In Numbers 4 we come to another important point – the carrying of the vessels of the sanctuary through the wilderness; for now what the Kohathites had to do is taken up particularly. It was the highest form; it was what brought the service closest to Christ. Outwardly it did not look so well, as we shall find afterward. It does not at all follow that the service which makes the greatest show or noise among men has the most honorable character in the eyes of God.
This is important. We often mistake as to what really has the weightiest place. This is the one sure test of value; it is always Christ. Whatever brings one nearest to Christ, and brings out Christ most, is always the best. This seems to be the case typically with the sons of Kohath in their service. But if we look closer, you will find special ways in which their service is brought before us.
Thus they were told first of all, “When the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering vail, and cover the ark of testimony with it: and shall put thereon the covering of badgers’ skins, and shall spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in the staves thereof.” This was, of all the vessels of the sanctuary, the fullest and the highest representation of God Himself, as displayed in Christ. The ark, as we know, was for the holiest of all. It was that which set forth Christ, and Christ not as He met the need of man in the world, but as He is seen in the presence of God – Christ in the highest display of His glory and of divine righteousness on high. In this case the vail was that which covered it. It is not merely therefore the type of the Son of God as such, but as having taken humanity into union with His own person. I trust that my reader believes and knows that the Son of God was from all eternity; but what the ark covered with the vail represented is the Son after He took manhood into union with Himself.
Besides this, there is the covering of badgers’ (or tachash) skins – the figure, it would seem, of that which absolutely shut out all that was offensive. Such repellent power could only be represented thus, not in the intrinsic way in which it belongs to Christ. The form in which the figure expresses this power of moral guard is by a skin capable of warding off what was disagreeable. Badger’s skin therefore was fitly chosen in every case when it was a question of representing power that sets aside evil and forbids its smallest contact with the object so covered. Then over this type of His separation from sinners was a cloth wholly of blue, because, whatever might have been in our Lord Jesus Christ as just said, whatever might be the power that rejected evil, there was another aspect of Him pre-eminently presented to the believer: He was “the heavenly” One (1 Cor. 15). And it is remarkable, too, that several expressions which are used in John 3 combine these very thoughts. “The Son of man,” it is said there rather than the Christ. Thus we find Him shown fully as man – the title in which He speaks of Himself here and habitually; but we find also that He is “the Son of Man which is in heaven.” This never could be severed from Him when He was here below; it seems to be the allusion meant by the covering of blue. Even John the Baptist was earthly, and spoke of the earth, as did all others; Jesus alone came from above, and was above all. He was divine, the Word and Son, whatever He became, and coming from heaven He was above all.
Further, the table of shewbread had a cloth of blue, and all the various appurtenances were so covered. Besides this it is said, “And they shall spread upon them a cloth of scarlet, and cover the same with a covering of badgers’ skins, and shall put in the staves thereof.” Whereas, on the contrary, with the candlestick there was simply a cloth of blue which covered all, and then the covering of badgers’ skins, but no scarlet cloth.
What are we taught by this? Wherein lies the difference? Why is it that the Spirit of God directed that in the case of the table of shewbread a covering of scarlet should be between the blue and the badgers’ skins? And why not in the candlestick? The reason, I conceive, is that scarlet is the well-known sign of His glory, not so much as Son of Man, but as the true Messiah – as the one who takes the kingdom of His father David after the flesh. I conceive therefore that this is probably corroborated by the fact of its connection with the table of shewbread. At that table were the loaves, which clearly bring before us the twelve tribes of Israel. When the Lord Jesus restores the kingdom to Israel, it is not the covering even of purple – I shall show this by and by – but rather the covering of scarlet. The mistake of the Jews when our Lord came here below was that they only looked for His glory as the Christ. Our Lord Jesus was refused as such; but when it was manifest that unbelief rejected Him, then, as we all know, He brings in this further glory as the result of suffering unto death. His death and unbounded glory throughout all the creation go together. (Comp. Psa. 8 with Psa. 2.)
Hence therefore the evidence is plain, and God showed all along, that there never would be the limitation of His glory in connection with the twelve tribes of Israel represented by these twelve loaves, as the Son; He comes of man in all the fullness of power and glory. It would not be merely as of the Son of David, but the infinitely larger glory of the Son of man. But He will not therefore lose His royal rights over Israel as His special people. With this, it appears to me, the scarlet or crimson covering is connected. I shall show presently how the purple comes in; but for this we must wait until it occurs in its place.
