A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Numbers 11 (Part 1)

If you know your Bible, specifically the Book of Numbers, specifically Numbers 11, you know the story. Some study Bibles have headings at the top of different sections stating what the section is about, the heading for this entire chapter should be “Be Careful What You Wish For”. We will begin with verses 1-3 

Numbers 11:1-3—1 Now when the people complained, it displeased the LORD; for the LORD heard it, and His anger was aroused. So the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some in the outskirts of the camp. 2 Then the people cried out to Moses, and when Moses prayed to the LORD, the fire was quenched. 3 So he called the name of the place Taberah, because the fire of the LORD had burned among them. The Hebrew word Taberah literally means “burning”. This shows how utterly foolish the human heart can be. The people have been at the base of Mt. Sinai for two whole years. Between Exodus 20 and Numbers 10, they have not moved. They have seen Sinai burn with the fire of God. They have seen Moses wear a veil over his face after he spoke with God. He showed them how He is not to be mocked by burning Nadab and Abihu when they offered the wrong incense on His altar. He showed them mercy after Aaron made the golden calf. And they have just left that mountain, with the cloud from God directing their way and what do they decide to do? Complain. 

We know that God is a God of infinite mercy. He was patient with me when I ran from Him for 20 years. He is patient with some who do not come to know Him until they are well advanced in years. He was patient with Israel when they went back and forth between loyalty to Him and their worshipping of other gods. He has been patient with Israel for the last 2000 years since they killed Jesus. But there are times when He is not so longsuffering. This is one of those times. The people, who had seen the many signs and wonders God provided to show that He is God, decided perhaps they didn’t like the way He runs things and went marching straight to the complaint department. And what happens? God’s anger is aroused. If you remember the TV series “The Incredible Hulk”, one of the famous lines was “you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry”. Doesn’t even come close to the anger of God. In his famous sermon “Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God”—a sermon which rightly shook all those who were sitting in the pews and heard it, and which lit a fire bringing forth the First Great Awakening in the United States—Jonathan Edwards said this about God’s righteous anger:

 

Man's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defence from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God's enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?

Yet here, He kindles a fire, and all He does is burn up the outside parts of the camp. He could have very easily sent down fire to consume all of them, like *SNAP*. But He didn’t. It’s almost as if He was saying “Do you really want to do this?” 

So what do the people do? They cry out to Moses to go to God and ask Him to stop. Couldn’t they have done that themselves? Couldn’t they have stopped complaining and instead cried out to God that He would stop? And instead be glad that He was on their side, and that He is a faithful God and was not One to break the covenant He made with Abraham? But they didn’t do that. They didn’t stop complaining, they asked Moses to step in and ask God to stop. They were basically treating the symptom instead of trying to cure the disease. But faithful Moses, the man who spoke with God face-to-face, stepped in, called on God to relent, and He did. But think about it for a second. Here you are in the middle of the camp, some people complain, and all of a sudden you see those on the outside of the camp burned up. I don’t know about you, but that would be enough for me to change my mind and be grateful. The people here, though… 

Numbers 11:4-6—4 Now the mixed multitude who were among them yielded to intense craving; so the children of Israel also wept again and said: "Who will give us meat to eat? 5 We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!" I always scratch my head when I get to this part. They sat there and told God they weren’t satisfied with what He had given them, with their lot in life, with Him leading them, and they saw Him burn up at least hundreds, if not thousands, in an instant. And what do they do? They listen to the mixed multitude—probably pagan Egyptians—and they tell God they weren’t satisfied with what He had given them, with their lot in life, with Him leading them. 1st Corinthians 15:33—Evil company corrupts good habits. When we listen to the immoral God haters, when we try to mix a little of the world into our understanding and worship of God, bad things are going to happen, We are to be salt and light, but we will allow the world to dim our light and take away the savor which our being salt does. In his commentary, Adam Clarke relates what he was told about the Valley of Salt on the south side of the Dead Sea:

 

[Henry Maundrell, clergy of the Church of England in the 1600’s states] “I broke a piece of [salt]…that was exposed to the rain, sun, and air, though it had the sparks and particles of salt, Yet It Had Perfectly Lost Its Savour: the inner part, which was connected to the rock, retained its savor, as I found by proof.” See his Trav., 5th edit., last page. A preacher, or private Christian, who has lost the life of Christ, and the witness of his Spirit, out of his soul, may be likened to this salt. He may have the sparks and glittering particles of true wisdom, but without its unction or comfort. Only that which is connected with the rock, the soul that is in union with Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit, can preserve its savor, and be instrumental of good to others.

