THE WAY (4)

^[p. 48] THE WAY (4)

Acts 20: 1 - 12; Acts 2: 42 - 47

JT The verses in chapter 20 are read to link our subject with Paul’s ministry, and it is clear that the Lord’s supper is part of “the way”. The verses read in chapter 2 may be taken as a primary indication of “the way”; that is, the way things were done. It refers in that section to the Lord’s supper twice; “they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers” (verse 42); and then, “every day, being constantly in the temple with one accord, and breaking bread in the house, they received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people; and the Lord added to the assembly daily those that were to be saved” (verse 46). These remarks may be rightly linked with the references to the Lord’s supper in the gospels, showing that it was an essential part of the divine way of the testimony. It is mentioned by Matthew, as is well known, also by Mark and by Luke, and then Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians mentions it very fully. It may be noted, that there it is a further communication from the Lord, and should be taken as the final word as to the Lord’s supper. It eliminates some of the things mentioned in the synoptic gospels and it adds other things. This thought should be particularly under our notice on this occasion, because the Lord has revived the truth as to the Supper, and greatly enlarged on it for the edification of the brethren, and peculiar reference is to be made to the instruction furnished by Paul.

The section in chapter 20 is very formal, we might say, and has some particulars that should be specially noticed, calling attention to the length of Paul’s discourse. Evidently his understanding or fight as to the Supper should be known in connection ^[p. 49] with the mystery, as if the sections of Europe and Asia under consideration were somewhat defective in the matter of the Lord’s supper. Indeed it may be said, that from the very outset of the testimony in this dispensation the Lord’s supper has been a matter of controversy, and it is so yet. In hardly anything is the human will more in activity than in the matter of the Lord’s supper. Whether it be in the mind of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, Presbyterian or Nonconformist bodies, or the many independent bodies, there is much misunderstanding and error connected with this truth. So it is of the very first importance that the brethren should be clear as to what Paul says — what he says which is also in the Gospels, and what he adds to what is said in the Gospels. It is of all importance that we should be intelligent as to the Lord’s supper, because it bears on the service of God.

ECM In what way does Paul’s discourse link up with the mystery?

JT Well, in using the word ‘mystery’, I mean the assembly of course. It is clear that the celebration of the Supper was to be in the assembly and not in any independent setting. The assembly is assumed to be there. So in the letter to Corinth the apostle makes some severe remarks as to what was being done there. He says in verse 17 of chapter 11, “But in prescribing to you on this which I now enter on, I do not praise, namely, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse. For first, when ye come together in assembly ...” We should notice that it is “in assembly”; that is the reason why it has been linked up with the mystery, because the assembly is contemplated in the coming together. He goes on to say, “When ye come together in assembly, I hear there exist divisions among you, and I partly give credit to it. For there ^[p. 50] must also be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you. When ye come the together into one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” [meaning that it should be, but it was not in practice]. “For each one in eating takes his own supper before others, and one is hungry and another drinks to excess. Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking? or do ye despise the assembly of God, and put to shame them who have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this point I do not praise. For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come. 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. But let a man prove himself, and thus eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. For the eater and drinker eats and drinks judgment to himself, not distinguishing the body”. It would be hard to point out anything that is so divinely instructive as that scripture, and it is very important that it should be understood. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding as to the Lord’s supper; that has been the case from the beginning and is still so.

Ques What is suggested by the term “in assembly”?

JT That the brethren are so gathered; they are not simply together as so many persons, but “in assembly”, meaning that the idea of the assembly ^[p. 51] enters into our being together. We are all governed by the truth of it, and so it says, “We, being many, are one loaf, one body”. The assembly is assumed in the celebration of the Supper.

Ques Is it the thought of Christ’s assembly or the assembly of God referred to further down in Acts 20?

JT I would say Christ’s assembly, “my assembly” as He calls it, as if He regarded it as a special matter with Himself, and with us too. He says in Matthew 16, “On this rock I will build my assembly”. The Supper is said to be the Lord’s supper, not God’s supper, nor the Father’s supper, nor the Spirit’s supper, but the Lord’s supper. I believe it is to this end that we have the statement as to the saints being viewed as priests of the Christ, as it is said in Revelation 20, “Blessed and holy he who has part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years”. So that we can serve with Him, and He with us, as it were, on His own account. This is confirmed by the fact that it is called the “Lord’s supper”.

