VESSELS FOR GOD’S HOUSE
D Andrew Burr
Ezra 5: 12-15; 8: 24-34
Mark 12: 41-44; 14: 1-9
We have been speaking in our readings together about the house of God, as a spiritual structure, made up of the redeemed; those who are in Christ. I wanted to add a word from these passages, which we have read recently at home and in our local meeting, about the vessels of the house of God. We remarked in the reading that certain utensils and other items were made for the tabernacle system, and a larger number evidently were made for the temple, constructed by Solomon. I think there was, in effect, a treasury attached to the temple, in which other vessels were kept that represented the wealth of the temple, and the wealth of God’s house can be viewed in that way. On the one hand, its value can be considered as relating to the things that God Himself has brought into the house, to make it a source of supply and life and strength; but on the other hand the wealth of the house, as far as He is concerned at any rate, is to be measured in the vessels of the house.
It is right for us to think of ourselves as vessels because the apostles speak of us in that way. In 2 Timothy 2, Paul speaks of vessels to honour and vessels to dishonour, v 20. He speaks of the need to purify ourselves from vessels to dishonour, that we might be vessels to honour, fit for the Master’s use. Peter also speaks of believers as vessels, 1 Pet 3: 7. That reference in Timothy touches what we were speaking about in the readings, because it is in the context of an analogy that Paul makes with a great house. Perhaps a great house was rather grander than a Roman villa at that time. There are the remains of Roman palaces, and there were such buildings even in the city of Jerusalem, ostentatious buildings. Paul had noticed, in relation to such structures, that there was a tendency to be careless about how the vessels in them were used. He is not saying that the golden vessels were vessels to honour, and the wooden vessels were vessels to dishonour; that is not the point, which is rather to establish how a vessel is used, and also what it contains. You could have quite a humble vessel, for example, that was only used for clean water. There is nothing dishonourable or unholy about that. On the other hand, you might have a gold vessel in which incense was burned to some heathen god, and the fact it was a gold vessel would not make it a vessel to honour. So we need to consider such things, in judging our path, especially in our relations with others. It is not a question of appearance, but of what a particular person or vessel holds and also of what they may be free to associate with or to go on with. And these are the difficult questions, that a Christian encounters in life all the time. So at any rate, it is right to think of ourselves as vessels, and to recognise the need to keep them; and indeed to purify ourselves and to purge out associations with things that are inconsistent with the use of ourselves as vessels in the house of God.
I have been thinking about the history of the temple in Jerusalem, the house that Solomon had made, and it is not a very happy history. But it is marked on several occasions, by recovery. I think there were three or four times of recovery in the history of that temple, before it was lost to Nebuchadnezzar. And one thing I noticed, just looking at those histories, was that the recoveries, by and large, focused on the repair of the structure. In fact, on the first occasion, money had to be raised for repairs and for the reinstatement of priestly service, but apparently they did not have the money for utensils and vessels, 2 Kings 12: 13. So, in other words, they had to own, as time went on, repeatedly, that principles had been given up or they had been allowed to fall into disuse. The principles, the conduct of God’s house, had been neglected, with the result that the glorious structure that had been at the first could no longer be seen as it should. Those are important things, and it is significant that one of the things we can be so thankful for, in history that precedes our lifetime, but with which we are familiar, is that principles have been recovered and reinstated among us. We walk, we trust, or seek to walk, in the light of them.
Now those times of recovery sadly came to an end, and the climax that the people speak of here, came about. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the structure, and he stole all the vessels. All the vessels were taken, as the people say here, to the temple in Babylon. If we apply the idea of vessels to God’s people, we know about a few of those vessels, because we are told about them in the book of Daniel. Daniel and his three friends were like some of these vessels; they belonged in some way to the royal family in Judah, and they had been transported to Babylon. The first thing Nebuchadnezzar wanted to do was to fill them up with Babylonish things, train them in Babylonian knowledge and religion, and food and tastes; and even to change their names, so that the connection which each of their names had with the God they had been brought up to know, should be displaced. We may have noticed that those four men had names, which, if interpreted, include reference to the name of God. None of those references survive in the names the King of Babylon wanted to give them. So he was making them - or thought to make them - vessels to dishonour. But they would not have it: they were prepared even to go into the fiery furnace. There was something indestructible, about those vessels, that even a fire heated seven times more than it was wont to be heated could not destroy, chap 3: 19. Even to drop one of these vessels into the den of lions could not destroy it or affect its integrity, chap 6: 16. They were set, they were determined, to be vessels that were fit for the Master’s use, even though for the time being they were detached from the temple in which they had had their place, which itself had been destroyed. So that is the first way in which we see the vessels in the book of Daniel.
