THE SIGNS OF THE COVENANTS (4)
[p. 193] THE SIGNS OF THE COVENANTS (4)
Exodus 31: 12 - 17; 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 26
JT Our subject is signs of covenants spoken of in Scripture. We began with the rainbow, then circumcision as the sign of the covenant made with Abraham, and the seven ewe-lambs given to Abimelech by Abraham witnessing to the fact that he had dug the well. Circumcision is the putting off of “the body of the flesh”, but the well is the bringing in of the positive thing, the spirit of Christ, the heavenly Man. Then we considered Isaac and the digging of the well by Abraham. Isaac’s servants said, “We have found water”, and Isaac calls the well Shebah, connecting it with what Abraham said as to the well of the oath; the well of the oath would imply the means of maintaining the covenant in a heavenly way, it is in the power of the Spirit. We have the word “city” added in Isaac’s case, in Genesis 26, the city was called Beer-sheba unto this day. That is not only the negative thought of “the putting off of the body of the flesh”, but the putting on — the well so prominently mentioned implying the Spirit; and the city, according to Ephesians, implying a sphere where the Spirit is free to develop heavenly thoughts. One of the greatest thoughts of the assembly is that it is heavenly, although here, such a vessel is available to God to develop His thoughts, especially of government and light and order.
Then we had the sign of the covenant between Laban and Jacob, which, as pointed out, was a very humiliating thing; a heap of stones, intended to be a witness between brethren who are separated. Instead of denoting the presence of active love, it denoted the negation of it in brethren being mutually agreed to be absent one from the other, and to be contented in the absence. A humbling side of the truth, but one to be observed, because it is so marked in the history of the assembly, alas,
[p. 194] certainly it marks its public history, and, as was remarked today, we have not far to go in seeing it, in brethren together, although perhaps on right ground, yet out of keeping with it in their spirits. The mutual recriminations marking Jacob and Laban often mark local meetings, and therefore, it is a sign to be avoided; anything that reminds us of our true state is not to be ignored, but it is most humbling to have such a witness. It was pointed out that there is correspondence with what arose at Corinth after the apostle’s departure; brethren divided up into coteries, possibly implying social distinctions, yet carrying on the symbol of the Lord’s supper without the love, carrying it on in a partisan way; not yet divided up into separate rooms, but in the same hall apparently, yet divided up into coteries, so the word “Galeed” might be written up over the whole scene, and the apostle says, “this is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. Although negative, it is important to have this to express the truth, something to warn us that we should keep away from the state it describes.
In Genesis the work of God is allowed to show and prove itself, without formal authority or requirements from God; and alas, the works of the flesh too, show themselves; for there was little to restrain Jacob and Laban in what they were doing, Jacob in amassing wealth and making Laban wealthy too — it was just a commercial matter. Laban’s sons were talking about the glory that Jacob had acquired, their idea of glory was just sheep and oxen and lands — material things; but what we may reach is the kind of glory that [p. 195] accrues from the covenant of God. The sign of the covenant, of the new covenant, as we have it before us now, is said to be the ministry of the Spirit which “subsists in glory”; and “the ministry of righteousness abounds in glory”, and again, “that which abides subsists in glory”, 2 Corinthians 3:11. It is glory of an excessive kind; not glory in the wealth or status or education of this world, but what accrues from the covenant of God, the new covenant. What may be also remarked, is, that we are now on ministerial ground for the moment — that is Exodus and Corinthians — going on to heaven. It is no longer left to us as to what we will do, but everything is carefully prescribed for, a most needful provision. Ministerial ground is the ground of Moses and Aaron, the one maintaining the authority of God here, and the other maintaining the worship and service of God inside — the minister of the sanctuary.
WCG The scripture read in Exodus is after the directions as to the house of God had been given. Would the connection with what we have had before lie in the fact that Jacob reached Bethel, which is the house of God?