FI As to coming together “in assembly”, is it that we are set together in the light of the assembly in an abstract way, or is there to be what is concrete?

JT Well, it is concrete, I would say; that is so as the brethren are there, or there could not be the Lord’s supper.

FI It is not quite the same thought as in 1 Corinthians 14 where the whole assembly is said to come together in one place.

JT No. The Lord’s supper can be celebrated in sub-divisions of the assembly, but each subdivision in principle is the assembly; it is only a matter of convenience to sub-divide. We do not need to ^[p. 52] sub-divide for a meeting like this, or an address, or other meetings but for the Lord’s supper.

SB Does the latter clause of 1 Corinthians 11: 34, show the importance of the truth of the assembly and of the Supper, and also the urgency of the matter? The word is, “But the other things, whenever I come, I will set in order”. There were other things evidently to be put right but as to the Supper they were to be adjusted at once.

JT That is to say, he eliminates other things which would be attended to in due course, but the matter of the Lord’s supper was urgent.

Ques Would you say what you understand by our being “priests ... of the Christ”?

JT It is so stated in Revelation 20. Certain ones are said to be blessed, and they are priests of God and of Christ. In general the service of God is carried on towards God.

Ques Are they available to Christ so that He can use them in the service of God?

JT That is right. They are available and usable, the qualities and characteristics of priests being attached to them; they are priests of God and also priests of the Christ. That would mean that Christ is God, but in a mediatorial position; He can be seen as serving, and they serving with Him.

Ques In chapter 1 it is said He has made us a kingdom, priests to His God and Father, but in chapter 20 it is priests “of the Christ”. Would you distinguish between the two?

JT I should. The preposition of I think is characteristic.

Ques Would priests to His God and Father be more their function?

JT It would be that the object of the service is towards the Person, that is, God or Christ, but of is more a characteristic ^[p. 53] thought.

CH You connected the Supper more with the way of the Lord. Is that the thought in 1 Corinthians 11, the Lord’s supper, or the lordly supper?

JT Well, that is further confirmation of what has been said, and so the Lord’s day has the same character. The Lord’s supper and the Lord’s day are clearly linked together in that sense.

AMcK-p Has the Lord in mind that His word as to the Supper through Paul is to take precedence over the account in the gospels?

JT That is right. Paul has the last word; it comes specifically from him. He says, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread”, 1 Corinthians 11: 23. The “I” is emphatic, showing that it is the last word; and, of course, that comports with what has been said elsewhere, that the apostle had the ministry of the assembly and he completed the word of God.

Ques Does the last verse of Acts 2 indicate heaven’s approval of the action taken in the preceding verses?

JT Yes, it is, you might say, a formal epitome of what transpired after all that had been said in Peter’s address and the number of converts which followed. The whole matter is finished. Then we have in verse 42, “And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. The order would be that which is found elsewhere, “that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”, 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 25. What is to be said further is, that in all matters relative to doctrine ^[p. 54] where the apostles have to say to them, they are to be regarded as final; apostolic pronouncements or statements are final, and where they appear they should be first consulted in matters of discipline. Indeed in all matters they should have the priority, for we have in them the final word of the Lord, and in Paul’s case it was the completion of the word of God. I do not know whether the brethren generally have recognised this, but it seems to me that it should be for us; and what is said about the Lord’s supper is illustrative of the whole point of apostolic authority, that it is final and must have priority in all matters of doctrine, and indeed in everything.

FI Does Paul emphasise that in saying that he received it from the Lord in glory?

JT Quite so. The matter of the Lord’s supper is illustrative of what has been said about all the Scriptures, that the apostolic epistles are final. The word of the apostles as representative of the Lord on earth in any matter must be final and have priority over all others.

AB Do the gospels relate also to a transitional period whereas what is in the epistles is final?

JT Exactly. Much in the gospels was transitional. They were probably written after the epistles. Another thing to observe is that the bearing of the gospels goes over the wall as has often been remarked. That is to say, they extend generally beyond this dispensation, whereas the apostolic epistles do not, but properly speaking belong to this dispensation and are intended specially to regulate it.

AH Does the close of 1 Corinthians 14 support what you are saying, “If anyone 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”?

