READINGS IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL (11)
READINGS IN MATTHEW’S GOSPEL (11)
JT I suppose we may say that none of us here can fail to be affected by the reading of this chapter, dealing as it does with the death, the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. One almost hesitates to attempt to interpret or to teach as to it, but there is most important teaching in it as to the full significance of the death of Christ, the crucifixion of Christ. It is also to be noted that certain ones are mentioned by the Lord Himself, and it is intended that we should be touched by it. First we have “He said to his disciples, Ye know that after two days the passover takes place, and the Son of man is delivered up to be crucified. Then the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together to the palace of the high priest who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order that they might seize Jesus by subtlety and kill him”. Such is the wickedness that is presented to us at the outset. Then on the other hand we have the action of the woman at Bethany, who would doubtless be Mary of Bethany. The place that women have is to be noticed; first in regard of the sister at Bethany, and then in the next chapter Pilate’s wife, who was apparently another one touched by grace. These chapters therefore afford much bearing on the position of sisters, or women, in the testimony. God has helped us as to this, and, I believe we have been helped in these meetings because of the presence of the sisters. We can only hope that great increase in intelligence will come about through all these things that have been said, bearing on the sisters, because the Lord would have them get their full distinction. On the other hand, we have, as I said, the wickedness of the high priest. But then there is also Peter, that has to be remembered, coming in peculiarly in denying the [p. 294] Lord. It is another very sorrowful suggestion that one of our number should tend to such wickedness as to deny the Lord Jesus. On the other hand, how the Lord Himself brings him forward because “the gifts and the calling of God are not subject to repentance”, and that would work out in the Lord’s own selection of the apostles, particularly Peter, because, as we have often noticed in this book, he has the first place. I think it is worth while calling attention to these facts, in view of it being the last day of these meetings, and to say further that the next reading, God willing, will be on chapter 28 to bring out the full truth of redemption involving resurrection. It is not ascension. We have no ascension in Matthew; it is the full thought of redemption in the sense of the death of Christ and the resurrection of Christ and the power implied in the resurrection.
EAL Is this triple denial of the Lord by Peter connected with what we have seen already on the mount of transfiguration, when he was putting Him on the same level as Moses and Elias, and then when the Lord said to him, “Get away behind me, Satan”?
JT Yes, it fills out what we have been saying, as to how we should search our hearts as to the possibility that may be there of such wickedness as is indicated in Peter’s conduct. Yet Peter is secured for the testimony; he is never given up. The Lord held to him. So that, in principle, “the gifts and the calling of God are not subject to repentance”, for there is no chance in divine Persons.
Ques Do you think it would have given the Lord peculiar joy that that very precious ointment should have been put upon His head by a woman, before men put a crown of thorns upon it?
JT Quite so. Undoubtedly it was Mary of Bethany. We have mentioned her case as coming in immediately [p. 295] and what you say is, of course, true. The Lord must have been greatly touched by the fact that Mary’s devotedness comes in so quickly. Then we are told as to her that “what she could she has done”, and that is a very great privilege to anyone.
AJG What is in mind in the Lord’s saying that wherever the glad tidings are preached, what this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her?
JT I thought it would be to bring out the devotedness that is suitable to the preaching of the gospel. It is not simply a question of grace, but of love, the devotedness of love, and especially the devotedness of this remarkable woman. It is said of dear Mr. Pellatt, one whom God greatly used in the gospel, that he never failed to mention this woman, and the Lord refers to it when He says in verse 13, “that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. So that the memorial of Mary runs well with the Lord’s supper; it is the memorial of a Christian, and in principle a memorial of the assembly.
Rem So that the gospel is preached to secure more material of this character.
JT That is the idea; the very best material and the most suitable for this structure, because it is a great structure. Solomon’s structure is nothing compared to it! The assembly is the greatest family, but the building is the greatest structure.
JSE Is that why in this gospel the Lord says, “more than Solomon is here”?
JT Just so.
GCS It says that the woman poured the ointment on the Lord’s head, but the Spirit records that the Lord says, “in pouring out this ointment on my body”. Is there a connection in that sense with “This is my body, which is for you”?
JT Just so. It is the Lord’s own body; whether it is His head, or His feet, or His hands, it is the Lord’s own body.
JPH What is intended to be conveyed in it being in Simon the leper’s house?
JT I suppose it was a testimony to grace, not exactly love but grace, that a leper should have a house and that the Lord should come into it. This leper was in Bethany; surely Bethany was honoured in the Lord being in this house.
