MEMORIALS
[p. 318] MEMORIALS
Matthew 26:6 - 13; Mark 14:3 - 9; Luke 22:14 - 20
JT I wanted to call attention to the fact that in Matthew and Mark the Lord does not regard His supper as a memorial. In these gospels, what has to be remembered was the act of the woman in anointing the Lord’s head in the house of Simon, the leper. Luke records what He said: “This do for a remembrance of me”. It occurred to me it would be profitable for us to consider the memorial spoken of in the respective gospels. In both Matthew and Mark the Lord says, that wherever this gospel is preached, what this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. It may be that sufficient attention has not been given to the Lord’s directions as to this woman’s act. It was intended to be ever fresh in the minds of the saints, and I believe, where it is spoken of and the memorial kept, the conditions suitable for the Lord’s supper will be found. Matthew presents to us the truth of government in relation to the assembly, so that the anointing of the Lord’s head by this woman indicated her appreciation of Him from that point of view. She would not admit of any principles governing saints other than those divinely enunciated; she would save the saints from introducing innovations and human principles in connection with the Lord’s supper or the assembly. The anointing, in Mark’s gospel, would have in view the woman’s appreciation of the Lord’s skill and manner as a Servant, so that she would not admit of any other methods or principles governing the service of God than those which the Lord had introduced and expressed. If these two anointings are remembered according to the Lord’s appointment, the saints will [p. 319] be free, in their fellowship, from human principles in the government of the house of God. Matthew and Mark enlarge on fellowship; with them it is a question of eating. With Luke, it is not so much a question of eating as of the memorial. So that our fellowship, in that point of view, is preserved, and the act of this woman is commemorated.
WJH Do you think that the anointing indicates this woman’s approval of the Lord in the two ways in which the gospels set Him forth — first, as king or as authority, and second, in connection with His service? She approved of the character of authority and service which He had brought in. The anointing would seem to indicate that, just as when God said to Samuel, referring to David, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he”, 1 Samuel 16:12. That would indicate that God approved of him. It symbolises the idea of approval.
JT Quite.
EEL She acted entirely without any precedent. She had no model.
JT No. It represents an intelligent state in the saints.
EE What do you think is the instruction for us that the Spirit of God should move the heart of a woman, and not a man, to do it?
JT I think to call attention to the initial idea of the assembly. The assembly was taking form. The elements of it were coming into view, as the Lord’s death drew nigh. Some of us were noticing this morning, in the case of Mary Magdalene as recorded in John, she was detained at the sepulchre, and, looking into it, she saw two angels sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. She had got light in her soul as to the dignity of Christ, from the position of the angels. And then she turns round, as if she is governed by [p. 320] intelligent instinct, and she speaks to One whom she thought was the gardener, for she was still hazy, not being in the light of the resurrection of Christ. The Lord addresses Mary first. He says, “Woman, why weepest thou?” John 20:15. The Lord was taking account of her. She represented a certain element that would enter into the dispensation later. She addresses the Lord, supposing Him to be the gardener. Then the Lord says, “Mary”. There He re-establishes the link with her. She had come under His eye in those circumstances — suggestive of elements that were coming into evidence in view of the dispensation. Next He adjusts her mind by saying, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father”, John 20:17. Then He says, “Go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. Finally, it says she went and told these things to the disciples. Now, the disciples would have an accession of light by her going to them. The effect of the light that had come into her soul and the influence she had come under in her intercourse with the Lord would also be there — an addition to the company. So we see how the feminine side is emphasised at the Lord’s death, and at His resurrection, as bearing on the dispensation. The dispensation should be marked by the feminine side; and so, this woman, mentioned in Matthew and Mark, has a collateral bearing — her act indicates that she had an appreciation, first, of the One who had brought in rule and government, and, second, of the One who introduced the true idea of levitical service. And those elements are to enter into our desires, and hence the continuance of Matthew and Mark as a protection, and preventive of human principles and methods being introduced. If we have a memorial of this woman, in these two aspects, we are preserved from any principles other than those which the Lord introduced because we have a memorial of what she did. “This that this woman has done shall be spoken of as a memorial of her”. She is, as it were, brought to us, because a memorial is to bring a person vividly before one. Her name is not given, for it is not the person so much as the thing that she did; and it would be observed that it was in the house of Simon the leper. That is, this act is within the bounds of the house of Simon the leper. Such a house is not one that would attract; nor would such a one be popular, and he certainly would not be one with any special distinction in the world — a leper, indeed; so that we are under reproach, so to speak, in such a house, according to Matthew and Mark. It is very different from an imposing structure, with stained-glass windows, and a choir, and an organ, and all else that goes with it — what is called today the house of God. There is certainly a great difference between such a building as that and the house of Simon, the leper.