Then we read in Daniel 5 about Belshazzar, and Belshazzar’s feast. He commanded that the vessels that belonged to God should be brought, to be used for unhallowed purposes, to be filled with wine, so that he and his nobles and concubines could drink out of them. The whole object in his careless, dissolute state, was to profane vessels that had been once held for the sanctuary of God. God would not have it. He entered in judgment into that unholy scene, and the author of it was destroyed. But that left the vessels in Babylon. And then we have another king arising, that they talk about here, and for reasons, maybe partly political, but under God’s hand, he proposed the reinstatement of the temple in Jerusalem. I think it is interesting to see, that in this recovery, the prominence is given to the vessels.
There are two recoveries in the book of Ezra, and we have read an account of them both. The first one got as far as re-establishing the altar on its foundation, and the second one, in which Ezra personally had part, resulted in the reconstruction of the whole house. On both of those occasions, a shipment of vessels was made from Babylon. That is a very encouraging thing, beloved, that God is working on the principle of recovery and He is not working simply to re-establish principles, but is reclaiming what is precious to Himself among His people. I desire that we might pray for that. Obviously, we would love for company and fellowship of others, and the renewal of fellowship where those links have been lost for the time being, but how blessed it would be to see a recovery in which there was more for God. I make that as a simple proposition from this passage, that the idea had been not only to reinstate the place and the altar, but to reinstate the service as a thing of activity for God’s glory and praise.
What struck me about this first passage in chapter 5 is that the recovery did not get very far before very strong objections were made. There were these men who wanted the work to stop, and they had succeeded for a time. Now it had restarted, and they were preparing to write to the king to get his agreement that the work was unauthorised and should be prevented. They go over the sad history as the people had recounted it to them. The people had been quite honest and humble, as we should be, about things that had come in. They acknowledged freely that there had been unfaithfulness and that God had had to act in discipline. And we have to make the same kind of acknowledgements; we cannot avoid them. We might say it is others who have gone away, but the whole thing is a humbling experience. But then they are able to bring forward the proof that what they were doing was properly authorised and legitimate. I am not now concerned with the king’s part in this, I am talking about this as it were in a moral way, and the proof they had that this work had been sanctioned, was that they had these vessels of God’s house in Jerusalem, and the king had allowed it. Imagine what the situation would have been otherwise. Either the vessels would still have been in the temple in Babylon, or a question would have arisen about how it had come about that they were not. What they are able to show is that these vessels were quite properly restored to the place in which they belonged. The point I simply want to make from that is that the testimony that God is working in revival, and the testimony that God has a house here and that its service continues, is in His own: in the vessels. And it is a testimony that even those who were opposed had no answer to. So we need to ask ourselves, beloved, do we represent anything of that kind? Is our commitment to the service of God, and to His praise, and to what is due to Him, in His house, so clear and positive, and are the vessels hallowed and kept from what is impure to such an extent, that a clear testimony can be given that there is a work of revival here in which God Himself has His part, and which is for His pleasure and service? What a wonderful thing it was that they were able to say this. And when the king looked, he found that this was exactly what had been allowed. It was not only that they had been given permission to re-establish the principles and to follow design and all that kind of thing, or that they had been given certain rights and claims on materials, but they had the vessels of the house of God, and it had been overruled by God that they should be recovered. It was in the recovery of those vessels that the presence and hand of God had been inarguably demonstrated. That raises a question with us all, beloved, whether that really is how things stand now. Are we resting on the past, are we resting on the history of what others were? Or could we say, ‘Here are these vessels, and they are waiting to have their part in the service of praise’?
