NOTES OF READINGS AND ADDRESSES, LONDON, MAY, 1922 - READING (5)
NOTES OF READINGS AND ADDRESSES, LONDON, [p. 76] MAY, 1922 - READING (5)
Luke 22: 1 - 23; Luke 24: 25 - 53
JT The scriptures read bring before us what the Lord was for us in death and what He is for us in His resurrection. It may be well briefly to note what follows in the gospel from chapter 15 and onwards. The attitude of the “elder son” implies that the grace that was presented in Christ (not only in Him personally while here, but in the gift of the Spirit and the formation of the house) was refused, so that the chapters that follow, up to the twenty-first, have that in view. They contemplate the saints having to move in an apostate state of things, and they provide instruction for us in view of that, and first in regard to what we may have in the way of earthly possessions. These are dealt with somewhat at length in the instructions, because, I suppose, of their great influence upon men generally and even upon ourselves. It occurred to me that it would be worth our while to take note of the instructions the Lord gives in regard to earthly possessions, because a right understanding of them would enable us to appreciate rightly what these are worth relatively — indeed, that they are not strictly our own but that it is a question of stewardship, which we may be required at any time to surrender. Thus we are instructed as to what to do with that which is under our hand in this apostate state of things. Chapter 16 shows us how a disregard of these instructions results. The man who fared sumptuously every day refusing to take account of the need that may exist is contemplated.
Rem As evidence of those conditions, it says the Pharisees were covetous, and mocked Him.
JT Yes, that comes in; covetous people would [p. 77] naturally deride the instructions given, but they are necessary for us in this state of things.
Ques Is there any connection with the minding of earthly things?
JT There is. Riches tend to induce earthly-mindedness, but they are not to be despised, and if taken up as a stewardship may serve to provide for the future in a spiritual way. The Lord, speaking to His disciples, says, “Make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles”. Then the subject is again referred to in the ruler who desires to know what he should do to have eternal life; chapter 18. He is to sell what he has. “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor ... and come, follow me”. It occurred to me that it would serve a good end to be reminded of these instructions. The Lord in the case of Zacchaeus enters into his house. He also was a man of means. He says, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I return him fourfold”. The Lord, however, does not suggest to him that he should sell all that he has and give to the poor, as if He would remind us that there are those who can well be trusted. Jesus says of Zacchaeus that he is a son of Abraham. Then finally (chapter 21) the Lord looked up and saw the widow casting her offering into the treasury of God. So the exercise is left with us as to what we shall do with what is in our hands in the way of means to which no formal claim is made. After all, the saints are not dependent on anybody’s riches; the exercise, therefore, is one for those who have them. The Lord shows throughout that riches may be used for the spiritual advantage of the one who has them. But then He sees the widow casting into the treasury of God. What will one do there? This seems to lift the “box”, as we [p. 78] call it, into its own dignified position; it is the treasury of God. What will one do there with what one has?
AMH What relation has this to the house? How would you connect it with what we have had?
JT Well, I think these instructions contemplate the existence of the house, only in an apostate state of things that makes the path more difficult.
AMH In the beginning things could be done very simply. Means could be laid at the feet of the apostles and could be distributed. Now there is more individual exercise in administering what you have, would you say?
JT Quite.
JJ Is the apostate state of things similar to that contemplated in 2 Timothy?
JT Yes, quite.
E Would not the widow be supporting the testimony in giving all that she had?
JT That is how the Lord takes account of it. “He looked up and saw ...” It seems as if we get a continuance of Zacchaeus in the widow — that is to say, one who is to be trusted with means.
AMH Do you think the first step towards that is in connection with selling all that you have — that in heart it has to be surrendered before you can use it rightly as Zacchaeus did, and then it is to be used God-ward as suggested by the reference to the treasury?
JT Yes. Trustworthiness is tested in regard to how you use what is entrusted to you in relation to God. Trustworthiness is tested even if it be with a child; if we are trusted with a child, we are tested as to what disposal we make of him. I think that Abraham is a great model for us in that way. What he most desired was a son, and God gave him a son; it was a trust really, so that he is tested as to how he would regard him. He offered up his only son, whom [p. 79] he loved, and it was said of him that he became the friend of God.
HFN Does this at all correspond with the gift of the princes in the book of Numbers? I was thinking of the spoons that were filled with frankincense. Would Luke take account of the frankincense?
