MATTHEW'S GOSPEL IN VIEW OF THE ASSEMBLY (5)
MATTHEW’S GOSPEL IN VIEW OF THE ASSEMBLY (5)
Matthew 26:26 - 32; Matthew 28:16 - 20
JT I think it is understood that we should look at the Lord’s supper at this reading in the way in which it appears in the gospel of Matthew. There should be some regularity in approaching this subject, which has been much in mind during the morning as we partook of the Supper. It is hoped that these scriptures will yield what is needed as to the matter in hand, a subject found elsewhere of course in the gospels, but to be regarded here especially in the light of the fact that in Matthew we have no record of the ascension of the Lord Jesus to heaven. So that we need to take that into consideration — as to why it is that there is no ascension, and yet there is so much about the assembly; as if the Lord would confine us to the earth, as it were, in our thoughts about the truth in the gospel of Matthew. Yesterday we had chapter 16, which we scarcely exhausted. It treats of the subject before us so that we might just look at it again for a moment, reading verses 13 to 20. “But when Jesus was come into the parts of Caesarea-Philippi, he demanded of his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some, John the baptist; and others, Elias; and others again, Jeremias or one of the prophets. He says to them, But ye, who do ye say that I am? And Simon Peter answering said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens. And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee [p. 91] the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be bound in the heavens; and whatsoever thou mayest loose on the earth shall be loosed in the heavens. Then he enjoined on his disciples that they should say to no man that he was the Christ”.
I thought it worth while to revert again to chapter 16 because of the peculiar place that Peter holds in service in the ministry. That is to say, Peter answers the Lord’s question in a way that shows how the Father had spoken to him; and then the Lord says, “I also”, meaning that there were two divine Persons speaking. The first is the Father, and then the Lord Himself, “I also”, and Peter is in mind. The hope is that what we have read in chapter 26 will enlarge on this. The Lord’s supper implies fellowship, so that it is said “as they were eating”. The word proceeds to say, “And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins. But I say to you, that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new” — that is in a new way — “with you in the kingdom of my Father. And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”. That is a beautiful finish in linking all this up with the beginning of the Acts, and how the apostles are brought in there in view of all that is to come out in that book. But now the thought is to begin with Peter, and then to proceed with the Lord’s supper itself, involving eating.
JS What would you say of verse 21, as to eating there also?
JT “And as they were eating he said, Verily [p. 92] I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up”. The eating there of the passover is to call attention to Judas’ betrayal, that they were actually eating when he was preparing to betray the Lord. A terrible thing that they should be engaged in the satisfaction involved in eating, and yet one of them about to betray the Lord Himself, delivering Him up! In verse 26 we read that, “as they were eating”, the Lord introduced His Supper.
Ques Is it in keeping with the assembly gospel that this matter of who will deliver up the Lord has to be taken up before the Supper commences? In Luke as you know this question is raised after the Supper; but this is raised before the Supper which would suggest the assembly order of things, that matters that are antagonistic to the Lord are dealt with before the Supper takes place. Would you say that?
JT That is to say we are bound to attend to the things that are against the truth, so that way is made for the Lord’s supper, which is seen in this passage read in Matthew 26: “And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread”. The thing proceeds in an orderly way, as way is made for it. A good many of the Lord’s people are here this afternoon, and no doubt most of us, if not all, are actually breaking bread. But then, the question now brought up is whether there are any delinquencies which would hinder the breaking of bread, whether there are things in any one of us which would hinder this precious memorial of the Lord’s supper being celebrated and enjoyed.
GGB What would this eating involve? It was while they were eating that the Lord took the bread and gave thanks.
JT Well; satisfaction is involved in it, and of course it is spiritual if applied to ourselves. It is a question of appropriation of what is of God, what is [p. 93] spiritual. Eating implies appropriation of what is available to us in the fellowship, and of course there is an immensity available to us in the gospel of Matthew. This 26th chapter then alludes to the actual partaking of the Lord’s supper.
RWS Does the opening statement of verse 26 “as they were eating”, refer to the passover, or to the Lord’s supper? In verse 21 it is the passover, and it reads “and when the evening was come he lay down at table with the twelve. And as they were eating he said, Verily I say to you, that one of you shall deliver me up”.