Ques Is it in contrast to the palace of the high priest?
JT Quite so. The palace would be no mean structure outwardly, but nothing to be compared with what is in the assembly. Everything is to be taken out of the way to stress what the assembly is. The apostle says “I speak as to Christ, and as to the assembly”. The ‘and’ must be there. Christ and the assembly.
Ques Is the very precious ointment an element of the pearl of great value?
JT Quite so, only what is peculiarly emphasized here is that it is a woman. It is not Mary, but a woman. It is to signalise the saints in that character; and the assembly, of course, is viewed as a feminine thought.
VCL Was not what Mary did an indication that the voice from heaven on the mount of transfiguration was being subjectively taken on before the Lord’s death? I was thinking of the way the Lord was called attention to by the voice, “This is my beloved Son”, and that the love which shone out in this woman was a subjective answer to what had been heard from heaven.
JT Yes, quite. It is a reflex in the woman, of the love of Christ, because there must be some full correspondence in the assembly to Christ. It is not that the assembly is anything more than a creature,
[p. 297] but still it is remarkable that a creature should be allied to Christ as His bride.
PHH Is there something in the opposition in the first part of the chapter which corresponds with religious hostility now?
JT I would say so. One hesitates to say much about the system that is referred to from time to time, but I think it is particularly in the Roman Catholic system.
PHH It looks as if Judas had entrance later into a kind of innermost position in the temple, when he threw down the money in the shrine. Is that a significant matter?
JT Quite so. John had access too, in a certain sense, to the high priest’s palace.
AJG Is the action of the woman in pouring out the precious ointment on the Lord’s head really a repudiation by her of the chief priest as the anointed priest and all his system?
JT I would think so. Her instincts would refer to it. She would know something about it instinctively, and instinctive knowledge is the most valuable knowledge.
Ques Over against the action of the woman, the disciples are said to have been indignant. Would you say something about that?
JT That shows what we are, what any one of us is capable of, but indignation is not quite as bad as what is done elsewhere in the chapter by men. The disciples’ indignation is to be set over against the devotedness of the woman, and the Lord’s own commendation of her. We should take great comfort, especially sisters, from the Lord’s commendation of this woman’s action.
Ques Has Simon the leper’s house any bearing on our coming together for the Supper, in that the position in which we come together is a testimony [p. 298] publicly to the fact that we love Christ but are the subjects of mercy?
JT Quite so, although, I would say, we are the subjects of grace more than mercy, because the gospel is the gospel of the grace of God. Grace is a distinct thought from mercy.
FVW Would you mind saying something as to the Lord’s words, “she has done it for my burying”. What is involved in that?
JT It shows that the Lord was anticipating all that would happen, in view of redemption. The teaching of Corinthians shows that Christ died and that He was buried. The idea of burial must go with death. So the Lord says, “Wheresoever these glad tiding may be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her”. I do not know that we can get anything better than such a statement as this, that cannot be excelled as to importance and tenderness and devotedness.
Rem In reading the Scriptures you would look for what the Spirit of God might impress upon us at this moment, with the Scriptures before us.
JT That is what I am hoping, that the brethren will go all the way in this chapter. It is a long chapter, but it is such a chapter that I have good hope that the brethren will go all the way in it. Then in the next chapter that is to be read - chapter 28 — I hope we shall go all the way in the account of the resurrection, not the ascension, because it is not given, but the account of the resurrection and the power that is in it.
JA Is that why attention is drawn by the Lord to the fact that she has wrought a good work towards Him? Is it that we might go the full length?
JT Quite so. But the reference to His body [p. 299] is most touching.
LHBP With regard to your reference to burying, is cremation the enemy’s work? It speaks in Amos 2: 1 of burning the bones into lime.
JT I would say that fully. In the book of Ecclesiastes there is a reference to a person being without a burial. “If a man beget a hundred sons, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, but his soul be not filled with good, and also he have no burial, I say an untimely birth is better than he”, Ecclesiastes 6: 3. I think it is very touching that the Lord refers to his burial here, and what this woman has done.
AJG You had something in mind in alluding a moment ago to the Lord’s speaking of His body being very touching.
JT Well, in the night in which the Lord was betrayed He took bread, and said, “This is my body, which is for you”. That enters into the Lord’s supper, for it is what we appropriate; it is for us. We have it here, but Luke and Corinthians go further.
JTJr We can rightly think of the Lord’s body in which He bore our sins on the tree.
JT Quite so. It says “who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”.
HH With regard to resurrection, is it not important to admit that there is a link between the body that now is and the body that will be raised?
