THE BREAD OF GOD - CONTINUED
THE BREAD OF GOD - CONTINUED
JT The idea of eating and drinking, it may be remarked, is spoken of in the Word, as not only meeting the needs of the body physically, but as a means of enjoyment. We get the thought of feasting. In the tenth chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians where Exodus 32 is referred to, in connection with a “feast to Jehovah”, eating and drinking are called idolatry; then, in chapter 15, the apostle reasons, that if there be no resurrection, men would simply eat and drink, and die to-morrow; thus showing how the terms are used as expressing enjoyment and satisfaction away from God. Whereas they are also used in the same sense, to denote enjoyment and satisfaction in the presence of God, as in Exodus 24, where the elders of Israel ate before God, having seen God, as we are told. He did not lay His hands on the elders, and they ate and drank, so their life was continued there. Then in the gospels we have several instances of feasting, in which eating and drinking form prominent features. I mention these things to show how Scripture connects what is of the world, as well as what is of God, with eating and drinking. Eating in the presence of God necessitates very great exercise.
RF In 1 Corinthians 10: 7, it is said, “the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play”. That is the opposite of exercise.
JT Yes; that was as away from God. In the absence of the mediator, Moses being on the mount, they sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. I suppose that is typical of Christendom now, where the mass of people have forgotten where Christ is, and go in for satisfaction of the flesh without Him. The Lord’s supper provides an antidote to that,
[p. 170] because it is instituted in order that we should not be without Him. It is for a remembrance of Him.
PL In Luke 15 there is feasting in the house.
JT It is the Father Himself who says, “Let us eat and be merry”. It is His proposal.
FF Showing God’s part in the joy occasioned by the recovery of the prodigal.
WH This chapter suggests an exercise to get food.
GFM The sixth of John forms a contrast to the third of Genesis.
JT To Adam there was given a wide range of choice in regard to what he should eat. There was no restriction as to any food, save one tree in Paradise; and it was in this way that Satan took advantage, by suggesting that God was selfish in imposing that restriction. In regard to what was given as meat, we get herbs mentioned first, then fruit with seed. Before the flood men were evidently vegetarians. It does not appear that any animal food was eaten till after the flood.
JH The fish of the sea were included in Adam’s dominion. Fish is available for food, in the chapter before us.
JT There was no life to be taken at that time, and animals were not given as meat before the flood.
JH Our brother’s remark calls for a little attention, the contrast between Genesis 3 and John 6. In Genesis 3 you have man partaking of that which is forbidden; that is, one doing his own will.
GFM The principle behind that which has been instilled into man, is ambition. Here, what God provides is in order that we should live, in the place where death reigns.
JT This is a food that dissipates ambition.
PL It is bread come down.
JT The Lord Jesus, instead of taking the place of equality with God, made Himself of no reputation.
[p. 171] It is the antidote to what we find in Genesis 3; so the contrast is very marked.
RD That brought in death; this food is to sustain in life.
GFM What is the point in “flesh” and “blood”?
JT Blood separated from flesh implies death. It could not be partaken of otherwise. Nothing strangled was to be partaken of, so the passage refers to Christ as dead, and further on you get Christ alive. First it is eating His flesh and drinking His blood, then eating Him.
RD What would this effect in you?
JT It would have a reducing, displacing effect. It is terrible that I have to come to this, that whatever I may be in the world, it is this kind of food I have to eat in order to live. It dissipates all kind of ambition and inflation.
RD Would it work through our affections?
JT Through the mind and affections. Light in itself does not suffice, though it enters through the mind. Here it is not the Lord’s death vicariously that is contemplated, but death as ending the state in which man was in inflation and pretension.
GFM The point in John 6 is, the necessity for eating. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you”.
JT The world, and the Jews, had no life in themselves. The first world developed out of Genesis 3. The aspiration was that man should be as God and do his own will. All that has to be effaced, to be dissipated in me. How is it to come about? Not only by light, but I have to eat the food presented here, and assimilate it.
RD The Lord went down into death in order that we might have this food, when we think what it cost Him it touches the affections.
PL “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus”. (Philippians 2: 5)
GN What would be the difference between “eating” and “drinking”?
JT Eating is the more prominent feature, but drinking would answer to “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts”, Romans 5: 5. It is said, “We have all been made to drink into one Spirit”, 1 Corinthians 12: 13. It is not developed here, but you get a reference to it in the Lord’s supper. Life belongs to God.
PL We drink the cup, which is the new covenant in Christ’s blood.
JT The life of the Man who was the negation of Genesis 3 was for God; that life as given up is the testimony to the love of God. God abominates the life of the lawless man, but life is His. No blood was to be partaken of in the Old Testament. God is not claiming the life of the man that sinned, for that life was forfeited and of no value. The life God claimed was the life of Jesus. In the Old Testament there was an indication that there was a life which He cherished, and when it appears in Christ the testimony comes into evidence that it belongs to God. The blood of Christ, therefore, is a testimony to the love of God. Christ’s body speaks of His own love for us; “this is my body which is for you”. (Luke 22: 19)
GN What is involved in the words “flesh” and “blood”?