WJH Does it not also show the greatness of the rule that had come in, and the greatness of the service, that in such a house there is subjection — a condition that appreciates Christ?
JT Yes, and the Lord Himself was in that house. It is one of the things we have to accept in our fellowship, that, publicly, our position of reproach stands; and we do not seek to evade or conceal that. We are not together as persons of repute in the district, socially or otherwise.
EEL Would the linking of this memorial with the preaching of the gospel suggest to us that the object of preaching the gospel is produced in those to whom it is preached — the condition which was seen in this woman?
JT Exactly. Hence, if you, as an evangelist, go to a town or a district and preach the glad tidings, and souls are converted, you tell them about this woman: and that would save them from the influence [p. 322] of current religion around them, because the obvious result would be that a saint would say, “Well, I have henceforth to be governed by the principles that governed this woman, and if I am going to serve the Lord, I must serve according to the manner of the Man whom this woman anointed”. Your converts in that way would be saved from human principles. I suppose it is the neglect of the memorial of this woman’s act that largely accounts for the present condition in Christendom. The people of God, instead of regarding the Man whom this woman anointed, in these two connections, have turned to human methods, borrowing Philistine ones.
GAvS Is that why it is all connected with the Lord’s burying, because human methods and devices are all to be set aside, in view of what the death and burial of the Lord Jesus Christ has accomplished in the putting away of the man that is characterised by those things?
JT Yes; she saw that this Man was going to die. So, we may be assured the world is not going to accept these principles. We may as well accept that once for all.
EE Would you suggest that what we are considering here in Matthew and Mark, which really relates to the end of the Lord’s pathway here, and His blessed ministry, marks the present position of those who love Him?
JT That is right. So that the memorial here, in these two passages, is of great importance to us; and it may be that we have not regarded it sufficiently.
GAvS Would you say in that case, if we neglect to follow up what is suggested in these two things, there would be a danger of the people of God drifting into a position regulated by human principles?
JT Quite. Unless we keep in view this memorial.
EEL The influence of the memorial upon the people of God would be to induce them to give to [p. 323] the Lord that which is most precious, instead of contributing it to the poverty of the world. The Spirit would teach us that the people of God are, as it were, a chaste virgin to Christ, whose wealth of affection is not to be lavished on the world and its institutions, but upon the Lord Himself.
JT Quite.
Ques Do we not consider the gospels by Matthew and Mark more in connection with the passover aspect of the death of Christ?
JT That is right, and that is why you have so much about the eating. It says in both gospels, “as they were eating”. The Lord’s supper is introduced, “as they were eating”; meaning that the position has to be occupied, if the Lord’s supper is to have its place, whereas Luke carefully separates the Lord’s supper from the passover. Matthew and Mark connect it with the passover in that it was instituted “as they were eating”. So that anyone seeking eligibility for the Lord’s supper should be marked by eating — that is, keeping the passover. One would challenge one’s own soul as to whether one is eating. It says, “Let us keep the feast ... with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”, 1 Corinthians 5:8. That was for seven days. The passover is not a memorial; it is a question of our state, or fitness, for the Lord’s supper.
HWB So it would be the bond of our fellowship?
JT Yes. You are endeavouring to raise the question with any applicant for fellowship, as to whether one is eating. You would say, “What are you eating?” These people were eating the passover. There is a great deal made, in the types, of clean food and unclean food. These people were eating unleavened bread, which is intended to reduce us. It is not intended to inflate. It was as they [p. 324] were eating that the Lord, according to Matthew and Mark, challenged them as to who should betray Him; and it was as they were eating that the Lord instituted His supper.