JT Quite. The widow, I think, sets before us that entire devotedness to the testimony which the princes may be taken to represent. In their case, however, what is so interesting is that it is liberality in unity, a liberality that is in accord with their appreciation of Christ. Each gave exactly what the others gave, and they gave what the testimony required at the time. Chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Corinthians teach us that giving is to be on the principle of equality, that is, it is to be given intelligently according to the requirements and according to what may be available. But the widow represents wholehearted devotedness to what is of God, and such an one can be trusted with means.
JBC-l Paul’s first epistle to Timothy closes with a word of injunction to those who were rich in the present age. He enjoins liberality in distributing and the disposition to communicate of their substance, and in that way laying by a good foundation for the future.
JT Yes; it is quite in keeping with what we are speaking of. The apostle is very careful not to impose anything beyond what was right and fair. He does not say you are to part with your means, but not to trust in the uncertainty of them; as was remarked, a Barnabas at the outset could sell his land and lay the money at the apostles’ feet for distribution; they could dispose of it more intelligently than he could; he was placing it at the Lord’s disposal. But then if there be no apostles, there may be no one who can dispose of what I possess better than myself. Therefore the question is — if you are trusted with riches,
[p. 80] can you use them rightly? Zacchaeus represents, I think, those who can.
Ques Does the result come out in the last chapter of Leviticus? You get the position set out in the first chapter, the privilege of drawing near to God, and then, in the end of the book, the question of vows comes in in connection with persons, the house, the field, and so on. That is a question of devotedness?
JT All is valued there by Moses “according to thy valuation”. I think that comes in in chapter 21. The Lord is valuing, appraising what is presented; it is what He thinks of it, because it is a question of what I have left.
EJMcB Why are the ten lepers introduced in this section?
JT I think they refer to the effect of Christianity in a public way on those responsible; the number ten indicates that. We are dealing here with conditions that arose after the house was set up and the Gentile was accepted. The responsibility of those who were in outward relationship with God continued, and the one who returned represents God’s portion out of it, one out of ten.
B Is that why this kind of instruction follows after chapter 15?
JT Yes, I think so. It deals with an apostate state of things, which in the Acts is recorded historically — what was seen in Jerusalem and Judaea.
B What suggests that in this gospel?
JT The attitude of the elder brother; he represents the Jew, he would not go in; he had no sympathy with what was going on. This is seen in the Acts, and today we have to do with a similar condition of things, so that the instruction fits in with our own circumstances; we have to do with what is professedly in relationship with God, but far away from Him, and having no sympathy with what [p. 81] He is doing; the instructions, therefore, should help us enormously at the present time.
JBC-l Is that borne out by the case of the ten lepers? The Lord sent them to the priests, not to the priest; the plurality of priests seems to suggest a system that retains the priestly form and the priestly attachments without the power.
JT Yes. The tenth did not go; he returned. He found that he really had received benefit spiritually, so he returned, and that is how things are now. Those who are genuinely affected return, and one looks for that; then they give glory to God.
EJMcB I think it is exceedingly helpful to see that the bearing of the last part of Luke has in view the attitude of the elder brother.
JT Then there are so many other points that would help in these chapters. You have the injunction to avoid being a snare to anyone in the beginning of chapter 17. The Lord said to His disciples, “It cannot be but that offences come: but woe to him by whom they come!” Then He goes on, “Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother should sin, rebuke him; and if he should repent, forgive him”. That is a word we do well to take note of, because the Lord would not have us go on together as unforgiven. If we have learnt grace in Him, as the woman in chapter 7 sets it forth, then we do not want to go on with unforgiven people. “If thy brother should sin, rebuke him”; the thing should not drag. Sometimes it is assumed that we can go on in a sort of fellowship within a fellowship. Fellowship is fellowship, and if one be in fellowship nominally, then we are under obligation to him and he to us, and if there be anything in the nature of sin, the Lord says, “rebuke him”. Then further it says, “If he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him”. You see [p. 82] how wide the grace extended is. The Lord has in that way given us plenty of latitude; John 20 would fit in here; it is like a signed cheque without the amount; you can fill in any amount. The Lord has confidence in you as having His Spirit.
EJMcB You really want the spirit of the house for that.
JT Yes; but we do not want to go on with unforgiven people, and we do not need to. The first thing is rebuke.
AMH If “thy brother should sin” (verse 3) — do you make that general, as distinct from personal trespass?
JT Yes. If he be in another locality and the thing has happened there, then the matter has to be taken up there. I mean to say, there is no need for us to be going on with sin. The position provides for that.