JT Yes, he was going on to it. I believe the setting up of the pillar, as was pointed out this morning, was a lead given which God respected and made way for, for he moved on, and finally by the grace of God came to Bethel. Bethel in Genesis is just an abstract thought. It is connected with Jacob very noticeably, but it is an abstract thought; still, the ideas attaching to the house are very clearly set out there. When we come to Exodus, it is not an abstract thought, we have material, and the building; we do not get that in Genesis. It is not now a heap of stones, but material of the very finest quality; everything that is divinely required is supplied and constructed, not as a heap, but according to divine specification. There was not to be one iota of divergence from those specifications, and not only from the specifications, but the pattern shown, shown to one man only; so that we are dependent wholly on one man as to this, but that man is a minister, “faithful in all God’s house”.
WCG For us, a minister of the true tabernacle.
JT Yes, that is the idea.
W S. S. And was the matter of intelligence in putting things together seen in Bezaleel and [p. 196] Aholiab?
JT Yes, that comes in under Moses as having its own significance; but there is to be no divergence as to the quality of the material, it is to be excellent; so that Exodus is the supply secured through redemption.
HB How would this sign of the sabbath be seen today?
JT Well, it is noticeable that the term is found first in Exodus; the thing is in Genesis, but the term is found first in Exodus. You may have the things, as in the Old Testament, but unnamed. In the New Testament we have names, accurate names.
GG Was the sabbath ever kept until the days of Moses when the instruction was given?
JT There is no evidence that it was. In Exodus we are on ministerial ground, where there is the sense of obligation to have things right, and that, as having things right, nothing of importance is omitted, things are gathered up and named. Figuratively, it is the coming in of Christ to take up everything; He linked things on with the beginning, He linked certain things on with their primary setting, so that we might know what they meant.
JC Would you connect the pattern with the commandment?
JT The pattern is more than the commandment; the pattern is the mind of God presented concretely; nobody saw it but Moses, as far as the Scripture shows; he was a man to whom things could be shown. “The form of Jehovah”, for instance, “doth he behold”, Numbers 12: 8. That was said of no one else. There is an allusion there to the great Mediator, the One who alone could see these things. It proved the pattern was Christ. Moses saw Him in such a sense, but not like Abraham — Abraham rejoiced to see His day, the Lord said, “he saw it, and was glad” John 8:56; he saw it in Isaac, I suppose, when Isaac was born and weaned — but Moses saw the pattern, as the one who was obligated in regard of it, like an architect. To go back to Proverbs,
wisdom was God’s architect, so to say. We must now be prepared for great accuracy, and no deviation, no such word as ‘non-essentials’ can be allowed, everything is essential, nothing must be left out that is divinely required.
TG Do you suggest it is secured through redemption?
JT Yes, God would not bring in a ministerial system without redemption, without the liberty wherewith Christ sets us free; it is a system of liberty founded on redemption.
HB Why does the sabbath first come in Exodus in relation to the manna?
JT Well, that is a point to be noticed. God says, “Tomorrow” — it is near by, when you have the manna, the sabbath is near by — that is the general principle. The principle of restriction is introduced; you are not to gather it on the sabbath, but you can gather twice as much the day before; so that there is the suggestion of increased capacity, capability of enlargement and the power to keep things until the time arrives. Like Mary, she acquired the habit, or power, of keeping things — “against the day of my burying hath she kept this”, the Lord says; John 12: 7. Only a day to keep the manna, but still it was that principle, to gather twice as much, and keep what was needed for the sabbath with liberty to store it, which is only found in that connection. That is, there is the principle of liberty attaching to the Person of Christ here. When the Lord went through the corn fields, for instance, the disciples went further than He did — they plucked the corn and rubbed it in their hands, and the Lord defends that; that is, He was inaugurating a system of liberty, He was the Leader in that, the presence of the manna brought about a state of liberty and with all that, the power to keep things. Keeping things under divine principle is right; but keeping back a thing that you should give out at the reading meeting, thinking you [p. 198] will get a better opportunity later on, God does not approve of that. If you have a thing to give out, give it out. Then there are things that have to be kept back; you may have to keep things back for the good of the saints — Paul did that; not because he wanted some fine thought for some special occasion — that is not the idea at all.
