NOVEMBER 17TH, 1937

NOVEMBER 17TH, 1937

Mr. L. D. Malpas.

Beloved Brother, — I am very interested in all you say as to addressing the Father in relation to the new covenant, although I am wondering why it is that you find so many wishing to do so, for it is not my experience. God has been addressed at the Lord’s supper — at least I do so, and I have heard of others who do it — but for years I have not heard, that I can recall, of anyone suggesting that the Father should be addressed.

Of course I shall welcome any help. It seems, however, that departure from what is accepted by the saints as spiritually right should be well supported by Scripture if advocated. I have been thinking over the subject, since I saw a letter from you to Mr. Lyon, but I have not reached any change of thought ^[p. 100] from what I have held for a long time, and have constantly given expression to.

The new covenant is, in Scripture, introduced into Christianity in connection with the Lord’s supper and approach to God — 1 Corinthians 11, the synoptic gospels, and Hebrews — and is linked with the death of Christ rather than with the revelation of the Father. The Lord would, I suppose, give thanks to the Father in the institution of the Supper, but, as in relation to the assembly, the memorial is called “the Lord’s supper”, not the Father’s; thus we rightly give thanks to the Lord for the bread and cup. To be safe as to anything we should move in the teaching of the apostles, Acts 2: 42, and especially that of Paul. The teaching as to the Father in the gospels should be reached in this way. In the gospels the Father comes in in relation to Christ, owning Him, not in relation to the blood of the covenant. The Lord linked the disciples with Himself in relation to the Father, as in the synoptic gospels, evidently on lower ground than is proper to the assembly. John 20 gives the latter. Ephesians speaks of access to the Father through Christ by the Spirit, whereas access in Hebrews is through the death of Christ, the great Priest over the house of God, etc. — clearly to God; the Father is not mentioned in that epistle as to us save as “Father of spirits”.

Paul clearly connects the Lord’s supper with the assembly, and as the disciples — he with them — assembled to break bread. Obviously it took the first place in the service — the apostle’s address, etc. in Troas would be special — and as it was the Lord’s supper, He would have the dominant place in it. He would be ‘everything’ initially, but the “sanctuary” would be there and He as “Minister” of it would lead to God. This is how the truth of assembly service should be laid hold of, I am assured.

Affectionately in Him,
James Taylor.

PS — I am thankful you are getting about serving the brethren. I can understand your difficulty as to circumstances of those served as well as those of the one who may serve. Dates imply definiteness on both sides, both as to prayer and preparation. — J.T.