Then there was another recovery in which Ezra himself took the lead. And he brought more vessels from Babylon, as we have read, vessels of different kinds; and two very distinctive vessels. I draw to attention that they could not only be numbered, but they could also be weighed. And when they were brought, an account had to be given not only of their number, but of their weight. Ezra says here, “I weighed into their hand”, and then it says, “the whole by number and by weight; and all the weight was written down”. That raises a question with us all, because it is one thing to be in the headcount, one thing to be in the poll; but the question is for us all, which should be an exercise as far as we are concerned, being living vessels, whether it is a matter of increase with us. What is the weight? The value is in the weight, is it not? The value of these vessels lay in the weight. The measures they gave are measures of value by weight, talents. I think that is a wonderful thing. It is a remarkable thing also to be able to take account of in one another; that is what I am really concerned about. We need to be exercised about our own measure of course, but to look at one another and see each as recovered. You might go round to see how many brethren there are in your local meeting, and you may well be able to count very quickly; there may not be very many, but that is the number. But then you must consider what the weight is. How much regard do I have, in the way I carry my local brethren, the way I work with them, for the capacity, and about the value, about the measure, of what God has among His people? How much of a privilege do I hold it to be to walk with them and to work out God’s service with them? How precious it is to see that.
I just draw attention to these two remarkable vessels; nobody can tell you really where they came from. They are said to be shining copper, but they were so shining that they were precious as gold. “Shining copper”, it says, “precious as gold”. One thing you might notice about them is, that although we know there were two, but we are not told what they weighed. All the other vessels we have an aggregate weight for, but we are not told what these two vessels weighed. Somebody knew what they weighed because the whole was weighed, , but we are not told what the weight is. I want to suggest that there is something about any brother or sister that only God knows; it is not for me to quantify it. It is for me to admire, the shining of it is something to be taken account of, but underneath that shining there is something that only God really knows. And the privilege is of walking with people that God knows - for the Lord knows those that are His - how precious that is, beloved, “precious as gold”. The Lord has given us the privilege of walking with people He knows, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 2: 19.
I read in Mark’s gospel, because I want to suggest that these two women are like those two vessels. I know other comparisons have been made. I remember once a comparison has been made suggesting that these two vessels represented Timothy and Titus, but I do not go into that. There is something about these two women that corresponds to these two vessels. Since we have resumed our local reading meetings, we have read about these two women and it is very striking, the way that they are brought in. If we just go back in the book a little bit, we have a parable about a man who had a vineyard, Mark 12: 1. He let it out to husbandmen who would not give him what it yielded. They capped their wicked behaviour by killing his son. Shortly afterwards there is another story, where the religious people tried to catch the Lord out by asking a question about the tribute money, v 13. And the Lord asked to see a coin, a very small coin it was. He asks whose image and superscription was on it, and He makes this comment, that they were to pay “what is God’s to God”, v 17. That of course was the problem with the husbandmen: they had not paid to God what was God’s. And the Pharisees knew that He had spoken this parable of them; so they were under conviction they had not paid what was God’s to God. So, this point is building up now. Then we have the Sadducees with this question about the woman who had had seven brothers as husbands and so on, and then a teacher asks what is the greatest commandment; and the Lord says, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength”, v 30. In other words, putting it simply, the first and great commandment was pay what is God’s to God. The Lord has come back to this point, and He makes it very simply. The man knew that was the first commandment; he recognised that that was right. I am not going on now to the second commandment about loving your brother, although that is very important. I thought it was interesting that that question had arisen in the parable of the husbandmen, then it arises in the question about the tribute money, and then it arises in this question about which is the greatest commandment. And the answer in each three cases is the same: “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength”.