GAvS Does it resolve itself into a question of discernment as to whether a soul, seeking to break bread, is eating? How are we to discern?
JT I think you can tell the effect of the food. Daniel is an expression of that. His appearance indicated the food he was eating. If we seek the Lord about these things, we shall be able to tell by the appearance and the spirit of the person as to whether he is eating unleavened bread; that is to say, eating the feast.
WJH One great effect of keeping the passover is that there is energy to leave Egypt, and one goes out “in haste”.
JT Yes. If there be evil in a person’s former associations it is obvious that such a one will be keeping the passover by abandoning and judging them, because 1 Corinthians 5 insists on dealing with evil. 2 Timothy 2 corresponds with that in our own time. It says, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”. 2 Timothy 2:19. If one is keeping the passover, one will be marked by this.
SEE You might say a little more as to how the memorial of this woman’s act is continued.
JT It is in connection with the disallowance of human principles in the government of the house of God. The ministry of this memorial would sweep away at a stroke the whole fabric of Christendom as we know it — the whole hierarchical system and the whole governmental system that is recognised abroad in Christendom.
SEE That would be the attitude of the saints, in relation to Christ, in responding to this woman’s act.
JT Quite. Thus the Lord’s supper is preserved.
[p. 325] That is, we have fellowship in connection with the memorial in these two gospels, because the emphasis is on eating. So the Lord says, “Take, eat, this is my body”. It is a question of fellowship. But in Luke it is a memorial.
GHC Is the gospel intended to bring souls into personal touch with the Lord in this way?
JT That is the object in preaching the gospel. Paul and Barnabas so spoke that they believed. The effect of the gospel is to bring souls into touch with the Lord — into relation with Him. But how are they to be governed, and how is ministry to be carried on? Those are two questions that necessarily arise as a company is formed by the gospel. Take Corinth, for instance. The Lord said He had much people in that city, and Paul was to stay there and reach them all. Well, the assembly is formed at Corinth. How is it to be governed, and how is ministry to be carried on? These two questions are worked out in Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. There is the law of the house and the law governing ministry — or governing the Levites. Every company of Christians is to be intelligent as to these two principles. And I think the memorial of this woman’s act would keep these principles ever before them. The Lord’s supper in Luke is more than that, it is to keep Himself before them.
Ques Would we not understand that Luke leaves the door open for the Gentiles to come in?
JT Yes. He follows the line of Paul in connection with the Lord’s supper, because, in the Acts, the Lord’s supper was not in the early part formally separated from the passover. But, in 1 Corinthians it is separated from the houses and set in the assembly. And so Luke says, “When the hour was come”. Now, Matthew and Mark would connect it with the evening, whereas, I think, Luke contemplates what ensued after Paul’s ministry was effective. The Lord’s supper may be celebrated at any time of the day. It is a question of the hour.
Ques Would you say that this woman in her act in regard to the ointment proved she was in effect eating the passover; so that, when the hour came, she was able to pour it upon His head?
JT I am sure that is right. It is interesting to see how Luke provides for our present custom. It is a question now of whatever the hour is. He calls attention to that; and, further, he says that the Lord placed Himself at table. These may seem trivial things, but they have their place, such as the hour and the position, because Luke is concerned with what is comely on earth, that is to say, order. So that He placed Himself, it says, at table; as if we should be in our places, so to speak, when the hour comes, that there should be no confusion. There is observance of detail with Luke, and then the twelve apostles were with him — not the twelve, simply, but the apostles. In Matthew and Mark, it is just the twelve, meaning the administrative number; but with Luke you have authority; and, indeed, Luke says that the Lord sent Peter and John to prepare; that is, He made selection of these two apostles to prepare the place where the passover was to be kept.
GAvS When you speak of the Lord placing Himself at table, you would not exclude the thought that in so doing He was assuming a relation to the company that was peculiar to Himself?
