THE COMPLETION OF THE WORD OF GOD IN THE EPISTLES
[p. 340] THE COMPLETION OF THE WORD OF GOD IN THE EPISTLES
Matthew 26: 26 - 30; 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 26
JT I have been thinking of the importance of the epistles for the completion of New Testament truth. The suggestion is that we might compare the truth presented not only in the Old Testament but also in the gospels, as not final, with the epistles which are final; so that we may see the differences, and perhaps be more accurate as to the truth governing our dispensation, the dispensation of Christianity. I thought we might look at the Lord’s supper as presented in the gospels and the final word in 1 Corinthians, and then perhaps at something bearing on discipline in the gospels as compared with the epistles. I do not know whether this comparison has ever been made among us, but it occurred to me that it is important that it should be made so that we may know the truth as bearing on any particular point of doctrine, such as the Lord’s supper. It is clear that it is of the first importance that all of the authority of the apostolic epistles should be fully understood. There has been a great deal of controversy throughout the history of the assembly, and there can be no doubt but that this has been due largely to the failure to produce what is final in the divine mind as to matters; one may say, what is the last word. Paul speaks of completing the word of God (Colossians 1: 25). So that it is clear that the epistles should be especially in mind in all matters of doctrine; and then too, as to morals, the same thing applies. The passages selected are just samples, because there is a wide range of doctrine that calls for conclusiveness-the full idea of Scripture-so that the mind of God might be clear as to it. There is a great deficiency. One has observed, too, that things have [p. 341] been said amongst us, to some extent fancifully, without the full support of Scripture, and therefore the doctrine is weakened.
WWM The apostle says in the epistle we read, “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”, 1 Corinthians 14: 37. Is that final? Is that what you have in mind?
JT Quite so; the word is singular. It is the idea of one commandment, the whole epistle being one commandment, bringing in moral authority, moral conclusiveness.
GAD Do the gospels call for different language because the Lord’s supper is not in its final setting?
JT That is a good remark; the texts of the gospels are largely in Jewish settings and cannot be final. The Jewish mind and terms are made much of. The Jewish mind began early to damage Christian doctrine, according to Acts 15, when the judaisers first appeared, and all the apostolic authority available was brought to bear on the truth. The epistle to the Galatians shows how judaising was a great error, and the truth had to be contended for accordingly, so that it might remain with the saints, as the apostle says.
ANW Should our inquiry show that the finality of everything according to God will be found in Christ and the assembly?
JT I think that is good; it brings it down to a narrow application, only it is thought that the apostolic epistles should be the basis for us no matter what the sphere may be. If we were to consider ourselves in the early days of the truth of Christianity, and the judaisers were to bring in their doctrine, and quote from Moses or even from David, we can see how the spirit of the whole position would be aroused, for the attack was on the whole position of Christianity. Therefore the word in the beginning of the Acts is that those who were converted “persevered in the [p. 342] teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”, Acts 2: 42. We can see how any attempt to put Moses before the doctrine of the apostles would be regarded as error; and yet Moses had his place. It is a question of rightly dividing the word of truth. Recently, certain important matters have been dealt with from the Old Testament, and the New Testament and the light that bears on christianity was practically ignored. This related to the collection for the saints, the expression of the love of the saints.
And it bore also on the discussion of discipline. The Old Testament was preferred and the New Testament passed over in the decision. It is most important that the spirit of the word should be before us in such matters, and also the need of accuracy in what is done in administration.
RWS Peter refers to Paul’s ministry as being hard to be understood, but goes on to say that “the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction”, 2 Peter 3: 16. I am thinking of the things “hard to be understood”. It might be that we have not been diligent enough to give the epistles their right place in our thoughts.
CAM The authority for the Lord’s day morning meeting is in the epistle, is it not?
JT Yes; and how important it is, because it implies the service of God.
JTJr Would you say that these defects have come in on account of the state among us?
JT There is evidently a disposition to have something new or something distinctive, with the best of intentions it may be, but still to have something distinctive.
ANW You referred to what is fanciful. The types in the Old Testament really lend themselves to be used fancifully, which you cannot do with the direct doctrine.
JT That is just what is in [p. 343] mind.
CAM Is it not a fact that Satan’s intention is to unbalance the saints in some way, and so the Old Testament, having been opened up in such a wonderful manner for so many years, may be given an unbalanced place in some subtle way?
JT Anything to mislead the brethren. Satan has little regard for the instrumentalities he may use, provided he obtains his end, and so the Spirit of God has great consideration for brethren such as the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether such things were so.
FNW Was it laying stress on the importance of the Lord’s supper in the gospels, rather than in the epistles, that gave the new covenant an improper proportion in the truth a few years ago?
