APPROPRIATION

^[p. 193] APPROPRIATION

Revelation 10: 8 - 11; Matthew 26: 26 - 31; 1 Timothy 6: 12, 19

I wish to speak about ‘appropriation’, a word commonly used amongst the people of God, the full significance of which as applying to what is presented as food by God to us is but poorly appreciated or, at least, has but little taken hold on us.

Eating is the best figure we get of the idea of appropriation because eating implies that I not only take things, but use them in such wise that they become entirely effective, according to their intent. What is eaten affords the necessary strength and thus is effective. Ordinarily the animal creation is bound to feed if it is to exist at all. No doubt the same principle applies to the vegetable creation, but it certainly does to the animal creation. We are so constituted that we must have food and eat it. The possession of food is not enough; it has to be appropriated. So in the bounty of the Creator, in Genesis, food is made plentiful; man could eat if he liked but, on the other hand, he was forbidden to eat certain fruit. Generally, however, food was there and in abundance. The first chapter of Genesis describes the food that God had provided for man and also for the beast of the field, but it is left to man to appropriate the food provided for him, and ordinarily he would do so as otherwise subsistence would be impossible. It was, of course, vegetable food, God taking account of man’s constitution and of that of the cattle, so that flesh was not provided at the outset. From the facts presented, it is evident that the food provided suited man’s constitution at that time. Later flesh was provided for man but there is nothing said about its being provided for the cattle although, doubtless,

^[p. 194] carnivorous appetites had already developed — they certainly developed later on — but flesh is allowed formally to man. As I said, however, there is no special injunction that the food should be eaten; that is left but, when we come to Exodus, there is a special injunction. That book, having in mind, as we have already noticed, that God would be in covenant relation with His people and that His name would be bound up with them, that His very glory should be in their midst, that, indeed, He Himself should dwell in their midst, a constitution becomes of importance and hence suitable food. So in Exodus God prescribes food, which I do not need to go into now, save to mention the passover. That has a great bearing on the subject. If people are to be in relation with God, they must not only learn to judge righteously in everyday affairs as men do, more or less, but to judge of sin according to God. In truth we have to learn everything from God and especially how to judge sin, so that He introduces the passover lamb. It was to be a yearling as you will remember, meaning that it was of growth, developed, and that it should be before the Israelites objectively in their houses so that they should learn to value it and that, whilst it was going to be food for them, it was not, in itself, deserving of death or sufferings. So that in slaying it they were to understand that the penalty was attached not to the lamb but to themselves.

I am saying what is simple to most of you but my object is to bring out first the kind of food that God prescribed and then that it should be eaten and nothing left over to the morning and what was left should be burned by fire. It was to be eaten at a particular time and family-wise, so that in the houses of the Israelites constitutions should be built up on the principle of sin judged vicariously. Not simply that man should die, according to Genesis, “the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”, but ^[p. 195] that there should be vicarious death and that that should afford food. And it was imperative that that food should be eaten. The people were to understand how their constitution was built up on the principle of food provided vicariously; they were to understand that a penalty had come in but, nevertheless, they subsisted. God intended to have these people all round His dwelling, to dwell in their midst, their very constitutions being in accord with Himself.

That is the idea, so I take that up as the principle governing what I have in mind; food not only provided but prescribed and enjoined to be eaten. Any Israelite could feed freely while ever afterwards anyone failing to feed on this food would be cut off. Other kinds of food would be added, such as the manna, but this food was imperative for every Israelite.

I want to apply this to what I want to say in regard to food in the book of the Revelation, a book which has a peculiar bearing on the present time. The understanding of this book requires much consideration but especially that we turn to see the voice, not only to hear, but to see the voice. The voice is behind and the one by whom it was intended to be heard turned to see it and he described what he saw, a wonderful vision. He is ordered here, in chapter 10, to take the little book and eat it up, cover as well, so to speak, meaning that none of it was to be omitted, for we are very apt to discriminate, but the word here is to take the little book and eat it up. I bring in this scripture first because it conveys the principle that, unless this injunction is acted upon, we shall not prophesy again. We shall not go forward, and the Lord will take on others. When I say prophesy again, I mean that whatever our position is, whatever our privilege that is accorded to us, unless this principle is accepted, we shall be left. Therefore it is for each one, in the face of this scripture,

^[p. 196] to make up his mind whether what he is privileged to be called into is of any value to him.

