"FOOD WHICH ABIDES" (3)
“FOOD WHICH ABIDES” (3)
Exodus 12:1 - 20; Exodus 16:13 - 26
JT At our last reading we had before us the subject of food as it appears under the administration of Joseph in Egypt, and saw that he was a type of Christ, with all the food under his hand. This gave him great moral power, resulting in his brethren being brought to light in relation to him, and all the people of Egypt being brought into complete subjection under him, so much so that they go to him for seed with which to sow their land — typically, the full result of the present administration of Christ.
In Exodus we have specific foods; not food simply to sustain ‘the life of the world’ (see footnote, Genesis 41:45) as under Joseph, but food in the power of which we go out of the world according to God; and then food to sustain us as in it but not of it. It should be noted that in Exodus there is no scarcity; there is not even the suggestion of it; so that the head of an Israelitish house had simply to take his lamb. He would take it as having it, showing the individual wealth concentrated in believers as they go out of Egypt. They have what is needed. Each householder is directed to take a lamb, as if it were his own.
JS How would you link the food as presented in Genesis with that in Exodus?
JT The first feature of food in Genesis is creatorial provision, available to the creature, whether it be man or cattle, etc. It is there, but it is for them to find it. The second provision is in view of government, magisterial authority being committed to Noah. He is evidently provided with the food needed for the new responsibility imposed. The next is under Joseph. It is food in the hands of a man, to [p. 19] be administered. It is an administration, pointing to the present position of Christ as exalted. It is Christ as wisdom, having the whole supply of food under Him. The name given to Joseph apparently signified that he was a sustainer of the life of the world, and it was universal in its result. In Exodus we are on narrower ground; it is a question of a redeemed people in relation to God, leaving Egypt, figuratively this world, and finding food suitable to build up and sustain a constitution in view of this, and of the consequent position in the wilderness.
AFM Would you tell us what the prime thought of food is? It is introduced in Genesis 1, but evidently is a marked feature with angels, and is called “the corn of the heavens” and “the bread of the mighty”, (Psalm 78:24,25).
JT All creatures are dependent on food. Manna was said to be angels’ food. How they digest it or how it is assimilated, we do not know. The angels are spirits, hence their food cannot properly be material as ours is. We have, therefore, to find the link in a moral sense; it is a question of dependence on the word of God.
JS As the Lord says: “Man shall not live by bread alone”.
JT He lifts it up from the material to the spiritual — “Every word which goes out through God’s mouth”, (Matthew 4:4).
WB-w Is there limitation in Exodus?
JT Yes, that is readily discerned. We are on narrower, but not on lower ground, having privilege in view. It is a question of food for a people in express relation to God. In Genesis 1 the food of man and that of the creatures is not very different; that is to say, we are on the lowest ground there in regard to food. But when we come to Genesis 9, added to vegetable provision, we have “everything that liveth” given to man for food; that is a slight [p. 20] elevation. But under Joseph it is a question of food being in the hands of one person; that is to say, God ordering things creatorially so as to enhance the place of Christ by putting moral power in His hands. Men are obliged to come to Him. His position has in view the preservation of the world, very much like John 6:51, in that sense; it is “for the life of the world”.
JS Is there a certain moral elevation reached in Genesis in the exaltation of Christ typically, in the light of which we move out of the world as the children of Israel did in Exodus?
JT Yes. In Exodus you come to mediatorial service: Moses is expressly the mediator who is to effect redemption. It is, therefore, a people in redemption and the food suitable for them; that is to say, for us.
AR Is there any significance in the thought of the assembly being introduced in Exodus? Has it the limited thought in view?
JT Exactly; the word appearing here is very significant. It has quite a prominent place in the chapter, showing that not only are a redeemed people in view, but a people intelligent in the mind of God; this enters into the idea of an assembly.
AFM Would this subject of food, which is before us, have in view the doing of the will of God? We have the expression in Matthew 6:10: “Thy will be done as in heaven so upon the earth”.