If we are to be the salt of the earth, we must cleave tightly to the Rock of Ages; we must strive to keep ourselves unspotted from this world that is daily passing away. 

But they had let their minds be poisoned by those who desired to lead them back to slavery in Egypt. We remember the fish which we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. They may have eaten it freely, but how many of you know it wasn’t free? They could eat all of these things they so desired, if only they would tread the mud pits making bricks without straw, daily give their backs to the lashes of the taskmasters, and erect the huge stone monuments of the pagan gods of the Egyptians. “Oh, all we had to do was tread out some bricks, and they would give us onions!” Or, “Oh, it was nothing to feel the sting of their whips, for they would give us leeks and garlic!” Some may say “all we had to do was pull those ropes with all our might to raise up the statues of Ra and Etum and Kephri and we could eat melons!” And even “all we had to do was watch as our women were defiled, and we got cucumbers!” Really? They wanted to go back to the bondage that God saved them from for the food? 

But now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes! Oh, how awful! For 430 years they were slaves of the lowest order, trodden like worms under the feet of the Egyptians, counted as less than dung—but they ate good! And now, all they have to do is walk out of their tent at twilight and *SCOOP* got some manna. Oh, tomorrow’s the Sabbath *SCOOP SCOOP*. That’s all they had to do. And they ate! God has given them food which has kept them alive for the last two years and it’s not good enough! It’s like they’ve been eating in Gordon Ramsay’s restaurant for 430 years, and now they’re eating McDonald’s. 

Let’s fast forward to today. Ever have to decide to leave a high-paying job in the world and take a job in ministry? Or be a missionary in a poor country? That was the decision facing Jim Eliot. He was highly esteemed by his classmates, was thought to have a bright future where he could make a lot of money. Instead, he formed a group with four of his friends and spent his days learning the ways and the language of the Waodani people—called at the time Aucaus, a name which has since fallen out of favor, as it literally means “savages”—and take the gospel to them. What did he receive as his wages for that decision? A spear through his chest. But that spear sent him to be with his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is famously quoted as saying “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose”. We may be called to forsake the melons and cucumbers and leeks and onions and garlic of the world, and instead dine on the manna we receive from God. 

And what of this manna? How is it described? Numbers 11:7-9—7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its color like the color of bdellium. 8 The people went about and gathered it, ground it on millstones or beat it in the mortar, cooked it in pans, and made cakes of it; and its taste was like the taste of pastry prepared with oil. 9 And when the dew fell on the camp in the night, the manna fell on it. And why did God give manna to the people? Because they complained. Exodus 16:8—Also Moses said, "This shall be seen when the LORD gives you meat to eat in the evening, and in the morning bread to the full; for the LORD hears your complaints which you make against Him. And what are we? Your complaints are not against us but against the LORD." Even before they got to Sinai, the people complained against God! And what were they complaining about when He gave them manna? I’ll give you three guesses. That’s right, the food. The food they so freely enjoyed in Egypt beneath the stings of the taskmasters’ whips. 

And this manna was very versatile. They could make so many things from it. Maybe not some of the things you see on any cooking show these days, but still. It was free food from God, it was filling, it was nourishing, and all they had to do was go out of their tent at twilight and gather it up. But that wasn’t good enough for the people. They wanted more. Jesus faced the same thing in John 6. He also gave people free food, all they had to do was sit down and eat it. And it must have been good, because they came to Him the next day wanting more. In John 6, we read of Jesus feeding the 5000 with two fish and 5 loaves. Again, free food from God. And the next day, they worshipped Him because He had shown that He had come forth from the Father. Well no, not really. John 6:22, 24, 26—22 On the following day, when the people who were standing on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other boat there, except that one which His disciples had entered, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with His disciples, but His disciples had gone away alone…24 when the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they also got into boats and came to Capernaum, seeking Jesus…26 Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” And this begins a long and drawn out exchange between Him and the Jews about signs and wonders. He had given a sign, the multiplying of two fish and five loaves of bread into a meal that fed five thousand people! But they weren’t thinking about that, all they wanted was another free meal. And once again, they were being oppressed by a pagan nation. 