John accepts the role of prophet as his particular privilege and responsibility, one that he undoubtedly valued greatly. He was greatly honoured by the Lord coming to Patmos, that lonely island where John was doubtless deprived of the fellowship of his brethren. What a fine Lord’s day he had that day! A delightful Lord’s day though most solemn. He says, “I became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” and how befitting it was that the Lord should come to Patmos that day. How pleased He must have been with John that He found him in this way, not found, in his isolation, reading some literature of the day, but keeping himself alone, having no brethren to speak to, but in the Spirit. He was in the fulness of the dispensation of the Spirit (the time in which the Spirit of God is here), and it is our privilege to be in the Spirit. In the circumstances surrounding John in his banishment, hate and persecution would be in evidence but, whatever the circumstances, he was outside of them. How great a privilege it is to be withdrawn in spirit from what is hostile! His body was there on the island of Patmos but he was in the Spirit, and how pleasurable it was to the Lord to find him in the Spirit on that day. John was a lone servant but a trusted one, one of the trustworthy ones of Scripture, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and the Lord did not love him without a good cause. He loves us all but, when one is singled out there is a reason and, in John’s case, one reason would be that he was trustworthy.

The Lord was pleased to call to him from behind and John was sufficiently sensitive to turn and see the voice, not merely to hear it, for he apprehended there was a Person. In this sense it was a living voice and he turned to see the voice and the Lord spoke beautifully to him. He was going to unfold the “^[p. 197] Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass”. It was the unfolding of the future history of this world and the introduction of the world to come — a wonderful theme! And the Lord is in keeping with it. He laid His hand upon John and said, “Fear not ... I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore”.

It is the Apocalypse, a great revelation of imagery, which John has to see and does see, but he has to change his position time and again to see so important a matter. Now he has to eat and, if he does not eat, what will happen? There will be no sweetness in the mouth and bitterness in the belly and no prophesying again. He could not afford to miss that, nor is there any suggestion that he had any thought of missing such a great privilege. So he takes the little book. Some may enquire, ‘What is the little book?’ One thing important to notice is that it is a little one. Undoubtedly it is history, the history of Europe, but the history of Europe as God can write it, not like Gibbons’ Decline and Fall and other such books, for God is not going, one might say, to fill His library with such history. This is a little book. It is the record of the things which Jesus did that will fill that library although, if everything were written, the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. This book, however, is a little one. The history of one country is very much the history of another; indeed, the history of the world from Babel onwards is the history of all, in principle, for man is man. It is only a question of environment. God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”. In God’s government, environment has made differences but there is no need for libraries to record the history of the world from God’s point of view. So there is a little book and that involves immense abridgement.

^[p. 198] God has great powers of compression. In His own things He can compress, and the Scriptures are wonderfully compressed, especially when they record a history not pleasing to God and about to call forth His judgment.

The little book contained things which moved John’s affections. If God deals with the world, He cannot help dealing with His people too. The present great pressure is affecting God’s people. It is of Him that it should affect us and we are not to miss the gain of it. There is discipline in it for us but it is ordered, and there is no one who loves the people of God but must feel the consequences of God’s government in this world. The heart of a callous Christian would not bleed when he hears of this and that one suffering on account of current happenings. But God would make us sympathetic so that these conditions may not bring in unrighteousness but may work out the will of God amongst us as being part of the “all things” that “work together for good to them that love God”.

John was a feeling brother, a brother and companion of the saints in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, and this little book obviously would record things that would affect his brethren. Whether Christians or the Jewish remnant, there would be suffering. There is bound to be suffering if God is dealing with the world. His dealings are in mercy, even in the world, to make a way for the gospel, but they involve suffering and the saints must have their share. However, God will make a difference, as in the plagues in Egypt when He made a difference between His people and the Egyptians.