JT Yes, I think so. It is a people going out of Egypt and having suitable food by which to go out, and to find later, in the manna, a food that would sustain them in the wilderness. The passover goes into Canaan. I think the main thought in it is reduction in the flesh and the exaltation of Christ in our hearts; that is to say, the passover lamb is preserved in wholeness. There is no breaking up of the framework: “Neither shall ye break a bone thereof”, (Exodus 12:46). What is meant is that the believer in going out of the world has a whole Christ before him; and He is to increase, whereas the believer is to decrease. The unleavened bread is to reduce the flesh, and as we “celebrate the feast” (1 Corinthians 5:7) Christ should come increasingly before our minds, and the flesh correspondingly becomes less and less.
BTF Would you say eating of the lamb signified the appropriation of the death of Christ in the way redemption?
JT Yes, in that whole way. “Not a bone of him shall be broken”, (John 19:36). Of course, in Exodus it is only a figure. In Matthew and Mark, in instituting His supper, the Lord said, “This is my body”, (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22). His body is to be eaten, not His flesh as in John 6. It is a whole thought.
ANW In that connection, is there a suggestion of the household being adjusted to the lamb?
JT It brings forward a very interesting point, and that is the question of capacity for eating, both in regard to the passover and to the manna.
JS Would the general thought be a lamb for a house?
JT Yes. The exception would be if it were too big for the house, then the neighbour would be brought in to share. The head of the house was responsible to consider the eating capacity. The age of the lamb is given here, as also the size of the omer in chapter 16. We are told that the omer was the tenth part of an ephah, and that it was for each person in Israel. There was no provision made for children, as such; each person had it; that is to say, it was the mind of God for them. It is the measure suitable for a heavenly man in the wilderness. An omer full of manna was laid up before the testimony. Typical of, “A man’s measure, that is, the angel’s”, (Revelation 21:17).
JS [p. 22] Would the eating of the passover help the believer to leave the world?
JT I think that is in view. You have the great object before you; one definite thought in mind — Christ Himself. Then the unleavened bread would reduce the flesh to nothing, so that there should be no inflation with us, as is prevalent in Christendom today; the present monstrosity that we see there is due to man in the flesh being nominally connected with Christ.
AJD You spoke of the apprehension of a whole Christ. Would you open that up a little?
JT It is a very important point, because most young believers in leaving the world are very indefinite as to an object. Young people are usually very vague in their perception of things. The gospel not only meets the believer’s need, but provides an object for his affections. It is “God’s glad tidings, ... concerning his Son (come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord”, (Romans 1:1-4). Now that presents to us the Person of Christ, viewed so to speak, in His entirety.
AJD Is it the apprehension of Him as having gone through death?
JT Yes. You are in your house eating before leaving Egypt, and have that one idea before you. Notice that it says, “The assembly of Israel shall kill it”. There may have been thousands of lambs but there was only one idea. It is not, they shall kill them, but, it. There was but one passover.
WB-w It is roasted with fire.
JT Well, that is additional to death. The lamb is slain; its blood is shed — this is the testimony. Its life is taken. But fire is an additional thought, to bring in not only the actual death of Christ, but the forsaking of God; it is the entire judgment of God [p. 23] against sin. Fire is the strongest figure you can have in this respect.
JS And the bitter herbs, what would they teach?
JT They would prefigure self-judgment: the bitterness that comes into the soul as to why all this should be borne by Christ — the righteous One. It is the bitterness that faith as judging sin, realised in partaking of the passover, corresponding to the bitter waters of Marah in the wilderness, which later the Israelites drank.
ARS Would you say this food enables you to leave the world? I suppose the idea is that as you find it superior to the leeks and onions of Egypt, you desire them no more. Besides, we are given notice to leave the world.
JT Yes, they were driven out. But God had told Israel to move out. The best notice is that which God gives you. At first the Egyptians were reluctant to let them go, but the judgment of God caused them to hasten the Israelites out. God allows the world to bring pressure on us, but the real point is that God orders us out. This chapter is divine ordering in regard of Israel going out, and there is really no option. We are obliged to go out if subject to God. The Roman believers are said to have “obeyed from the heart the form of teaching” (Romans 6:17) into which they were instructed.
