THE LAMB OF GOD
Genesis 4:1-4; 22:4-14; Exodus 12:1-14; John 1:29-39
A.M. My thoughts have been led to a verse in Revelation 21, “I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife” (v.9). The Lamb’s wife would bear the characteristics of the One whose wife she is. It says in Proverbs 31 as to the woman of worth that “Her husband is known in the gates” (v.23). His characteristics must have been seen in His wife. For this first reading we might nourish our souls on the Lamb of God, the One whom John the baptist saw and worshipfully drew attention to; “Behold the Lamb of God”. That was a gospel preaching, “Behold the Lamb of God”; what an effect it had. John first took account of Jesus as the One who “takes away the sin of the world”. He spoke of the greatness of the Person, of who He is, marked out by heaven, but then he just calls attention to Jesus Himself, “Behold the Lamb of God”. That was enough. He did not tell anyone to follow Jesus, he drew attention to Him, and such was the attractiveness of the One he drew attention to that two disciples left John and followed Jesus.
Now when we speak of the Lamb there are many suggestions that come to mind. One is the attractiveness of who He is, and another thing that you can never forget when speaking of the Lamb is what is sacrificial. So my mind turned to these Old Testament scriptures. In Genesis 4, before there had been any question of the law and what should be presented to God, there was one man who had a deep sense in his soul that nothing was suited to God except that which came on the line of sacrifice. He could not present to God the fruit of a cursed earth, it would be unacceptable; he could present to God only that which had been sacrificed in death and he brought the best, “the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat”. He had an appreciation of what was suitable to God, because there is a divine standard, a standard that only one blessed Man has ever reached in fulness, and that One is acceptable to God. In chapter 22 we have this very affecting scripture which speaks of the offering of the Lord Jesus Himself and what it meant, the tremendous sacrifice that it was. It suggests to us what it meant to Him, but also what it meant to the Father. Think of the steps of the Lord Jesus, in that pathway to which John called attention, looking at Jesus as He walked. Think of that pathway going through the gospels. It says, “they went both of them together”. He was always in communion with the Father. What it meant for the Father that the Lord Jesus would lay down His life; what it meant to the Lord that He would do it. Isaac asks, “where is the sheep for a burnt-offering?”. What a question that was; it really corresponds to Gethsemane, “where is the sheep …?”. God had that One, His Lamb, “the Lamb of God”.
In Exodus 12 the children of Israel were to take a lamb for each house. This really was the beginning of their movements in faith. They had been associated together as God’s people. They knew that they had come from divinely appointed stock, we might say, and God had His eye upon them. But here they are to appropriate the lamb for themselves, and as doing so they find that it becomes their way of escape. It is the beginning of their movement out of bondage and the word is, as it were, ‘This is the starting point of your history, you are going to count your history from this point’. We have a goal before us, every one of us, but our beginning is here, that we appropriate the Lord Jesus as the One who has shed His precious blood. We do not get the efficacy of the blood of Jesus in Genesis, we get it in Exodus and Leviticus. Here where they take it for themselves, we find that the blood is efficacious because God sees it. These are the simple thoughts in mind; I trust the brethren can help develop them.
A.E.M. The attractiveness of the lamb and the sacrificial side would cause our hearts to pause for a moment because what was most attractive had to be sacrificed. You referred to what was beautiful in the sight of the Father, and we see that what was most attractive to Him had to be sacrificed.
A.M. Yes, and as laying hold of that He becomes more attractive to us. He says in John, “and I, if I be lifted up … will draw all to me”, John 12:32. We see Him as the One who was lifted up; He is the One who made that tremendous sacrifice. He was lifted up, and He becomes a point of attraction; He is attractive to us all, I believe, in this room. We have been drawn to Him.
I.McK. Is the primary valuation of the sacrifice what God thinks of it? The wonderful thing is that Abel had something of that discernment.
A.M. Yes, we see that in Genesis 4. It almost appears as if Cain took the initiative. “In process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground”, and somebody might say, ‘What a good thing to do’, but it was the fruit of the cursed earth. But Abel had discernment, he knew what was suited to God. It is not my standard that counts, it is God’s standard.
I.McK. How can we come to a better appreciation of what God values?
A.M. We need to occupy ourselves with the One He values, to feed our souls on Him. We are exhorted to “dwell in the land, and feed on faithfulness”, Ps.37:3. We must feed on Christ, feed on the One who is the standard.