JT The will of God in the flesh, and the love of God in the blood; these are two great elements on which we feed.
GFM They are made available for us in the death of Christ.
JT I can partake of them now, but if so, I surrender my will. It is the negation of my will. Christ came to do God’s will in the body prepared for Him, so when the Lord speaks of my “flesh”,
[p. 173] He refers to the condition He took in order to set forth the will of God in man, and that means the complete and absolute negation of myself I have to go.
RD I am to be sustained in life outside the scene of sin and lawlessness.
JT That is what it comes to. You are here for God’s will. Blood expresses the love of God. The new covenant is in Christ’s blood, but Christ was not the One making the covenant; it was God who made it. Christ is the Mediator of it.
GFM You get in it the declaration of the love of God.
JT Yes. See what a generation is brought to pass by eating this food!
RD A generation living in the love of God.
JT So there is a complete reflection of Christ in that generation. The principle of the will of God is, to go down. “But what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before”. The idea of doing the will of God comes down from heaven. The idea of it is in heaven.
RD How would you connect that with “I will raise him up at the last day”?
JT It is the triumph of God. The saints go to the wall outwardly now. The last day is the final day; you get the final issue and analysis, and then only those who eat will be raised up.
PL Raised suggests the thought of complacency.
JT “Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return”, Genesis 3: 19. That is because of lawlessness and it disappears, but raising up is the contrast to that. I reappear as having eaten this food.
RD The Lord says, “I will raise it up”, in verse 39, as if He there speaking of all; in the three other cases, it is “raise him up”.
JT The whole of those who believe is involved in “it”, then each individual. He says, “of all
[p. 174] that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up”.
RB A generation is brought about by individual appropriation.
JT Yes; the Father’s will is, “that every one who sees the Son, and believes on him, should have life eternal” Firstly there is the thought of faith, and then of eating. The latter is more definite, as expressing appropriation of what is presented in Christ for men to feed on.
GN Has the eating of His flesh a negative result?
JT Yes, the negation of my will.
GN And the cup is positive.
JT Yes, the love of God in which we live is set forth in it. There is more, of course, in the body than what is negative, as Christ’s personal love is in it too “We being many are one bread and one body”. It brings about in the assembly a response to Christ, while the cup would produce love to God also.
GFM It is not only the negation of my own will, but leads me to accept the will of God.
JT We need food to strengthen us, in order to set aside our own wills; they are strong, and this food gives me power.
AN What is the difference between John 6 and the Lord’s supper?
JT The Lord’s supper has not the world in view. It is brought down to narrower limits and clearly defined. God’s part in it, and Christ’s part, are more taken up. “This is my body”. You get Christ’s affection and interest which brings about assembly affection. “The new testament in my blood”, corresponds with the Spirit shedding abroad the love of God in the heart.
RD The food of John 6 is in the world where sin and death are; it involves daily eating.
JT It goes on to the millennium. The Lord’s supper contemplates the period of Christ’s absence,
[p. 175] and is not for life. It is for a remembrance. It is interesting to note that there are two sacraments in Christianity, as J.N.D. said. The first, baptism, introduces me into the wilderness; the second, the Lord’s supper, sustains me there. The idea of food is necessarily there. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup”.
GN The Supper is the way out of the wilderness, too.
RD We are able to leave the wilderness and go into home conditions. So it is a supper.
JT There is food in it; it nourishes our souls in the love of God -and of Christ.
Rem The Lord had a title to live.
JT He laid down His life. He had power to lay it down, as having received commandment from the Father.
GN What is the typical significance of the manna?
JT It is the life of Jesus, and affords us sustenance in a scene of contrariety. You find it wherever you go. As you go through this scene doing the will of God, you find Christ has been into every possible circumstance.
AF In the tenth chapter of first Corinthians the blood is mentioned first, then the body.
JT The tenth chapter gives the bearing of the Lord’s supper on our every day walk, and the cup is mentioned first as expressing the love of God; then the bread, as setting forth the will of God. The tenth chapter is more a question of what God is.
RD Taking up the will of God, because of the portion you have in the love of God. It is the only way you could do it. The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts. Has not Romans 5 in view, that we are to traverse the wilderness? We are not to be ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our [p. 176] hearts.
JT So you accept all that is involved in your baptism.
AF What is the thought in the new covenant?