JT Just so; and now we come to verse 26; it was “as they were eating”. We are now coming to the Lord’s supper, and as thus together the Lord introduces it. “Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said; Take, eat: this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins”. Now, we are dealing with the Lord’s supper in Matthew. It is found elsewhere of course, especially in Luke; but we are dealing with it in Matthew, the assembly gospel which has in mind to deal with things drastically. In fact there is no word really strong enough to use except the word ‘drastically’. Matthew is a drastic gospel, and if we want to be in the fellowship we have to make allowance for this severe character of the gospel of Matthew; because the Lord does not intend to be loose or light in dealing with those who are actually or nominally partakers of the Lord’s supper. He intends to deal with things in reality, to deal with them drastically so that we are real in what we are doing. I thought it was necessary to touch all this in view of what is in mind at this last reading, that we might be sincere in what we are doing in partaking of the Lord’[p. 94] s supper.
AJEW Chapter 16 seems to assert the secureness of the assembly’s position: “Hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”. Does that establish a kind of firm platform on which we may take the Supper to be strengthened in it?
JT Very good. Proceed on that please.
AJEW I was thinking of the firmness of the assembly’s position, that as we come together we are connected with what is secure, and the Supper as belonging to the assembly is part of that. Is that just?
JT Quite so; it is what is secure, and that is what is built on the foundation; as the Lord says, “On this rock I will build ....”; it shows the security and firmness and solidity in the building, the structure.
AJEW I wondered if that would connect also with the last scripture, the Lord being with us to the end, as if this thought of solidity that attaches to the assembly runs right through?
JT It does, as we are keeping His commandments. The question is whether we are keeping the commandments, and they go right through. The dispensation goes right through from the beginning till now, at this very moment in which we are here in Washington; we have still this matter of solidity and the participation in the Lord’s supper. I do not believe the Lord will allow it to be surrendered again, it is to go on to the end. I believe that it will go on to the end.
JHP So He connects it all with Himself here. I was thinking of “my time”, “my disciples”, and then “my body” and “my blood”. Our brother has spoken of secureness. Does not the Lord in that way link the whole position up with Himself?
JT And then the position of Peter. I wanted to touch on Peter because of the peculiar character of the foundation of the structure of which Peter is a [p. 95] stone; Peter has a peculiar place, and yet in the result we shall see that Paul has finally the first place. But solidity is connected with Peter; I believe that has to be particularly thought of in Matthew.
CHH Would chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians, and then chapter 10 preceding the Supper prove that Paul was in agreement, so to speak, with Peter in Matthew 16? We are speaking about the necessity for a moral foundation. Would that be seen in Paul bringing to light the truth of chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians and also chapter 10 preceding the Supper?
JT It would. 1 Corinthians 5 has to do with discipline and we cannot get along without discipline; we have got to face it. If brethren are to come into fellowship, they have got to face the fact that discipline will accompany the position. And so 1 Corinthians deals with that. A certain one was guilty, very guilty; he had his father’s wife, such a sin as that! That is, such a sin is possible amongst the brethren, those actually in fellowship; such a sin is possible. I thought it was necessary to touch all of these points in view of what we are dealing with.
Ques Is that why it is only in Matthew’s account that we have “for remission of sins”?
JT Just so; the remission of sins is connected with the Lord’s supper, so that it is on somewhat lower ground than the ordinary position of the Supper as in the epistle to the Corinthians.
AR It looks as if they were not keeping the feast in chapter 5, because Paul says, “Let us keep the feast”.
JT Yes; he says, ‘When you come together, this is not the Lord’s supper’; although it was nominally or ostensibly the Lord’s supper, really it was not that.
Ques Was there delinquency? You have spoken of delinquency, and I was thinking of 1 Corinthians 11:30, where it says, “On this account many among [p. 96] you are weak and infirm, and a good many are fallen asleep”. Is that the discipline?
JT That is just the thought. Proceed further there, please.
Ques “But if we judged ourselves, so were we not judged. But being judged, we are disciplined of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. So that, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another. If any one be hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment. But the other things, whenever I come, I will set in order”.
JT So that the Lord’s supper is not really food in a literal sense, it is food in a spiritual sense; and since we have to eat, let us eat at home. We do not eat in the assembly because the assembly is too precious and too great and too glorious to make it a matter of mere eating; there is to be nothing of the kind in the assembly.