D.J.W. This reference to the fat is interesting. It reminded me of Mr Darby’s comment that ‘the hand that struck the chord found all in tune’1. There was a fulness about it.
A.M. It is the best. We find in Leviticus that God reserved the fat for Himself. The children of Israel were not to eat it; God reserved the fat for Himself, He chose the best. You might say, speaking very carefully, it was that which Jesus drew from the love of God. Think of the life of Jesus; He drew constantly from His links with God. Think, in that sense, of what was the best being seen in Him, what He drew from His God.
D.A.B. What our brother said draws attention to what God said to Samuel, that God looks on the inward parts. God does not look on the outward appearance, but on the inward. When you speak of finding the Lord Jesus attractive, it is not only what might appear but what was inward as well. So we would include His holy feelings and affections in what you are saying.
A.M. Yes, Isaiah 53 would confirm that. Naturally “there is no beauty that we should desire him” (v.2), and then that chapter goes on to develop the beautiful feelings of Jesus that were set out in Him in a sacrificial way.
D.A.B. I have often thought that when the Lord Jesus said on the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), we see the inwards revealed. There was nothing outward about that, it was how He felt.
A.M. That is helpful. That was not a legal request, it was His heart going out to His people on earth. There at the point of their greatest wickedness, His heart went out to them and He said, “Father, forgive them”.
J.A.T. Luke writes of “the Spirit of Jesus”, Acts 16:7. The gospels speak about His soul, speaking of the inwards. How precious!
A.M. Yes, that is right. It is difficult to know what we can say about such things, but it speaks about His spirit and His soul in relation to His sufferings. He was oppressed in spirit and He says, “My soul is very sorrowful even unto death” (Matt.26:38); He felt it. The sacrifice of Jesus was a sacrifice that involved feelings that to us are unfathomable, but He felt them. There are things that we cannot measure, but He measured them.
P.J.W. Does your first scripture typify for us the perfect consistency between the offerer and the offering? It says, “Jehovah looked upon Abel, and on his offering”. With Cain it was quite different, Cain was a murderer, but with the Lord Jesus it was absolute.
A.M. Yes, “Altogether that which I also say to you”, John 8:25. How perfect He was. In the offerings in Leviticus, the inwards were exposed and washing was needed, but with the Lord Jesus there was absolute perfection, nothing to be removed, nothing that needed any adjustment. There was perfect consistency.
P.J.W. Hebrews tell us that He offered Himself spotless to God (Heb.9:14). Would that cover the whole of His life –His person and His feelings, His soul, His spirit?
A.M. I am glad to hear you say that; it is right. There was never a moment when that life was not devoted to God. At the age of twelve we find it, “did ye not know that I ought to be occupied in my Father’s business?”, Luke 2:49. Naturally speaking, men would say that He had His life before Him but He says, as it were, ‘This life is for God’.
Q.A.P. There is a verse in Isaiah 53, “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (v.10), showing the inward feelings of the Lord Jesus as being made sin.
A.M. Yes, that is an extraordinary verse; it brings out the feelings of Jesus, what was due to God and what Jesus was going to secure; it brings out His greatness. “When thou shalt make his soul” – expressing something of the feelings of Jesus – “an offering for sin” – that which was due to God – “he shall see a seed” – that is fruit secured, then – “he shall prolong his days” is His greatness.
Q.A.P. I was thinking of that verse in Ephesians 4 as to “holding the truth in love, we may grow up to him” (v.15). Is it particularly John’s presentation of the Person that has a bearing on our affections?
A.M. Yes, and that is what draws us to Him. A remark was made recently that the Father draws us to Christ by making Him attractive to us. Think of the Father working in the hearts of the saints to make the Lord Jesus more attractive to us, and in that way He is drawing us to Him. He draws us to Christ by making Him attractive to us.
D.J.W. Going back to our brother’s reference to “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”, was that the Lord really taking account of how His sacrifice affected the Father, how He felt that what was perfect was being offered but that man was rejecting it?
A.M. He said that in the full knowledge of the Father’s disposition. As well as saying that it was an expression of His own feelings, it was also an expression of the heart of God towards His people, and He was about to lay the basis on which that would be possible. It is a wonderful expression of what the Father felt in relation to men.
R.D.P-r. Do you have an impression as to why it is a lamb? There were larger offerings in the sacrificial system, such as the bullock, but it is a lamb.