CB Feeding upon Christ as bearing the judgment God for us would cause us to leave the world.
JT Yes. I think what transpired in the houses of Israel was most interesting. There was only one passover, although thousands partook of it. The same thoughts, conversation, doings, table furnishings, and the same blood on the lintel outside marked every house. Typically it was to promote affection for Christ and practical unity among the people of God.
WB-w Why is the negative instruction so particularly given: “Eat none of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire”?
JT It is to emphasise that the judgment of God had fallen on the lamb. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us, so that we are to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
JS Would it emphasise judgment more because it was eaten at night?
JT Yes, darkness surrounded them, which was in keeping with conditions outside; but there was light inside Israel’s houses. The manna began in the morning.
AJD What was in the mind of God in verse 46: “Neither shall ye break a bone thereof”? Was it to maintain the whole thought?
JT Yes. You get a cognate thought in Joseph directing that his bones should be carried up. It underlies the great subject of resurrection. The bones suggest the person; the one who is buried comes out. There is complete identification; the whole person is, so to speak, included in his bones. They are the framework of the body; but what God may clothe the person with is another thing. “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body”, (1 Corinthians 15:44).
CAM They carried those bones all the way through the wilderness.
JT Yes. It was by faith Joseph gave commandment concerning them.
CAM Would this suggest the Lord’s having eaten the passover with the disciples and inaugurating the memorial of Himself? Joseph’s bones would be a reminder of himself.
JT Just so. In Matthew and Mark the disciples suggest the passover to the Lord; and it is for Him to eat: “For thee to eat”, (Matthew 26:17). But in Luke 22:8 He suggests it to them: “That we may eat”. In Matthew and Mark it is His body [p. 25] that is to be eaten. In Luke, in connection with the Supper, there is nothing said about eating; it is the breaking of bread as a memorial, but Matthew and Mark would bring in the idea of food, in the Lord’s supper. It is one Christ.
AFM In John 19:36 there is no institution of the Lord’s supper but His loving His own to the end, is emphasised, and that “not a bone of him shall be broken”.
AJD It is a question of the Person remaining.
JT That is it. Whether it be Jesus here on earth or Jesus in resurrection, it is the same Person. There is no change in regard of the Person or His love.
WB-w John 1 refers to the Lamb of God. God draws attention to His Son. Would that be on the line of what you have been pointing out?
JT Yes, the allusion includes this chapter. There are different words used for ‘lamb’ in the New Testament original. One means ‘diminutive’, which is used in Revelation and John 21:15. The lamb in Revelation is a smaller idea than the lamb in John 1. The lamb here is a year old. It is not a diminutive thought as in Revelation, where it is the sufferer in outward weakness.
JS Eating here would appear to be a necessity prior to the people moving out.
JT It was the beginning of their history proper. We begin our history spiritually as we leave the world. “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months”.
AFM I would like to ask how it is that you get the assembly of Israel addressed in chapter 12, when in fact, they were not redeemed as yet?
JT I think it is a tribute to the work of God, to what God had been doing in His people in Egypt, to what had gone on in their previous experiences. So that they were now ready for the collective [p. 26] thought. It is not simply that they were one family, but were one in intelligence. There are two words here: the word ‘assembly’ which means a moral whole, involving a sense of responsibility, one idea corresponding with the lamb; and then ‘congregation’, including every member of it. The word ‘assembly’ is, therefore, more instructive here because it shows the formation that had gone on. It led up to this: The people were not only regarding themselves as children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but they were ready for the idea of the assembly, which involves intelligent collective responsibility.
AJD Would the apprehension of a whole Christ lead to that?
JT I think it corresponds with it and to 1 Corinthians 10:17, “We being many, are one loaf, one body”.
ANW When you speak of a whole Christ being before the young soul, do you mean anything more than that the Person is there?