CFE So that a state of self-judgment precedes the Supper, does it not?
JT Exactly.
VCL Matthew 5 speaks of hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Would not the thought of appropriation therefore come into the Supper?
JT Quite so; hungering and thirsting after righteousness, not after literal food, but after righteousness. Let us have plenty of that!
ABP Is it important that when the Lord Jesus confirmed the Supper through Paul, even though speaking from heaven, He refers to the night in which He was delivered up? I was thinking of the Lord as having passed out of time conditions, and yet that particular night is known in heaven as “the night in which he was delivered up”.
JT Just so. It is the great section relating to the Lord’s supper, and it is one of the most important [p. 97] things that we can touch on, I think, at this very time.
FJF What does it mean in 1 Corinthians 11 by the words, “shall be guilty in respect of the body”? “So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord”.
JT How serious that is, guilty in respect of “the body and of the blood of the Lord”, to be guilty of that, and yet to be nominally in fellowship! That is the point that one is so impressed with it at this very minute, what all this means as to our very selves who are actually in fellowship, lest any of these things should come upon us.
WWM Is that the reason that in Matthew 18, we have the question of discipline and assembly judgment coming up in the assembly? If a man does not hear the assembly the result is solemn, for that is intended to get us regulated so that we shall be right for the Supper. Is that it?
JT Just so, “Tell it to the assembly”; that is, if he is guilty of anything that should be told to the assembly he is in a terrible condition, he is in a most dangerous condition, in fact involving the whole position of the truth in connection with the assembly. If he does not listen to what is told him, if he does not listen to testimony in the mouth of two or three witnesses, it is so serious.
RWS Might the remission of sins bear upon any one of us as we come to the Lord’s supper? There is time then to judge ourselves for sins or sin before we break bread.
JT And there is need of it, because there is so much lightness with us. At a time like this when we are together for development of the truth there may be a lot of lightness, holiday-making attached to it, so that with some there is no sense of reality in it.
[p. 98] And that is what we want to avoid and to be clear of.
GH In 1 Corinthians 11:28 it says, “But let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup”. “Prove himself”, is that the thought of self-judgment?
JT Quite so; that is that you are sure you are right in what you are holding or professing; that you prove yourself; not that somebody else has to come and prove it but you prove it, you prove yourself.
BW How does the matter of “wait for one another”, come in? “So that, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another” (verse 33).
JT Well, we are to be concerned to consider for each other so that things may proceed happily and freely in the assembly. We are dealing with assembly matters. It is better to wait for one another than to be irregular and carrying on in a way that is out of order in the assembly.
BW I wondered if it linked with Acts 20 where Paul gave a discourse. Was that not preceding the Lord’s supper there?
JT Yes, that is exactly what happened. So that Paul discoursed at length, meaning that there was a good deal to look into, a matter which the Corinthians had not done.
LW In this same chapter it speaks of “not distinguishing the body”. What is involved in that, “distinguishing the body”?
JT It is finding out what it means, what is involved in it; distinguishing it is to discover what it means, what is implied in the body in the Lord’s supper.
RP As to this matter of the remission of sins, would you bring that in in the thanksgiving?
JT If it were necessary, if I had any anxiety because there were unjudged sins in anyone in the company, I would not hesitate to bring [p. 99] it in.
RWS Just like the word that Paul gave before the Supper; conditions may require it.
JT We almost invariably have something of that kind at the Lord’s supper, though usually after the Supper instead of before it; but it is in view of getting things right if they are not right, and if they are right to confirm them.
Ques Is there a principle involved in ‘waiting for one another’, to allow for a visiting brother to break the bread?
JT I doubt it very much.
Rem You were speaking about brethren going around the country visiting meetings, and you said that brethren in a locality would generally expect a visiting brother to serve by breaking the bread; and you spoke of that as being acceptable.
JT It is quite orderly; I think that what we are saying now really represents the facts that we all have experienced, that we do recognise and respect a brother who is visiting us. It is a common thing amongst the brethren.
Rem I thought it was a privilege to serve the brethren that way, and therefore if one does visit a meeting it is a great honour to serve the brethren.
JT I think it is, and I think it is generally accepted that if a brother is visiting and has ability to serve they make way for him in that particular service so that the emblems may be appropriated. That is what it means, that the emblems are there and certain things are to be done so that they may be properly appropriated in the Lord’s supper.
