FINALITY IN THE APOSTOLIC EPISTLES
[p. 394] FINALITY IN THE APOSTOLIC EPISTLES
Matthew 26: 26 - 30; Mark 14: 22 - 36; Luke 22: 19 - 21; 1 Corinthians 11: 17 - 26
The apostolic epistles as affording finality are in mind, together with the passages in the gospels that treat of the Lord’s supper; with a view to comparing them with Paul’s presentation, and seeing how the apostle comes in as final. The passage in 2 Timothy 2: 15 which says, “cutting in a straight line the word of truth”, is good in view of what has been said, and to see what place the apostles have in the New Testament. It is said that the converts “persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles” — Acts 2: 42, and it was the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, not the teaching of Moses or David, though they have their place. Consideration of this saves us from much error and misappropriation of scripture. It is thought these four scriptures by comparison help us to see that apostolic teaching is final in all matters; for Paul is given to complete the word of God.
AH Would the Lord have in mind the authority of their word, in saying, in Matthew 28: 20, “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you”?
JT Good; we will look at it. “But the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain which Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they did homage to him: but some doubted. And Jesus coming up spoke to them, saying, All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age”, Matthew 28: 16 - 20. Matthew is [p. 395] very precise as to assembly truth; it is to bring out the position they held. The “you” is the eleven; no other set of men had such a place in the whole world as these had. They were appointed by the Lord to meet Him in Galilee, Jerusalem is ignored and slighted; though in Luke He says, “do ye remain in the city till ye be clothed with power from on high” — Luke 24: 49. According to Matthew, He is here always. The assembly too is here in Matthew, and if its voice is not listened to by the offending brother, “let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer”, Matthew 18: 17.
FI Have you in mind as to the three settings in the gospels that they are to be governed by the Corinthian one?
JT It is the last word on this great subject. It helps to see how the scriptures are thus divided up.
Ques Does Paul supersede the twelve?
JT Well, yes, but it is not formally stated. The place of the twelve runs on into eternity. Though Paul is not mentioned in the foundations of the city, he had the peculiar place of completing the word of God, the ministry of the assembly, and the ministry of the glad tidings; so there is a great emphasis on Paul.
AH Paul was very concerned in his letters to Timothy that we should get the gain of his ministry.
JT Very good, and other things too. He comes forward at an appointed time as if the testimony required a new touch for revival; it is a touch running through the dispensation. “This man is an elect vessel to me”, the Lord says in Acts 9: 15, as if His elected one was to be used in revival, so that all that had gone before was to be revived by Paul.
AM The Lord’s reference in Matthew 13 to the householder bringing “out of his treasure things new and old” would perhaps bear upon [p. 396] this.
JT Yes, I think so, but it would be less formal; the “have ye understood all these things” would refer to them, the twelve, and the Lord accepts that and defines what it means, “For this reason every scribe discipled to the kingdom of the heavens is like a man that is a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old”. As to a householder or a scribe, he would be an accurate man, one who could be trusted. They were viewed as understanding, and were in a peculiar place in the testimony as bringing out of their treasures things new and old; the thought of having understanding is to make a very strong appeal to us, as our meetings are very weak; how much value is there in them? or how much do we really understand?
Rem Philip says to the eunuch “Dost thou then know what thou art reading of?” Acts 8: 30.
AH The passage in Matthew 13 is very striking, as the Lord answers them according to what they had said.
Ques Is Paul speaking in a similar way to Timothy when he says, “Think of what I say, for the Lord will give thee understanding in all things”? — 2 Timothy 2: 7.
JT That would be moral authority, but apostolic authority, especially in Paul, would be special.
Rem He says of Timothy “he works the work of the Lord, even as I”, 1 Corinthians 16: 10. We must have a model, Paul uniquely so, but the Lord was first.
JT To be able to say that things are not right, we need to have our understandings opened as in Luke 24 by the Lord; He is less official there, though it speaks of Him standing in their midst; Luke does not say He came. He may stand up, as it were, at any time and you feel you are under criticism. Luke 24 is unique as to the Lord going to heaven at once;
[p. 397] heaven is the centre of authority. He stood up suddenly, maybe they had not known He was there; He says “it is I myself”, how gracious He was! The Lord comes in in that way. According to Luke it is “Thus it is written”, He would give us a proper understanding as to what has been said, so that we are intelligent. The Lord was there ready to give them anything they wanted; He would encourage them by asking them if they would give Him something to eat. Then He says, “Thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, and to rise from among the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations beginning at Jerusalem”; how gracious! It is the thought of grace. Then He went to Bethany, and then He went up.