Then this widow appears; and she had practically nothing. I actually find it quite hard to imagine somebody in such penury. She did not have a denarius to show whose image and superscription was on it. It was twice or maybe more than she actually possessed. That was all she had. But she loved the Lord her God, with all her heart, with all her soul, and with all her understanding and with all her strength. And she used that strength to put all her living into the treasury. We are told that there were a lot of other people, and I imagine a lot of clattering of money going into these treasury pots in the court of the women in the temple compound; I suppose most of them did not notice the widow. But the Lord noticed: He noticed the woman; He noticed how much she put in. He knew. He had weighed that vessel, and He said it was “more than all”. Think of that. I think it is a great comfort to know what Paul says in Timothy, that “The Lord knows those that are his”. The One who knows says this woman has cast in more than all - more than all. That was His assessment; in the balances of the sanctuary, that is what she weighed. I remember a brother said once he was sure there was a meal on her table when she got home, because God is “a judge of the widows”, Ps 68: 5. He would not leave someone like this to fall into the destitution which from a natural point of view seemed imminent. But that is not said here; nothing is said about how she was taken care of. All that is brought out is that she loved the Lord her God. She was in a sense greater than all the commandments and sacrifices. Think of that - greater than them all!
I like to read in Deuteronomy where that commandment is given, chap 6: 5. We have first the tables of stone in chapter 5 but that commandment is not on the tables of stone; it does not say on the tables of stone thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. The tables were given to the people in the flesh who were incapable of keeping something like that. As God says, in Deuteronomy 5: 29, after He has given the ten commandments again: “Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments continually, that it might be well with them and with their sons forever!”. And then He says, “Hear Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah; and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart”, chap 6: 4-5. In other words, the key to the whole matter was missing in Israel after the flesh: “the righteous requirement of the law” (Rom 8: 4) would be fulfilled in love. And that is what we see in this widow.
Now I come to this other lady in chapter 14, and she is right at the other end of the scale: she had something that was worth a fortune. But, like the poor widow, she gave it all to Christ - all of it. We have been speaking about the way the house of God is surrounded by an evil world, and this evil world presses in here. We have the betrayal going on, and the scheming behind that; we have even members of the company, people who were at the meal, getting angry with someone who wanted to give everything to Christ. What a tragedy that was, and yet she is not put off, nor does she hold anything back. I do not know how it would have been otherwise, but the language Mark uses suggests that, in order to get access to the fragrance in this alabaster vase, she broke it in a way that prevented any reuse. It would not have been possible to refill or re-stop this flask, from the way she broke it. It was an irreversible and irrevocable and unqualified committal out of love for Christ. She loved the Lord her God with all her heart, and all her soul, and all her understanding and all her strength. And again, she is weighed by the Lord; He says, “What she could she has done”. “What this woman has done”, He says, “shall be also spoken of for a memorial”. What a thing that is, beloved. These two women, seen against the dark background of people away from God, are like these two vessels, shining precious as gold.
Now the last thought that I would like to bring in is this: having described those two women, and weighed them in the balances of the sanctuary, the gospel writer then comes to the Lord’s supper. We might say that the Lord’s supper is a provision that He has made for us. He speaks of it in that way, “This is my body”, He says, “which is given for you”, Luke 22: 19. So when we come to the Supper, we contemplate the kind of giving I have been speaking about: it was without reserve. What the Lord Jesus gave, represented in the emblems before us, is irrevocable: it was total, it was unqualified, it was final. “This is my blood”, He says, “which is poured out for you”, Mark 14: 24. Think of that! We learn in these things the love of Christ for us, the love of God for us, and we feast on these things, and we answer to them from our hearts’ affections. But what came to me when we read this last Lord’s day was this, that the Supper was also provided for people like those two women. What I mean by that is that the Lord has not only provided it for us to remember Him, but He has provided it also so that we might use that occasion to show that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and all our understanding and all our strength. The Supper, beloved, is a love matter. It was not provided for ritualists; it was provided for lovers; by the great Lover for lovers; those who love each other. The kind of people who were in the Lord’s mind were not timeservers or ritual-servers, or creatures of habit. When the Lord gave the Supper, the kind of people He had in mind who would take it are like these two women. And so it is today, beloved. My longing is that, as we contemplate them, and the way the Lord has brought them forward for our education, those features might mark us more, especially at that occasion.
May He bless the word.
GRIMSBY
10th July 2021