A.M. I think it emphasises the attractiveness. We do not find a bullock attractive – we see other features in the other offerings – but even naturally a lamb is attractive. We see them in the fields and the energy of life is expressed in them and we are drawn to them.
R.D.P-r. I just noticed that Abel’s occupation was a herder of small cattle, (Gen.4:2 note ‘c’) and I wondered whether it linked with the lowliness of the Man that was here. There was the greatness of the Person, but the lowliness of what was presented in the lamb.
A.M. That is good. It takes my mind to Revelation 5 where John wept because none was found worthy to open the book (v.4). It is one of the elders who says, “the lion which is of the tribe of Juda … has overcome” (v.5), and he looked and there was “a Lamb standing, as slain” (v.6). It seems that John had not seen Him before; attention had to be drawn to Him. There were these twenty-four elders, but he had not seen that there was a Lamb in the midst of them, standing as slain in lowliness, in submission; and John’s attention was drawn to the One who has everything in His hands.
A.J.McK. Can you help us please as to how we get the divine view of the Lamb?
A.M. I do not think we get it through effort, I think we get the divine view in the divine presence. In Psalm 73, Asaph says, as it were, ‘I do not understand why it is that wicked persons prosper, everything around is bad, and nobody is taking any notice of God’s word’. Then he says, “Until I went into the sanctuaries of God” (v.17); there he saw a different view. You get it in the divine presence.
A.J.McK. The beginning of that verse in Revelation is “Come here”, Rev.21:9. John had to move in the Spirit, so I think what you say as to being in the divine presence is helpful because we will not get this in our own power. Do we have to be with God to see what God sees?
A.M. Yes. I would say for the encouragement of one another that we know what it is to say our prayers, but that is not the same thing. It is to be alone in God’s presence and just to ask Him for some impression of the glory of Christ; and not to get up then but just wait, linger in His presence. Speak to Him of what you find in the Lord Jesus and you will find something comes into your heart that shows what He finds in Him.
D.A.B. Mr A J Gardiner used to draw our attention to that verse in John’s gospel, “Every one that has heard from the Father himself, and learned of him, comes to me”, John 6:45. He used to say it was good to ask the Father to tell you something that He found attractive in Jesus. He said, He might tell you something you cannot find in your Bible but you have received it from the Father Himself.
A.M. Yes, and it is real, it is not man’s imagination. We must be careful about our imaginations, but to receive something from the Father Himself is very precious, and you cling to that, you hold it.
J.W. We have to come to it that there is only one Man before God. Eve thought she had a man in Cain, but when God looked upon Abel and his offering it was in the worth of the offering that He accepted Abel. We are accepted in the worth of Christ, and nothing changes that before God.
A.M. Is that not the significance to us of the burnt-offering? It is our acceptance before God. We cannot come to God as we think. There is only one Man whom He has before Him, and we can only come to God in Him. Our place before God is in Christ.
R.D.P. As to what you said about the apprehension of Christ in the divine presence, David found that he was not to build the house. It was a massive undertaking, he had devoted his whole life to it, but as he is before God, he says, “And is this the manner of man … ?”, 2 Sam.7:19. He does not say, Is this the way it is to be. Why does he bring in that thought of the manner of man at that point in that tremendous exercise? It was in the presence of God and yet he fixes upon a man.
A.M. God had spoken to him of Solomon, but do you think David had a sense that God had before Him a Man of a different order? He was the one who was going to do it. Although David had acquired all the material for the house, he accepted that God has His own plan; there is another Man before Him.
R.D.P. It speaks here of Cain as he worked the ground. You see that through Scripture. God did not exactly condemn him here, but He looked at what was before his heart. I was thinking of the working of the ground. It was hard work, it was a cursed ground, but Cain was going to make something come out of it. You go all through Scripture and you find there is the desire to add another kind of man to the things of God, where God has only one Man.
A.M. Yes, and that characterised Cain’s subsequent history. He went out from the presence of God (v.16); what a thing to do! He built a city, and called it after his son as if to draw attention to what he had produced. There was a line that followed Cain; it started with murder, it went on with entertainment and civilisation and moral laxity. The whole thing comes out in the line of Cain (Jude:11). God put an end to that, He has another Man before Him.
G.C.B. You can see from the last words of David who was the real Man after God’s own heart (2 Sam.23:1).