AMH I think that is very helpful, and encouraging, too. If there is sin, you do not want that to remain on your brother; the thing should be met in a godly way.
JT-y Are you distinguishing between sin here, and trespass in Matthew 18?
JT Here it is, “If thy brother sin”; in Matthew 18 it is more a personal trespass between two brothers. Note verse 3, “take heed to yourselves”; these matters should be faced and dealt with.
DLH Would this forgiving apply to the company? I do not quite see the force of the individual forgiving if the sin is of a general character and not of a personal character. If it says, “take heed to yourselves”, does not the forgiving apply to the “yourselves”? You have got to do it.
JT I think so. “Yourselves” implies that we should keep ourselves clear; we do not need to go on with [p. 83] sin in any one.
FHB In verse 4 it says, “If he sin against thee”.
JT Quite; but in verse 3 it is, “If thy brother should sin”.
AMH The third verse is general, you think, the fourth verse more personal?
JT So it appears. The taking heed to yourselves is the thing, because we should never accept that certain conditions are admitted that we cannot help, for that is contrary to divine principles, and we are furnished with the means of dealing with it.
NL What is it that constitutes sin? What is involved in that?
JT I think John’s definition is the best we can get: “sin is lawlessness”; it would be a violation of the principles that govern us.
JJ Do you think that each little company is capable of dealing with every question, independently of outside intervention?
JT That is what 1 Corinthians teaches us. Now the disciples raise a question about faith: “Give more faith to us”, and the Lord shows what faith is and what we can reckon on if we have it at all, because difficulties appear insurmountable at times. I would call attention to the importance of faith in removing difficulties, even if it be in a man like a “sycamine tree”; he would be removed, however big.
Ques Why do you think there is the change of address here from disciples to apostles in that regard?
JT I think it refers to their responsibility. “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye had said ... Be thou rooted up ... and it would have obeyed you”. They were a long time in overcoming the difficulty. Then He brings in the question of service. “After ye have done all things that have been commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done what it was our duty to do”. This brings us to our bearings.
EJMcB [p. 84] Do you not think too it is in the light of the immensity of the things that are being done?
JT And of the “overhead charges”.
P.R.M. What are they?
JT See what the Lord has expended on you and me. The apostle said, “Who loved me, and gave himself for me”. When shall I give a return for that? He may have given you grace or gift, but whatever you have got has cost Him something.
ER I suppose that does not interfere with “Forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord”?
JT I am sure it does not. That is said to those whom the Lord would encourage to work. There are those who think they are doing much, but the much we think we do is after all only our duty. Even Paul says, “Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” He accepted the obligation.
ER The grace bestowed upon him was not in vain.
GeoN Do you mean that if we forgive our brother seven times a day we have done our duty, or is it in connection with service?
JT The Lord is speaking about a bondman here, but even to forgive would be our duty.
WHB It does not bring any profit to God, does it? If you forgive, it is only what you ought to do; you cannot claim anything.
JT No; and more than that: if you are used to conversions, or to minister to the saints, or whatever service it may be, what you have done is only your duty.
WHB There is the same principle in Matthew 25. Their left hand does not know what their right hand has done; they do not count what they have done as profitable — they say, “Lord, when saw we thee naked and clothed thee?”
PRM What is ploughing? (chapter 17: 7).
JT It is a form of primary work. It does not in itself produce anything, but without it you will not get much of a crop. I think Elisha was a good ploughman; he was with the twelfth yoke.
PL Do you mean that Elijah is told to anoint the man who is content to plough and plough last?
JT The man that ploughs last is likely to plough best; the others are ahead, so he can see their defects and avoid them.
E In regard to rebuking and forgiving, we may not get an opportunity to forgive if we have not the grace to rebuke.
JT Just so. Rebuking would correspond with the ploughing; it stirs up the conscience. It takes a great deal of grace to rebuke a brother, and yet it is absolutely essential if he is to be recovered. Paul says, in regard of Peter, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”. You want to be sure first, however, that the brother is to be blamed.
ER There are two services here — ploughing and shepherding.
JT Shepherding is a very important service, and it refers to sheep in John 21, not to lambs. The Lord says, “Shepherd my sheep”. It takes great grace and stature to undertake to care for and help an old brother. In this respect a young brother always has a disadvantage which he has to accept. An old brother has an advantage that he can make use of if he so choose, but the advantage he has a young one cannot have, because he is young; so that the exercise with the young brother is, “Let no man despise thy youth”, otherwise he would have no weight with an older one.