JT Of course there is. It is the same body but, of course, it is changed. But the identity of the body that is raised with the body that died must be held fast, the body that lay in death. The Lord said that the Son of man should be in the heart of the earth “three days and three nights”. We must remember the strong word, “in the heart of the earth”, we might say, the very middle of it, and yet the earth is a round ball, but it is in the very heart of the [p. 300] earth, showing how the Spirit of God uses figures in presenting the truth.
WF Would you say something further as to the Lord connecting the memorial with the woman and not with the institution of the Supper, in this gospel?
JT I suppose it is to stress the devotedness of the woman.
WSS I was wondering whether the reference to the woman and Bethany here might suggest continuity; so that against the dark background of religious opposition the Spirit has carried this through the dispensation.
JT The Spirit has carried it through, as you say, and, of course, we have had it here today, brought down to us, and we are reading it, and commenting upon it, and feeding upon it.
WSS It just occurred to me while we have been speaking together, that there is a very beautiful suggestion, if I understand it rightly, in what is recorded as indicating to us not only what happened historically but what would be found throughout the dispensation, that there would be this response in affection to the Lord Jesus.
JT We have the Supper here, but not so fully as we have it in Luke, and we shall come to it presently, and I might remind the brethren that Luther quoted from this chapter in contending with Zwingli in relation to the Lord’s supper. Luther quoted from this chapter, and wrote the thing down on to paper so that it could be read, but he was wrong for all that, and Zwingli was right, and we are right now in dealing with it.
RWS Is there not a dignity in verse 12, “For in pouring out this ointment on my body, she has done it for my burying”? I am thinking of the terms we sometimes use, religious terms possibly, as to those who depart to be with Christ, such as ‘passing away’, but this is “my burying”. In this [p. 301] day of refinement in our language I wondered if we should ever use, as to a saint, the expression ‘passing away’, or ‘passing on’.
JT I think it is spiritually a very poor expression.
PHH You would rather say they had gone to be with the Lord?
JT I should, that is the word of Scripture; “to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better”.
PHH The burying is not the end.
JT Quite so. We have to be raised up and quickened, and caught up to be with the Lord, to be with Christ, for ever. We have to go the whole way to get the truth, because the truth has a beginning and an end, and the end of all these things that we are speaking of now is in heaven. The end is in heaven, but the idea of resurrection is stressed peculiarly because of the power involved in it. Then too there is what we have been considering as to this woman’s devotedness, and that love for Christ was behind it. The Lord would tell those of us who love Him, that He values our love.
PHH Referring to the Lord’s supper, what is meant in Corinthians when it says “not distinguishing the body”?
JT I do not know much, except that it refers to the Lord’s body.
PHH It says, “for the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body”.
JT It means he has not got reverence enough; he has not right feelings, as regards the matter he is dealing with.
PHH You take it to be a reference to the body of the Lord?
JT I do.
PHH That is, it would be in contrast to this woman.
JT Just so. So the Lord says, “This is my body, which is for you” — which is for you. It is our portion, and we value it because it is so precious and enters into the Lord’s supper.
AJG Just before the verse quoted in Corinthians it says “So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord”. That seems to confirm what you have said.
JT Quite so. Does that help? What is your thought?
PHH Yes, thank you very much. I thought it meant the body of the Lord, but sometimes one has heard it said (not often) that it might refer to the saints, that is, the assembly, not distinguishing the assembly.
JT No. That would not do at all.
Ques Is there some special significance in the introduction of the days of unleavened bread and the passover?
JT It is a question of the significance of the unleavened bread, and why unleavened bread is mentioned. Some use it in regard to the Lord’s supper, but I think it is very doubtful if we should follow literally what we have here. What do you say about that?
Rem I was thinking there would be some link with the way in which Paul brings it forward as preceding the Supper in the first epistle to the Corinthians, making way for the occasion of love that the Supper is intended to be, as setting us free from things that would hinder at that time.
JT Are you stressing the word unleavened?
Rem Yes.
JT Quite so. I would not have any sympathy with the use actually of unleavened bread for the Lord’s supper. I think it is pure religious literality.
Ques Does not Paul’s word, “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” indicate the significance of it for us?
JT Well, there it is. It is not literal. It is “sincerity and truth”.
JTJr That is 1 Corinthians 5, which precedes, by a good many chapters, the eleventh, so that there a good deal in what is in the apostle’s mind, I suppose, as to sincerity and truth.