A.M. Yes, “he shall be as the light of the morning, like the rising of the sun, A morning without clouds; When from the sunshine, after rain, The green grass springeth from the earth” (v.4). What an impression David had of the One who was yet awaited, but we know Him.
A.E.M. You can understand that both of them went together in that respect. Our brother referred to it; God does not reject Cain, it just says, “he did not look”. He “looked upon Abel, and on his offering”. It was not that something else was being rejected, it was that what was there in Abel’s offering was satisfying.
A.M. That is right. In Genesis, every time something is offered to God it is a burnt-offering. Now what God says to Cain is that there is another offering. It is the same blessed Man. He says, “If thou doest well, will not thy countenance look up with confidence? and if thou doest not well, sin” or ‘a sin-offering’2 “lieth at the door”. God says, There is an offering I have provided for you. But Cain went out, he went past the sin-offering, you might say he ignored it and he went his own way, and his own way ended in destruction.
P.J.W. Abel offered the more excellent offering. It does not say anything about Cain’s exactly; Abel’s was more excellent.
A.M. Somebody might say, Does that not mean that Cain’s was excellent and Abel’s was more excellent? It certainly does not! Cain’s was totally unacceptable but Abel’s was not only excellent, it was superlative.
D.A.B. In relation to what was quoted earlier, “who by the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God” (Heb.9:14), it was once said of that verse, ‘And what did God do? He made Him sin for us’. So He was offered as a burnt-offering, but He became a sin-offering.
A.M. That is right, and there are suggestions of that in Leviticus; “At the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before Jehovah”, Lev.6:25.
H.T.F. We were reading Leviticus locally and we noticed in the offering for the leper in Leviticus 14 that there are three lambs first, and then when it is repeated for the poor there is one lamb. The trespass-offering is emphasised. I wondered if the preciousness of that comes home in what you say.
A.M. That is good. You used the word ‘preciousness’, and that is the word that Peter uses. It is interesting that Paul does not refer to the Lord Jesus as ‘the Lamb’; John is the one who refers to Him in that way. I do not think He is directly addressed using that title but He is referred to in that way. But Peter draws the analogy, “precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish”, 1 Pet.1:19. Somebody once said that you would scarcely get that in nature because if the animal had been in the field, it would have rubbed against a post or a fence and you would always find some defect. But there was “a lamb without blemish” perfectly suited to God.
J.A.T. Is that why, when in Pilate’s court, His perfection is drawn attention to? “I find no fault whatever”, John 18:38? It is repeated, and then when on the cross, amazingly and wonderfully, a freshly converted man can call attention to it in Jesus. Then, of course, after His death and blood-shedding, one can say, “truly this man”, Matt.27:54. God ensured that testimony, just at the point of the sacrifice. Would that have some meaning?
A.M. It would; there are those who are compelled to give a testimony. You have quoted Pilate; there is no evidence of any work of God in that man, but he was compelled to give testimony. The thief on the cross gave a much greater testimony. The greatest testimony of all came even before that time, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight”, Matt.17:5. That is God’s testimony to Christ.
G.McK. There is a little detail here that these were the firstlings of his flock. Would that help us in a practical way, that the first thing is what is for God? These were the first that Abel had, and his first thought was this. Does that have a practical application for us?
A.M. I think so. I suppose literally it was before they could come under any other influence. He took the firstlings of the flock, they were the best, they were the freshest, you might say. Nothing inferior could be offered. What a contrast this is to what is spoken of in Malachi 1:7,8.
G.McK. I think it links with sacrifice. If you think of the Lord’s life, that life was offered, as has been said already, all the way through. The characteristic of that was the first thing; every day the first thing was what was for God. If my life is on that line, then the first thing must be what is for God. That is a life of sacrifice.
A.M. It is indeed; every day, “morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the instructed”, Isa.50:4. Did Jesus need instruction “to succour by a word him that is weary”? As a dependent Man, He relied entirely upon what He received from the Father.
D.J.W. It is interesting in chapter 22 that it is a ram. Does that link with your subject as to the Lamb’s wife? She derived from Him. The ram is a progenitive idea. I was really thinking that His wife came out of His side.
A.M. Yes, the ram is a mature thought. In chapter 22 we find that the ram was God’s provision, and that is a blessed thing. John called attention to Jesus as the Lamb of God, and Isaac asked, “where is the sheep …?”. The footnote (f) tells us it relates to the lamb in Exodus 12, it is the same word. Where is it? God has provided His own Lamb.