JT I think the Lord placing Himself at table is a model for us; hence, in Luke you have the word “manner”. It says, “in like manner”. The Lord conveyed this to Luke, intending that there should be external rectitude and comeliness which is in keeping with heaven, where all is in perfect order; as David said, “When I consider thy heavens”, and so on. If anyone wishes to look at order and exactness, look at the heavens. The least divergence would [p. 327] mean disaster. And I think Luke has in mind that there should be in the assembly on earth, that which corresponds to all that comely and external rectitude, so that, before we reach the principle of the Lord’s supper in 1 Corinthians, which, as I said, corresponds with Luke, you have attention called to the order. The apostle says he could not praise them on account of it. He says, “Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ”, 1 Corinthians 11:1. So the thing is worked out from Christ; and what Christ was, was expressed among the Corinthians. There was a personal representation in the apostle amongst them. Then he goes on to say, “Now I praise you, that in all things ye are mindful of me; and that, as I have directed you, ye keep the directions”. He praises them in that; and then, lower down, he says he cannot praise them, because there was disorder in their assembly, and they did not know how to assemble, nor how to behave themselves when assembled. I was going to remark that the apostle calls attention, before proceeding to the assembly, to the order of God in creation, and he remarks, “Does not even nature itself teach you?” 1 Corinthians 11:14 meaning that we are not to despise any teaching element, wherever it may be. Any element from God that teaches has to be respected. So the apostle calls attention to the Head of every man, which is Christ. He says, “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God”, 1 Corinthians 11:3. There is perfect order from God, down to the woman. Now all this is in view of order and comeliness. And so the Spirit of God does not mention for nothing that it was when the hour was come that the Lord placed Himself at table, and that the twelve apostles were with Him, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:16, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom”. That is what I understand to be the significance of the presence of the apostles — there is [p. 328] authority. Paul points out that there was a catholicity in the assemblies, and the custom of contention was not admitted.
Ques Would you say that, in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, they are exercised as to the passover, whereas when you come to Luke’s gospel it all derives from Christ Himself?
JT That is right. He takes the initiative, and He sends Peter and John, because He will have order, and will not brook disorder.
HWB So that what is looked at is what is really under the eye of man, as in Corinthians. Would what is in John be another and a spiritual order?
JT Yes; John does not enlarge on these features at all — he deals with what is inward, or spiritual. But then, there is not only what is under the eye of man, which is important, but what is under the eye of heaven, because it says, “because of the angels”. Heaven is looking down on the assembly, and is reading in it the all-various wisdom of God. The angel, Michael, might say, looking down on Christendom now, “Where is there any counterpart of heaven in this?” It is the very principle of subjection, which marks heaven — the essence of angelic life is subjection. You may say, it is absent. Well, we must not be behind the angels, because they are all learning in the assembly the all-various wisdom of God.
SEE The Lord, placing Himself at table, is that as the Head?
JT That would enter into it. He would be in the position of the house-father, as has often been remarked. He takes the bread, and gives thanks for it.
SEE Would taking our place involve our coming under His Headship?
JT I think that is right. You are reminded of authority. The assembly is begun in the sense of the [p. 329] recognition of the authority of the Lord, and you go straight before you, as it says in Ezekiel. You go in at one door and come out at the opposite door. You go straight ahead.
HWB Would placing Himself at table bring in the family element?
JT I think so, because the passover was a family matter. It was to be kept in the household, a lamb for a house.
Ques Would you say that the twelve were initiated in the passover, but that, in connection with the apostle Paul, he was brought into the full significance of the Supper?
JT Yes.
Rem In connection with the passover, Paul refers to it; but, in regard to the Supper, Paul says he “received” it.
JT Quite.
EE Referring to the angelic life, do you think they are going to have a complete conception as to the assembly?
JT Surely. You see, the Lord becoming Man, brought into view subjection in a way that even the angels had not known. The Lord was made a little lower than they were. What must they have seen in that wonderful pathway of Jesus?
GAvS So the Lord, placing Himself as He did, was really a spectacle to the angels?
JT Yes.
GAvS And they would look for a continuation of that in the way the saints placed themselves?
JT Yes, according to public order.
WJH What is in your mind in relation to public order in regard to the saints now?