EJMcB Do you not think the real power of the house comes out in the way these two things are [p. 86] balanced?
JT I suppose, as was remarked, the ploughing corresponds with the rebuking, but then the man has to be kept too — shepherded. The shepherd’s heart would avoid anything that would wound or offend.
PRM Rebuke not an elder sharply.
EJMcB So that if you plough well, you will have something to shepherd.
JT You do not want to shepherd what is not ploughed, because it is the flesh.
HFN Would the two principles come out in Paul? In the first epistle to the Corinthians the ploughshare, and then the spirit of the shepherd in the second, where all the heart of the apostle comes out?
JT I think that is very interesting indeed. He lays stress on the evidences of their self-judgment.
Ques Did Elihu do some ploughing with Job?
JT Yes, I am sure he did. He prepared the way for the Lord to speak to him. These points are important.
Then the next element of instruction we might notice is at the beginning of chapter 18; they were always to pray, and not to faint. The Lord spoke also a parable to them to that purport — the unjust judge — and He speaks of the elect. Now in this chapter it is not a question of what you get in a positive way from the prayers as in chapter 11, but that you should be supported — that you should not faint; because service under these circumstances — that is a state of apostasy — is extremely onerous, and many have fainted and withdrawn — given up. Patient continuance is one of the greatest evidences of spiritual energy, so we are instructed always to pray and not to faint; as Paul says, “We faint not”.
PRM Is prayer the atmosphere in which you are prevented from fainting — clear, fresh air?
JT Quite. So that James says, “Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray”.
PL [p. 87] Does not Anna at the beginning of this book stand on this line? She served with fastings and prayers night and day. There was no fainting with her.
JT No, indeed. At a very advanced age she was active.
B Is prayer doing as Hezekiah did, spreading the thing out before Jehovah?
JT Well it is; you keep on.
PRM You know what you want.
HFN Paul says in 2 Timothy that he endured all things for the sake of the elect. What is your thought of the elect in this section — why are they brought in here?
JT It is most important to have the truth of election in our mind in view of the apostate state of things that exists.
WHB It is important to take account of the power of the adversary in the present state of things.
JT The constant pressure would make us faint, but the thought of the elect brings in the purpose of God, so that we are encouraged.
WC Is there any reference to local exercises in this, “a judge in a city”? Is there the thought of consideration for the saints in that way?
JT Yes, quite. Throughout this gospel there is more said about cities and villages than in any other. The Lord was to go into them; they were the localities in which these things should be carried out.
PL So that an original feature of the house of God is that elders were to be ordained in every city.
JBC-l Do you intend to convey the thought that the unjust judge in the city and the widow give us the present conditions, and show in the widow’s faith and importunity how these conditions, though trying in themselves, are productive of good according to God?
JT Yes. The widow state should surely mark us. Rome says, “I sit a queen, and am no widow”. She is supported by this world, but we are supported by One who is not present. The whole passage as to the widow’s importunity is most encouraging. Keep on praying, and the adversaries will be defeated.
RB The mark of the elect is that they cry day and night unto Him.
JT Just so. As Paul says, “Our whole twelve tribes”. You have all the elect in view, you do not leave one of them out.
WHB How absolutely dependent upon God this makes us, in the present condition of things.
JT I think it well to note how these things are brought up for our instruction in an apostate state of things. Now in chapter 20 we have questions answered. Every question that comes up is answered in the most perfect manner by the Lord, as if we are reminded that in these complicated conditions no questions can arise that cannot be met. We may thank God for one, as we might say in our time, whom He raised up to meet all the current questions of Christendom. Every question, religious or scientific, that the enemy could bring up to nullify the truth that was recovered was adequately met, and we have now a treasure in the writings of the one whom the Lord employed to meet these questions, so that we are not now baffled by any of them. I do not suppose any of us are troubled by infidelity or religious developments or spiritualism. The Lord has met these questions for us. Chapter 20 is “question-time”, and every question is answered divinely, so that the people marvelled and were silent and did not dare any more to ask Him anything. Chapter 21 gives us the political history of Western Europe, including Palestine, so that we do not need to go outside of these scriptures for a right understanding of every question that has arisen in modern times. Thus all questions are solved for us in these [p. 89] chapters.
PL The questions having been all answered, the widow comes forward. Every question being settled, the saints are left free now to care for the testimony undisturbed.