They say to Him in John 6:30—“Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'” And why did God give them bread to eat? Because they complained. Because they wanted to go back into slavery and eat good, the cracks of the whips on their backs and the hard labor, to them, was worth it. Jesus corrects their thinking and says John 6:32-33—32 "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." It wasn’t Moses that gave them bread, but God who sent the manna from heaven. Moses was the intermediary, God was the giver. And standing before them was the One who could feed them in the Kingdom forever, but they still had their blinders on and they still wanted to complain after He tells them He is the Bread of Life John 6:41—The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." The fact that God did not burn these people up on the spot shows how patient He is. But here’s the thing: the people had gotten distracted, or had let themselves become distracted from Christ’s message. It’s almost as if they had found an excuse to not believe Him. “We know what Moses did, but this saying from this Man is hard to understand. I don’t know if I want to believe Him.” And don’t a lot of people do that? They find out how hard it is to not just read the Bible, but to study it, keeping verses in context, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and actually thinking about what you are reading? “What He is saying is hard to understand. Let’s just go back to the Law.” John 6:48-50—48 “I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.” Once again, they wanted to go back into bondage. They didn’t want this Man to rule over them, so they made their excuses, they rationalized Him away, they did not understand what He was saying mainly because they didn’t want to, and they gave themselves over to condemnation.

Part 2 next week

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen. 

A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Leviticus 24-25 (Part 1)

OK, so now we come to Leviticus 24. Almost to the end of this part of the journey. Just three more chapters left after this, and then we get to Numbers.

Leviticus 24:1-9 (NASB)—1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “2 Command the sons of Israel that they bring to you clear oil from beaten olives for the light, to make a lamp burn continually. 3 Outside the veil of testimony in the tent of meeting, Aaron shall keep it in order from evening to morning before the LORD continually; it shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations. 4 He shall keep the lamps in order on the pure gold lampstand before the LORD continually. 5 Then you shall take fine flour and bake twelve cakes with it; two-tenths of an ephah shall be in each cake. 6 You shall set them in two rows, six to a row, on the pure gold table before the LORD. 7 You shall put pure frankincense on each row that it may be a memorial portion for the bread, even an offering by fire to the LORD. 8 Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually; it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel. 9 It shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him from the LORD's offerings by fire, his portion forever.”

The oil they were to use was to be from beaten olives—not pressed as the NKJV says, which is why I chose the NASB for this chapter (the KJV and ESV also supply the correct term). And notice who was to bring it. In verse 2, it says the people are to bring this oil, “clear oil of beaten olives.” Messrs. Spence and Exell—

“The ordinance on the lamps contained in the first three verses is repeated from Exodus 27:20. The oil to be used for the lamps was to be pure oil olive, that is, oil made of picked berries, without any intermixture of dust or twigs; and it was to be beaten instead of ‘pressed,’ because when the berries were crushed in the olive-press, small portions of them became mixed with and discoloured the oil, which was, therefore, less pure than when the fruit was simply beaten and then left to drain.”

The lampstand was to never run dry of oil; the lamp was to be burning continually.

The פָּנִים (paniym, showbread) was meant to be consumed only by those men who worked within the temple. After all, killing and slicing and butchering and burning animals for hours on end can cause a man to work up a hunger. And yet the high priest Ahimelech gave it to David his men 1st Samuel 21:1-6 (NASB)—1 Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, "Why are you alone and no one with you?" 2 David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king has commissioned me with a matter and has said to me, 'Let no one know anything about the matter on which I am sending you and with which I have commissioned you; and I have directed the young men to a certain place.' 3 Now therefore, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever can be found." 4 The priest answered David and said, "There is no ordinary bread on hand, but there is consecrated bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women." 5 David answered the priest and said to him, "Surely women have been kept from us as previously when I set out and the vessels of the young men were holy, though it was an ordinary journey; how much more then today will their vessels be holy?" 6 So the priest gave him consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence which was removed from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place when it was taken away. Wasn’t this an offense to God? Shouldn’t they all have been struck down for such a rebellion against God’s commands? We would think so. And yet here, again, we see the mercy of God. Listen to what God has to say when he is walking through the grain fields with His disciples and the Pharisees in Matthew 12:3-7 (NASB)—3 But He said to them, “David…when he became hungry, he and his companions…4 entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone...7 [know] what this means, 'I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice'…”

