BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 16TH, 1938

BROOKLYN, N.Y., FEBRUARY 16TH, 1938

Mr. Chas. A. Coates.

Beloved Brother, — Last week I received from A.M.H. notes of a reading with you at Brackley on September 22nd on 1 Peter 1 and 2, also a reading at Marlborough on October 24th on some chapters in Luke. As I do not think the tenor of them — especially the first — agrees with what you and the brethren generally have been for many years pursuing as truth, I send you a line, this being the more necessary as the notes are said to be unrevised.

The word “covenant” is used generally in the notes, not new covenant, but evidently the latter is in mind, although Peter never uses the latter term. The notes stress that the covenant was made for the land, not for the wilderness, although made in the wilderness. As you obviously have the antitype in view, I wonder at this, for as to Christians the wilderness continues while we are down here — indeed during the whole period of Christ’s absence — and the new covenant stands connected with it. It is found in 1 and 2 Corinthians and Hebrews.

The notes further say, that the first provisions of the covenant required the land. This is stranger still, for the ten words require love, as the Lord shows in Matthew 22, and this surely is begotten in the wilderness, as Romans teaches. It is in the land, too, of course, but Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians regard love as in the saints and these epistles do not contemplate us as risen with Christ.

With the above is associated in the notes the thought that entrance into the inheritance, or the land, is necessary so that the people should have the means of offering. Of course certain offerings required the land, but Scripture shows that offerings were required of the people in the wilderness and ^[p. 117] that they could supply them too. I need not tell you how Moses contended with Pharaoh that Israel must have their flocks and herds so that they could offer to Jehovah, serve Him with them. And then Jehovah had said to Abram that they should go out of Egypt with “great property”. This fact is amply attested by the material for the tabernacle which they supplied. This is also seen in Christians — the immediate outcome of the reception of the gospel, as taught in Romans. (I challenge myself as to why I am saying these things to you!).

Another thing enlarged on in the notes that seems to me should be reconsidered is the thought that Christ personally is in view in the covenant — based on the fact that the Hebrew bondman is mentioned in the sprinkled book. But other persons and things are mentioned in that book that cannot be included in the New Covenant, and of course it is it we have in mind, for the old does not exist save as a type, and the terms of the new show that its scope is not as extensive as the old. Thus, to use the old, in the light Of 2 Timothy 2: 15, to help as to the new, we must begin with the latter, and not introduce what does not belong to it. The old covenant, speaking generally, covered the whole Mosaic system, but we cannot say that the new covers the whole Christian dispensation. In the Lord’s supper it is formally connected with the cup by the Lord and I am unable to see that we should extend it to the loaf. It does not seem cutting in a straight line the word of truth. As I said, many other things, also persons, are in the book that cannot be included in the new covenant — such as the angel, who would not forgive Israel’s transgressions, and Israel’s obedience expressed in their works. The new is what God does; objectively as in the Lord’s supper, it is the testimony of His love to His people. While the whole public position of Israel, as also of our dispensation, is marked by sacrificial death (blood), detailed instruction provides for the death of Christ — that He was immune from death. Thus Aaron, who, as a type, is the bondman, in another light, was by himself anointed without blood; and the love of the bondman for his master is plainly declared without death. It was not demanded, but spontaneously expressed, also that for his wife and children, in known relationships; all this points to Christ seen in the gospels. That Christ is said to be a covenant and that He entered the holiest by His own blood is, of course, true, but to say that His body is included in the new covenant as sprinkled ^[p. 118] with the blood of it seems to me forced. It seems to me the Lord’s supper should stand before us as combining two great ideas: the first presenting Himself in relation to the assembly; the second bringing God in. This involves discrimination and distinction in the holy things, which is priestly — governing the whole service of God. It is Leviticus, where everything is governed by law or principle, each item having its own value, place and time. This divine ordering or discrimination would not bring the Father into the Lord’s supper. That blessed relation was not primarily entered into as a matter of authority or through death, but as of counsel — as Christ is seen in manhood — the beloved Son in whom the Father found His delight. The service of God as in Leviticus, David and culminating in Christ through Paul is restrictive — governed by law, so to speak, so that the worshippers understand what is suitable. 1 Corinthians leads in this.

I hoped to make this letter shorter, but there is much to speak of and I trust it will not weary you. We are praying much for you and hope your health is fair through mercy. The season in Jamaica was fruitful, thank God, and there is a remarkable interest in these parts and America generally. We had an extraordinary meeting here last night; a so-called ‘ministry meeting’ at which P.L. and two other brothers spoke. There were confessions afterward by six brothers who had sinned in their part in the Westfield-New York matter in 1935. The grace of the Lord was upon us.

My wife unites in love in Him,

Affectionately yours,
James Taylor.