LM You mention the reading meeting, would you apply the same thing to the morning meeting; we may keep back something on the Lord’s day morning in priestly service thinking to give it on another occasion. Would that be an occasion for the manna to breed worms?
JT Quite so. Give it out, if the Lord lays it on your heart.
WSS Is the sign to preserve us during the absence of Christ? I was thinking of the following chapter (Exodus 32); the people failed during the absence of Moses.
JT Quite so. They did not know where he was “as for this Moses ... we wot not what is become of him!” Exodus 32:1 I thought if they had been in the restfulness which this sign would bring about they would have been preserved.
JT Yes, they certainly would not have made the calf.
JG What have you in mind as answering to this sign today?
JT Well, we propose in this reading, to confine ourselves to the two thoughts, that is, the first covenant, and the second — to keep the idea of the sign before us. The sign of the first covenant was the sabbath; the second, according to the way the Lord presents it in the gospels, and the apostle in the Corinthians, is the sign of the Lord’s supper; that is the cup — He says, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11: 25): that is, the literal cup that He took into His [p. 199] hand. So that our concern is to arrive at an understanding of the cup as a sign of the new covenant; not ignoring the sabbath, because it also has its force today. It is to arrive at a state of spiritual restfulness in the presence of Christ, and that is, I think, where Exodus 16 is so instructive, showing that the sabbath was there — “Tomorrow is the ... sabbath” Exodus 16:23. The sabbath of rest is in the Person of Christ, even as the manna gave rest; where He is, there it is. Why not avail yourself of it? — this restfulness. If anyone were to look into the Scriptures and compute the actual time required to be spent by Israel in keeping Sabbath, they would find that it covered more than one-fourth of their time. It is a very important matter; it shows what the sabbath is in the mind of God; it is to accustom us to eternity beforehand.
FI Does the entering into the truth of these two signs, the sabbath and the covenant, make us available in the service of the Lord, because in Isaiah 56 it speaks of laying hold of the sabbath and the covenant, so that the people might become available in a priestly way for the service of Jehovah?
JT That is how it stands, I think. We have to learn to keep our sabbaths, to lie fallow, and to learn to be inactive in a spiritual way; to do no servile work.
JB Would the spirit of the covenant bring in liberty and glory in view of the Supper?
JT Well, it does. I think it is significant that the principle of keeping comes in in connection with Exodus 16 — they could keep things, and then that the sabbath is so near — “Tomorrow is the ... sabbath”. It is so near as the manna is seen and utilised. I think it is to call attention to what Christ was as here, in lowly circumstances. The manna was a small round thing lying on the face of the ground, a nameless thing — “What is it?” — you might ask it always of yourself. As understood, there is a sense of rest in it. The Lord had to say, “Come to me, all ye who labour and are [p. 200] burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls”, Matthew 11: 28, 29. I believe that is the way it is arrived at. Well now, in Exodus 31, the Spirit of God had been unfolding the glories of Christ, not in lowliness as the manna suggests, but the glories of Christ on high; that precedes this passage. And it is as if God were to say, Well surely you can rest in the presence of that! — there is restfulness and adoration too. Think of the glories that passed before Moses one after another on the mount, what he saw — and now you have a word added that you do not get in Genesis 2 — it is that Jehovah “rested, and was refreshed”. You can understand it, the unfolding of the glories of Christ brought in refreshment. So that He insists here in these verses, 12 - 17, that the sabbath must be kept. It is called the “holy sabbath” in chapter 16. Jehovah says, it is the sign of the covenant “between me and you”.
GAvS Would you suggest that the covenant of the sabbath involves the maintenance of a spirit of serene contemplation and enjoyment of the things that God has rested in in Christ? — so that God is refreshed and the people of God enter their rest as they enter into the thoughts of God for them in Christ?
