put the temple where Jerusalem is,
then you're going to have Jerusalem where it ought not to be,
and you start trying to do that and it does not work out.
You can, of course, fall into the solution
that the higher critics have for everything,
that the text is corrupt, but I don't think we want to do that.
And so I think we may ask ourselves very seriously,
did Ezekiel plan to give us a blueprint here
so that we can go over to Palestine
and find out just exactly where these things are going to be?
Well, I think there's another way of looking at these passages,
a way that makes a great deal more sense.
If you will notice that there is a good deal of emphasis
upon the Spirit of the Lord in these chapters.
There is no mention of the high priest in these chapters,
and the whole thing comes to a conclusion in the words,
the Lord is there.
And that seems to me to be the key
to the interpretation of these passages.
Ezekiel is looking forward to a time
when men will worship God in a way
that they do not worship him in his day.
They will worship God with the very presence of God
in spirit and in truth.
They will worship in a holy temple.
Now, how can he express that truth?
Well, you and I might think he should just have sat down
and have written it out in 20th century prose
and then we wouldn't have any trouble.
But Jeremiah, you see, was a priest.
He was under Moses.
He was a man of the Old Testament dispensation.
He knew the temple, and he used those forms of thought
that were common to him and to his personality.
And using these as symbols, he set forth the truth
that the time would come when men would worship God
in spirit and in truth.
And I think that interpretation, while it has difficulty,
nevertheless has fewer difficulties
than some of the others that have been advanced.
The Old Testament prophets then using the figures of their day
of the Old Testament age set forth the eternal truth
that Christ would come, for they were, you see,
men of the Old Testament dispensation.
Now, that, I think, is the first point we need to remember,
that the prophets were men of the Old Testament dispensation.
Now, there's another thing that I think we need to remember
from this passage, and that has to do with the manner
in which they received their revelations.
Moses received his revelation directly and clearly from God.
The prophets did not.
We are told sometimes that the language of prophecy
is as easy to understand as any other language in the Bible,
and all we need is a heart willing to listen
to what the Spirit of God says.
Well, that sounds all right, but here are two men.
They're, let us say, equally devout.
They both earnestly want to know the meaning of the Bible.
They have no ax to grind.
They're willing, to the best of their ability,
to listen to what Scripture says,
and then they come up with different interpretations
of prophecy.
Well, why?
Shall one man turn to the other and say,
I'm more spiritual than you are,
and that's why I come up with this interpretation?
I don't think so.
What can we do here?
If God revealed these prophecies by dream and vision,
the manner of revelation is likely to reflect itself
in the language of the prophecy also.
These are dark and obscure methods of revelation.
Now, I want to go into that more,
but because of this, we may find reflected in the prophecies
this very fact.
Hence, we cannot say that the prophecy is just history
written in advance.
We cannot turn to the prophecies and say,
we're going to take them literally if possible.
We have to ask ourselves, what is this prophet saying?
And we do not have the final fulfillment or interpretation,
let me say, until we see the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Now, if you will turn to one of the first prophecies
in the Bible in Genesis 9, I think you'll see what I mean.
Genesis 9, verse 26 and 27.
This is the prophecy that Noah utters.
And he said, cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants
shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem,
and Canaan shall be his servant.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell
in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.
All right, you've all heard the slogan, literal if possible.
And I'm not going to say much about it today
because our time's about up, but tomorrow I do want to go
into that because that statement needs a great deal
of analysis, literal if possible.
Here are two men who hear Noah utter this prophecy.
Both of them, let us say, are true believers in the prophecies.
They believe that God is speaking, and they say
we will interpret literally if possible.
Now just take that 27th verse.
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell
in the tents of Shem.
There's a play upon words in Hebrew there.
Yafed Elohim l'yafeth v'yishkon ba'othalei shem.
Now, who dwells in the tents of Shem?
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell
in the tents of Shem.
Who dwells in the tents of Shem?
Grammatically, it can be either God or it can be Japheth.
And one man can say, well, if I interpret this literally,
it's God who dwells.
Another can say with equal reason, it is Japheth who dwells.
There, my friends, is a clear ambiguity if you want.
What is the subject?
How can you answer that?
If you add no more of the scripture than just this,
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell
in the tents of Shem.
Then there's a second difficulty here.
What does this dwelling in the tents of Shem mean?
If God dwells in the tents of Shem, what is meant by that?
Is that blessing or punishment?
If Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem,
does he dwell as a conqueror?
Does he dwell as one vanquished?
Or does he dwell as a sojourner?
And Canaan shall be his servant.
Whose servant?
God's servant, or Japheth's servant, or Shem's servant?
Now, if you take that verse, that prophecy,
and set it forth like that, just this with nothing further,
how can you interpret that?
How can you come to that and say, literal if possible?
How can you say, all you need is a mind
willing to hear the Spirit of God?
Here are men who want to hear the Spirit of God.
But you see, to the true prophets,
God revealed himself in dreams and in visions.
Or take just one more illustration,
and then we'll have to stop.
Let's jump over to the book of Daniel for a minute.
To the ninth chapter and the 27th verse.
He shall cause the covenant to prevail
with many for one week.
It's the way it's generally translated.
Now, to put it mildly, people differ
as to the interpretation of this verse.
Now, I hold a certain view that I'm
going to try to explain later on.
But it would be a very foolish thing,
I think, to say positively, this is the only possible
interpretation, and I know I...
This recording is brought to you by thechristianlibrary.org.au