JT Yes, just so; the covenant was unduly enlarged upon and God brought into it; whereas, it is the Lord’s supper, and the Lord is engaged in it from the outset to the end of it. It is the Lord’s supper.
ANW What you say about the Supper is interesting because the apostle evidently had that given to him of the Lord. Why do you use Matthew 26 at this time instead of Luke 22?
JT So that we might get the full idea of contrast, and the importance of getting the last word. 1 Corinthians 11 stands in its authority and clarity and brevity by example from the New Testament, and the use of Scripture when intended to be final. The facts as to the passover are found in Exodus 12 and take up about twenty-eight verses, or more, of that chapter; whereas the part that Moses himself selects to be passed on to Israel takes up only about seven verses, and contains things that are not in the body of the instruction. But we are only calling attention to the use of Scripture; how it can be used, as exemplary, on a point, and how in a passage like 1 Corinthians 11: 23 and onward, there is brevity and clarity; whereas, if we extend our inquiry to Matthew and Mark and Luke we should [p. 344] find great difficulty in reconciling them. But Paul has the last word, and he actually records it himself in a letter to a local assembly; that is, to Corinth, so that we have it concisely there, and with variations that are striking and with definite differences in the gospels.
CAM Does what the Lord says, in the gospels, leave room for great inquiry? I am thinking of such a verse as, “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 with you in the kingdom of my Father”, Matthew 26: 29. The position of divine Persons in the days that were to come after this must have raised inquiry.
JT Yes; and many such incidents as that. That has reference to Israelitish doctrine. As you say, it must have raised an inquiry with the early brethren, and they got the right thought as to it; so the Lord’s supper was clarified through inquiry. Then Paul himself breaking the bread and discoursing at length on the occasion of the Lord’s supper opened up much.
AR We are apt to confine our minds too much to the gospels instead of to what Paul says: “... in remembrance of me” has a Person in mind.
JT Just so. A striking thing came up recently when a brother advocated the idea that love did not enter into the Lord’s supper, and that the cup of the new covenant was a cup of blood; that showed how the idea of being fanciful or prone to new things leads us astray. The Lord’s supper is a memorial to Christ, and the cup is a memorial as well as the bread. This is mentioned by Paul only. The brother wanted to insist that righteousness only entered into the Lord’s supper. I just mention that to draw attention to the danger of advocating new things for the sake of advancing something new.
RWS In Acts 20 it says that Paul prolonged the discourse till midnight. Would that be a corrective [p. 345] discourse?
JT I would think it was probably prophetic; that is, not applying to them alone, but to conditions that would come in, in the history of the assembly, such as have come in, and have been created since the time of the Reformation down to the present time. The apostle not only dealt with local conditions, in immediate need of correction, but what has affected the whole assembly.
RWS Is it your impression that in the present period of assembly history there is a tendency for new and fanciful things to flourish amongst the saints?
JT I have observed that. It applies to the whole history of the assembly. One could cite instances in the early days, as well as in later days, that error or heretical teaching largely arose from the thought of a leader having something by which he could acquire power.
FNW Did you have something further in mind about Paul’s discourse?
JT I referred to that as suggesting the prophetic side of Paul’s exercises at that time, and how much time was taken up by it. It has occurred to me that there may be a prophetic allusion to the Collected Writings. How enlarged the truth of the Lord’s supper has become! And even down to our own day, how it is necessary constantly to allude to it in ministry, to guard it, because there is so much tendency to repeat and say things that are not exactly scriptural. For example, we often hear persons speak of remembering the Lord in His death. But it is really a memorial to Him in His life, a memorial in His present circumstances.
TWH Would the conversational part of that meeting at Troas be something like our Lord’s Day afternoon readings?
JT The conversational side came in after Eutychus was resuscitated; whether Paul continued with a reading is not clear, but it may be so, as if the apostle [p. 346] would enlarge on what he had in his mind by conversation among the brethren. And possibly the resuscitation of Eutychus gave a fresh impetus and more appetite for the truth that he had in his mind to unfold in the discourse. Perhaps the apostle would say, We get on better if we converse about this matter and get the brethren to raise questions about what is in their minds. The discourse was that he spoke alone, evidently. There was no inquiry along with that, and there is no suggestion of what was effected by it, but the revival of Eutychus would give great impetus to the state of the meeting. They were no little comforted because of the boy’s revival. It is made a point of, as if Paul took advantage of that to arouse more interest in the truth.
CAM Your reference to discourse and conversation is a very interesting one as connected with the character of these meetings which we hold. There are no other christian circles where meetings like this can be found, as far as I know. Earlier in the chapter it refers to Paul “having passed through those parts, and having exhorted them with much discourse ...”.