JT I think we might go on now to the later chapter. I think all these outward things are disposed of for our souls, and now the Holy Spirit would bring before us what Christ is for us, what a place we have in His heart. For the first time it comes out; He reserved it until He was about to die, but now He unfolds what is in His heart. That is what we get in chapter 22.
MWB Would it be right to say that if these questions are not settled, we cannot rightly enter into chapter 22? .
JT I think so. We are like Aaron — “such things have befallen me”. We are not always able to take up this precious institution. The Lord would have us restful. He sends Peter and John to go and prepare, for the day had come when the passover must be killed. That should touch our hearts. The fact that He sends Peter and John has, I think, a meaning.
AMH What is your thought in that?
JT I think Peter represents the administrative side in the apostles, and John the family side. He sends those two to prepare.
AMH Do you mean these two thoughts are necessary for us to enjoy the privilege He is bringing before us?
JT Yes, that is it. The third and fourth of Acts are what we may call Peter and John chapters, because they present the two apostles acting together. They went up together to the temple and said to the lame man, “Look on us”. Peter represents the administrative side — outward order and experience, because Peter is an elder — and John represents the [p. 90] family side. We need these two things ever present for the Lord’s supper.
AMH I suppose unless there is the administrative side, the order and the supplies will not be maintained, and unless there is the family side, there will not be the atmosphere for the development of what we are looking for.
JT Yes, because it is really a family affair.
HFN Are they brought in first in connection with the passover as showing the great grace He exercised, both on the administrative and on the family side?
JT Yes. The lamb was four days in the Israelite’s household before it was slain. So that from the tenth to the thirteenth day, the word ‘must’ would not apply. But on the fourteenth day it must be slain. The little creature had been in the Israelite’s house four days; every one would notice how harmless it was, but the day arrived when it must be killed. That, I am sure, would touch their hearts and should touch ours.
PL Would you say that the lamb being amongst them in that way showed that they were the elect? The lamb in the house of the Israelite indicated that he was elect.
JT Quite. They were God’s people.
MWB You have referred to the administrative side: say a little more about it.
JT It refers to what is public; that is what we have been dealing with throughout these meetings. God would have things done in an orderly way. The first letter to the Corinthians governs the administrative side, because the Lord even in regard to the Supper there dealt with the disorder that marked them in partaking of it. The apostle said, “This is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. It cannot be connected with a sect. Sectarianism existed at Corinth and so what they partook of could not be called the Lord’s [p. 91] supper. And so none of the sects around us can be said to have it.
JBC-l Do you think that the feast of unleavened bread, which followed the passover, is intended to exclude all the elements of the present age, but the Supper has to say to the saints and their affections?
JT They are taken up in that way in Corinthians. This whole passage in Luke 22 is taken up in Corinthians; the early part of it in chapter 5 and the later in chapters 10 and 11. Then there is another thought that fits in with the administrative side, that is the idea of furniture which Luke and Mark speak of — indeed, all the synoptic gospels — because they are concerned about outward order — the upper room furnished. John does not touch on that because he is concerned about the spiritual side, but we must have the two together.
EJMcB Would you say that John supposes the furnishing to be there?
JT Yes, he does; otherwise the Lord could not come. John says He came where the disciples were. It was no question of the room or the furniture but of the persons. Moreover, he speaks of doors, whereas this passage speaks of only one entrance (verse 10). In John 20 I think the doors refer to spiritual power and vigilance in the saints.
FHB What do you connect with the furnishing?
JT The outward order, including the public relations of the saints, which should appear in every company gathered in the light of the assembly. This furniture should be ever present. 1 Corinthians specially gives us the furnishing.
Ques Will you go into detail a little?
JT The women should be covered — that is one feature of order — it is one piece of furniture, so to speak. Another is that the saints should be assembled; they should be together, not as a congregation but as a company assembled in relation [p. 92] to each other. A company of persons who are intelligent: “I speak as to intelligent persons”. There is the refusal of all clericalism. Then there should be self-judgment in every one of them.
EJMcB Would the question of the relative positions of the younger and elder brother come in in connection with the furnishing — the moral suitability?
JT Quite. What marks an assembly of intelligent persons is that every one knows what to do, and acts in a comely way. If I were in a meeting with Paul I would wait on him, and love to hear him speak to the Lord; not that there is any restriction in the assembly, but spiritual measure must be taken into account in an assembly of intelligent persons.
AMH So that even in the assembly you would not disregard the question of differences of stature. You would have all in liberty, but each recognising intelligently what God has secured in others.