GGB Would it help us at all to know in whose house the Supper took place? They asked the question, “Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?” Now just before that we read that He was in a house in Bethany, Simon the leper’s house, and lay at table [p. 100] there.
JT It must mean the house of a brother that was respected, and a brother that had convenience or means for that purpose. I would think that is about all it means. What would you say yourself?
GGB I was wondering why it speaks of Simon the leper’s house. You were speaking of those who perhaps were partaking of the Supper in a mere formal manner, and I was wondering whether there was something for us to learn from this mention of the house; whether the Supper should be eaten in a setting where we have a sense of the terribleness of sin. This One had come in to do away with it for us, and then comes the appreciation of Mary in pouring the ointment upon His head.
JT What is in your mind about Simon the leper?
GGB I was only thinking that Simon the leper was one who had been healed of leprosy; and that here was a place where they had actually known and seen the presence and the terrible reality of sin, and here is the One who is now on the point of going into death to do away with it and its power, and from that would flow out true appreciation for this One.
JT Just so. Some have thought that Simon the leper was Martha’s husband, and it may have been so. How simple things are amongst the saints really when we come to actual facts.
Rem So that a brother in Brooklyn has offered his house to fill a breach so that the Lord’s supper can be held there.
JT Very good. There are too many in that meeting, and so he has offered his house to be used for the extra number until the time the room is built. We are very thankful too that there is such growth in that meeting.
FHL It seems to be an unnamed brother whose house was opened for the Supper, as it was an unnamed woman who anointed His [p. 101] head.
JT Quite so. Now that our brother’s house has been opened, as has been said, there is more liberty for the service.
FJF The fact of its being in Simon the leper’s house and in all simplicity would free it of all that is outwardly ecclesiastical.
JT Just so, and if a man, for instance, had been a drunkard or the like, and he is restored to God, it is all the more satisfactory and glorious that he is restored and brought into the assembly, and then to function in the assembly. Really that is what christianity implies, it is recovery. We have here today several that I know of who were once elsewhere and are now restored to the truth.
ABP Does Simon the leper’s house in principle link on with our Roman position, that where our members once were instruments of unrighteousness and of sin they are now presented to God?
JT Very good.
ANW All the evil counselling against the Lord was in the palace of the high priest.
JT Yes, that helps too from another angle, and shows that what was in the palace of the high priest was the devilish side of it. They were counselling what they could do to get rid of the Lord, to destroy Him, and yet they were priests; they were men of that type.
RP Is the eating that you refer to in the sense of John 6:54, “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood”? Is there any connection?
JT Well, there is a connection, because it is not literal; what is spiritual is meant. Spiritual features of the truth are characteristic of John.
RWS In the eating and the drinking and then the singing of a hymn, and then in going out to the mount of Olives, is there a suggestion of the order of the service? I know that comes in Corinthians,
[p. 102] but is there a suggestion of bringing the Spirit in, in the mount of Olives?
JT Oh, I think so. You would expect that there should be room made for the Spirit Himself. I was-thinking just today of the three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who come in in the last chapter, where it speaks of baptising “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; there are three divine Persons and They are all engaged; They are all ready and available to serve the Lord’s people.
FJF Should we be always ready to serve Them? We are perhaps needing help as to what is suitable when we are together. A great deal has been said as to when the Spirit should be addressed in the service. While the Supper is being celebrated we would not feel free then, would we, to speak to the Holy Spirit?
JT I do not see why we should not.
FJF I was thinking of what we enjoyed at Birmingham in 1949. There was a great deal of light thrown upon the matter then as to the service of the Spirit and of the Lord as we are found together, that the Spirit would be there to support us. I think it was said that the Lord Himself and the Holy Spirit are there in order that we should have access to the Father, and that anything that would hinder that should be eliminated.
JT I go with that fully.
FJF Some I know were at the time too much occupied with worshipping the Spirit, even as the Supper was being celebrated, and afterwards, without mentioning the Lord at all, or the Father. But you greatly helped us in that reading by pointing out that the gracious office of the Lord and that of the Spirit was to enable us to reach what divine Persons had before Them, to reach the Father as the end to which everything is moving.
