THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIVINE BOUNTY (5)
THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIVINE BOUNTY (5)
JT I have been thinking of a passage in Matthew 26, verses 17 to 30. I had in mind that we should get the bearing of verse 30: “Having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”, because it seems as if this verse is the outlet from our position here in the testimony connected with the dispensation of God to what is eternal, that outlet being in the Spirit. This is found in this gospel and in Mark’s gospel only, meaning, I apprehend, that these gospels being specially dispensational, there is an outlet even from what is dispensational to what is eternal. John would lead us directly, from the very outset of his account of the resurrection, into what is eternal, because he begins with the first day of the week. Matthew connects the resurrection with the sabbath. The sabbath is in view; meaning, I suppose, that the assembly is connected with the testimony of God, corresponding with Israel’s place on earth, taking up all the threads of the testimony; whereas John would lead us outside of all that to what is eternal. And so I apprehend that Matthew and Mark, while dealing with what is dispensational, give this outlet also.
LDB Do you suggest that Matthew would in that way touch John?
JT I think they link on in that way.
LDB Matthew, generally speaking, is on dispensational lines. This is the means of outlet into what is eternal.
JT Coming in at the end of the Lord’s supper it is very suggestive. What precedes it enters into our coming together in a public way, so the Lord [p. 237] indicates the house in which the institution is to be set up, coming in at the end of a series of houses in which He is seen serving. This house is one that He especially selects, because He is about to introduce what should be a central feature of the dispensation of administration, the administration of divine bounty. He selects this house. We do not find Him formally selecting a house earlier although He is seen in many houses serving. Now He selects this one, and I think it points to the requirements indicated in 1 Corinthians, the divine requirements for the assembly. So the apostle says, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper” 1 Corinthians 11:20; meaning that the conditions were not suitable. They were eating their own supper, whereas He in this chapter indicates what would be suitable for His Supper.
SF So you feel that in His selecting the house on this occasion, there is a great deal underlying it for instruction during the present dispensation.
JT Well, I think you will agree with that. There is much of man’s will active in connection with what is ostensibly the Lord’s supper. It is linked up with all sorts of conditions, whereas the Lord indicates here that there are certain conditions requisite, and these must obtain if He is to be there, and His Supper is to be there.
JCS So that the house at Corinth, to carry out the idea of the house, was not really suitable for eating the Lord’s supper.
JT That is what I thought. He says, “This is not to eat the Lord’s supper”, 1 Corinthians 11:20 and then he goes on to show how it was not; that parties existed. They discriminated between the rich and the poor.
EBMcC Is it because our souls require so much subduing that there is more of what is dispensational than there is of what is eternal?
JT Coming under the authority of Christ is [p. 238] what brings down our wills and maintains the order of God in this world.
JCS Do you think that if the conditions are realised in connection with the order of the house of God what is eternal will be secured to us?
JT I think that is what comes out. Verse 30 gives a link with what is eternal. It is just the link. If you value this in the way it is indicated then you enter into the privilege God intended for us before the foundation of the world. If you take the different settings in which the Lord’s supper is found ostensibly abroad in the world and compare them with this passage, or with 1 Corinthians, you will see how very far they are removed from the divine thought. Take Rome, for example, the settings in which they have the Lord’s supper ostensibly, and the idolatry that is linked up with it, you can see the extent of lawlessness there is in connection with the Lord’s supper. Then come down along the line to Anglicanism; it is only a little while ago I was remarking they were having the communion on the steamer at seven o’clock in the morning, and it was regarded to be within the reach of any person, without any thought of suitable conditions. And so on down you find it, in some cases observed monthly and in some quarterly. Then again, you find a brother perhaps dissatisfied with his brethren, and he hives off with a few of his followers and pretends to have the Lord’s supper. Then again, you will find that where difficulties occur, and conditions in a locality become such that brethren cannot walk together, a section of them continue on with the symbol of the fellowship, whereas it does not exist. All these things show the activity of man’s will in connection with this precious institution which the Lord connects with a place or house He Himself knows of, which was suitably furnished — it was to be in that house.
JCS So it is a moral impossibility to eat [p. 239] the Supper anywhere else; it must be in that house.