JT Quite so. It is remarkable how much Paul wrote and especially whilst he was in prison, as if the Spirit of God would give him the advantage of quiet and meditation for the great matter which was entrusted to him. The greatest epistles according to their spiritual authority or importance were written in prison.

AWR Should Paul’s writings colour all our thoughts?

JT Yes. If matters of doctrine or discipline come up or those relative to the Lord’s supper, we must consult the apostles first, especially Paul; the Lord says as to him, “This man is an elect vessel to me”. The Lord made a speciality of him; no other apostle had such advantages and privileges as Paul.

GHP In that connection, would you say that in matters connected with assembly order or discipline, it would not be the thing to build any action on the Old Testament alone?

JT Not if it could be dealt with through the New Testament. There are things in the Old Testament of course that are not treated of in the New, but wherever the apostles treat of a matter their writings should be considered first, especially Paul’s.

DB The apostle says in 1 Corinthians 10: 15, “I speak as to intelligent persons”.

JT That confirms what has been said.

JM As to our being in assembly, is it what we are vitally and constitutionally as in 1 Corinthians 10, “we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”?

JT Quite so. We have to recognise that, in the partaking of the loaf, it is representative not only of the Lord’s own body according to 1 Corinthians 11, “This is my body, which is for you” but also of the saints as one body, and there is such a thing as our appropriation of them as well as of the Lord ^[p. 56] and His body.

ECM Does that involve what is inward and promote body feelings amongst the saints?

JT I would say that. “We, being many, are one loaf, one body”. The bread being alluded to in that way as referring to the saints would mean we have to appropriate the saints. I am using the word appropriate in the sense in which we would appropriate food. Hence the question is raised, Are brethren worth appropriating? persons nominally Christians, are they worth appropriating? are they clean? In the types we have food that can be eaten; animals that are clean and can be appropriated. Hence the word ‘fellowship’ implies that we appropriate one another.

DI There is a word in 1 Corinthians 11, “not distinguishing the body”. What would you say as to that?

JT I would say it is the Lord’s body, they might be erring as regards the Lord’s own body. We may appropriate the saints, but we may fail in the matter of the Lord’s own body, and so it is spoken of very seriously in chapter 11: “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”. These remarks would have to be carefully kept in mind.

JP Would it be right to say, that it is necessary for us to appropriate one another in the way that you suggest before we can rightly proceed in the service of God in the assembly?

JT I think that is what is meant according to what we had yesterday, that the Lord in the days of His flesh constantly came in and went out amongst His own. When we come to the Lord’s supper He waits so as to give the opportunity for us to appropriate each other. He gives us the opportunity to do things as if He would have pleasure in their being done by us, and then He comes in and acts with us.

^[p. 57] In the service of God He leaves things to ourselves at first.

WB Were the divisions at Corinth the very opposite to the thought of their appropriating one another?

JT Just so, that is why it is stressed here. There were different companies there, which implied sectarianism: sects he calls them.

FI The appropriating one another would be in the way we come together in assembly, and we view one another as moving in fidelity to Christ, and there is no difference in our affections.

JT Quite so, except that in a practical way you make a difference in the capacity, spiritual qualities or growth of the brethren. The question is, What do we think of each other? We are bound to think of each other as the fruit of the work of God, and that implies that each one has the same status as a person, but when we come together we have to think of growth and stature, because the assembly implies that. The assembly is to be used in the great operational matters of God, and spiritual stature is of great importance in that.

Rem So that John speaks of babes, young men and fathers.

JT Quite so. The scripture says for instance, “What hath God wrought!” You have to think of what that implies as to persons. There are differences in persons as we see in Moses and Aaron for instance, as compared with others. Paul and the apostles likewise as compared with others.

HB Is that why in Acts 20 we get the names of the various brethren who were present. Is that the personnel and what they were?

JT Well, that is just the point. It is remarkable that you have those seven brothers spoken of. They are evidently what Paul would regard as his own work, and what heaven would regard as well. What ^[p. 58] a work they represent, and their names are given. I think it bears just on what we are saying, “What hath God wrought!” What has He wrought in our time, and what use are we making of it, or are we declining? Can it be improved? All that enters into this matter.

GB Is the appropriation necessary in view of marital response to Christ?