Does God need bread? Does God get hungry, does He need to eat? No. Besides, the Levites and priests had the meat and bread from the sacrifices to eat if they got hungry. But such is the short-sightedness of men when trying to understand the Law of God. Man thinks this Law is here to show him how to be righteous. And yet this Law is rather meant to show man the mercy of God. For this Law was embodied in Christ. This Christ would exposit the words of Isaiah, which the prophet spoke of Him (Isaiah 42:1-4), in Matthew 12:18-21 (NASB)—“18 ‘Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 19 He will not quarrel, nor cry out; nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets. 20 A battered reed He will not break off, and a smoldering wick He will not put out, until He leads justice to victory. 21 And in His name the Gentiles will hope.’” So then, it is not the keeping of every jot and tittle of the Law—at the expense of mercy and compassion—that God desires. But it is looking upon one another with pity, looking for ways to do good in the name of YHVH. And it is not the keeping of the showbread for the priests and Levites that God desires—but the sharing of that bread with those servants of God who do His will.

Now, the פָּנִים (paniym, showbread) was to be laid out in two rows of six—this was obviously meant to represent the twelve tribes of Israel. And where you see that “You shall put pure frankincense on each row that it may be a memorial portion for the bread, even an offering by fire to the LORD” (Leviticus 24:7 NASB), this does not mean that the incense was to be sprinkled over the bread. Rather, there were two bowls which were placed next to each row of loaves. Question: Why? What purpose did these bowls of incense serve? Well, to answer that question, we have to ask another one: What happened to the old loaves? What was done with any bread that was left over? Did they just hand it out and have a feast on it? Was it taken outside the camp and dumped? No; actually the bread that was left was burned upon the later with the incense. And this was not done in just any fashion—there was an order to it. John Gill on Leviticus 24:8—

“The priest or priests then ministering, [would] bring new cakes and place them in the above order, having removed the old ones, which was done in this manner; four priests went in, two had in their hands the two rows (of bread), and two had in their hands two cups (of frankincense); four went before these, two to take away the two rows (of the old bread), and two to take away the two cups (of frankincense); and they that carried in stood in the north, and their faces to the south and they that brought out stood in the south, and their faces to the north; these drew away (the old bread) and they put them (the new), and the hand of the one was over against the hand of the other, as it is said, "before me continually", Exodus 25:30; that is, at the same time the hands of the one were employed in taking away, the hands of the other were employed in setting on; so that there was always bread upon the table”

As Paul said, All things must be done properly and in an orderly manner (1st Corinthians 14:40 NASB).

Now, another thing—this showbread was to be brought into the Most Holy Place on the Sabbath day of every week. “But wait a minute—didn’t God say that no work was to be done on the Sabbath? Won’t we read a passage in Numbers that tells of a man being stoned for picking up a pile of sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? And wouldn’t this bringing in and taking out of bread be considered ‘work’””? Jesus Christ our Lord seemed to say as much, when He said in Matthew 12:5—“Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?” Not only did they do work in the tabernacle by bringing in the new showbread and burning the old, but they also had to kill not one, but two lambs on every Sabbath morning and two every Sabbath evening (see Numbers 28:9).

Here’s the thing—If God commands that something be done on the Sabbath, He is well within His rights to do so. After all, we see Jesus saying as much after he healed a man on the Sabbath (a different man from the one mentioned in Matthew 12). We find Him saying in John 7:22-24 (NASB)—“21 I did one deed, and you all marvel. 22 For this reason Moses has given you circumcision (not because it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a man. 23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” If a man was born on the Sabbath, and he must be circumcised on his eight day of life—which would be the following Sabbath—then one of the two commands must be kept, and the other broken. He must either be circumcised on the Sabbath, or he must be circumcised on a day other than his eighth day of life. But because God desires mercy rather than a sacrifice (Hosea 6:6; quoted by Christ in Matthew 12:7), He will not have us to be cold and unfeeling toward others simply to keep a set of rules and ordinances. This attitude is summed up in the words of James 1:26-27 (NASB)—26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. It is not the keeping of a Sabbath that shows a man to be righteous. It is not the outward, exterior things that declare a man to be righteous, but the heart of a man who looks with compassion and mercy on others is the righteous man. Granted, these things do not make the man righteous, rather, they announce to the world around him that he is righteous.