JT That is good. David, I think, would say Amen to that! It says, “king David went in and sat before Jehovah” (1 Chronicles 17: 16); sitting down in the presence of all that! You can understand the refreshment in Exodus, and not in Genesis. While Adam was a figure of Him that was to come, he did not portray the glories that were caused to pass before Moses on the mount. The manna had to come in, a small round thing, which introduced the idea of the sabbath. We do not get the idea of refreshment in chapter 16, that part of Exodus finishes in chapter 24 where the saints, especially Moses and the elders of Israel, are invited to go up, and “they saw the God of Israel; and there [p. 201] was under his feet as it were work of transparent sapphire, and as it were the form of heaven for clearness” Exodus 24:10 — there was liberty there. Then chapter 25 introduces the divine thought that He would dwell amongst His people; and Moses is there to receive the divine instructions as to the dwelling, and the pattern is shown him. Christ is brought in there as Man; it is not Christ as in the Deity, but Christ in manhood is anticipated on the mount, and that is what refreshes God, but we are to be brought into that refreshment. The Lord would bring us into it in inviting us to come to Him.
LDM Is there any analogy with Luke’s gospel; Mary keeping these things in her heart?
JT Well, I think that is good. She kept things in her heart, pondering over them, and they stood her in good stead later. I think she represents the principle of the treasury, the power to keep things with intelligence for the time that was suited to them.
LDM Does she precede morally what is seen in the mount?
JT Quite so. It was all involved there in the Babe, and then, as He comes up out of the waters of baptism, heaven announces its delight in Him and henceforth the saints are to be brought into that. Hitherto it was anticipative, for Christ had not come into manhood. So that you have a state of things here upon earth of quietude, of restfulness, in the midst of a scene where all is turmoil: “the wicked are like the troubled sea, which cannot rest, and whose waters cast up mire and dirt” (Isaiah 57: 20); there is nothing stable — it is manifestly so. Whereas in the assembly the divine thought is restfulness; Mary sat at the Lord’s feet and heard His word, and that is developed, I believe, in Mary of Bethany; all is restful, not a word is said in that scene at Bethany, as far as the scripture shows. The silence is broken by Judas, the wicked like the troubled sea. But there is a scene of restfulness into which the Lord comes.
JMcCR [p. 202] Is the sabbath to the old covenant what the Supper is to the new covenant?
JT That is what I thought. Not that we lose the thought of the sabbath, the sign of the old covenant is not abrogated in that sense, the sabbath still has its meaning and is of great importance; the saints should learn to be quiet spiritually.
WCG Would you say the privilege connected with the keeping of the sabbath and the covenant in it, was founded on the general covenant in chapter 19 they obeyed His voice and kept His covenant. Would that make way for this?
JT Just so, it is the same thing, only there is the beautiful suggestion added in chapter 31 of refreshment, pointing to what is seen above. Chapters 19 and 20 are the law given from Sinai to the people, but what is given in the chapters from 24 onwards is what is above — Christ seen above. The assembly is really developed from Christ seen above, not simply in the forty days after He rose, but from Christ in heaven out of which the assembly comes. The Lord would help us to understand the difference between Christ on earth in flesh and blood, Christ during the forty days, and Christ as He is now.
WSS That is brought to the knowledge of the assembly ministerially, as you have said.
JT Yes, the necessity for the ministerial side is because of where we are actually; the flesh is to be kept out, and kept out with authority, there is no option at all.
WSS I was thinking of your remark in regard to refreshment, how important the reception of the ministry must be under these circumstances.
JT I think the Lord would call attention to ministry, as He does in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, particularly. It has its application now, for we are living in such radical times, times of non-essentials, as they call them; God is stressing that He is not in that at all,
[p. 203] that He has not changed His mind at all, and the Holy Spirit is here to maintain ministerial authority — authority in ministry.