JT I mean that He becomes as a known person, a definite object for the believer. At the outset our apprehension of Christ is very meagre, and usually in relation to the gain accruing to us from Him.
ANW So you would look with exercise on a person speaking of the forgiveness of sins without any thought that it is in Christ we have forgiveness.
JS In Christ as having been slain; and would not that have a gathering effect? There was to be no settling down; all in our chapter is preparatory to, and in view of moving on. They went out arrayed.
JT They go out five in a rank; that is to say, they are learning the idea of moving together.
TH Why is the lamb kept from the tenth to the fourteenth day?
JT It is a slain Christ that is before us here. The lamb was four days in the house, and so would have become endeared to the family. The family [p. 27] would see typically, the perfections of Christ in the lamb, and so would come to love the one who was to be sacrificed. This enters, therefore, into the Lord’s supper beautifully, for it was instituted at the passover supper.
JS So that affection for Christ would bring you into it.
JT That is what is presented. The demonstration of the plagues would have a formative effect in Israel, because they came in for special protection in Goshen. Each plague would impress them with the care of Jehovah for them and increase their affection for Him; so when the lamb was brought into the house, it became an object of interest to all there. Jehovah, of course, is invisible, but the lamb brought into the house is, typically, what you can see and handle. As John says, “That which we contemplated, and our hands handled”, (1 John 1:1). The idea is that the Person becomes endeared to you by coming into close touch with you.
WB-w Do you mean that the young believer understands Christ risen, as a whole Christ?
JT That is a later experience entered into at the other side of the Red Sea. This is the death of Christ for us; the Red Sea is the death and resurrection of Christ, and so the enemies are destroyed. It is not our resurrection, however, but His. The passage of the Jordan is typical of our resurrection with Him.
JS What is presented, therefore, in the passover and the Red Sea is to the end that we should know Jesus as our Saviour on the one hand, and on the other, the complete overthrow of the world as we move out of it.
JT They synchronise. You are moving out after an Object and the world goes down in your faith as you are moving out, and loses power over your soul.
[p. 28] WGT Does this, primarily, refer to the household more than to the individual?
JT It refers to the household; a lamb for a house, not for a person. The omer of manna is for a person.
WB-w The bones being mentioned might involve preaching of the resurrection, although the young believer might not apprehend it.
JT There could be no effective preaching without resurrection. The resurrection of Christ is the backbone of the preaching. You must bring that in. You cannot have clearance and victory over the enemy without resurrection.
JS There is neither singing nor preaching without resurrection.
JT There is no spiritual buoyancy at all without resurrection.
WB-w A young believer might not apprehend it.
JT That is right, but normally he has a conception of Christ in the passover. I think it is most touching that the lamb was in the house four days; it means that I become attached to Christ to some extent; then that Person had to die, which touches my feelings and affections. In appropriating Christ thus as food, I add the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
AJD An appreciation of Christ would help us to apprehend the overthrow of the world.
JT Well, you go on to that. The overthrow of the world is in the Red Sea. That is where Pharaoh’s hosts went down, and Israel saw them dead on the shore. You see the break-up of the world in that way. It is in apprehending Christ risen that you have victory.
WGT Only the first-born is slain. I suppose that is the best the world has.
JT That was the last plague, and it caused [p. 29] Pharaoh to loosen his hold; but his pursuit of Israel proved his unchanged malignity, and hence his final overthrow. All this affords most valuable instruction for us.
ANW Would you say a little more about the passover and the Supper?
JT You get it clearly established in Matthew and Mark because the whole idea goes through into the church. “Take, eat: this is my body”, (Matthew 26:26). It means that I am to build up a constitution for the assembly.
AFM You arrive at the “one body” through His body.
JT That is it. “We, being many, are one body”, (Romans 12:5). This is represented in the loaf at the Lord’s supper.
BTF You have the lamb killed, the blood shed, and the roasting by fire before you eat it: how would those figures apply?