JT Of course there is. It is one of the greatest things, “sincerity and truth”. We want to be sincere in everything that we do and say, and it is striking that the actual wording “unleavened bread”, is translated into the spirit of it, “sincerity and truth”. It is something that belongs to Christianity practically, as to our own selves in a practical sense. I would say taking Christendom as a whole, they have nothing of these things, and the people there, even if they are brethren, do not get the truth. That shows that separation is so important, in view of getting at the truth; we want to be separate and holy in order to get at the truth. We want to get at the real truth and nothing but the truth. The Lord says in John 8, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”.
GHM May I ask if that precious body of Christ has not been the demonstration of love, but the Lord intends that we should understand what is in the expression, “My soul” (verse 38). Does not the intensity of feeling that was involved in the accomplishment of redemption that you have mentioned, enter into that?
JT Very good. When we come to the latter part of the chapter, we shall see what the Lord had in His mind before He died.
PHH What scripture would you have in mind when you come to the breaking of bread, and the actual partaking of the Lord’s supper? Do you have the gospels in mind, or first Corinthians?
JT I take first Corinthians. I would take Paul. He had a mission to the assembly; it was committed to him, and the Lord has used him for it. The Lord took him up for that purpose. He is the minister of the assembly.
Rem Had we only Matthew’s account, we should not have known that the Supper was a recurring occasion. We must have Paul to fill it out assembly-wise!
JT That is what I am thinking of. Paul is the minister of the assembly.
PHH Does the Supper then, in the gospels, give us some features of the Supper by itself, whereas in Corinthians it is set in the assembly?
JT Well, the Spirit of God has a right to set things as He pleases. If they are put down accurately we accept them as accurate, as from the Spirit of God, so that I would say that it is a question of teaching, and we are trying to get at the teaching now in this whole matter.
AJG Would you mind saying what is the import of our eating the bread, according to this gospel, in contrast with breaking it for a remembrance according to Corinthians.
JT That is good. I am glad you mentioned that, because eating is one thing and breaking is another. We have to break in order to eat, so that the Lord broke the bread; He did not eat it Himself, but He broke it. That is to say, there is importance in the word ‘breaking’, and it is given attention to in the Scriptures peculiarly. But then the eating must come in, or we could not have the Lord’s supper.
Rem Whilst the breaking is in view of our eating, I suppose it is right to say that the memorial is connected with the breaking rather than the [p. 305] eating.
JT Let us look at 1 Corinthians 11. We ought to read what it says about it there, because that is where we get the actual truth of the Lord’s supper. (Verses 17 - 26 read). It is perfectly clear that the eating and the drinking are one thing, and the breaking of the bread is another thing, so that we eat and drink; but then the breaking could not refer to drinking; it refers to the eating, and that refers to the bread; so that the breaking of the bread is initial. The Lord did not eat the bread; He broke it. The breaking has therefore a very important place in the institution.
EuR Is it that act in itself that recalls the Lord? ‘This do for a calling of me to mind’. Is it the breaking?
JT That is what I would say. The breaking is the thing; the word break signifies the Lord’s death.
AJG Then what is the moral import of the eating?
JT Oh, appropriation. It has to be assimilated, to be made part of yourself, as it were, to give you a constitution. That is one idea in the Lord’s supper, it is to give us a constitution.
JSE Does the word ‘partake’ in 1 Corinthians 10 give force to that remark of yours? “Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”. I am stressing the word ‘partake’ in relation to what you have just said as to assimilation, and appropriation.
JT Quite so.
Rem Verse 26 of 1 Corinthians 11 says, “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”. Would you say something as to the difference between the announcement and the memorial.
JT The memorial is kept by itself, ‘for the calling me to mind’ would be equivalent to the [p. 306] memorial. As regards what follows, it is a question of the meaning of the word ‘announce’. The words ‘show forth’ would do just as well.
ECM In Luke 24 it speaks of how the Lord was made known unto them in the breaking of bread. Do we understand that the Lord comes in at that point?
JT I would say that fully.
EuR Would the announcement be the testimonial side of the matter?
JT Just so. The word ‘announce’ would be the equivalent of the word ‘show’. The idea is showing it, making it to appear, in the memorial.
Ques In contrast to the announcing, which has the testimony in view, is the memorial side a matter between the Lord and the assembly, something between the Lord and our hearts, which is not exactly observable to those outside?
JT Quite so, but I suppose the Lord takes account of the fact that we are carrying out His directions, it is called a memorial. He wanted to have that memorial to continue on throughout the dispensation, and that is just what we are doing, and the Lord is helping us, and much has been added in the way of correction as to the whole matter. I do not think there is anything that has been said now that is different from what has been understood for many years.