P.J.W. You made a comment as to Gethsemane; is that the ram caught in the thicket by its horns?
A.M. I was probably referring earlier to verse 8, but what you say would be true as well, that He was held there, held by the power of love. I was thinking earlier that we have this suggestion in the end of verse 6, “they went both of them together”. Abraham knew what was before them, but “they went both of them together”. That is the life of Jesus. Then Isaac said, “Behold the fire and the wood”. He took account of it, “Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the sheep … ?”. It takes your mind to the Lord in the garden; “if it be possible” (Matt.26:39). Abraham says, “God will provide himself with the sheep” and then it says again, “they went both of them together”. Jesus rose up in Gethsemane, He accepted what was before Him from the Father, and you can say that They went both of Them together right to the cross.
J.W. Does the typical teaching we have in this chapter as to Abraham and Isaac show the sacrifice the Father made?
A.M. Yes, and that is something we may not think too much about.
J.W. They both went together. There is what Christ meant to the Father. It brings out the love of the Father that He was prepared to sacrifice His Son, His very best.
A.M. Yes, indeed. In some ways, we get extraordinary touches of it in John’s gospel. Jesus spoke about the Father’s love for Him. “On this account my Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again … I have received this commandment of my Father”, John 10:17,18. Then later in the gospel He anticipated it. John does not give us the sufferings of Gethsemane like the other gospel writers do, but he gives us that cry from the lips of Jesus, “Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour”. The Father heard those words, “Father save me from his hour. But on account of this have I come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name”, John 12:27,28. No wonder the Father loved Him.
R.J.F. Had you any thought about Abraham here taking the wood and laying it on Isaac his son? It seems very suggestive in relation to Abraham and his appreciation of the sacrifice.
A.M. Generally in Scripture wood speaks of the character of manhood. There was an order of man here in Jesus that was able to sustain what was laid upon Him; He was able to bear it. He went forward, bearing all that had been laid upon him. In John 1, we get “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten with a father)” (v.14); there was the wood. Later in the chapter there is the reference to the Lamb of God.
R.J.F. I wondered if it brings out the Father’s appreciation of the life and the walk of the Lord.
A.M. Yes, and They could walk together. Here, Isaac was bearing the wood, but he walked together with Abraham.
G.J.R. As to what Abraham sacrificed, Hebrews says as to him counting that God was able to raise Isaac, so Abraham received him in a figure. You have quoted from John’s gospel, “I lay down my life that I may take it again … I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again”, John 10:17,18. Could we consider with that, that in the death of the Lord Jesus the Father would no more have Christ in flesh and blood? The life which Jesus enjoyed in flesh and blood He did not take again in resurrection.
A.M. He is in a different condition now. In Acts 8, the eunuch read, “his life is taken from the earth” (v.33). In the New Testament, it does not say that Jesus was cut off from the land of the living, but His life was taken from the earth. He is now in a new condition. In chapter 9 we find that character of life among those whom the Lord could refer to as “me” – His saints. There was an order of life which was not mere natural life but was manifested in Jesus. He had been taken from the earth, He is exalted in heaven, but that character of life is to be seen in those whom He could identify with Himself, a very precious thing.
Q.A.P. Paul speaks of the dying of Jesus and then the life also of Jesus being manifested in our body, and then in our mortal flesh (2 Cor.4:10,11). Is there a continuation in the saints themselves?
A.M. Yes. In Exodus, they were to take it to themselves; it was a household matter. Each one was to take a lamb, and they were to feed upon it; it was their way of escape to feed upon the lamb. The blood was there upon the doorposts and on the lintel. It was for the destroying angel to see, or for God to see, “when I see the blood”; so that this was the beginning of their spiritual history.
A.E.M. Open up for us your emphasis on the household.
A.M. Well, the order in which things are presented here is that first, in verse 3, it says, “Speak unto all the assembly”. The typical work of redemption had not yet been accomplished. Then it says each one for a house – households were to be secured. God shows what was in His mind, but first and foremost in His mind was to be the assembly; for us, the Lamb’s wife. That was to be secured, then households were to be secured, households held in relation to the One who suffered here and died, in which every one has an appreciation of Him, because finally it comes down to each individual as eating the passover.