FS The Lord Himself gives the final touch at the end of each gospel.
JT Yes, indeed. He is the most gracious Person there, and yet He can correct what is not right.
Ques Why do the twelve not give us the same finality of things as Paul?
JT He was the Lord’s choice, one of his favourites, like Abraham, and Abraham holds a peculiar place; so does Paul, and so does John, but in love; Paul was loved too, but he makes more of the authority of scripture than of love.
Ques Does Luke make no space between the Lord’s resurrection and His going up, because He had in mind that the apostles should come out?
JT He left them fully equipped and sent the Holy Spirit to them; the apostles had the place first, and the Spirit is sent to help them.
Rem “Till ye be clothed with power from on high”.
JT Yes, the Spirit is sent to support them and that gives character to all we have in the Acts.
Luke’s second treatise gives more than the first about forty days ...
Ques Is there a sort of advancement in these three records?
JT Matthew has the first place; Peter has the first place too, and I think that of the writers Matthew is first, because he gives such a place to Peter and the assembly before Paul appears. Paul came in as a reviver. The assembly is with us eternally, and it must be listened to. Paul is not mentioned in Revelation 21.
Rem Matthew stresses the greatness of the assembly: “Hades’ gates shall not prevail against it”, Matthew 16: 18.
JT Yes. Mark gives the authority of the ministers. In Mark 16 they had all failed, and the Lord sat down with them and upbraids them, and then, in spite of their unbelief, they were to preach everywhere, and they did so, and He worked with them. Thus the ministry is suggested in Mark, and that involves the place the Supper has; things are made to hinge on the Lord’s supper, all three gospels have it, not John, but Paul has it too. The position is linked up with the Lord’s supper, so I chose these three to compare with Paul. So he says, “But let a man prove himself, and thus eat” — 1 Corinthians 11: 28; he must eat, or he will give up the truth.
Ques In Acts 2: 46 it says, “breaking bread in the house”, but Paul sets it in relation to the assembly.
JT It is a good way to bring the truth out; the house is in order over against the temple, and breaking bread in the house is to cover that. It was never in the temple, never partaken of till He went to heaven, because He is absent. In 1 Corinthians 11 we have “in remembrance of me” or ‘for the calling me to mind’ (as the note says); only Luke and Paul say that, and something is added in 1 Corinthians; the [p. 399] thought of remembrance, not only in the bread, but in the cup. No one in the Reformation, and in Protestantism generally, ever took notice of what Paul says.
Ques As to the eating, had the Lord more in His mind than His literal body; and does Paul bring in more?
JT Yes, and so should we; He had His own body in mind, but also the assembly, His body; His mystical body is especially brought in by Paul; whereas Matthew 26: 26 would not go so far as Paul, but refers to His own body.
Ques Does Matthew stress the eating of the passover lamb, roast with fire?
JT The word “eating” involves appropriation, and we need to appropriate our brethren; they would not forget each other, and the Lord stresses that. We sit in restfulness before Him and each other, and we see what we are collectively.
Ques Why does the apostle preface what he has to say with, “In this point I do not praise”, verse 22?
JT It is well to have to face what the collective position is, whether in the Church of England, or the Roman Catholics (where it is most abominable), or whether it is amongst ourselves. The new covenant is mentioned in Matthew in the setting of the passover and the unleavened bread, which really come before the Supper to purify us.
Ques As to eating His body and drinking His blood, could we have a right understanding of these apart from Paul?
JT No, he began with that. We constantly have reference to Paul; he speaks much of himself; God gave him that place.
Ques Is “this do” limited to eating and drinking?
JT “This do” must be taken by itself; it refers to the loaf; He “broke it”, it refers to the breaking, a symbol of what enters into the supper, notice each gospel says He “broke it”; and then Paul says, “in like manner also the cup” (”after having supped” refers to the passover) ... “as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”, 1 Corinthians 11: 25. That is where the remembrance is, in our drinking of it; that is the force of it; the remembrance is a dual thought, as in Paul’s account the idea of remembrance is also attached to the cup.
Ques Is it to make both available to us?
JT Yes, the Supper is for our appropriation.
Ques Is there anything that corresponds to the Lord taking the bread and the cup? Some think that there is a correspondence in what the Lord did, and what the brother does.