ENH There is to be not only the outward order, but the inward condition.
PL I thought Peter himself illustrates the principle of the furnishings, when he speaks of “our beloved brother Paul”; he waits upon Paul.
PRM Will you distinguish between the furnishing and “there make ready”? The room was furnished, but they were to make ready.
JT That refers to what was to be eaten; it would include what is contributed. The outward making ready is having the emblems before us, but it is a question of what is there in a spiritual way.
JBC-l You mean that the furnishing would be in agreement with the One who is the Lord of glory?
JT That is right. “The teacher says to thee, Where is the guest-chamber where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished: there make ready”.
[p. 93] The guest-chamber is in keeping with Him because He sent the message; the goodman of the house is not regarded as knowing what was suitable.
PL The Lord placing Himself at table and the twelve apostles with Him would answer more to Peter’s line — the outward dignity, order and comeliness suited to the occasion; while “with desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” is the spiritual line, and would bring in John’s side.
JT Quite. “To eat this Passover with you”.
DLH In the actual assembly of God’s people today on Christian lines, we have hardly got the Passover before us.
JT The Passover and the unleavened bread refer to us individually. Unleavened bread refers to the state in which we partake of the Lord’s supper. In considering this scripture we have to take account of things as they then existed. The Supper is the outgrowth of what the Lord came to do here.
DLH It is interesting to see how both the passover and the Supper are found in 1 Corinthians — one in chapter 5 and the other in chapter 11. The former is what we learn individually, and then we are fit to enter into the Supper.
JT That is so. Luke carefully separates the Lord’s supper from the Passover, and Paul does so too. The apostle received the Supper as a direct communication from the Lord. The Passover was not given to him, but he applies the truth of it; he distinguishes also between the assembly and the saints’ own houses. The earlier celebrations of the Lord’s supper were in their houses according to Acts 2, but Paul carefully distinguishes; he says, “When ye come together in assembly”. We are now apart from household influences; it is the new [p. 94] family really.
ENH Would what we get in chapters 5 and 10 fit us for the eleventh?
JT Quite.
EJMcB I think we should like a little more on the side of the spiritual.
JT We were remarking that 1 Corinthians carefully distinguishes between the households of the saints and the assembly. The assembly of God is that in which God’s order is maintained. Every person in the assembly has a voice, and household influence is left outside. It is a company of intelligent persons come together as the assembly of God, so that God’s order is maintained there, and it is in those circumstances that we have the Lord’s supper; hence the apostle says, “I have received of the Lord”. We have it thus in the Lord’s own definitely ordered sphere, free from all intrusion of human influence. Then the cup, “in like manner”. The word ‘manner’ is interesting because it refers to what He did. In both elements it is the Lord; it is His body and His blood. Then there is an additional thought, and that is the new covenant. “The new covenant in my blood”.
Ques “When ye be come together in assembly”. Is that the moment we gather together?
JT Yes; that is how we should come together.
Ques How do you distinguish between that and the supper as the doorway into assembly privilege?
JT The latter is more the spiritual side, the first refers to order — the furnishing. There is that known here in this world as God’s assembly; we read of “the Jews, the Gentiles, and the assembly of God”. The Lord’s supper fits in with the assembly in that connection.
EJMcB So that your thought is that in regard to the administrative side there is only one door.
JT Yes. All go in by the one door. There is only one way in, but you do not go out as you came [p. 95] in. Ezekiel helps us there; you go straight before you; “when the people ... shall come before the Lord in the solemn feasts, he that entered in by the way of the north gate to worship shall go out by the way of the south gate”.
You go out by John, as it were; if you do not go out spiritually, you have gained nothing; but if you gain something, that will give character to the rest of the week, and thus Christianity is preserved as a living thing — fresh and heavenly.
PL The prince in Ezekiel went out by the door by which he came in.
JT Yes; the people went out straight before them.
HFN Is that why you have sometimes pressed the thought that you would not undertake to close the meeting? Would you say a word on that?
JT If I close it, that would mean we go out by the same door as that which we came in by.
JT-y Our doorway out in London is the reading of the notices!
JT We have to see to such matters, but that is not a spiritual thing.
EJMcB If we really were in the spirit and power of the present affections of Christ, we should have no notices to read out. They are necessary on the furnishing side.
JBC-l Is it not the idea in Luke’s gospel, that we break bread in the scene in which Christ has been rejected and in which there are the elements of apostasy; we break bread in the fellowship of His death; but in John’s gospel we do not get the breaking of bread, but rather the spiritual side of the assembly, and are not the entrance and exit nearly defined in that way? As we come together continually there are fresh features of spiritual significance to be gained.
