BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 13TH, 1910
BROOKLYN, N.Y., AUGUST 13TH, 1910
Mr. J. S. Allen.
Dear Mr. Allen, — I have to thank you for the two letters, and also for your ‘Remarks’ on the Supper. I had heard with regret of the dear Morfords’ accident, but I am glad to find it was not so serious as was at first feared. I deeply regret dear Mrs. Raven’s sorrow in the loss of her son. She has had sorrow upon sorrow, but the Lord’s way is perfect. I trust she finds consolation in Him. As regards your paper, I am sorry to find such divergence of mind between us, and I note that Messrs. S.H. and D.L.H. share your views. I have weighed what you write and I cannot say that it helps me any or that I can alter anything I have said on the subject. As far as I understand you, you admit that the celebration of the Supper is in the wilderness, but as in ‘the resurrection state’. That is, you agree with Mr. Darby on this point, quoting him approvingly. As I agree with him also, we are not far apart in this respect. As I said in my letter to you (and also to S.H.) I make full allowance for the spiritual state we may possess. Surely I am entitled to regard myself while at the Supper in the full light of what I am in Christ as the result of the death and resurrection. But we partake of the Supper, as [p. 88] a matter of fact, in a place to which all this does not refer. My spiritual state and the light in which God takes account of me have reference to another scene altogether; but I remember Christ, as J.N.D. says, here ‘in the wilderness’. But the Supper is more than a remembrance; it is communion in Christ’s death. In this we judge and are separated from the idolatrous world outside. But in the breaking of bread the Lord is recalled to our minds, and as we accord Him His place, we are led into the assembly in its true character as risen with Him. As I said, my exercise is to have things as they are presented in Scripture. The subject raises the whole question of the difference between the wilderness and Canaan. The former has to be viewed in two ways. First, it is what the world is to the believer as justified by faith in Christ. Here he is tested, but God is with him and he carries out God’s will, feeding on the manna. With this aspect Romans corresponds. Secondly, the wilderness is a scene in which God’s people, viewed collectively, are placed by God, as called out from the world, in relation to His testimony. They are marked off as saints and they recognise the authority of the Lord Jesus — whom the world crucified. The mind of God is known among them — they are His temple — they are God’s assembly in contrast to Jew and Gentile; they are in the fellowship of the death of Christ; they are practically united — one body; and divine order and intelligence is witnessed among them. This is 1 Corinthians and a comparison of this epistle with the early part of Numbers will show that the Spirit has made a special connection between these two sections of Scripture. It is in this connection the Supper stands in Scripture. Compare also the Acts. As I understand it, Scripture contemplates the assembly, as well as the individual believer, in the wilderness, but it has to be noted that the assembly convened is not the wilderness — far from it, for there we escape wilderness conditions. But outwardly and as to actual fact, we are there, we come together in the scene of Christ’s absence to partake of the Supper. And it has to be remembered that wilderness provision goes even over Jordan. The manna did not cease until the people ate of the old corn of the land. Christ as known in the wilderness is only replaced by Him as the heavenly Man in His own sphere. Canaan has also a double bearing, that is, it typifies a sphere of privilege, and of conflict. John’s writings (his gospel and epistles), Colossians and Ephesians,
[p. 89] specially afford us the antitypes. These do not present the Supper — God’s work in the saints, eternal life, and God’s counsels concerning Christ and the church are in view. Divine relationships — our connection with them — vitality — affection, etc., are enlarged upon here. In a word it is not testimony in the wilderness (although this is involved) but what God has for His own pleasure and our eternal blessing. The church has to be taken account of according to what it is inwardly and outwardly — the former has reference to the land, the latter to the wilderness. But the true power and bearing of the church’s testimony in the wilderness depends upon what it is in its outward relationships. I believe the Supper is the link properly between the outward and the inward. I would further remark in this connection that the ground of the church is not simply resurrection — resurrection falls short of the full position accorded to the church. For the proper ground of the assembly we have to go to Ephesians. Here she is not only risen with Christ, but seated in the heavenlies in Christ. It is as heavenly, she is the habitation of God here upon earth, and not simply as risen. I would not minimise the resurrection (God forbid!) it is the great testimony to God’s power, and the platform upon which He accomplishes His counsels — for this He must have man out of death; but the church’s place is beyond it. The truth of the house of God is properly connected with Ephesus. I refer to this