[p. 103] JT Just so; so that the Father is to be worshipped. That was one of the main thoughts, that the Son and the Spirit would come in to make that effective; because the assembly has in mind, not only the worship of the Son and of the Spirit, but of the Father Himself: “they who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).
GH So it says, “The Father seeks such as his worshippers”.
JT Just so, “the Father seeks such”, that is the word used.
VCL Would not a heart that is properly self-judged and therefore available to the Spirit, be free to speak to the Spirit at any time, so long as the order is maintained that it is the Lord’s supper and that the Father is reached? The Spirit might come into the matter at any time He wishes, might He not?
JT Quite so. There are three divine Persons and They are all available to us, but available on certain principles.
AJEW Is there not a beautiful unison about verse 30? “And having sung a hymn, they went out”. It is not said they were told to sing a hymn; it was suitable to the moment. The Lord and the disciples were together in it and moved in it.
JT Very beautiful, I think; one of the most beautiful touches. “Having sung a hymn”, not a psalm but a hymn, the word used in Hebrews 2. I would like to turn to that for a moment: “I [p. 104] will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises”, or ‘hymn thee’. I think it is beautiful how all that comes in. The brethren should all just become enlarged and restful in all that we have just been saying, especially now in Hebrews 2, because it is a question of the service of God in the full sense. “For both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the assembly will I sing thy praises. And again, I will trust in him”. That is a wonderful passage and enters into this present reading, this present moment, for all of us — brothers and sisters — to get into the reality of the service of God as opened up in that passage.
AR Does that expression, “in the midst of the assembly”, involve all the saints on the earth?
JT Well, I suppose you might say that, but of course there are saints that are really saints that are not capable of having, or fit to have, part in the assembly; some are under discipline.
AR I was thinking that it is more than a local position. For instance, we broke bread at different local assemblies this morning, but the Lord singing “in the midst of the assembly” is more than that, is it not? I was wondering if it involves all the saints as in the light of the assembly today.
JT I would say it does; but then you take Presbyterians, Methodists and others; many of them are saints but they cannot have part in the service because they are not governed by right principles.
AR I was thinking about what the Lord has on earth in the assembly; I mean He comes into our localities where we are. Someone said this morning that He comes into the garden, but the assembly is really more than the idea of a garden, is it not?
JT I would say it is. The word ‘assembly’ is more than a garden certainly; a garden is another idea.
AR It is circumscribed, and the assembly is not circumscribed.
JWB Not the local position is what our brother means.
LLP You pointed out that there were two eatings. Is the first an allusion to the passover in Exodus 12? They sang in relation to that in Exodus 15:1; it says, “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song”, and it appears to me a very intelligent thing to do. It says, “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song to Jehovah, and spoke, saying, I will sing unto Jehovah, for he is highly exalted: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea”. It has a direct allusion to what had taken place. Now going back to the Supper, we get in verse 30, “And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”. What authority have we for singing before we have broken the bread and taken the cup? According to this setting they broke the bread first and then sang.
JT You mean that here in Washington when the brethren come together at the Lord’s day morning meeting, they begin with a song. Is that what you mean?
LLP We do so in all the assemblies.
JT That is true; in all the assemblies so far as I know we begin with a song.
LLP Well, what is the authority for beginning with a song in the light of the order given here, that after they had eaten they sang a hymn and went out to the mount of Olives?
JT We begin with a song, but not the same kind of a song that we end with. We do not begin with the song that we end with; that is to say we do not go out by the same door by which we came in. That is the truth of the assembly. It is a happy thing so far as I see, when we come together on the first day of the week to have a song. It is quite right because we have a hymn book and we have suitable songs to sing for the glory of God or the edification of the saints, and we should use these hymns. Then the next thing is that we should differentiate, for there are different hymns. We do not use the same hymns for the beginning of the meeting that we use for the end or the middle, and that is because we are taught [p. 106] as to the use of hymns. God has greatly blessed the brethren in the way He has taught us as to the use of hymn books and hymns. Some of us during the past fifty years have had a great deal of concern about the use of hymns, because the right kind of hymns are a great matter in the service of God.
RWS Matthew does not give the order of the Supper, does he? Do we not go to Corinthians for that?
JT That is what I would say, quite so.
Rem It says in Colossians that they were to be “teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs”.