John takes the little book and eats it and it was just what the angel said it was. It affected him just as the angel had described. In his mouth it was sweet. Now there is a word for us here in connection with what I am saying to you about enjoying food. I ^[p. 199] refer to what God calls attention to at a meeting like this, for example. That is the idea of it. He calls attention to some particular thing and He conveys clearly that it is not to be simply a pleasant song in our ears but that it is to go lower, not only in our mouths, for we may talk of what we have had, but talking is not all. Some will remember that the parts specially prescribed by the sacrifices for the priests were the jawbones and the maw (Deuteronomy 18:3), the masticating and assimilating parts; that is to say, not only the mouth, but the assimilation; that is what tells. What God draws attention to may be nice to speak about but the after-effects are not always enjoyable. Bringing these things into our daily life involves bitterness and, if you do not accept the bitterness, then your privileges will cease. You cannot afford that. John could not for a moment think of his privileges ceasing. He is a prophet in this book and he would not tolerate for an instant the thought that his service should not be carried on. He does not say so explicitly here but, because he ate the book and found it sweet in the mouth and bitter in the belly it is said, “Thou must prophesy again”. Can you doubt that he prophesied again? even more powerfully? Moreover he would discriminate more than ever. That is what comes out in the next chapter; he is to measure the temple of God, the altar and the worshippers, as if he is morally qualified to do it; at the same time he is full of grief for the sufferings of the brethren. The Lord, as it were, says, ‘I will give you the measure of them, you will be the instrument of distinguishing them as the court’. That is, they come under the judgment of God; those whom you love are not immune. But they are taken account of by God. How sweet, as I feel bitterly for my brethren, to know that God is taking care of them in their sufferings! He can help more than I can. That is exactly what happens. He says, “Measure the ^[p. 200] temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship in it”. How sweet it is to have a sense that God is taking account of us in these times as belonging to His temple and having something to offer and to worship! God takes account of us. We may be sure He will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able to bear; He will make a way through for us: I am speaking now of doing what is specially enjoined if we are to continue in this place of privilege and I turn to Matthew so that we may see how the assembly is reached.

In Matthew we see how reaching the assembly necessitates eating what we are enjoined to eat. The Lord does not exactly say, ‘That is food’ or ‘This is My body, this is food’. God had said in Genesis that certain herbs and beasts of the field were food but gave no injunction to man to eat. But now, in Matthew, it is “Take, eat”. We are enjoined to eat.

Now some of you may have noticed that Luke, in recording the institution of the Lord’s supper, does not say anything about eating, which is a noteworthy distinction. There it is not a question of food but of memorial, “This do”. That is what He had done “He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them”. “This do” refers to what He did. That is for our eyes, it is not a question of eating.

There is nothing said about eating or of movement, in Luke, it is simply brethren who love the Lord coming together to break bread as in Acts 20. I 1 Corinthians 11 the apostle combines Matthew and Luke and Mark also, because Mark follows Matthew in this respect. I am speaking, however, of Matthew’s account. Luke contemplates that you love the Lord and call Him to mind. It is an act of mind in that way to bring Him here so that you say, as John did, “It is the Lord”. Matthew, however, has the assembly in mind so there we find it is, “Take, eat; this is my body”, “Drink ye all of it”. That is to say, ‘All of you drink it’ for the assembly requires all of us. Matthew does not contemplate, primarily, a remnant but the assembly in militant power in this world and all of us are needed. Moreover, what is hidden here is the assembly’s function Godward, a most important matter. Unless we function Godward we shall not function manward. We may carry on and be active in the gospel but there can be no testimony according to God save as we understand the function of the assembly Godward, and that is what is in view in the passage before us. Not only is it “Take” but “Take, eat”. It is a figure of appropriation. What is it that I eat? It is not His flesh, that is John 6, but “My body”. It is linked on with the passover. The passover was Christ’s body as bearing sin (He was “made sin”, He underwent the full judgment and wrath of God) to be eaten by Israel and by us, too, in the spiritual sense “Christ our passover”. That, however, is not the Lord’s supper. This “Take, eat” is not Christ undergoing the wrath of God, the passover is that, but I do not say they are not connected. Matthew and Mark are the only evangelists who give us the forsaking, so that in the passover in those two gospels we have to see what God thinks of sin — a most important matter. The passover has to be eaten and while so doing the Lord challenged them, “One of you shall deliver me up”. How searching that is! In a gospel that deals with sin in a most absolute way, will God let me pass? No! I must deal with sin in my own heart in this gospel. But then I come to the Lord’s body, “This is my body”; that is Christ in another way. He has undergone death, of course; but it is now food for me and I am enjoined to eat it. It is a question of acquiring power in the assembly Godward and manward. So you find movement. Matthew and Mark mention, but Luke and John do not, that there is this movement after the Lord ^[p. 202] institutes the Supper, after He enjoins eating. It is a question of power, not simply of light, but of power in our constitutions to be the thing, so to speak. So that when they had sung a hymn, when they had done it — it is not a question here of the Lord leading the singing but whether we can do it together — they went to the mount of Olives; that is, there is an ascending movement. They had been in Jerusalem in the upper room but now there is a definite movement upwards and that is what is lacking amongst us. What I desire to point out is that Matthew would give us power in our souls by enjoining eating, “Take, eat”.