JT Quite so. All that must be thought of. Paul speaks of certain saints as “my joy and crown”, Philippians 4: 1. What suggestions there are in that! Various statements are made pointing to the general thought of the work of God. What variety there is in it! what variety of stature, and of beauty and attractiveness too, but variety of stature. We should think well as to what we have been saying as to growth and stature and attractiveness, because when you come to the assembly personnel it is of great importance. In the types we have Rebecca, and then Abigail who is spoken of as a woman of good understanding and of a beautiful countenance. The Lord surely has a right to think of that with us as to what there might be in each one of us, and in all of us together.

GE Are the persons brought in individually in their distinctiveness in Acts 20 before we get the idea of being assembled?

JT Well, it certainly goes on to “we being assembled”. We spoke of it on Lord’s day, that divine Persons allow time to bring out what there is in formation. In Luke 24 it says that the Lord stood in the midst: He allowed them to say so much, then the others that came in from Emmaus said something, and then the Lord stood there as if to approve what had been done so far. In John there is no question at all as to any irregularity, and the Lord says to them twice, “Peace be to you” as if to confirm what was there. It says, “When therefore ^[p. 59] it was evening on that day, which was the first day of the week, and the doors shut where the disciples were, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst”. This means that the brethren were intelligent in the position, and were carrying on themselves before the Lord joined them. That I would say applied at Troas (Acts 20). We have these brothers mentioned, referring to the work of Paul, and then we are told, “We being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow. And he prolonged the discourse till midnight”. He evidently had in mind that something was needed there. According to Luke things were not quite right at Jerusalem, nor were things quite right at Troas, else why should the apostle have to say so much? Why should the Lord’s supper have to be deferred? Why did they not break bread at once? It means that they were not up to it.

CH Is what you are saying as to personalities confirmed by what is said in Luke 24 that Jesus stood in their midst, whereas in John 20 it is the midst?

JT “The midst” in John would mean it is a general allusion to the assembly, but in Luke it is local, wherever the locality is. At Corinth things were not right and the apostle had to speak about the Supper; and in Troas Paul had to say a great deal and the breaking of bread was deferred. Eutychus fell down; he fell asleep, showing that things were not right.

FI Would that be the same as in Luke 24, for apparently as the Lord came in these things were not quite right?

JT I think it would. Luke 24 shows that things were not right. They were perturbed when they saw the Lord, whereas at first they were able to speak rightly to each other, and the two that came ^[p. 60] from Emmaus said something which was good. The Lord stood in the midst. He did not sit, but stood, which would mean that He was there to look after things and to put them right.

ACSP Do the many references to time in Acts suggest the urgency of matters connected with the way?

JT Quite so. How urgent they are. I referred to Acts 2 to bring out the primary position, that the breaking of bread should be considered as part of the way of God. It is part of the way of God that the christian dispensation is characterised by the Lord’s supper. It is not that so many persons are there but they are governed by the thought of the Lord’s supper, and it is mentioned twice in Acts 2 “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers”. And then again in verse 46 to point out to us that the breaking of bread was in the house; it was not a temple matter, although other things were done in the temple, but that particular thing was not, it was reserved for the assembly.

FI It was not an ecclesiastical matter?

JT Just so. When here the Lord had done things Himself. He was working when He was here and continued after He rose from the dead. The great work of redemption is of course assumed, but He is doing His own personal work which included the subjective work of God in His own. According to Luke’s first treatise He hasted to go to heaven, and it seems there as if He went up the very day He rose, but it is clear in the second treatise of Luke that He remained forty days. Then again, He is said to have been ten days in heaven before the Spirit came down. So we have first, the forty days, and then the ten days, which would be fifty in all. Why should that be? Why did He not send down the Spirit immediately after the ascension? He was ^[p. 61] waiting for the perfecting of what was here in the disciples, His own work, what He had accomplished and then what He would do after He got to heaven. So now in Acts 20, “the first day of the week, we being assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed”. Why did he discourse? Why did they not break bread immediately? There is the idea of divine Persons leaving things to show what they are, as in the case of Adam when Jehovah would have him name the creatures. God had pleasure in it for He did not change any of the names. So in Jerusalem the things they did were right and the Spirit came into a state of things which heaven could approve. That is a principle we all have to bear in mind.