So we have light in the tabernacle, and we have bread in the tabernacle. And we also have a Lord who said of Himself, “I AM the Bread of Life” and “I AM the Light of the World” (John 6:35; John 8:12). Have I mentioned before that all the things contained in the tabernacle—including the tent itself—pointed to Christ? The lampstand was the only source of light inside of that otherwise pitch-dark tent. What—or, rather, Who—is the only light that brings life to otherwise dark, dead men? John 1:4 (NASB)—In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The showbread was the only food allowed inside the tent. What—or, rather, Who—is the only nourishment for otherwise hungry, starving souls in need of spiritual nourishment? John 6:32-35 (NASB)—“32 Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world…35 I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” Simon Peter confessed this very fact in John 6:68 (NASB)—“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.”  The editors of the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary interpret Peter’s words thus—

“We cannot deny that we have been staggered as well as they, and seeing so many go away who, as we thought, might have been retained by teaching a little less hard to take in, our own endurance has been severely tried, nor have we been able to stop short of the question, Shall we follow the rest, and give it up? But when it came to this, our light returned, and our hearts were reassured. For as soon as we thought of going away, there arose upon us that awful question, ‘TO WHOM shall we go?’ To the lifeless formalism and wretched traditions of the elders? to the gods many and lords many of the heathen around us? Or to blank unbelief? Nay, Lord, we are shut up. They have none of that ‘ETERNAL LIFE’ to offer us whereof Thou hast been discoursing, in words rich and ravishing as well as in words staggering to human wisdom. That life we cannot want; that life we have learnt to crave as a necessity of the deeper nature which Thou hast awakened: ‘the words of that eternal life’ (the authority to reveal it and the power to confer it). Thou hast: Therefore will we stay with Thee - we must.”

 

Part 2 next week

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Amen.

A Survey of the Old Testament Law--Leviticus 17 (Blood, part 1)

Now, we come to one of the most well-known regulations in the Law. The prohibition against eating blood. Leviticus 17:10-14—“‘10 And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said to the children of Israel, “No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.” 13 Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; 14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, “You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.”’” Now, the prohibition against eating blood was not a new one—but it was one that the people needed to be reminded of. God had given this principle to Noah, back in Genesis 9:3-4—“3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” Here, God had given the first permission for man to eat the flesh of animals. But even here, at this early stage in human history, he prohibited the eating or drinking of the blood.

Here in the Law, God makes it real simple: it is the blood that sustains life. Therefore, blood is not to be eaten. Back when we covered the Peace Offering, we talked about “blood pudding” or “blood sausage.” That if the Israelites had eaten anything like these, God would strike the person down dead. That is because when a person ingests blood, they are ingesting the life of that animal. And in many ancient civilizations (and even many that still exist), it was thought that drinking blood could sustain one’s life indefinitely. Elizabeth Bathory, a Hungarian countess who lived from 1560-1614, was tried and convicted of killing young girls in order to bathe in and drink their blood as a way of retaining her youth. Vlad Dracula, the man whose name was co-opted by Bram Stoker for his famous novel, may have been a bloodthirsty man—but he did not drink blood. He gained the moniker “Vlad the Impaler” because he impaled his victims on wooden staves.

While ingesting blood will not perpetuate a person’s life beyond the normal range of years, it is the circulation of blood through the body that sustains life. There are times when a person may seem like they are breathing—but it is not the kind of breathing that can oxygenate the blood. This type of breathing is called “agonal breathing.” There may be air moving into and out of the lungs—but there is no blood moving through the capillaries in those lungs, because the heart has stopped pumping. Even the American Heart Association, the authorities on how to perform CPR, have now determined that if a person is found unresponsive, that chest compressions are to be performed, even at the expense of rescue breathing. They have now determined that it is more important for blood to be pumped than for the lungs to be inflated. Why? Because “the life of the soul is in the blood.”