JT The killing and blood-shedding is penal, the penalty attached to man. Blood-shedding is the life given up, the penalty for sin, but I think the fire applied after that is excess, and no doubt alludes to the forsaking of God. The primary judgment of God was: “In the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die”, (Genesis 2:17); but we learn later that death for the unbeliever implies eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. And, corresponding with this, I believe the roasting with fire here would allude to the excess of judgment that Christ underwent.
BTF Would you say a word about the eating of it? Would fire make the lamb ready so that it could be eaten?
JT Yes, it makes it food. It was not to be eaten raw or boiled with water. It is to keep the excess judgment by fire before us. Roast with fire is the severest process that you can get, and that is [p. 30] to be kept before us. It is figurative of the judgment of God, endured by Christ.
WGT It is more severe than boiling?
JT Boiling is indirect action of fire, but roasting is the direct and severest action of it.
AAT Should these thoughts be in our mind at the Supper?
JT In a preliminary way as in 1 Corinthians 5. The Lord’s supper belongs to the wilderness. In 1 Corinthians the passover is separated from it. Keeping the feast of unleavened bread, is the moral process that we go through every day of the week whereas, the Supper is partaken on the first day of the week. It is as keeping the feast of unleavened bread that we are fit for the Lord’s supper.
CAM Matthew and Mark emphasise the fire feature. Would that be in accord with their way of emphasising the passover?
JT No doubt. Neither John nor Luke gives you the forsaking. John and Luke would be an antitype of the boiling, so at the Lord’s supper it is not the forsaking or the judgment side that is before us, as it is during the week, as already said, but what is before us when we come together in assembly on the Lord’s day is the Supper as a memorial. I think it is more the boiling character of Christ’s death. It is Christ as having gone into death for us because He loved us. All you need in regard to love is adequate testimony to it, but if you are in the enjoyment of love you do not need any testimony at all. If a person loves me, and I am conscious of it, I do not need to look for any testimony. The love itself is enough.
AL So it is not a commandment now to eat the passover, but more an exhortation.
JT “Let us celebrate the feast ... with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”, (1 Corinthians 5: 8). Let us do it. It is not any less than a command. Of [p. 31] course, the whole of 1 Corinthians is a command, and not optional.
CAM The Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians is according to Luke’s presentation of it. Do you think it would help us if we get that viewpoint — that the judgment side hardly comes into the first day of the week?
JT I think it is more the boiling feature, as we said. Death is there, of course; the Lord speaks of laying down His life for His friends; a friend does not want more than that. We do not want, of course, to make little of anything that the Lord has endured, but it is not pleasing to Him for us to be casting about for evidence of His love when we are enjoying it; and eternity, for us, will be the enjoying of His love!
AFM Would Adam’s sleep be illustrative of His laying down His life for us?
JT There was no penalty attached to that; nor does sleep suggest any suffering. It is called a “deep sleep”, (Genesis 2:6). There was no boiling in Egypt. It is the judgment of God we are dealing with here. The Lord’s supper develops out of this, and it is not so much the judgment as His love. We are supposed to know His love if we come together to remember Him.
ARS Where does it speak of the boiling?
JT In the consecration of the priests; (Leviticus 8:31). As we come into the priestly family, we understand that feature of the offerings.
AAT Eating the lamb roast with fire, is that something we partake of during the week, or on the Lord’s day?
JT It is continuous. As having to do with the world, we need the feast of unleavened bread (1 Corinthians 5:8); whereas, the Lord’s supper is 1 Corinthians 11, where there is nothing said about His entering into judgment. The Lord, in instituting the Supper said,
“[p. 32] This is my body which is given for you”; and, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”, (Luke 22:19,20). Neither Luke nor John have the forsaking. It is Luke that gives us the memorial. Matthew and Mark do not separate the Lord’s supper from the passover.
ARS Is that why we do not read Psalm 22 these late years at the morning meeting? It used to be much read.