JT Apparently others are not able to carry them on to any successful issue of inquiry into the Scriptures, except that they have addresses or similar gospel meetings. But as to meetings for inquiry in the christian circle, there appears to be little power for it.
GL When a gifted brother comes along, the question is sometimes raised whether we should have an address or a reading. Is that a matter for spiritual discernment?
JT I think that is right. The Lord is greatly prospering such meetings as we are having here this afternoon, the brethren sitting down together as they did at Troas, because that would seem to be what happened; the address was probably first, and the conversation afterwards. It is, therefore, a question of what would be most suitable. The Lord fitted [p. 347] Paul to answer questions as to the truth. If we examine the letters to the Corinthians, there are expressions such as, “But concerning the things of which ye have written to me ..”. That refers to questions they raised with him. It is important to have questions raised and discussed as to the things the brethren have in their minds; and a meeting like this affords that; whereas if we have addresses only, there is not the same occasion and opportunity for having specific questions answered.
RAL Would the gospels furnish the sentiment suitable for the Lord’s supper?
JT Well I suppose the account in the gospels probably appeared after some of the epistles had been written. Evidently the Spirit of God saw the need of the Lord’s own words, the Lord’s own ministry, and the facts stressed in that ministry, the actual facts of the gospels: what the Lord said and did before He died, in order to meet the revival of judaism, for christianity developed largely into that. Then, later, Luke says, “I composed the first discourse, O Theophilus, concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up”, Acts 1: 1, 2. Apparently the Spirit of God saw that there had not been enough in the gospel of Luke to bring out what was needed for the inauguration of christianity, and so he wrote a second treatise, speaking of what the Lord Jesus “began both to do and to teach, until that day in which, having by the Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up; to whom also he presented himself living, after he had suffered, with many proofs; being seen by them during forty days, and speaking of the things which concern the kingdom of God; and, being assembled with them, commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which said he ye have heard of me”. It is evident that Luke felt that more time was needed for the unfolding of the truth after the Lord had suffered until He was received up, and that the brethren should not be in a hurry to conclude as to what was final, because forty days were mentioned; and Paul develops the same point many years later.
WWM Do you think that if we gave a little more time to conversation at our family readings concerning what we have read, the instruction of the family would be far greater?
JT That is good. The facts of christianity indicate that the Lord worked late at night, even on the very day that He arose. And Paul extended his service into the night; indeed, he says, “night and day”. And in later years, the brethren spent far into the night in looking into the matter of prophecy.
Maybe we should tax ourselves as to how much time we really make for looking into these matters, because obviously time is very scarce. But it may be because we do not provide for it, that we do not ration it.
If anything is scarce, it has to be rationed; used with judgment, and the most made of it. Maybe we should consider the matter of rationing time as well as meat and other commodities.
RM The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily, but Paul said to the Thessalonians, “Do not lightly esteem prophecies; but prove all things”.
JT The Bereans and the Thessalonians were not far removed from each other, but they are contrasted in Acts 17: 11, because the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily.
AR In viewing the emblems, the bread and the cup would not suggest so much the idea of the will of God as His dying for the assembly, would they not?
JT We have to tax our minds as to what is really in the truth of the Lord being raised. The Lord Jesus has risen and has ascended into heaven, and not only so, but He takes account of us, according to Paul’s own quotation in 1 Corinthians 15: 3, “For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day, according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain until now, but some also have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to me also”. At the time Paul wrote about, the Lord was moving about among the brethren in a spiritual sense. For in John 14: 18 He says, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”. And if He comes, what hymn would be suitable? If He came to New York, where there are nine meetings, what would be an appropriate hymn? We are dealing with the assembly in its actual condition. The assembly is an actual thing. The Lord’s movement in John 20 would link on with Psalm 22, the heading of which is “The hind of the morning”, meaning that it is a fresh, actual, flourishing condition. Therefore the question is, What would suit that condition? We do well to just enquire as to what would suit any particular Lord’s day morning in the light of what we are engaged with now on Saturday afternoon. What will be likely to affect us tomorrow morning? If we are active and alive in our souls, we will be buoyant; we will be ready for the Lord. It is not so much to be occupied with His death as it is to be occupied with Him alive, because He is moving about in love, and moving about with the assembly in His mind, and He is looking for response from us. So I would think, therefore, that the hind of the morning would be a suggestion of what should be in our hearts as we enter on the service, something to greet the Lord with as in heaven and coming to us.
Ques Is moving from our side a test? It says [p. 350] of the disciples that having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives.