as a weighty fact, which, if we overlook, our testimony will be lower in principle than the divine standard. S.H.’s remark as to an Israelite bringing an offering into the court of the tabernacle is a good one. The man entered into a system of things that had a heavenly character. Inside the enclosure the man would not be in the wilderness strictly, for there would be nothing adverse there (except the sand under his feet), but the tabernacle was in the wilderness. Taking the tabernacle as figurative of the assembly, this expresses my point of view exactly. As to the Corinthians, you will easily understand from what I have said, that I do not consider what you say — to show that they are viewed on resurrection ground — as conclusive. That they were gathered on the ground of Christ’s death and resurrection, is, of course, true; but this is not saying they are regarded as risen. If the Spirit of God wished us to understand that He viewed them as risen, He would undoubtedly say so, as in Colossians and Ephesians. He does not touch resurrection in 1 Corinthians until chapter 15 (except [p. 90] in chapter 6, where it is treated as in chapter 15) and there Christ only is said to be risen — the saints’ resurrection is future. The saints at Corinth were the assembly of God there — they were a company of men and women in that city that had been separated from the world by the testimony of the gospel. They were marked off there as God’s assembly. Whereas, as risen with Christ we are in an out-of-the-world order of things. As risen with Christ we are over Jordan clearly — qualified to be His companions. As to the temple in Corinthians, I do not think it is alluded to as a fixed abode in contrast to the tabernacle but rather that it was “holy”. This they were by the death of Christ and as possessing the Holy Spirit. The tabernacle was in principle what they were (compare 2 Corinthians 6: 16 where the temple is connected with God walking, also Leviticus 26: 12 and Exodus 29: 45). The body of the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and it is not viewed as raised. The same remarks apply equally, in measure, to the “body” as viewed in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthian saints were Christ’s body as having the Spirit. Corinthians treats the body as it is now — not exactly in relation to divine purpose — this latter is Ephesians. But it is clear that they are regarded in this respect as in their flesh and blood condition — their bodies were members of Christ. God had raised up the Lord and will raise us up “from among the dead by His power”, chapter 6. This does not show that they were viewed on resurrection ground (compare Acts 9: 4, 5; Acts 12: 1, 2). As to the Supper being out of the view of the world — that the doors were shut according to the gospel history, and that you know of nothing in Corinthians to change this, I would say that chapter 14: 24 is a proof that there was a change. I think too, that Acts 2: 42 - 47 shows that things were more or less public. You say the testimony seen in the ‘sacraments is for God, and not for the world’. I am entirely at a loss to know how our eating the Supper is an announcement to God that Christ died, or that baptism is not a testimony to the world that Christ’s claim over the believer is recognised by him. As to the act of breaking bread I have hardly anything to add to what I said in my previous letters. I have been unable to look up J.N.D.’s paper to which you refer. It is likely that he was dealing with materialism — that the element is changed by the action of the priest. At any rate, he says that the breaking of the bread is ‘absolutely necessary as a figure’. However, as I said in my last, we have [p. 91] to do with Scripture — in this case, with the Lord’s direct utterance “the Lord Jesus the same night ... took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:23,24). He does not say ‘this take’, or ‘this eat’, but “this do”. I would utterly refuse the idea that the person who breaks the loaf is acting in any special capacity — he acts as one of the members and for all, but the Supper scene on the night of Christ’s betrayal is recalled. We know from Matthew 14 and other passages, that the Lord was accustomed to break the bread, and unquestionably if His disciples had to sit down to a meal in His absence, one of them would do the same. Paul broke the bread at Troas (Acts 20). There would be no thought of assuming the Lord’s place. It would be an act of necessity which some one has to perform, but it recalls Christ. The breaking was to render the bread in a condition to be eaten, but although a simple necessity for convenience, it had to be done, and the Lord did it when here, and so the action reminded the disciples of Him. Luke 24 is of full legitimate importance as showing the import of the “breaking of the loaf”. The words ‘breaking of bread’ or ‘to break bread’ are almost a formula for the Supper, and this shows how wide the thought was in the mind of the Spirit and of the early Christians. I note your remark — ‘It is a serious matter’. It is a serious matter in another sense to me, for the authority of the Lord’s words is at stake. If the thing has to be done, and the Lord tells us to do what He did, surely no one assumes to take His place in breaking the loaf.
Affectionately yours in Christ,
James Taylor.