D.J.W. Does the fact that it says, “ye shall let none of it remain until the morning”, show it has to be maintained fresh. The death of Christ is not to be historical.
A.M. No, it is not, and yesterday’s impressions are not necessarily what is needed for today. We need something fresh every morning. You see the importance of reading the Scriptures every morning. To start with, it may only be a few verses, but read them; there is nothing like the Scriptures. You get something even if you read just a few verses. It is far better than reading the newspaper in the morning; turn to the Scriptures and get something from heaven before you start, because Satan would provide all manner of other things to fill your mind.
R.D.P-r. Does that make it your lamb? It will never be our lamb if we have not been occupied with God’s love.
A.M. Yes, that is right. You take it for yourself.
J.W. There are two things prominent here. One is the blood, what God takes account of, “when I see the blood, I will pass over you”; that is shelter from judgment. But then there is the appropriation of the lamb roast with fire, which we have to do; it is our side of the matter. I wondered if you could say something about those two sides.
A.M. They are both essential. We begin with shelter by the blood. It says of Moses that “By faith he celebrated the passover” (Heb.11:28); the faith is not attributed to the children of Israel, it is attributed to Moses. If the children of Israel were to be restful at all in these circumstances, they had to have faith and absolute confidence in God’s word and in the blood. The blood of Jesus has laid the moral basis for God for everything, for the securing of all that will be for His pleasure and for the removal of all that is not for His pleasure. It is all based on the blood of Jesus and in faith we come under the shelter of that, but as we appreciate that, we begin to feed on the One whose blood it was. It is in the feeding upon Him that there is formation.
R.D.P. In thinking of these scriptures, the first two view this subject objectively, but this is subjective, is it not? There is nothing about eating the firstlings of the flock or partaking of the ram, rather it is the distinctiveness of what was there, but here this lamb was to become part of them.
A.M. Yes, this passage starts, “let them take themselves”, and Moses lays hold of that when he passes it on, “Seize and take yourselves lambs” (v.21); he says, take it for yourself and feed upon it. We can never be formed after Christ without feeding upon Him. It is a very simple thing, and it is a practical thing, but how easily we overlook it.
R.D.P. The appreciation of what Christ is, what He is to God, forms part of our salvation, and God accepts that in the greatness of the acceptance of it. But as you say, formation and involvement in His testimony involves the partaking of it.
A.M. Yes, and let us all remember that. There is so much that we can feed upon. We have spoken about the characteristics of Cain’s world, and they are the characteristics that mark the world today. Murder, entertainment, civilization, independence of God – they mark the world today, and are presented as food for the mind. Wherever you go, you see things that you would rather not see; even if you go into a shop, you hear things you would rather not hear. You are bombarded with Cain’s world and it is all coming under judgment, but in contrast to that you take for yourself a lamb. You take it for yourself and feed upon Him, the One who has actually shed His precious blood to preserve you from the judgment that is coming on this world.
I.McK. I was thinking about the doorposts and the lintel. Is it a public thing? It is on the outside of the house. Primarily it was for God to see but there was something for each household to put there. Their households had already been distinguished when there was the plague of the darkness. It says there was light in the dwellings of the Israelites, but the blood is almost a crowning touch on each household.
A.M. The Israelites were going to pass through that doorway just once. The blood was there on the doorposts and the lintel; they were going to celebrate the passover and then they would go. They were not staying. Think of that scene in Egypt, a country that was filled with great sorrow and grief. The Egyptians would find empty houses, and there would be blood on the doorposts. Israel’s salvation was the blood.
J.A.T. It is the song of the redeemed. They would all be intelligent about how their redemption came about. Do you think we grow in that?
A.M. Yes. Some of us are getting older, the next generations are coming on, and what do they see? The young people look at us; do they see someone who has been nourished by feeding upon the Lamb? Do they see that formation?
J.A.T. The lamb would suggest dependence. It was a very attractive thing when they were in the houses, but with Jesus it was utter dependence and perhaps one of the most affecting, if not the most affecting, psalm is Psalm 22 where it enters straight upon His cries on the cross. All He had was His God; He cries to God. The onlookers said that He was crying to someone else, but no, He was God’s only One. I think that comes out in Scripture, He was His only One and He did not defer or change, it was His dependence on His God.
A.M. Psalms 22, 23 and 24 form one section, and after the psalm you refer to He says in type, “Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want”, Ps.23:1.