JT That raises the question as to what is mentioned in Matthew and Mark. It surely is a movement that bears on the Lord’s supper, and I would say that it would have in mind that the early Jewish christians particularly might be lifted out of their judaising setting. We are apt to be held in that kind of thing unless we are delivered from it in power. The allusion to going out to the mount of Olives, I believe, was intended to help the Hebrew christians at the outset to leave their natural setting and be with the Lord in His sphere.
TEH It may be necessary, on some occasions, to allude to the matter of forgiveness, because if we get under judaising principles, we may need that help.
JT Very good; we may need the new covenant in that way. We often need to be reminded of the freshness of the covenant idea which God has entered into with us, for young people are apt to be down in their souls at times, and it is a question therefore of making inquiry in our minds as to what state the assembly is in when the meeting begins-what would be suitable.
ANW That is very helpful, because it is not that we are to be occupied in keeping things out, but to have some priestly idea of what we can bring in.
JT That is good; and of course what we can bring in would include the Lord and what the saints have to offer.
RM In partaking of the emblems, we announce the death of the Lord.
JT That is the conclusion of that part of the meeting, to announce the Lord’s death. That is testimony. That is not a question, exactly, of the state of the meeting, but a testimony to any, whoever they may be, that are present. It is a testimony that should be ever before us, and held amongst us, the death of [p. 351] the Lord.
RWS It is very liberating to think that what is said depends upon the state of the brethren at the time. What would be suitable one Lord’s day may not be right for the next Lord’s day when the saints may be in a different spiritual state.
JT That shows the difference between christianity and judaism, or anything bordering on judaism. A written ritual fits in with days of the month, or days of the week, whereas christianity implies a living state of things. Hence the Lord said to John, “I became dead, and behold, I am living to the ages of ages, and have the keys of death and of hades”,
Revelation 1: 18. And then He tells John to write, and the order in which he is to write. I would say that we ought to gather from that fact how the Lord would have things in our days, and how the Lord’s supper should be regarded as His. John said that he became in the Spirit on the Lord’s day. It gives a clue to what the Lord would say, and how extensive the thing may become, for He says, “I am ... the living one”. It is an active condition, and with ourselves it depends largely on the state there may be with us.
Ques In 1 Corinthians 11: 20 the apostle says, “When ye come therefore together ... it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. That is very strong language, is it not?
JT In what they were doing, they were not eating the Lord’s supper; they were despising the assembly of God. Therefore it was not really eating the Lord’s supper; and, of course, it may be that some may not be eating the Lord’s supper who profess to do so.
Rem They were together assembly-wise, for he says, “For first, when ye come together in assembly”. Then he says, later, “What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this point I do not praise” (verse 22).
JT He twice says, “I do not praise”. But we would desire to have an encouraging word from the [p. 352] Lord, and particularly at times when we might be bowed by depression.
AAT I noticed that, in addressing the Lord, you spoke to Him as Lord Jesus. Is that a term of affection?
JT It is an expression which Paul uses at the end of Acts 20: “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus” (verse 35). It is the Lord’s remark, but it is commented upon after He died, and rose again. It is not recorded in the gospels. It is evidently a touch that fits in with that wonderful chapter on love”Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive”. Well, if you connect that with other uses of the title, such as, “The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up ...” and the passage, “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, there is a peculiar touch of affection connected with it.
RWS Does Paul’s ministry present the truth as to the Supper, and John the service of God, especially in Revelation 21: 3 where he refers to the tabernacle of God being with men? Are there features which Paul’s and John’s ministry represent in the service?
JT What comes into Revelation 21, in connection with the tabernacle of God, is connected with the bride. She comes down as a bride adorned for her husband, and then the voice calls attention to the tabernacle of God, that it is with men. It seems to me that would fit into the service, where the bride is linked on with God in the types, as Rebecca is linked with Abraham. He had a great concern about her in relation to Isaac. She appears in Genesis 22 where heaven is making much of Abraham’s surrender of Isaac. Rebecca comes into prominence by herself, as it were, in the midst of the genealogy of Abraham’s brother Nahor. The passage reads: “And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham,
[p. 353] saying, Behold, Milcah, she also has borne sons to thy brother Nahor: Uz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, and Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and Bethuel. (And Bethuel begot Rebecca.) These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother” (verses 20 - 23). And it would seem to me as if the allusion in Revelation 21 affords us warrant for linking the assembly directly with the service of God: “The tabernacle of God is with men”. That is said immediately after it speaks of the bride adorned for her husband, as if it is an appropriate time to refer to it.
ANW Would you go as far as to say that we reach eternity in that way in a bridal setting, whereas we reach eternity in another way at the close of the meeting possibly in “God ... all in all”?
JT Certainly that reference in Revelation 21 is a direct warrant for bringing her in in connection with the Father: “The tabernacle of God is with men”.