JT I think so. He says, “This is not the Lord’s supper”; that to my mind is the word for all those conditions I have referred to. Whatever their claims, the answer is, “This is not the Lord’s supper”. We are not called upon to define what it may be; it is not the Lord’s supper.
WJP Would you say there must be the eating continuously?
JT That is good. In verse 17 it says, “On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare”. He did not say, ‘Go anywhere; it does not make any difference so long as I am there’. It is not put on that basis at all. He says, “Go into the city unto such a one”, indicating where he was, “and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is near, I will keep the passover in thy house with my disciples”. It would be in that house, whoever the “such a one” was. It was one obviously known to the Lord, and the conditions would be suitable.
HB It is not outward conditions; it is the inward that are necessary.
JT Well, it is spiritual. It does take in outward acts at Corinth; the public conditions were not fit for the Lord’s supper. Where you have divisions, parties or a partisan spirit — those who are rich, it may be, and have a set of their own, sets of circles within circles, and they discriminate against others — that is more or less public; it has become a public matter, known generally; these are not conditions suitable to the Lord’s supper. “This is not the Lord’s supper”, he says.
JCS There will be no outlet to the mount of Olives where such conditions exist.
JT No. You may have all Mr. Darby’s hymns, and all the others, but they will never take you up [p. 240] to the mount of Olives. The conditions must precede all that.
JCS It is most important to see that without those conditions the order of things of which you are speaking will not be reached.
LDB Does it not emphasise the value of Corinthians? The division there caused the apostle to give the things that would put the house in order, both the outward things and the inward things.
JT So that, as our brother remarked, it is “as they were eating”. It says, “When the evening was come he lay down at table with the twelve”. Notice here it is the twelve, because it is a question of administration. Matthew has in view, as we were saying, the administration side. “He lay down at table with the twelve”. I think when the twelve are mentioned it is administration; that is. He has by Him those through whom He is to administer. “As they were eating” means eating the passover. I think there is a certain correspondence between this passage and 1 Corinthians 5. Evil existed at Corinth. There were many irregularities, but there was a case of positive wickedness there, and it is in connection with that He brings in the passover and the feast of unleavened bread.
JCS The wickedness would be the result of the neglect of keeping the feast.
JT That is what I thought.
AES It is said the disciples did as Jesus had directed them. They were under His directions. I wondered whether the Lord thus lays down the conditions:
JT The previous instances in which the Lord is seen in the houses help to show how assembly conditions are formed. We emerge from our own houses into the house of God.
SF I was wondering whether this has any bearing on Corinthians, where it says, “Have ye [p. 241] not houses to eat and to drink in?” 1 Corinthians 11:22. As if to indicate that if they had been right in their homes they would have had sensitive feelings in approaching what is of the assembly.
JT I am sure that is right. We were noticing that the assembly at Philippi had its origin in the work of God in houses, and it developed into perhaps the most spiritual of all the assemblies, because it had fellowship with the apostle in the gospel “from the first day” Philippians 1:5 until the day on which he wrote. It is a remarkable testimony — fellowship in the gospel — and the work began in the heart of a woman named Lydia. She said, “If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house”. Acts 16:15. It seems to be a place in which the apostle found a congenial atmosphere. Then again the jailor took them into his house and washed their stripes and set meat before them.
EBMcC So that the conditions were maintained there. If the conditions had not been maintained the gospel would not have been free to go out.
JT I thought it was a great thing for the apostle, in view of the door being opened into Europe, that the assembly first formed in Europe had fellowship with him in the gospel from the first day. That was a very fine tribute to be paid to any company of Christians.
WJP You would say the Philippians had eaten of the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I thought it may have been “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise”. Psalm 51:17.
JCS I was struck with what you said about administration connected with the twelve. It would appear that as the scene develops the administration idea disappears, and when it comes to singing the hymn it is not the twelve, it is the company — “they”.
JT It is very beautiful: “They sang a hymn”.