In the case of the candlestick of light there is altogether a different thing. Nothing else but blue appears. There is neither scarlet nor purple; nor was there, you will observe, the covering vail. Why is this? Because here we have brought into close juxtaposition the light of divine testimony, which does not refer to the tribes of Israel, but is specially connected with the heavenly calling. Now it is precisely when Israel disappears that the power of the Spirit of God is given, which is the real means of manifesting this heavenly light. Consequently all reduces itself to two ideas: one is the heavenly link, and the other is the power that rejects all impurity. The church of God, as we know, or Christian body, is especially connected with that testimony. In the case of the twelve tribes there will be, when the due time comes for them, a connection through Christ with heaven, the power of holiness; but their hope is Christ in the glory of the kingdom, which He will take as the risen Son of David. This we have already seen in the foregoing type.
Further, it is directed that the golden altar should be covered with blue and badgers’ skins; that is to say, in near connection with the light comes the altar of intercession, the altar of priestly grace. How beautifully this applies to a time when not only there is the power of the Spirit of God in giving a testimony for God – a heavenly testimony and a holy one, but besides also the power of grace that goes forth in Christ’s intercession! We know how both ought to characterize the Christian. These two objects are similar in kind, were found perfectly in Christ, and should be in us. Now is the time to shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life; now to pray always with prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints. Our God would give us fellowship with Christ in both. As is the heavenly, such are they also who are heavenly. The earthly people will have light arising for them by and by; but it will be for earthly government, and the nation and people that will not serve Zion must perish.
But when we come down to the brazen altar in Numbers 4:13, which is the next instrument, it is said, “They shall take away the ashes from the altar, and spread a purple cloth thereon.” It is plain that the purple must have a close affinity for the crimson or scarlet: nevertheless there is distinction as well as resemblance. The distinction seems this – that while both colors agree in bringing in dignity, what seems to belong to the purple is glory in general; and I need not tell you that Christ’s royal dignity is connected not so much with His being the Son of man as with the lineage of David. I take it therefore that here we find what belongs to the Lord as suffering on the earth. Here He suffered, and here He is to reign. No doubt He is and could not be other than the means of meeting man where he is, in all his wants, and weakness, and sin, and distance: the blessed Lord never can abdicate that. This is glory pertaining to Him for the earth. At the same time He is and could not be other than the Son of David as viewed here below; as it was said, He was “born King of the Jews.” Looking at Him as connected with the earth, this is in part what belonged to Him – to reign where He suffered. The proper color to express this dignity is the covering of the brazen altar. He is more than king, but still He is King, and thus connected with all the earth.
The difference between the brass and the gold in various vessels seems to be this, that, while both show divine righteousness, the one rather looks at man responsible on the earth, the other at God in all His grace who is approached in heaven. Such is the difference. They are both true, both alone found in Christ: nevertheless the one means God’s righteousness to whom we draw near; the other means God’s righteousness that displays what He is in dealing with man as a responsible creature here below. God can afford to forgive him, but it is simply forgiveness. This takes account, we see, of his responsibility, which concludes by his failure, though divine mercy steps in with plenary pardon on faith. But it is another thing to draw near to God as He is revealed by Christ. This is found in the ark or in the other vessels of the sanctuary, if we did not even look at the highest form.
This was then what the Kohathites had to carry.
Accordingly we find the completing of the numbering of the Levites – not merely of the children of Israel. But we have now the same sons of Gershon brought distinctly before us, not mixed up with the warlike houses of Israel; but when their service has been distinctly defined, they too are connected with the work, and summed up together.
It will be observed that here again, as in Exodus, I scout the notion as erroneous, that the most holy place with its furniture sets forth Christ in contra-distinction to the holy place as directly referring only to the works and services of His people, the things to be believed concerning God, and the things to be done by His believing people, which leaves the court as a place where they might personally appear before God, and hold communion with Him as locally present among them.
How poor this is, how it leaves out the true antitypical place into which the believer is now brought through the rent vail to hold communion with Him in the holiest (Heb. 10), does not call for more words. The Cocceian school was wild and vague; but their prime idea is incomparably better than this exclusion of Christ from His rightful pre-eminence and all-comprehensive functions in the mind of the Spirit. Besides, it does not seem consistent to admit, as these same typologists do, that the tabernacle as a whole sets forth the manifestation of God in Him, and then to allot it in this strange way, giving the innermost shrine no doubt to the blessed Lord, then the middle or holy place to His people, and lastly the outer court to the place of meeting or fellowship for the Lord and them.
Having already however explained, in speaking of Exodus, what I believe to be the true bearing of the sanctuary vessels, there is no need of repeating it here. I would only point out the different order in this place, as well as the omission of some: both due to the fact that we are here in presence of God’s display of His life in Christ (and consequently in the Christian) on the earth, whether in the days of His flesh or as anticipating His appearing in the kingdom. The golden altar follows the golden table and chandelier, as it again is followed by the altar of burnt-offering. The laver is not mentioned anywhere. It is the difference of design which governs and accounts for all – a striking testimony to inspiration.