Also consider two events that can bring about the sudden death of a person: stroke, and heart attack. When a person suffers a stroke, what has happened? One of two things: either a blood clot has obstructed a blood vessel in a part of the brain, cutting off the supply of oxygen to that part of the brain. Or, a blood vessel has ruptured and the blood is pouring out of it. Either way, the brain is being deprived of the oxygen it needs, and unless the situation is corrected, the brain will shut down, and the body with it. All because of a lack of blood. Now, consider a heart attack. During a heart attack, a blood vessel in the heart muscle is blocked (usually by a clot); that part of the heart does not receive the oxygen it needs, and if it is not corrected, not only will that local area be affected, but eventually the entire muscle will be damaged—many times permanently—and, if the degree of damage is great enough, the heart will not function, causing the death of the person. All because of a lack of blood.

God had given the people the option of killing and cutting up animals, and pouring out the blood—the life—of those animals in order to atone for their sins. And the blood that was poured out was to be poured out only around the altar, and sprinkled on the altars. John Gill—

“…the life of the creature, was given for theirs to preserve them alive, and secure them from death their sins deserved; and so the Targum of Jonathan is, for the sins of the soul; which shows that these sacrifices were vicarious, in the room of men, and for the life of them, and to atone for them; and is the reason given why blood should not be eaten, at least while these typical expiatory sacrifices were used.” 

Instead of taking the blood into themselves, thinking that would sustain them alive, they were to pour it out before God, acknowledging that He was the One who sustained them. Which brings us to a very important doctrine, practiced by people who have been led astray by men who claim to be speaking for God, but who are deceived and who deceive others with their deception.

I am speaking, of course, of the Roman Catholic Mass, and the doctrine they call “transubstantiation.” The term transubstantiation refers to the Roman Catholic belief that one the priest speaks the magical words over the bread and wine used in the Eucharist, they magically turn into the actual flesh and actual blood of Christ. And, as with many of the Roman Catholic dogmas, this is based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture. Specifically, the words of our Lord, in John 6:53-57—53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.” Now, taken at face value, this sounds as if Jesus is saying that one must eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood. But, as with many of Christ’s sayings, we need to examine them further to see what He is actually saying. Jesus said many things that people could not understand without an explanation. For example, consider His well-known conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus told him he must be “born again.” Well, according to Roman Catholic thought, that means Jesus was telling him to climb back up into his mother’s womb and come out again. And isn't that exactly what Nicodemus thought? John 3:4—"How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Well, how did His disciples respond to His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood? In much the same way as Nicodemus responded—by taking His words in a woodenly literal fashion. John 6:60—Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" In other words, “Did He really say what I thought He just said? If so, what does He mean that we need to eat His flesh and drink His blood?” Well, (A) yes, He really did say what they thought He said, and (B) no, He did not mean it the way they thought He meant it. First of all, let’s get one misconception out of the way: this was NOT a reference to the Lord’s Table. If that was the case, then everyone who took the Eucharist would have eternal life in them, seeing as how all who take the wafer and wine “take into them the flesh and blood of Christ” (those are not my words, they are the words of the Roman Catholic). Even the most hard-hearted, rebellious sinner who ingests the wafer and wine would have to be given eternal life, since, according to (the Roman Catholic interpretation of) Christ’s words, “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.” Well, then, perhaps the disciples who understood what Jesus was saying knew that that was NOT what Jesus meant. Why? Because if that was what he meant, then He would be encouraging people to violate God’s Law, and eat blood. Did Jesus ever encourage people to violate the Law of God? No. But we’ll get back to that momentarily. For now, let’s look at what Jesus actually meant.

Just two chapters prior to this, in John 4, Jesus told His disciples, "I have food to eat of which you do not know" (John 4:32). And, believe it or not, the disciples had no clue what He was talking about. And so, being the silly men they could be sometimes, Therefore the disciples said to one another, "Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?" (John 4:33). And, using this as a teachable moment, Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34). Was Jesus saying that he was physically ingesting the will of the Father? Of course not! He was saying that what kept Him going. He was talking about what nourished and strengthened His spirit—the will of God. That was what He sought for; that was what He labored for. And was that not what He told the crowd in John 6? Specifically John 6:27—“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life.” And was this not an echo of how He defended Himself against the Accuser of the Brethren? When He had been fasting for 40 days and 40 nights, out in the wilderness, and Abaddon told Him, “Gee, you must be hungry. Here, take these rocks and turn them into bread.” I suspect that if our Lord had taken him up on the offer, he would have produced a couple loaves of really good marbled rye. But I digress. What response did our Lord use to parry the attack? Matthew 4:4—“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” True life does no come from what we take down our gullet and digest and send out in the draught. True life comes from the food Jesus desired—knowing and doing the will of God.