Appropriating Christ in this way (it is really a whole Christ, as one might say) leads to the assembly as we have it in Corinthians, “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Christ? Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. This is a very important matter and aside from it there will be no movement in the assembly. It is a question of soul movement in an upward direction — “They went out to the mount of Olives”. Furthermore, everyone is required. One of the greatest things in christianity is mutual feelings and that is what the Lord has revived in the Supper and the readings.

Clericalism is not mutuality. Assembly procedure involves what is collective, it is the mutual side: “And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”. “All drank”.

There may be some young man or woman to whom it may never have occurred that he or she is needed.

You will remember that the incident of the colt is mentioned by all the evangelists and, except in John, the fact that the Lord had need of him. When Matthew mentions this, what could he have in mind but material for the assembly? So I would say to any young brother or sister, ‘The Lord has need of you for the assembly’. Mark, Luke and John tell us ^[p. 203] something else, but Matthew has the assembly in mind; he would build up the constitution of the assembly and have everyone who belongs to it in it. All are needed. In Acts 2 it is stated that they were all together in one place. No one can afford to be absent.

Matthew has in mind, too, the increase of assemblies, the assembly as a whole but the increase of the local companies. The Lord has need of you for that. That is the way it is presented and so here, “drink ye all of it”. What is it we drink? Paul says we have been all made to drink into one Spirit. What a service! Doubtless it was the Lord who did it. Will not every one here say ‘The Lord made me to drink’? It is said that we are all baptised into one body by one Spirit. If I drink into one Spirit I will not find the position irksome but will enjoy it. No one is of much value in the fellowship who is not pleased with it!

I desire to add a word on the scripture in Timothy — the thought of laying hold of “what is really life”. It is the word for ministers, preachers, and teachers, because we are apt to live in our service and the support the Lord gives. It is, of course, very pleasing to be supported but support in service is not eternal life.

The next injunction has reference to those who are rich in this world’s goods. They are apt to live in riches. People who have money and status are very apt to live in these things and so they are enjoined to do good. It is not stated that riches are of no value, they are just now but, if you have more than you have need of, they can be disposed of to the glory of God. The Spirit of God never disparages the things of this world in that sense. He does not blame those who have them but enjoins that we are to be rich in good works, to do good and to communicate, that they may lay hold of “what is really life”.

^[p. 204] That touches our nice houses and gardens and furniture! They are not “really life”. Even the family after the flesh is not “really life”. The Holy Spirit does not exactly deprecate them but it is a matter of comparison. Living in one’s ministry, in one’s riches or in one’s family is not really life. So you see there is great energy required — the injunction is to “lay hold”, to grasp it as if it is something that would elude you unless valued rightly. Service avails nothing without this. It is a privilege to serve, nevertheless service may give distinction which appeals to the flesh and the enemy can use it. So I must learn to value service rightly and, while so valuing it, to lay hold of eternal life, to grasp it. It is the blessing of God; the common blessing of my brethren is my blessing and it is greater than anything I can acquire. If I have riches or status, I am to see that eternal life is greater than these things, so I lay hold of eternal life. This last scripture regarding the rich is changed designedly by the Spirit of God. Instead of “eternal life” it is “what is really life”. “Eternal life” is in contrast to what is material, so that we should learn to think less and less of the material and more and more of the great blessing of God which is “eternal life through Jesus Christ”.