JT Yes, that is right. The passover was there, with many loaves; the Lord took one loaf; a single thought; so with the cup. There is a certain correspondence with the Lord’s own action, but we may make too much of it. It requires a spiritual brother to do it. The emblems of the passover had not been removed, and that helps. It is His supper; the passover is Jehovah’s. The Lord has inaugurated the supper Himself, from elements that were there.
Ques Is that why John does not mention it?
JT Yes, he deals with what is spiritual.
Ques Do you connect the remembrance with the breaking of the bread, and our eating of it with appropriation?
JT The breaking of the bread is the memorial.
Ques Would you not include the giving of thanks?
JT Certainly; it was a part of what He did.
Ques What would be the significance of “in like manner”?
JT It deals with what the Lord did, and it is [p. 401] stressed when we are doing it; a certain satisfaction comes into our souls in connection with the drinking; the idea of drinking has a great place in scripture.
Ques What would be the difference between the remembrance and the announcing?
JT I do not know. “For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”; a very solemn side, shewing that we are announcing a most definite thing, His death, no matter what the conditions are in this town. That is what it means.
Rem The remembrance is in the minds of the saints, and no one can see it; but they can see the eating and the drinking.
JT In the gospels it says they left Jerusalem and went to the Mount of Olives; they were on the ‘up-line’ now, not from Jerusalem but from the Mount of Olives; it makes way for the spiritual side that comes in after the supper.
Ques How does the actual bearing of Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts apply to us now?
JT It came to me at the beginning of the meeting, we were sitting here, not in our permanent position (to sit in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus is our permanent place), but much as they were in 1 Corinthians 11; and much comes up as to their behaviour in their houses that Paul refers to, and the Holy Spirit was there to maintain suitable conduct. We have to watch that nothing objectionable comes in. In Acts 20, at Troas, there were several brothers with him to add weight to what he says; so this is to have importance in the mind of the Corinthian saints; the word “assembled” is used in Acts 20, and it says, “Paul discoursed to them”, which must have had reference to the behaviour suitable to the Lord’s supper. Intelligent persons should be there. The apostles do not bring in what was new only, but [p. 402] correction; that was what Paul was doing. How long was his discourse? The word used later is altered by the Spirit to “spoken” or “conversed”, but the discourse was spoken by Paul.
Ques Can we be helped on the difference between the gospels and Paul, especially having in mind the omissions in the different accounts?
JT I had that in mind. You can see there are several; the remission of sins, for instance; then in 1 Corinthians Paul has the memorial mentioned twice, though Luke mentions it once. The saints are alluded to in the eating of the bread, and their satisfaction in the drinking of the cup, but both are connected with each other, and would refer to appropriation of each other in each case. We have a satisfying portion; it is worth being there.
Rem That is how the saints progress and are helped in the truth.
JT Yes, indeed; one can feel it in one’s soul.
Rem Both elements are partaken of.
JT Yes; the Roman Catholics have worse than error, they only have the bread. The saints are to be made happy.
The effect of “calling to mind” is little understood, and it has this dual character. Christianity is a joyous thing; the supper is not a mere sacrament.
Rem In result we have the consciousness that the Lord is with us.
JT We know it.
Rem The “new covenant” implies freshness.
JT Yes, “new” has the sense of freshness.
Rem Luke writes with authority though he is not an apostle.
JT He is on moral lines. He may have been a Gentile; he brings out how affected he is by what he is saying. He links his two treatises together, “all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach”,
[p. 403] Acts 1: 1. It is how we are affected by His doing, and then by His teaching.
Ques Why does Luke only refer to the remembrance once?
JT Yes, he only speaks of it once, but Paul twice.
Ques Was Luke influenced by Paul?
JT Luke must have gained much from Paul.
Rem He is a remarkable man who brings out his truths without bringing himself before you.
JT He is indeed a lovable brother.
Rem The breaking of bread at Troas in Acts 20 involves the assembly and implies the whole service of the supper.
JT Yes, we would judge that from the way it is put.
Ques Is it suggested that we should use Paul’s language in speaking of the emblems?
JT Paul is the last word, though Luke was very near him. The gospels go “over the wall”, and have in mind what is coming afterwards, but Paul refers to this dispensation only. It is very instructive and important to be accurate too. The gospels were for the Jews too, but Paul has the assembly in mind only.
Rem “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment” (1 Corinthians 14: 37).
JT Very good; not one can justify himself for absenting himself from the supper. It is the Lord’s commandment.