HB You spoke of Christ on high in 1 Corinthians 11, is that the light in which the cup is taken?
JT There you have it. Why should we get it from heaven? Is it not enough to get it in the gospels? It is the Supper by way of heaven, by way of the Lord glorified; everything is from heaven.
JW When Joseph was exalted he was given Asnath.
JT That is right; Christ receives the assembly in heaven. Adam and Eve are a figure of union before sin came in; but in all that follows that, the position is heavenly; Isaac is not to go out of the land, it is Christ in heaven, the assembly is brought to Him there. This is a most important point to keep clearly before us, that the sign of the covenant we have has come from heaven.
JG What would be the difference between taking the Supper in the light of the gospel record, and in the light of the Corinthian presentation?
JT Well, the Corinthian presentation brings in the heavenly and the ministerial side, it comes to us from the Lord above — “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you”. It comes from the Lord, but comes through the minister par excellence of christianity; for, although it is “first Peter” as regards Jerusalem, it is Paul, who is the minister of the assembly; and we must pay attention to the ministry and the minister.
GAvS Is that why Peter gave way to it when he refers to what “our beloved brother Paul” 2 Peter 3:15 had said?
JT That is the thought, I am sure. There were things “hard to be understood, which the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3: 16), he said, but the ministry was perfect. I think that is very beautiful,
for it is “our beloved brother Paul” — there is no Galeed there — although the Judaising element would separate Peter and Paul. That will not do for Peter; no, “our beloved brother Paul” is not Galeed; it is the bond of love, but there is the recognition in it of something that Paul had; that is what Corinthians and all the Pauline epistles mean, they are distinctive; and the Lord’s supper is only rightly apprehended through his ministry.
TG So he receives it from the One who had been received up in glory; “the mystery of piety is great”, 1 Timothy 3: 16.
JT Just so — “received up in glory”. The Lord, I am sure, would direct our attention to that, the glorious state of Christ now, what He is now. The assembly is connected with Christ in what He is now. The Lord’s supper has come to us that way, through the great minister of the assembly. In this epistle he stresses the necessity for detail; he praises the saints for any little observance of detail of instruction. He had given them instruction, he was now giving them instruction by letter, and he was going to give them more when he came. There is constant need for instruction as to the Lord’s supper.
Ques Is it because it is heavenly we need so much instruction?
JT That is it, it is different. Moses was taken up there, and the glories of Christ were passed before his view; that is what the mount of transfiguration implies too, it is a question of the glory of Christ, He is transfigured before them. That is not anything taken on by external influences, it is Himself, a divine Person in manhood, what He is capable of, beyond anything a man can conceive. You have to wait to see Him before you can understand it fully. Even John does not undertake to say fully what it is, although he had seen Him on the mount, and during the forty days. People speak about ‘non-essential things’, and ‘splitting hairs’,
[p. 205] but I think God is honouring the attention to details in connection with the Lord’s supper, the one cup, and the size of the gatherings, and all that line of truth which has been before us.
JG You do not then regard as a mere detail an enquiry into the question as to how you remember the Lord, as to whether it is Christ as He now is in glory, or as a dead Christ?
JT No, that is important. It is remembering Christ, but I would not stress as He now is in that, for it is Remember me: but it is important to stress where He now is, when you come to the building, according to the specifications — the assembly. What we see around us in christendom is a travesty of this wonderful thing which has come down from heaven, the pattern of which was shown on the mount.
TG Do we break bread in the wilderness?
JT We do. We have the idea of “the assembly in the wilderness” Acts 7:38, then we have the idea of the assembly in the land: 1 Corinthians is the idea of the assembly in the wilderness, where men and women are recognised.
JC Does the word, “This do in remembrance of me” call attention to the dead Christ, though we do not remember a dead Christ?
JT Yes, the blood is separated from the body.
JPG Does not the Lord come before us as One who has been dead?