SR Would you say that the features of Abigail were found with the apostles in Acts 1 before the Spirit came down?

JT I would think so.

DI Do you mean that the assembly was in expression there?

JT I would say so. The interest of heaven must have been wonderful; it was occupied not only with what was up there, but also with what was going on down here, the Spirit being sent down by the Lord Jesus to augment it. Perhaps we do not think much of what is going on in heaven in alluding to what is going on on earth. There is the assembly, the greatest thing that God has devised. Paul enlarges on it in the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, what God devised in the assembly and the pleasure He would have in it from Pentecost after the Holy Spirit came down.

GE Is there some link between the necessity for Paul’s discourse as indicating some defect and what is seen in Eutychus? Is it a question of our arriving at matters constitutionally and by growth?

JT Quite so. Therefore the ministry includes all that. One ministering is representative of the ^[p. 62] Lord in principle; one who is gifted and is seen as caring for the saints with a view to the work of the ministry. The gifts given include shepherds and teachers who would care for the saints, and the ministry goes on with a view to the perfecting of the saints. So the breaking of bread being deferred in Acts 20 means something was out of order, and the thing has to be held up till matters were adjusted. I believe Paul’s long discourse meant that. What happened in the interval would show there was a state of things to be corrected, and when it was corrected they were comforted. It says, “And they brought away the boy alive, and were no little comforted”. Paul himself went away after the breaking of bread.

JC Is there any significance in what is recorded as to Paul leaving certain things at Troas, his cloak, books and parchments?

JT Well, there may be, but the main thing now is a matter of prime importance. The creation in itself is not to be regarded in the same place as the assembly. The assembly is the great ideal of God and is what pleases Him. He is to be glorified in the assembly. “To him be glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all generations of the age of ages”, Ephesians 3: 21. When He was inaugurating it at Pentecost what pleasure He had in it, and that too before divine Persons come in. Before the Lord comes in, He waits, as it were, to see what is there; He comes in as we are assembled, but not immediately. The word in John 14 is, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”.

WB Is Paul’s embrace of Eutychus on the lines of our appropriating one another?

JT It is indeed. What a comfort it must have been to him. He says, “His life is in him”, as if he were able to discern that. That is another matter,

^[p. 63] persons able to discern where the brethren are. A spiritual person is able to do so.

JP Has God peculiar pleasure in the assembly because of its derivation from Christ?

JT Well, quite so. It is a divine matter and involves divine formation. It is the greatest thing in the universe. Acts 2 tells us that the Holy Spirit came down and took the whole matter up and formed it and then the service proceeded, but there is development after that. Many years elapsed before the development was completed by the introduction of Paul.

HB Does the long speaking or conversing suggest that the adjustment had taken place?

JT Well, I suppose the conversation may have been needed in addition to the discourse. The discourse was interrupted by what happened, and then we see what Paul is capable of, what he did in the assembly in the way of putting things right. The conversation would include all that. Apart from what he said as being needed, they took the boy away, which is a beautiful thought, and they were comforted. He is only a boy, a young person.

CH Is the power of recovery seen both in Luke 24 and in Acts 20? In Luke it is the Lord Himself acting, and in Acts it is by the presence and activity of Paul. Is there encouragement in that there is a result?

JT There is a result. I suppose while we are down here the necessity for all this is present, but the idea of perfection must be waited for, as Paul says, to “present every man perfect in Christ”, Colossians 1: 28.

ECM Would this be the way of more surpassing excellence?

JT Quite so.

^[p. 64] Ques During what part of the Lord’s supper are the saints left free to act of themselves before the Lord comes in?

JT From the time we come in and assemble. The word assemble is used, and the Lord Himself assembled according to Acts 1. Here the brethren are doing it; “we being assembled to break bread”.

Ques Would there be some part taken by the saints before the Lord comes in?

JT I should say there would. I think it is suitable that there should be a hymn, and perhaps something more, but there ought to be evidence that in a general way we are ready for the Lord.

WB Would the suggestion as to our being priests of Christ as well as of God support the thought of worship to the Lord Jesus personally?

JT Quite so. We are priests; it is a question of the spiritual ability that is there at the Supper. We are not simply believers, or members of the body of Christ, but we are priests as well, meaning we have skill for carrying on the service.