JT Just so; there are three kinds there: psalms, hymns, spiritual songs. Psalms are experience, hymns are glorification, and spiritual songs are just songs that are spiritual.
TNW The Lord Jesus evidently joins in this singing in Matthew 26 and in Hebrews 2, does He not? But not so at the first hymn of the Supper?
JT The Lord leaves matters with us. I think the Lord would say, ‘It is very happy for them to sing, because it promotes their fellowship to start with a song, with a hymn, or whatever it may be’. We do the same thing in Bible readings and in all kinds of ministry, and the Lord is approving this use of hymns in our services. It promotes good feelings and fellowship.
JS It brings all the saints into the matter.
JT It does, brothers and sisters alike. A psalm is experience, but a hymn I think is something to be jubilant over, to promote good feeling.
EAL It has been remarked that ‘unity body-wise lays the basis for union’. Would you not say that hymns unite the brethren? I mean all the body of the saints is united in the hymn.
JT Just so, brothers and sisters alike. I should not like to hear a sister lead the singing, but if there [p. 107] was not anybody else to do it there would be no reason why she should not. In any case the idea is that we join together in happy feeling, and holy feeling too, which God promotes and confirms.
FJF Has it anything to do with the steps up to the house? There were thirteen steps, songs of degrees.
JT Very good, I would agree with that too.
JF Would the right hymn at the opening stir the affections of the saints?
JT Very likely; I have noticed commonly that it is a happy thing for the brethren to join in a hymn. They know what they are doing, they know the meaning of the words, and it is an “intelligent service” (Romans 12:1). The expression “intelligent service” is a right one.
Rem One hymn says that ‘the Spirit strikes the chord’ (142:1 and 211:1). It gets us started on a spiritual line.
JT It does.
RWS We know what to do; is not that the point? Paul says, “I speak as to intelligent persons”. We know what to do, we do not need to have a set of rules on a board.
JT That is just what I was thinking.
JHP Do not these verses suggest the liberty that the saints have, particularly the verse referred to? “And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”. Have we not much liberty in these matters, whilst observing the principles that have been taught us?
JT We have. It was several years since we had the long sessions on the question of hymns and what their import was, and we were greatly helped. We have a wonderful selection of hymns now, and they are greatly promoting fellowship amongst the brethren and the service of God.
GGB The Lord gave thanks for, or blessed, the bread. Is there something in that for [p. 108] us?
JT There is. He has led in all these things and we learn from what He did; we go by what He did. I think the brethren have greatly learned during the last fifty years in all these matters.
TNW Paul speaks of custom in the assemblies of God. That is a good matter, do you think?
JT “We have no such custom”, he says, “nor the assemblies of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16).
EAL At the end of Luke the disciples are spoken of as being “continually in the temple praising and blessing God” (Luke 24:53). So we have hymns of praise today.
JT Just so, “praising and blessing God”, that is what they were going on with.
RP What had you in mind in reading chapter 28? Was it to link on with what we get in chapter 26?
JT I just wanted to show what the Lord intended the eleven disciples to finish with in the gospel of Matthew. Notice there is a breach in the number: there are eleven instead of twelve, which is a humbling thing. But the first of Acts shows how this was repaired. What I had in mind now was that “the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him; but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”, a final word for the dispensation that we are in. This is the Lord Himself. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, I am with you all the days”; notice, these very days today, “I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. That is to say, until God takes up the millennial situation the Lord is going to stay [p. 109] with us, and He is with us today: “I am with you all the days”. Very wonderful and very precious.
JHP Do you connect this mountain in any way with the Supper as a continuation of what took place on the mount of Olives?
JT There are seven mountains so far as I remember, in the gospel of Matthew. We had the first one in the fifth chapter and this last chapter brings in the final one. Have you some further word about that?
JHP I was just wondering whether in connecting the two chapters you had this one in mind as being a continuation of what was before them at the time of the Supper; or whether as being the Lord’s last words it would connect more with the mountain in the fifth chapter that we had two days ago?
JT Oh, I think I would keep it by itself; it is passage a by itself. It is a separate thing; this paragraph is a separate consideration. “The eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them”. I think we just have to rest on that a bit and see the import of it as bearing upon our own position now at the end, until we come to the millennial period according to what we get elsewhere in the Scriptures.
ABP Does this mountain link on with the suggestion we had earlier of the stability and the security of the whole position?