JT One does not want to minimise the sufferings of Christ. Nor would one who loves Him do so in the least degree, or put them in the background, but we are dealing with the Lord’s supper which presents the love of Christ, and all that we need is adequate testimony to that love. If we are in the enjoyment of it, we do not need any testimony. The thing itself is testimony. One who knows it says: “He hath brought me to the house of wine, And his banner over me is love”. (Song of Songs 2:4) Love is the greatest thing of all and is its own testimony.
ARS Where would you use the suffering side of Psalm 22 now?
JT Well, I would use it in the gospel, showing how, in His sufferings, the Lord bore the full weight of God’s wrath on account of human guilt. You could not well present the subject without that Psalm, but it is remarkable how little you get about the forsaking in the New Testament. You do not get it alluded to once, except by the Lord Himself on the cross. (Far be it from me that I should belittle the awfulness of the sufferings our Lord endured in the forsaking of God; I am speaking only of how the truth is presented. ) I believe fire emphasises the judgment of God. As going out of the world, I accept the awful judgment of God on sin and on me as a sinner, as seen in Christ’s suffering. The eating of this food [p. 33] builds me up in relation to the sufferings of Christ because of human guilt.
AJD Does this thought bring in the bitter herbs?
JT Yes. I feel it is my own judgment that Christ bore.
BTF Where does atonement come in? In chapter 12 you have the blood, and God says, “When I see the blood, I will pass over you”.
JT Atonement is in the shed blood of Christ. The roasting with fire alludes to the fullness of the judgment. You get it enlarged on in Leviticus 16 where the blood of the sin offering is taken inside the veil, and the bullock and goat are burned outside the camp. That is fully seen in the forsaking of God.
WB-w The roast lamb was eaten in one night. The unleavened bread was eaten during seven days.
JT “That night” is a condensed idea with which you begin: “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed”, (1 Corinthians 5:7). That is one thought; but it is killed between the two evenings. The first evening would be somewhat brighter than the second; in the second you are going into the darkness of the night. God is dealing with sin, so that it is eaten in the night. None of it was carried over till the morning; what remained was burned with fire, emphasising the great idea of our entering into the judgment of God. It is a compressed thought. The difficulty is that we do not appropriate Christ as seen in the type here; on this account we have generally but a shallow estimate of what sin is to God. The food in the passover builds up a constitution in us enabling us to judge sin as before Him.
AJD This might represent the three hours of darkness?
JT It all enters into the type; but then the “seven days” would allude to the whole period of the believer’s experience here. Corinthians deals with it in that way: “Let us celebrate the feast”, (1 Corinthians 5:8). We are never to cease while down here.
AFM For us the passover is one event, not to be repeated.
JT Yes; “Our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed”.
JEH Why the beginning of months? “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months”.
JT I think the allusion is to spiritual history. Israel were beginning their history properly in eating the passover. For us it is the apprehension of Christ as having “died for our sins, according to the scripture”, (1 Corinthians 15:3).
RWS What about the head and legs and inwards? The passage reads: “Ye shall eat none of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs and with its inwards”.
JT I think it emphasises what we are saying, that it is a whole Christ; the head and legs and inwards representing intelligence, strength and inward feelings and affections — all for God. All was devoted in death, as undergoing the judgment of God. It is Christ Himself, as manifested here on earth.
RWS Do you use whole in reference to a complete thought?
JT Yes. To convey the complete thought of Christ, because very few have such a thought of Him, and so are defective in the assembly. They have not apprehended Christ in a complete way, and hence do not know the assembly as His body. The two ideas are there — Christ and the assembly.
AJD Does the thought of His Person underlie the expression, “the Lord Jesus”, (1 Corinthians 11: 23)?
JT It does; an affectionate reference, There is no subject more important for young believers than [p. 35] this: how are we to go out of the world? We go out as sustained with this food.
WGT It says, “And on the first day ye shall have a holy convocation, and on the seventh day a holy convocation”, Are these convocations in view of holiness?
JT Evidently. It refers to a period — seven days. The number seven is a remarkable one, being the highest prime single number. As governing time it suggests a complete period, and alludes to the whole life of a Christian, or to the whole dispensation. Thus the keeping of the feast of unleavened bread is continued till the Lord returns.