Ques Does that mean that the announcing or showing is done by those who are substantially affected by the eating?
JT Just so. But the fact of the matter is, it is all one matter. The Lord’s supper is all one matter. There are certain features that have been peculiarly accentuated in recent times, but I do not think there is anything being said here today that would change what we have been doing. I think [p. 307] what is being done is correct, and the Lord comes in accordingly.
JP The Supper being all one matter, do we understand that the cup carries the same force and significance as the bread?
JT You could not have the Supper at all without both; so it is one matter in that sense. And I would say it again, that what the brethren are doing is right, and the Lord is with us in doing it. God is never brought into the Supper, nor the Spirit either, formally, but the Spirit is here to support us in it, so that we might do it in power.
Ques Is the point here that the service of God flows out of that?
JT It does. The Lord’s supper is the beginning of the service of God.
VCL Is it not fitting that the view we get of the Supper from Paul being the clearest is because he saw not only the Lord Jesus, but also he saw the assembly, in what was revealed to him. The whole mystery of the assembly was revealed to him, and he also says, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”
JT I would say that fully, although I would not deny at all that Peter and all the apostles had the thing too. They preceded Paul, but, as you say, Paul had the thing finally from the Lord.
EAL I think we have been helped to see the truth in 1 Corinthians 11: 26, “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord”. It is not ‘this bread and this cup’. We have come to see that “the cup” is one thing.
JT It is one thing. The Lord’s supper is one thing. It says earlier in 1 Corinthians 11 “it is not to eat the Lord’s supper”, but he is showing to them that they were neglectful, they were careless, and what they were doing was wrong. But then he goes on to show what the Lord’s supper is, and that is one thing. It is the Lord’s supper, and it includes the bread and the cup. It is one thing. It is not ever presented in two ways. It is presented as one thing.
EuR It is partaken of as together in assembly. Does that not bring into our minds elevation?
JT Just so. The word assembly is found in verse 18. “When ye come together in assembly”. They are recognised as coming together in assembly, but the thing that they were doing was not accurate, it was not quite right, but it is corrected in the chapter.
HH Could a word be said in regard to the new covenant in relation to the cup?
JT I would like to know what the word should be. Matthew 26: 27 says “And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins”. And then again, “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”. And then it goes on further to show how this matter was finished, “And having sung a hymn they went out to the mount of Olives”. Well now, Mr. H., will you say what you thought I should say, or is that enough?
HH I would like to get a fresh thought from you as to the new covenant, and what the connection would be with the cup.
JT We will read it again. First He says, “Take, eat: this is my body” (verse 26), “and having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many”. The only thing that I would say is that “Drink ye all of it” refers to the saints, whether young people or old people, we all are to drink it. It belongs to the saints. It [p. 309] belongs to those who are members of Christ’s body. It belongs to them. I do not know that that is new, but I do not think the word all is perhaps stressed very much. Some have said it is the whole of the cup; that, of course, would be a very ignorant thing. What is meant is that the word all refers to the saints who drink it.
AJG Has it in mind that all are to be completely liberated?
JT I think the chapter is doing that for us now, and what our brother’s inquiry refers to, I believe, is to be noted, and the young people particularly may not have noticed that the “all” refers to those who drink; but then those who drink should be the saints. That is to say, they should do it; and if they do not do it they are failing in the truth; and many do not do it, therefore they are failing in the truth.
PHH Does the “all” link on with “we all” in 2 Corinthians 3, “we all, looking on the glory of the Lord”?
JT Just so. “We all” is the same idea, showing that we all should come into this matter of the Lord’s supper. How important it is that nobody should exclude himself from it. It is a most serious thing for people who are real Christians to exclude themselves from this great privilege.
RWS Where it says “that shed for many for remission of sins”, might that expression have a place in the service, or not?
JT It is somewhat awkward. It is really to show that the Lord actually shed His blood. The word shed means the flowing of the blood out of the veins.
FW The Corinthians were eating to self-gratification. Would that be a hindrance to distinguishing the body?
JT Very good. There were selfish desires there. Evidently there was a serious low state of things in the Corinthian assembly, and that is why he speaks [p. 310] so strongly to them, and we thank God that we have the whole matter set out so fully in the gospel of Matthew, which is an assembly book.
Ques In verse 28 of our chapter it says, “For this is my blood, that of the new covenant”, whilst in 1 Corinthians 11: 25 it says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”. Is there a difference between the two expressions?