JT I think that is very good.
FJF Does Galilee mean that He is now in reproach?
JT He is under reproach still. He is content to be under reproach, and we are content to be with Him in the reproach. That is the position.
VCL Is there any link with what we had in Chicago, that Paul in writing to the Hebrews says “For ye have not come to the mount that might be [p. 110] touched ... but ye have come to mount Zion”? Does that confirm the position going through?
JT Just so, what we have come to; that is well worth reading again. We are come to something now in this chapter at the close of the gospel of Matthew, and it will help to read that passage which begins with a mountain. It says in Hebrews 12:22 - 24, “But ye have come to mount Zion; and to the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem; and to myriads of angels, the universal gathering; and to the assembly of the firstborn who are registered in heaven; and to God, judge of all; and to the spirits of just men made perfect; and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant; and to the blood of sprinkling, speaking better than Abel”.
There are eight things mentioned. Well, now, we have not come to these things in the end of Matthew, but we have come to something. It says, “The eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them”. That is to say the Lord had appointed to meet them at this mountain, and that is what is in mind in the finish of the gospel.
RP Some of us were reminded this morning that the Lord not only comes to us from heaven but also from the sphere of testimony.
JT Very good, that very matter has come to the minds of the brethren, that we do not come from heaven, we are here in the sphere of testimony and suffering. We might as well accept that and the Lord is honouring in us the fact that we do accept it. The Lord is saying to us that He is interested in the assembly and the assembly’s affairs; and we expect Him to come to us and He comes. He does not come from heaven exactly, He is here in that sense according to what this chapter teaches, He is here always: “Behold, I am with you all the days”, it [p. 111] says.
RP I thought there was a very beautiful reference made in connection with that where the bridegroom, or the masculine speaker in Song of Songs 5:2 says, “My head is filled with dew, my locks with the drops of the night”.
JT Yes.
AR I have heard you refer to the Lord coming from the sphere of testimony and had difficulty in working it out in my own mind until you referred to Saul of Tarsus and the Lord saying, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?” (Acts 9:4).
JT Very good; that is the passage that settled me as to the whole matter, that the Lord is saying to a man, Saul of Tarsus, that he is persecuting Him. It does not mean that the Lord is in heaven, the Lord is here in the sphere of testimony and suffering.
WWM Would you say that it is a matter of obedience here? It says in verse 7, “Go quickly and say to his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behold, he goes before you into Galilee, there shall ye see him. Behold, I have told you”, and then in verse 16, “But the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him”. So that the answer to their obedience in moving into Galilee was that they saw the Lord.
JT They followed up what He said to them, showing that it was a question of obedience. It was the eleven disciples, because they had lost one, that is Judas, in the meantime; but the reparation took place in the Acts, the other disciple was provided so that there were twelve. So it says here that “the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth”.
[p. 112] But He is on earth for the moment. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations”, notice that, “make disciples of all the nations”, a great command, an immense command; “make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name” — notice this “to”, not ‘in’ — “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, the three divine Persons. They are all active and in Their own positions in the economy. And then it says further, “teaching them” — that is the nations — “to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you”. That is a great command too, “all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”. It is most striking and most confirming as to what is meant.
AJEW Is there not a peculiar attractiveness about the word “completion”? It is not just the end in point of time, but it is something that is arriving at completion.
JT Very good.
ABP Is it like the hem on the Lord’s garment?
JT That is very good, too.
Rem If we are under orders, as it has been spoken of, we shall get to the end.
JT If we are under orders — that is the great difficulty in christendom, that people are not under orders. Many young people, nominally in fellowship, are not under orders.
Rem We start in Matthew with the wise men; they did what they were told, and the position was held. And so here, the disciples went to Galilee and they were helped.
ABP Does the reference to “all the nations” link on with what comes in later in Paul, this being the assembly gospel? I was thinking how the twelve were slow to take on the nations. The great service of the nations was Paul’s, and I wondered as this [p. 113] is the assembly gospel if we find a link here with the Acts?
JT I think that is true; “Lo, we turn to the nations”, he says in Acts 13:46.
RWS Is “make” a characteristic Matthew word? “I will make you fishers of men”, the Lord said in Matthew 4, involving processing and labour and all that.
JT Very good, a characteristic Matthew word.