BTF You were remarking earlier that the lamb was kept four days. Would those days represent an important factor; in the affections of the household being drawn out to the lamb?
JT I think so. The head and the legs and the inwards of the lamb would come under review in the four days; that is, Christ becomes endeared to us, as going into death. The woman in the house of Simon the leper was in keeping with what we are talking about. The house of Simon the leper would denote a place where sin had been, but where it is no longer; the idea of the leper is, however, attached to Simon. The Lord was in his house, and the woman anointed His head, as He was going into death; she valued His Head. It had come under her notice. He said, “She ... anointed my body” (Matthew 14:8), showing that He Himself was before her in a full way. He was everything to her, and He was going into death for her. I believe she would understand what was involved in the passover. Eating this food builds up a constitution against sinning. The Lord said to the man in John 5:14, “Sin no more”; and to the man in John 8:11, “Go, and sin no more”. As we eat this food we do not allow the activity of sin in us.
[p. 36] AFM What we have been speaking about is so contrary to what obtains in Christendom! A person gets forgiveness and connects himself with some religious system that holds him to this world; whereas, we are forgiven in order to leave the world.
JT This necessarily involves suffering, but “he that has suffered in the flesh has done with sin, no longer to live the rest of his time in the flesh to men’s lusts, but to God’s will”, (1 Peter 4:1,2).
WGT Leaven is a corrupting principle, which is always ready to work in us.
JT Hence the unleavened bread is of great help to us since it brings the flesh down. You will find here that Israel were forced to eat unleavened cakes, because they could not wait to put leaven in the dough. God helped them thus to keep the feast.
CAM What despicable hearts we have! It was on the occasion of this feast the disciples were striving as to which should be greatest (see Luke 22:24).
HSD What about the manner in which they ate it? It says, “And thus shall ye eat it: your loins shall be girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste; it is Jehovah’s passover”.
JT It indicated that they were about to take a journey. The average Christian today never thinks of that — having the loins girded, sandals on the feet, and a staff in hand; whereas, as soon as one is converted that should be the attitude, as going out of the world. You are not going to live where He is not. Like Ruth, you say, “Whither thou goest I will go ... where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried”, (Ruth 1:16).
AR The wilderness is not your objective either. Moses said to his father-in-law, “We are journeying to the place of which Jehovah said, I will give it unto [p. 37] you: come with us, and we will do thee good”, (Numbers 10:29).
JT The idea of journeying characterises the wilderness, and we enter Canaan purely by attraction.
RDG You were referring to the idea of the evening being continuous. Do you mean that our feelings become more intense?
JT They do. “The two evenings” are interpreted to mean the dusk and then the dark. It is the end of the day; we reach the density of night gradually. The lamb was killed “between the two evenings”, and was to be eaten under the density of night outside, which spoke of the judgment of God, because the judgment was going on all around them in Egypt, and would have entered their houses were it not for the blood.
RDG Is it right to expect that at no time during the week would our feelings be so intense as when partaking of the Supper?
JT That is right, but you do not eat the Supper in the darkness of night, but in the day. It belongs to the first day of the week.
ANW So that the passover, for us, fits into 1 Corinthians 5, not into chapter 11.
ARS Is that the reason why we do not break bread at night? I have heard it advanced that we ought to break bread in the evening because the Supper was instituted at night.
JT Luke is very accurate as to order; instead of evening, he says hour (see chapter 22:14). This covers current custom among the saints.
WB-w The believer ought to be glad to leave a sphere where judgment applies, and comes into a sphere which is free of judgment.
JT It is very comforting that God helps us to leave the world. He helped Lot; indeed, the angels [p. 38] urged him out, which emphasises the grace of God. With a company of Christians walking in the will of God and gathered together under the direction of the Lord, you have an atmosphere in which heaven is complacent! It is really another world; the world outside is under judgment; whereas, the assembly is entirely clear of it, having passed “out of death into life”, (John 5:24)