JT That is right. So that John 13 is John’s [p. 96] side of the same position. What you get there is what the Lord did to them as an example; it is what you apprehend in what He does, and you go out in the sense of that. He says, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another”. It suggests that there is always something new. “If ye have love amongst yourselves”; we get it, I think — at any rate it is greatly stimulated — as we get into touch with the Lord in a spiritual way.
GeoN Immediately after the Supper we get a strife here as to who should be the greatest.
JT Is not that lamentable? It is a most distressing picture. The very opposite should have been the result.
DLH In regard to the doors and going out: what is exactly in your mind? Is it that we go out on the “top note”, so to speak? I have often thought that one likes to see the meeting closing on the top note.
JT What was that said about notices?
DLH I thought the notices came in quite apart from the assembly proper, unless it is some necessary convening of the assembly, and we come down to sublunary things. I have thought of that as part of something that is outside.
JT Well, if it be clearly understood that it is so. Or is it generally assumed that the reading of the notices is the way out?
DLH That would be a very poor ending of a meeting.
JT-y Have you not often noticed in a meeting that the top note has been reached, and you would be so thankful to go out then; but you have to wait for the clock and the notices.
DLH Well, I have not noticed that. I think one has some sort of spiritual conception when the moment has come, and it is a very happy thing to be able to discern the moment when the meeting [p. 97] closes.
JT-y There is a good deal of exercise as to why we could not at the outset of the meeting take account of the notices. Anything of a special character could be reserved for the Monday evening.
FHB Would it not be distracting to give out notices at the beginning of the meeting?
JT-y Anything that might have that effect could be left until the next night.
PL The burial of a saint or any occasion for ministry that might be notified in that way, I thought was a very beautiful piece of furniture.
JT It all belongs to the public side. I do not want to suggest anything in the way of legal procedure, but I think the Lord has respect for those who take notice of details.
MWB Is your mind that the Lord would have us as regards the administrative line to be entirely free from everything that relates to that side, so as to be free for the spiritual side?
JJ As a practical matter, we have to go out after the meeting. What real guide have we when to go?
JT I would go out at any time. One would not suggest anything that would bring about a legal process; it is only to have the right thought in our souls, that is, to go out in the full sense of what the Lord is in the special way that He has been pleased to make Himself manifest to us.
PL It is one thing to disperse because we have to, and quite another to introduce at the end of the meeting that which refers to outward order, which would be far better placed at the beginning.
JT I think it would be very simple to have them at the beginning. As a matter of fact most brethren do think that the notices are the end of the meeting.
MWB “When the hour was come” is rightly introduced at the beginning, but you could not have that verse in the same sense at [p. 98] the end.
DLH But what has been referred to in regard to the assembly proper — when we have reached the assembly on the resurrection side, it seems to me that we have reached the right end. We may be sustained there a shorter or a longer time, but I think the moment comes when one feels that we have reached our limit, and that should be the top note, and then there is an end of that. The end of the spiritual line is reached and I think the assembly is over then if we have only spiritual discernment sufficient to discern when that is. Anything that may be in the nature of a notice is not connected with the assembly proper, is it, but rather with the earthly condition in which we find ourselves?
AMH Are not notices connected with the assembly proper but with the administrative side of it?
PRM A brother present has said that he would not like to be one to give a word in the assembly. Is that right?
JT I think that would be very wrong, because the Lord would often manifest Himself in that way. It is not the time for exhortation; it is what the Lord would give — a word that brings Him in.
PL So that after David danced before the ark he distributed the food.
Rem With regard to what Mr. H — raised, if we move in that direction, is it your thought that it is our privilege to disperse with a sense of that upon our spirits?
JT That is right, and I apprehend that all public things belong to the assembly in the character presented in 1 Corinthians.