JT In the first covenant, the proposal made to the people was that God was to be their God, and they, His people; “if ye obey”. The new covenant is constituted as regards the house of Israel and Judah; they are still to be His people, and God their God, only the terms are different. Instead of obedience being demanded, the principle of obedience is put into their minds and hearts so that they are able to answer to God’s requirements. God had exclaimed, “Oh! that there were such a heart in them that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always”, Deuteronomy 5: 29. The first covenant did not change their hearts and minds, whereas the new covenant does.
RD God now sheds abroad His love in the heart, so He reaches His primary thought.
JG The people accepted the obligations under the old covenant, but God undertakes to make good the new.
JT It is what God does, but it necessarily results in what they do, as He puts His laws in their minds and writes them in their hearts.
RD They obey; we should recognise that.
JT You could not think of the covenant without obedience. The whole point on the side of the people is obedience from the beginning. The moral system is founded on obedience.
RD “Unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ”, 1 Peter 1: 2.
GN What about the change of terms?
JT He puts a new heart into the people. He gives them a heart, this did not take place under the first covenant. The commandments were then written on tables of stone; for the new law is to be written on the heart.
[p. 177] RD He does not ask us to obey, but we do obey from the heart. Christ is to be written on our hearts.
JT Yes, that is greater than the law. He says, in the mount of legislation, “I say to you”. He adds to the law. So Christ written on the heart is greater than the commandments. He is the revealed will of God.
RD That is Christianity. It is a greater thing.
Rem In Christ there is the complete disclosure of the mind and will of God.
RS The people are willing in the day of His power.
JT In the Psalms we get the expression, “Amen and Amen”, at the end of the first three books, and at the end of the fourth, “let all the people say, Amen”. They acquiesce in all that God does.
RD As having willing hearts.
PL We become firmly attached to the will of God.
GN The affections are gained, in Romans 6.
PL How does the cup come in in connection with the covenant?
JT The Lord says, it is the new testament in His blood. It is the blood of the Mediator. It gave God a means of expressing His love. God’s love is told out, and it comes before us, so the thought of a covenant is in no sense foreign to Christianity, or contrary to it. It is developed in Christianity. Christ written in the heart is greater than what Israel will have. So we see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. It is the effect of what God is in His nature. Christ is said to be the covenant.
AF “He also who eats me, shall live also on account of me”, John 6: 57.
AN Is the covenant made with Israel?
JT The first covenant was with Israel, and it is said of the new covenant, that it is “as regards the [p. 178] house of Israel and as regards the house of Juda”. It expresses the disposition of God towards His people. Paul was a minister, not of letter, but of spirit, and the Lord is the Spirit; the Lord has brought in the love of God, and the presence of this gives character to Christianity. Excess marks everything that Christians have. The disposition of God towards us in Christ rises to the full height of our position. It qualifies us for our heavenly calling.
AN If we take account of the position Jew and Gentile respectively occupy, it makes a difference.
JT The Jew knew the law as actually under it; the Gentile was not, but knew enough of it to enable the apostle to write to them about it. The law, the apostle says, rules over a man as long as he lives. Then he cites the case of a woman, whose husband is dead, and who is free to be married to another. This thought he carries through to Christianity. “Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God”, Romans 7: 4. So the thought of a bond remains.
RD One could not enjoy deliverance without recognising the bond. You must recognise that you are free to be married to another.
JT The old bond is dissolved, and now you are free to be attached to another Man.
PL It is a bond of attachment.
JT Yes, a bond of affection. The apostle seizes the fact that the Roman Christians knew the law, and he carries forward the thought of it to the Christian assembly, showing that nothing is dropped. The reference is no doubt to Exodus 19, as the prophets formally state that the bond was entered into then. Now Christian believers are regarded as released from the legal thing, and brought into a new bond to Christ. F.E.R. used to say that you really [p. 179] do not get love proper to a husband and wife until the marriage contract is entered into. If we apply that to Christ and the individual, true conjugal affections are only known when the bond is recognised.
PL It preserves from idolatry.
JT The heart is closed to other claimants. The bond is between Christ and the individual.
RD The heart responds to Christ. “He that eateth me, even he shall live by me”. How do we appropriate Him as food?
JT The thought of blood is dropped in that passage. It is Christ as He is; we eat Him and live by Him.
RD It is the thought of communion.
JT Firstly John says, “Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man and drunk his blood”; and then “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood”. The latter is continuous. In verse 57, which you quote, it says, “he also who eats me”; that is, you appropriate Christ as alive. As revived, the daughter of Jairus had to be sustained, something was to be given her to eat. We are to live by Christ. I learn what I am in His affections, and He is in mine, and it comes about by “eating” Him.
RD I become like Christ, and live in His affections.
RB We get in Malachi, “and did not he make one”? (Malachi 2: 15)
JT God hates putting away. There is to be one wife, and one husband. The Lord said, “From the beginning it was not so”. (Matthew 5: 32) The thought is “one flesh”.
FF At the close of this chapter the Lord says, “Will ye also go away” Peter replies, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” He was held in attachment.