JT That we keep in mind what is presented in 1 Corinthians. We are to respect the order of God [p. 330] in creation first of all. Order, also, enters into our houses. The first part of 1 Corinthians 11 has reference largely to our houses. It says, “The head of the woman is the man”. 1 Corinthians 11:3 It does not say, there, that the head of the wife is the husband, although that is true. In “the head of the woman is the man”, you get the principle of authority. Headship in the man is recognised everywhere by the sisters, or the women; that is the order of God. That precedes our actually coming together, but it necessarily enters into our coming together if we are assembled rightly, because at Corinth there were social cliques and distinctions, which, I think, should not exist if the order of God in the households had its place, because it is a question of women and men — the place that women and men have in the creation of God. What value in the eyes of God is mere human lineage or distinction? It is nothing to God.
WJH And unless that is maintained in reality, we are not ready for the spiritual. It is, first of all, that which is natural; and then, that which is spiritual.
JT We are apt to think we are more than men and women; whereas the order of God places us, as men and women, in regard to our spiritual position. Bearing that in mind, we are not likely to admit of social parties. That was the trouble at Corinth, and so the apostle says, “I do not praise, ... when ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it”. 1 Corinthians 11:17,18. The apostle proceeds to show that, under those circumstances, what they were doing was not in accord with the Lord’s supper.
WJH I was anxious we should be quite clear that the external order you have in mind is not mere external detail in a literal sense, but what is moral.
JT Quite; because if we are not spiritual in all this there is no value in it [p. 331] at all.
EEL I suppose what is external shows really what is within?
JT Yes. The hands of the clock indicate the power of the works inside. But the hands may become irregular, and it is important that the inside should be freed from all hindrances; otherwise the clock is useless. The public externals indicate what is inside, but nevertheless we have to see to it that they are there.
GAvS You mean the externals?
JT Yes. The apostle immediately proceeds to call attention to the externals when he says, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it”. Then it goes on, “After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This do ye ... in remembrance of me”, 1 Corinthians 11:23 - 25. He brings in a model for them.
Ques What is the teaching in the Lord giving thanks for the bread and breaking it?
JT Well, it was right. It was due to God that He should give thanks for it. This is the order that is proper to the assembly.
Ques Would you say that the Lord gave the apostle Paul the real thought as to what He had in view when He instituted the Supper?
JT Yes. Paul received it of the Lord. So that it is in those circumstances, I apprehend, we have the memorial. What must it be for the Lord to look on a company regulated by His own example! Then the Lord reveals Himself to that company, because suitable conditions are there.
EE What influenced the woman to anoint the Lord, and what is the present-day outcome of the anointing against His [p. 332] burial?
JT I think what influenced her was that she had followed the Lord, and appreciated what she saw in Him. And so, correspondingly, as the Lord is brought to you in the gospel, you want to know what principles He introduced, whether in regard to the government of the assembly, or levitical service. You want to abide by these, and if you know the world you know that these will not be acceptable there, and it is no use endeavouring to enforce them. He was going to die, and she anointed Him for His burial.
Ques What is the teaching of the head being anointed? In Luke and John it is the feet.
JT Because, I think, the official side is prominent in both Matthew and Mark.
Ques Would you tell us what the Lord gave thanks for when He took the bread?
JT It is comely for a house-father to give thanks for food in the family circle.
SEE The first thing mentioned is that the Lord took bread. Does he connect it with the order of the Supper?
JT I think He meant the bread had been in relation to the passover, and He took it out of that setting. It is, therefore, now in a new setting. The bread on the table, I think, would answer to that.
WJH In that way it indicates what He took. There were other things there, but He took the bread.
JT Yes.
Ques It was unleavened bread at that moment?
JT Yes.
Ques Would you say something about the publicity of the act in anointing the Lord? Is it necessarily done in public?
JT That is where the gospel is preached. That [p. 333] is usually in public. The preaching of the gospel is a public thing.
Ques Is it in view of the assembly?
JT Quite. That is what we have been saying. It is in view of the principles which govern the assembly, but, in saying it was unleavened bread, that is an inference. It does not say He took unleavened bread. It says, “He took bread”, and so on — “the bread which we break”.