Now chapter 24 is what the Lord is in resurrection, as chapter 22 is what He is in death — what His death means for us. What is to be specially noticed in chapter 24 is the way He brings in the Scriptures; He shows how the Scriptures fit in with Him — how [p. 99] they centre in Him as risen from the dead; thus we have in the first instance an exposition of the Scriptures to those who were going in a wrong direction. I think that the passage suggests to us that expositions of Scripture are specially helpful to those on the wrong road; people who have not got an understanding are not in a position to get light themselves; they need expositions. “Did not our heart burn within us ... while he opened to us the Scriptures?” What I think might well be noted is the great value of the Scriptures today in regard of those who are in the wrong way. Most are, alas! on the wrong road, and spiritual expositions connected with Christ affect such. The exposition itself did not bring them back to the company, but the Lord followed it up; it interested them in Him; their hearts burned within them so they invited Him in. The Lord has acquired a place through the exposition, and being constrained He went in to stay with them. The disposition of His heart was that He would get them — He would recover them; then in the breaking of bread He is made known to them and they rise up the same hour and come back to Jerusalem, and as together with the eleven and those with them they talk about Him. The exposition and the manifestation had constituted them wonderful assets to the company, because they are now conveying to those gathered together what they have learned of Christ. That is what we should look for, otherwise we are dependent on our children to replenish the numbers. Of course it is happy to have our children brought in, but we want those who are out of the way brought in; as recovered they are contributions to the company.
Then the Lord Himself comes in and stood in their midst; and as amongst them He says, “It is I myself”. Then He opens up their understanding, and says, “These are the words which I spake unto [p. 100] you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me”. He does not expound there, but He opens their understanding to understand the Scriptures. The Lord would not only expound, but He would give the understanding, that is, the understanding of what is written concerning Himself; but if I am to find out what is written I have to read.
Rem Apparently in speaking to the two He says nothing about the psalms: “beginning at Moses and all the prophets”.
JT Psalms hardly fit when people are on the wrong way. I think the division that He makes here is the spiritual division of the Old Testament; it fits in with the understanding.
Rem The Psalms are not mentioned because the two lacked the understanding, being out of the way and unbelieving.
JT In giving an understanding the Lord implied that they were to be students, hence He gives the correct division of the Old Testament.
EJMcB The expositions should awaken a personal interest in Christ.
JT They do. Then in the company you want to get at the structure of Scripture. Scripture is written with a perfect design, it is put together with a designing hand, so that the Lord gives the structure of it in order to facilitate the reading and understanding of it.
JJ Why do the Psalms come last?
JT The experimental side must come last.
EJMcB There is something down here that is clothed with power from on high.
JT They have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2: 16), so that the whole thread of the testimony can be traced and all seen in Christ. This is a feature of [p. 101] the priestly company.
EJMcB Does not that come back very much to the original thought presented in Christ, when the Spirit came down on Him bodily? Now there is a company of people clothed with power from on high.
JT And they have an understanding from Christ, so that now they can read the Scriptures intelligently; God committed Himself to them, so to speak, in giving them the Spirit; the Lord had fitted them for this.
ENH We see in the opening chapters of the Acts how intelligent they were in the Scriptures.
Ques. Is this headship?
JT Well, it may be headship in a way, but I think it is rather service. The Lord is still serving them so as to qualify them for priesthood.
Rem With regard to the psalms, do we not have the thought suggested that the two would hardly be capable of understanding what was in His heart; but as brought together normally there are all the elements there to understand and receive all that is connected with Christ.
JT Yes. There are the law, the prophets, and the psalms. The law refers to the rights of God over man, the prophets to the patience of God waiting on man, and the Psalms refer to the result of the testimony in man. The Scriptures thus understood become an immense mine of wealth for us — that is, for the priestly family.
The Old Testament has to be understood in the light of the New. From our side Romans comes first, then the other epistles. The gospels present perfection in Christ and are learnt last. They build us up as men in Christ. You want perfection, not only in doctrine, but in practical walk, spirit and manner, and that is what the gospels present to the soul. It is in the light of all that that I understand the Old Testament. The Lord expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things [p. 102] concerning Himself.
AEC In all that you have been saying of this company, endued with power from on high, does it bring them into view as the priestly company like the twenty-four courses waiting on their service?
JT I think so. They are to wait for their clothing from on high, then they are to carry on their service, but they are already constituted for it by His own handiwork, because it says they returned to Jerusalem with great joy. Luke loves to bring in the plenitude of the supply — not merely joy, but great joy. They were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God; and according to Luke the priestly company is left in the temple; their presence there was really a contribution to the Jews, so that they might be saved. The Lord might say to the Jews, There is My contribution. In Acts we see how it was received. Luke is dealing with grace; it is what God is in grace, so they were to remain at Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high. Their testimony was to begin at Jerusalem. In Acts they went to the upper room first, because it is leading up to the truth of the church, but in the gospel of Luke it is to present the magnitude of grace — “beginning at Jerusalem”.