JT Surely, but it is Himself recalled in this most touching way — that He once lay dead.
Ques Is it not very important that it is Himself? Sometimes we get occupied with details and things about Him, and we are liable to forget it is Himself we remember, as the One who is now in the place of exaltation and glory, because of where He once was.
JT That is constantly said; it is an accepted thing.
GAvS Do you mean the prominent element in the Supper must necessarily be the Lord Himself, while, at the same time, we get an enlarged view of [p. 206] Himself as, we think of how He actually went into death, in order that we should know Him in all the greatness of His love? We may be in danger of remembering a dead Christ; whereas it is the One who has been in death we remember.
Rem I thought the point of His being in death leads to His present place, and it is because He is in His present place, we remember Him.
WCG Does not the life and death of Christ unfold Him to us so that we might affectionately appreciate Him?
JT Yes, He became endeared to us in death, and the remembrance of Him seems to centre in Himself, not so much the place He is in, but the place He is not in — He is not here. In Luke 24 it is said they were together, speaking about the breaking of bread; two of them said He had been made known to them in the breaking of bread, and “Jesus himself” — it is Himself — stood in the midst: but when we come to assembly formation, we have more than that, we have His place — Christ glorified. So that Exodus 24 and what follows, gives the principle.
Ques Does the ordinary meaning we attach to the word “remember” convey the idea? Is it not rather the calling Him to mind?
JT Yes, it is the action of the mind — the calling of Me to mind.
Ques That is, the One who is absent becomes present to us.
JT Present in the assembly — yes. There is the side of announcing the Lord’s death, that is another thing; but we must not get away from what we are speaking of, the thought of what is above, what He is now as in heaven: it is out of Him the assembly is evolved. We have a heavenly thing on earth, not simply something reflecting a risen Christ, but a heavenly Christ. The sheet in Acts 10 came down and went up, and came down and went up; what is [p. 207] presented is indigenous to heaven. As Christ is indigenous to heaven, so the assembly is, it is heavenly. Whether in heaven or on earth, it is Christ: “This do in remembrance of me” — it is Himself.
JMcCR How are we to understand the word of Joseph, “Bear a remembrance with thee of me when it goes well with thee”? Genesis 40: 14.
JT Well, “when it goes well with thee” — that is, when you are in the good of the gospel of your salvation and all that goes with it — think of Him who effected it for you.
GAvS May we have misunderstood the use of the word “shew the Lord’s death”?
JT I think the sign is involved in that, it is what is visible, it is “this bread” and “this cup”; it is the cup which we bless and the bread which we break. It is as handled, so to say, by those who have the Spirit, that is where the sign is; it is not any bread, it is “this bread” — “this cup”. If the one who speaks to the Lord in giving thanks says, “Lord Jesus” by the Spirit, it is a spiritual state of things; attention is called to something in a spiritual way, that is where the sign lies — “as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come”.
FI That is not the remembrance side.
JT No, it is the public side — what we are doing that anybody can see.
FI The remembrance side is the giving of thanks.
JT Yes, the Lord is brought to us, in the giving of thanks and the breaking of the bread, it is a spiritual state of things: the Lord’s supper is never intended to be in any other but a spiritual state of things.
JG What is the difference between the breaking of bread and the Lord’s supper?
JT Well, there is not much difference. The breaking of bread is a formula for the Supper, it was a term for the Lord’s supper. The term “the Lord’s supper” is only found in Corinthians, it belongs to the ministerial [p. 208] setting. The Lord has to do with it and the one who represents Him has to do with it. It is delivered to the gentiles in those circumstances, and has to be connected with those circumstances. The cup is in His blood. In Mark the Lord makes more of that than He does of the loaf, because it is the sign that brings God in, that is, it brings the love of God in; it is intended to establish and confirm us in the fixed state of things in the covenant. The cup refers to the life of Jesus, what He was here on earth, the life given up: it is “my blood, that of the new covenant”, as He says in Mark; it is in that connection that they go to the mount of Olives, He brings God in.