EEH What is the significance of this formula at the end of Matthew that we do not get in the other gospels — “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? How does that fit into the general theme of the assembly gospel, that all the Persons of the Godhead are mentioned?
JT Well, it is practical truth that we should know. Is that not so? We should all know these things. Paul says, “In reading ... ye can understand my intelligence in the mystery” (Ephesians 3:4). The question is how much we know, and we should not be ashamed to speak of what we know, Paul was not; he said, I want you to know my knowledge of the mystery. So why should we not know what is to be known?
WMcK Is it not encouraging for us that though the position is outwardly weak, though there are only eleven disciples, yet the Lord brings in the fulness of the knowledge of each divine Person in that position?
JT And then, as we already remarked, the remedy for the weak position is in the Acts, the twelfth apostle is provided there so that the administrative side is carried through; and hence you have the twelve apostles of the Lamb at the end of the book of Revelation. The twelve apostles are there; they are not the eleven but the twelve.
JHP Does not this Name, this wonderful Name, give character to the whole age which is being completed [p. 114] here? Although there is much ignorance in christendom and misuse of divine names, yet for all that this Name gives character to the dispensation in which we are. Would you say that?
JT I would indeed. I think it is all the more wonderful that God has given the great advantage to every one of us that is here today of having part in the divine mind as to the assembly. And it is going to be completed, it is not going to be a remnant, it is not going to be that, the Lord is going to have a complete assembly. Every part, every element of it is going to be there.
BW It says here, “They saw him”. Would the seeing of the Lord give character to what flows out, such as the preaching of the word? There are preachings that go out where the persons preaching know nothing, we might say, of seeing the Lord.
JT Well, the preaching goes on, as Paul could say, “That by me the preaching might be fully known” (2 Timothy 4:17). That is the idea, “the preaching might be fully known”. It is not partially known but fully known. And what is known is to come out in the assembly; the whole idea of the assembly is to come out; it is not to be a remnant, it is to be the whole thought of the assembly. It is marvellous to have that in the mind, so that as soon as the assembly is completed she will go to heaven and the millennial condition will come in. The millennial condition will come into its place because God is waiting for it, He has got it in His mind; the millennium is, you might say, the seventh day of the week. The end of the whole period is in the millennium, the millennial day.
FJF So the prophetic clock has stopped till the assembly is completed?
JT That is what has often been said; it has stopped until that moment, and then God will begin with something else and He will finish it.
And then we have “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13).
GH “Baptising them to the name”, you mentioned. What is the thought of that?
JT Meaning that the bearing is to — towards Them; the bearing is towards the Persons. It is not ‘in’ the name, but “to the name”.
FJF Would it be right to say we can never separate the Lord from His body? You were speaking of Acts 9. Is that what He taught Paul?
JT I would say that. You cannot separate Him from His body; in Acts 9 that is what is meant. Will you quote what is in your mind?
FJF It is what you referred to already, what the Lord said to Paul, “Why dost thou persecute me?”, that He was here with His body. Would that be right?
JT Quite so; it was the body He was alluding to really, but the Lord Himself was literally in heaven. Literally He was there but the body was here, that was the idea of it exactly. Paul and others were persecuting it, they were doing that.
FJF I would like to ask a final question. You remember that years ago there was a controversy with regard to the ‘abiding presence’. It was said that there was the ‘abiding presence’ of the Lord in the assembly, and you challenged that.
JT Yes, I said He comes and goes, and others said He always remained here. But that was not true, that was not literally true, because the Lord said, “I am coming to you”; “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you” (John 14:18). Others were saying that the Lord was here permanently, which is not so. Now that may seem to conflict with what we have been saying, but it does not; because Scripture is a whole, it is one whole and it does not contradict itself. The Lord has gone into heaven, angels and principalities being made subject [p. 116] to Him. He has gone into heaven, there is no doubt about it. But then He is here too, and that is the wonderful thing that is mysterious; it is mystery; we are dealing with mystery, which some of us are not prepared to accept really; but we are dealing with mystery all the time.
Ques Does that link with the presence of the Spirit?
JT It does, quite so, that the Spirit is here maintaining things; the Spirit is here maintaining things in regard of it all.
AR The Lord said Himself when here, “The Son of man who is in heaven”. I suppose we have to keep that in mind.
JT Exactly.