JT There is no real difference in the meaning. It is all intelligible to the spiritual mind.
JTJr Would it be right to connect the Spirit with the drinking here? We have “all been given to drink of one Spirit”?
JT Just so. That is in 1 Corinthians 12, and the Lord’s supper is in chapter 11. If you read verse 13 in chapter 12 you will see what is meant. “For also in the power of one Spirit we have all been baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondmen or free, and have all been given to drink of one Spirit”. Well, that is the allusion to the cup in the Lord’s supper; but then the real thing is the Spirit. The Spirit of God is symbolised in it, and at the same time the actual facts of the Lord’s supper ought to greatly stimulate us as to it.
PHH So what has just been said would enable us to think of a unifying in drinking of the cup.
JT Quite so, and so in the same chapter we have “No one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit”, showing that the Spirit is stressed in all that.
AJG And do you not think the Spirit would give a fresh touch as to the import of it every Lord’s day?
JT Just so.
HH I think the bringing in of the Spirit is a very helpful thought, but would you say the drinking of the cup is extremely suggestive of the love of [p. 311] Christ?
JT I would think so. It is peculiarly stressed; it is “the cup of blessing which we bless”. It is referred to in chapter 10 before the bread, whereas the bread and the cup are referred to in chapter 11, which gives us the actual Supper, and the Spirit is referred to in chapter 12. That is the order of the truth in Corinthians.
HH I quite agree with what you say about the young people. I would advise them to ask to break bread as soon as possible, and not wait until they feel ready. They will find as they go on and grow up that they are still liable to do what is wrong, but they had better come to it, the Lord has given us the Supper, they can get divine help in the Spirit, and the love of Christ will keep them away from what is idolatrous.
JT And if they are young, they would do well to keep with elder brethren, with elder brothers and sisters, because they get the right thoughts from them whereas they do not get them from keeping company only with the young people. They ought to go with the old brothers or sisters, to get the right thoughts as to the Lord’s supper and as to all truth.
WSS Had you in mind to say a word about verse 30? “And having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”.
JT Well, it is very precious. One has often thought of it, and the place the hymn has, and we might remark that the selection of hymns in relation to the Lord’s supper as compared with the selection in relation to the Father is now maintained. It was not maintained in earlier days, but now God has helped us, and the importance of hymns has come into evidence, and the Lord has blessed them, and we have selections that can be used, first for the Lord’s supper and then for the worship of the Father. We have hymns that are suitable for both these purposes, and we do well to use them rightly.
PHH [p. 312] There is a good deal of inquiry as to the comeliness of introducing hymns to the Spirit.
JT There is, but we have not got many. We have something of the kind in No. 126 (in the 1932 Hymn Book), which was intended to be addressed to the three divine Persons, but I do not know of one hymn written fully to be sung to the Spirit, and I think the Lord may help us to add such hymns. He will undoubtedly give guidance as to this.
No. 126 in the 1932 Hymn Book (composed by J. Montgomery):
Praise we to the Father give,
God in whom we move and live;
Children’s praise He loves to hear,
Children’s songs delight His ear.Praise we to the Firstborn bring,
Christ the Prophet, Priest, and King;
Glad we raise our sweetest strain
To the Lamb that once was slain.Praises for the Holy Ghost
Sent from heav’n at Pentecost;
’Tis through Him that now we live, And the precious truth receive.Blest our portion, thus to be
Glorying in the Trinity;
For the gospel from above,
For the word that “God is love”.
PHH What do you think we had better do? You would encourage us to inquire about revision?
JT I would. If the service of God requires it, I would say ‘Amen’. If the Lord seems to guide us and make it plain to us, I would say that we should do it.
EuR Would you favour hymns addressed only to the Spirit?
JT Yes, I would, but I do not think the idea of an appendix, or a separate book, will do. I would rather see the full book including hymns to the Spirit.
PL Numbers 21 would justify that. It is a hymn entirely to the Spirit.
JT Quite so. Very good.
Ques You were stressing the Lord’s supper, would there be a time in the Supper when we could speak to the Spirit?
JT I think we can, as we can use hymns to the Father and to the Son, too. I am sure it is right that there are opportunities to address the Spirit, and if the hymn book is revised, of course there will be.
Rem I think the time has come to seek help from the Lord to fill out the service of God by singing to the Spirit. I think most of the brethren feel that.
JT Yes. I believe that the Lord will help us, and I would say ‘Amen’ to it all.