WSS That would open the way, after the partaking of the elements, for the appreciation Godward of what is in the new covenant.
JT It does, it open s up the glory side; so we have in 2 Corinthians 3 the ministry of the Spirit subsisting in glory, the ministry of righteousness abounding in glory. That is, you reach finality in this covenant, you are in the realm of glory, and there is the opportunity for praise to God in relation to that system of glory. It is a wonderful thing to think of being in the realm of glory, and it is an existing thing, a permanent thing. This does not set aside the first covenant for there was glory there too, there must be glory in anything God has to do with; but this is the abounding thing, and it is permanent.
WSS What a wonderful opportunity there is, after the Supper, as in this realm of glory, for praise to God.
JT That is, I think, where the thought of ministry is opened up. First, in regard to the Lord’s supper, it is a question of authority; then, when the glory comes in, God is there, the idea of authority merges in the Spirit. “The Lord is that Spirit” — a very remarkable expression! The idea of authority in lordship merges in the, Spirit, and he says, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”, 2 Corinthians 3:17.
WSS What an immense amount of detail there is in regard to that side of things — all we have in Exodus and Leviticus.
JT Quite so. Then we move on from Moses, as you might say, to Aaron, the minister of the sanctuary, where the service is carried on, and I believe, therefore, that a time of waiting after partaking of the cup, is an advantage, because we are changing our ground; there must be the changing over from Moses to Aaron, so to speak; it is a glory scene, if it is rightly understood. It is a scene of abounding glory.
WSS Perhaps we have not left enough time for it.
JT Well, I think the Lord would help us. Mark helps us particularly, the evangelists are all confirmatory of Paul’s teaching in regard to the Supper and the assembly, and Mark suggests a considerable space of time to consider what the Lord says about the cup.
HB Would it suggest the possibility of the Lord giving us a word just after the cup?
JT Yes, I think it is very appropriate, sometimes very necessary, something to open up the ministry of glory. The authority is there, it is not lost, but it is merged in liberty, it is the law of liberty.
WCG Does that make the way for the enjoyment of the rest of the sabbath?
JT Well, it does. You would like to spend as much time as you can in the anticipation of eternity, restfulness in what God is in Christ.
JB It would be refreshment too for God Himself.
JT That is the idea; you are now in the presence of God, and He is refreshed, and we are refreshed.
WSS We are come “to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant”. Hebrews 12:24 Yes.
WA He speaks of it in the epistle to the Hebrews [p. 210] where we get the ministerial side of things in the blood of the eternal covenant.
JT Yes, he does — “A minister of the sanctuary” in chapter 8, and then the writer proceeds to enlarge on the covenant, and occupies the rest of chapter 8, chapter 9, and chapter 10, till we come to verse 19, enlarging on the covenant. We are so slow to get into it, the realm of love and glory. And then he says, We have access; let us go in, there is liberty to go in.
Ques Do you mean when we arrive at the covenant then the ministry of glory commences?
JT I think so.
JG What would be the next point after that?
JT The Father.
Ques What about the Lord in resurrection?
JT We are speaking of Hebrews 8 to 10. Hebrews 8 is Christ in heaven — “minister of the sanctuary”. The position is heavenly now. The Mosaic position is Corinthians, but we are to take up heavenly ground, and it is so great that with that in view, having spoken of Christ in heaven, the writer returns to the covenant, and occupies chapters 8, 9 and the greater part of chapter 10, enlarging us in the love of God.
Rem In that connection, in 2 Corinthians, chapter 3, before the glory is enlarged on, you get the idea of “competent as ministers of the new covenant”, as if there was a time after the Supper for that. It might help.
JT It might help, if the brethren were not afraid of an innovation; yet it is not an innovation, it is something to regulate the saints and bring them into movement.
Ques Paul says, “I have received of the Lord”, and then he says, “the Lord Jesus” — what is the difference?