J.W. They were to eat it with their loins girded, “and your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand”. They were to leave Egypt. Do you think the feeding on the lamb is to give them a constitution to leave Egypt, to leave the world? You spoke of the world and what it is, but morally we have to leave it, and I wondered if the feeding on the passover lamb would give us the constitution for that.
A.M. I think so. Our hymn reminded us that soon we are actually going to leave it; but I am glad of what you say, that morally we have to leave it. We are passing through this scene; we do not belong here. Moses, who received this word, spoke of himself as a stranger and a sojourner in a foreign land (Exod.2:22). Well, that is a believer going through the world; we are strangers in a strange land.
T.J.H. Do you have an impression about a household being too small for a lamb? The Lord Jesus says to us all, This do in remembrance of Me. I may say, I cannot because of this and because of that, but the Lord does not present to me a glorious impossibility. There is some way in which we can come through, there was provision here if the household was too small.
A.M. One thing I would say is that the thought of the household is retained. It does not say, if your household is too small for a lamb then some of you go to one place and some go to another. No, it is maintaining the standard, the thought of the household. Maybe our measure is small, but let us share what we have. I have the impression that when we speak of measure, the thought is that it should filled. We may have used the thought of measure as an excuse – I am not able for this, my measure is too small. But the thought of measure is that you fill it, and as you fill it, it grows.
A.J.McK. There is no thought of what is taken being diminished. It says, “take it”; that is the lamb. There is no thought of reduction in what is to be appropriated.
A.M. No, that is right, and it is a complete thought. We must retain God’s full thoughts in mind. Let us keep divine thoughts in their fulness in our minds; let us treasure them. Let us always pursue what is normal, what God has in mind, God’s purpose. Keep to God’s purpose. The enemy would seek to say, That does not apply today, but it does. Divine thoughts apply right through the dispensation, and let us treasure them.
R.J.F. Had you any thought about the enduring character of the blood of the lamb? We speak about eating the flesh and appropriation, but the blood was to be taken, and Moses in his instruction gives a little more detail. It was to be handled by the household, put on the doorposts and the lintel. The flesh was to be eaten, and they were to eat it in haste, but the blood was already there on the doorposts and the lintel, and the last thing that the children of Israel would see as they left their houses would be the blood on the doorposts and the lintel. Is there the suggestion of the enduring character of the blood of the lamb?
A.M. Yes, the life is in the blood, and that life has been laid down. The blood is the lasting testimony to it. It goes right through the Scriptures into Revelation, “and hast redeemed to God, by thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation”, Rev.5:9. It has a great part in the Pentateuch. In Exodus 24, the people are sprinkled by the blood. Eventually you find that the whole tabernacle system is sprinkled by the blood. It speaks of the way everything has been secured; the whole universe has been secured for God on the basis of redemption through the shedding of the blood of Jesus.
R.D.P. Would the household suggest our living conditions? This was to affect them in all the conditions of their lives, in the way that it worked out. It is not just for Lord’s day, it was the whole of their living conditions.
A.M. That is good. You may visit an old soul in a home, one who does not have a house, but you see a Bible on the table, and when they read, that is what they turn to. You do not have to get to your nineties to come to that – it is the normal occupation of a believer. Do we all really find pleasure in reading the Bible? Would you pick it up for enjoyment? You may read a few verses in the morning because you know that that is the right thing to do, but you get a taste for it, you have to do with the Lord and you get a taste for divine things. You get to a point where, if you have ten minutes to spare, you pick up your Bible and you start reading it because you enjoy reading it. You enjoy reading about the Lord Jesus and about divine things and what He has done.
G.C.B. We ask the Holy Spirit where we should read. You might pick up your Bible and start at the beginning of 1 Chronicles and think, This is too deep for me, but the Holy Spirit would lead us to something that will lead to great profit.
A.M. Yes, He would, and even if you did read the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles, the Holy Spirit would bring to light the gems that are to be found there. There are lists of names but there are little gems among them. The Spirit would bring them to your attention, and as you say, He would guide you where to read.
J.W. I was thinking of the reference to the households. Later when Moses speaks of the passover to the children of Israel, he refers to the fact that “when your children shall say to you, What mean ye by this service?” (v.26), the emphasis is on the houses. It says, “Jehovah … passed over the houses of the children of Israel … when he … delivered our houses”. It seems the emphasis is on the houses being saved and delivered from Egypt.