Also, consider the teaching that Christ gave on the boat that night. Matthew 16:6—"Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees." And once again, the disciples miss the mark. Here they go, thinking He is speaking in woodenly literal terms, thinking He’s talking about baked goods. Matthew 16:7—And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "It is because we have taken no bread." And, yet again—and again and again and again—Jesus once more teach them the true meaning of His words. Matthew 16:8-12—8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread? 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?" 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And how often do we ourselves not perceive of the spiritual meaning behind Christ’s words!

Well, just like the disciples whiffed when Jesus told them He had food they did not know about; just like the disciples whiffed when Jesus told them to avoid the false doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees; here also, the crowd in John 6 whiffed when Jesus told them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. John 6:61-64—61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, "Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe." This statement throws open the light upon the true meaning of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood. It is not the ingesting of actual flesh and actual blood. It is believing on the Son of Man, taking Him into one’s self and making their abode with Him. For listen again to what Jesus said in John 6:55, but this time from the NASB—“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” Notice how this is worded. Notice he does not say “My true flesh is food, and My true blood is drink.” He says that His flesh and blood are the true food and drink—the food and drink of truth, which he calls Himself in John 14:6 and which John tells us in 1st John 1:2 He is that which sustains the soul of men, and gives them everlasting life—He is that Word that proceeded from god. To say that Jesus was encouraging people to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood is an absurdity. It is a nonsensical notion cooked up by men who wish to marry the church of Christ to pagans.

So, let’s take a look at this nonsensical notion. The doctrine of transubstantiation was first dogmatized during the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, in the first “Constitution”, entitled “Confession of Faith” (emphases mine):

 

“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.”

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) affirmed this doctrine, declaring in several of its canons (emphases mine):

 

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1376 (emphases mine):

 

“The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’”

Your garden variety Roman Catholic will not shy away from telling you that yes, they actually tear the flesh of Christ with their teeth, and ingest the blood that runs through His veins, when they take the bread and wine.

And they will tell you that they have the words of the early church fathers to back them up. In fact, paragraph 1375 of the CCC, they quote John Chrysostom (emphases mine):

 

“It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: ‘It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.’”

Well, there you have it! John Chrysostom said it; it must be true! Well, let’s hold on just one moment. Another of their (supposed) supporters, Augustine, wrote something contrary to their position of strictly interpreting Christ’s words to be a command to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood: 

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: ‘If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink;’ and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, 'for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head,’ one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man's pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress.” (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, chapter 16).

And Augustine is correct. Not simply because this fits my doctrine more closely, and this is one Augustine quote I can take and say “Ha! See! Augustine said it, it must be true!” I don’t believe this because Augustine said it—I believe it because it’s true! When Jesus spoke in parables, those who did not believe Him did not understand. And there were many times when Jesus said a thing—“a hard thing, who can understand it?”—He said these difficult things for the express purpose of not allowing it to be understood by those who would not believe. This is one of those places.

Now, let’s go back to what I briefly alluded to earlier. The fact that if Jesus was telling people to eat His actual flesh and drink His actual blood, he would be encouraging them to violate the Law of God. Let’s go back to our text in Leviticus, specifically Leviticus 17:10—“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” If anyone ate or drank blood, what would God do? He would “set His face against that person” and he would “cut him off from among his people.” Was Jesus born under the Law? Yes. Galatians 4:4—But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law. Did Jesus ever violate that Law? No. 1^st Peter 2:21-22—21 Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 " Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth." What about encouraging people to violate the Law, would He ever do that? No. Matthew 5:17-19—“17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled”—and now listen to verse 19 real careful—“19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Now, if Jesus was encouraging people to drink actual human blood, would this have violated “the least of these commandments”? Absolutely. Is Jesus called “least” in the kingdom of Heaven? Absolutely not. So if the one who “breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven”, yet Jesus did not teach men to break “the least of these commandments”, then He could not have been teaching people to drink actual human blood, since that would have broken something more than “the least of these commandments” and He would have “[taught] men so”, and for that He would be called “least in the kingdom of heaven.” But that’s not all. And we will look at into that more next week

Jesus Christ is Lord

Amen