A.M. That was developed in Paul’s ministry. In the early days of the church, the gospel went out to individuals, but then as Paul travelled and he came into Europe, not only were individuals being secured but households were being secured. It is a great thing that there are households which are held, and we desire that all of our households should be held, in relation to the Lamb, the One who has suffered here and been rejected by the world. He has suffered and passed out of the world, and there are households that treasure His name.
J.W. What does the holding of this passover in our houses mean? Was it the holding of it in the houses that caused the children to ask? If anything goes on in our houses like that, it would cause the children to enquire.
A.M. Speaking as a son, when you want to know why things are said, you ask, Why is that so? That is what the children are asking here, “What mean ye by this”. They would ask later about the stones out of the Jordan, What does it mean? It is good to enquire in the house.
J.W. This was a feast that had to be maintained, and was maintained. It was first in Egypt, then in the wilderness and in the land. It is a thing to be maintained in our households where Christ is cherished, where the sacrifice of Christ is valued and spoken about.
A.M. Yes, the conversation in the house is important, and it is interesting to note that when the feasts began to lapse, the children of Israel went into captivity.
D.A.B. What our brother is saying shows how things are preserved from change. Is there a right kind of conservatism about God’s things? You are speaking about what you might have heard your father say about the Lamb of God; I can imagine it. If you had had children, you would have said the same thing. I have had that privilege, and now I hear my daughter saying the same things again. Is that how the appreciation of these things is maintained?
A.M. Yes; "Tell it to the generation following”, Ps.48:13.
R.D.P-r. Would Abraham be an example in relation to his household? God said, “I know him that he will command his children and his household after him” (Gen.18:19). Isaac said, “where is the sheep … ?”, so there must have been something characteristic in Abraham’s household about the sacrifice of a burnt-offering. Isaac would have known that there should be a lamb.
A.M. Yes. What could we offer to God? Isaac would have had instruction. Abraham dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, and Isaac would have been learning from his instruction, from the conversation going on in the house.
R.D.P-r. And then he would have to remove what was contrary to the Lamb of God, in that sense, “Cast out this handmaid and her son” (Gen.21:10), because the Lamb of God had to have pre-eminence in the house.
A.M. That is right. There was one who was mocking, a sorry feature to find, and that element has to go. But there is another kind of Man; Isaac is a heavenly man.
R.D.P. There is a reference not only to the household but to the whole assembly of Israel. This was hundreds of households, and yet the whole assembly was to kill it. There is a mysterious link between this multitudinous array of households and the whole assembly of Israel. Is that an important thing, that the whole assembly should kill it between the two evenings? Literally that would have involved many, many households, but it was the whole assembly that did it. There was a conformity and it belonged to the whole.
A.M. Yes. There could have been up to two million people involved; how many households there were, but it is not looked at like that. There is a footnote there (‘a’); the assembly as a moral whole, a corporate person before God. Now that is what God had in mind in calling out these people. Right from the outset when He called them out, He had in mind that He would have a corporate being, and that is what the assembly is. It is composed of believers, but it is an entity in itself.
R.D.P. It was “let my son go”. As you say, two million people, hundreds and hundreds of households, some of them small, some of them large, but it was “my son”.
1st Reading at Witney
7 November 2015
KEY TO INITIALS
D.A.B. D Andrew Burr London
G.C.B. Geoffrey C Bywater Buckhurst Hill
R.J.F. Roland J Flowerdew Sunbury
H.T.F. H Tim Franklin Grimsby
T.J.H. Trevor J Harvey East Finchley
A.M. Andrew Martin Buckhurst Hill
A.J.McK. Alastair J McKay Witney
G.McK. Garth McKay Manchester
I.McK. Ian McKay Witney
A.E.M. Andrew E Mutton Witney
R.D.P-r. Robert D Painter Yeovil
R.D.P. Ron D Plant Birmingham
Q.A.P. Quentin A Poore Swanage
G.J.R. G John Richards Malvern
J.A.T. John A Turner Malvern
P.J.W. Philip J Walkinshaw Strood
D.J.W. David J Willetts Birmingham
J.W. John Wright Witney
Edited and Published by John Brown and Paul Martin
36 Laverock Park Linlithgow EH49 6AT
email notesofministry@virginmedia.com or paul@nofm.co.uk
Printed by Crystal Print, 22 Western Road, Billericay, Essex CM12 9DZ Tel: 01277 650 661