[p. 242] To return to the idea of eating, because I think it is a feature of Matthew, the searching is in connection with the eating, it is a challenge. The apostle brings in the idea of eating in 1 Corinthians 5. “Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. 1 Corinthians 5:8. There are the features that enter into the eating. The eating is a sort of continuous thing; it is a question of keeping the feast, the feast of unleavened bread, the whole seven days. The Lord’s supper is only one day — “on the first day of the week”, but the feast of unleavened bread is to be during the whole week, and it is “the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”. 1 Corinthians 5:8. There will be no disunion or disintegration amongst us if the feast of unleavened bread is kept. As they were eating He challenges them, “One of you shall betray me”.
MPM The very fact of partaking of the passover becomes a challenge to us, and searches our hearts as to whether the conditions are with us.
JT It is in the days of the week that the evil happens — the little foxes spoil the vines. They come in in the days of the week, on the Monday and the Tuesday, the Wednesday, the Thursday, the Friday and the Saturday; these are the days when Satan works; when we are in our homes and in our business, and meeting the world in its varied forms.
AES You mean when it says, “One of you”, He could have said which it was, but He allowed it to search their hearts. So it searches our hearts, that we may have part with Christ.
JT Quite so. So it comes to one that if I am not the one who betrays Him, I am capable of it, and it is only as I continue keeping the feast with sincerity and truth I am saved.
Ques Is it possible to eat the passover and not [p. 243] the Supper?
JT I think they run together. The Lord’s supper is on the first day of the week. If you keep the feast of unleavened bread during the week you will surely wish to keep the Lord’s supper.
MPM Is verse 26 the passover, and then, “Jesus took the bread” the Supper?
JT Yes. The first eating is the challenge, “One of you shall betray me”; then in the second eating, verse 26, He brings in the positive thing, the testimony to His love; but the challenge comes, as I understand it, to everyone of us. If I did not betray Him I am preserved, but my heart is capable of it — that humbles me.
JCS The element of self-judgment would come into the keeping of “the feast”.
JT That is what I am trying to get at. 1 Corinthians 5 is the beginning of the feast: “Let us keep the feast” 1 Corinthians 5:8 — that does not mean the Lord’s supper; it means the “unleavened bread” every day of the week.
JCS So when we are away from each other, unless we keep the feast we would be doing all sorts of things.
JT Yes; if I am not sincere and true I will do things under the eyes of the brethren and do otherwise when away from them.
GRG It says, “Exceedingly grieved”. Does that indicate the conditions that keep the hearts of the saints when evil does come in — that is, the eating of the passover is in view of evil?
JT I am sure it does. What you feel is, if you did not deny Him you are capable of doing it; a truly self-judged man would admit that. If I did not do it I have been kept by the grace of God, but I am capable of it, that keeps me on the watch.
MPM The apostle says to the Corinthians, “Ye have not mourned”. 1 Corinthians 5:2.
AES A beautiful touch about it is that He lay [p. 244] down at table. In that affectionate way He would appeal to their hearts.
LDB In that way was there an appeal even to Judas? There was sufficient there to intercept his purpose had he eyes to see and a heart to understand.
JT I am sure that is so. The Lord would save him.
EBMcC If exercised ones are eating the passover and evil is allowed to go on, would it be made apparent to them.
JT No doubt. At Corinth they had not mourned that there should have been such a thing: “Ye are puffed up” 1 Corinthians 5:2 — that is the very opposite of eating unleavened bread, which is reducing; it is the opposite of inflation.
JCS So that the great advantage of the feast in this connection is that it would preserve us from unsuitable conditions in view of the Supper, and promote what would really be suitable to it.
JT It brings you down, it reduces you. The world is built up on other principles than unleavened bread. It is the very opposite of sincerity and truth.
SF In the passover when it was first instituted, as we read in Exodus, there were “bitter herbs” Exodus 12:8 connected with it. There was an absence of that at Corinth. I had it on my mind before that the Corinthians’ trouble was inflation; what you have said is most appropriate. We cannot move on ‘Supper lines’ apart from reduction. That is the way to it.
Ques Why is it called affliction?
JT They were to afflict their souls. If the Israelites were to be taken out of Egypt the flesh was not to escape, so when they crossed the Red Sea they had to drink the bitter waters of Marah, because God did not intend to take the flesh into [p. 245] Canaan; it is just as bad in ourselves as in the worldling — the same flesh.
JCS “As they were eating” is repeated; that would rather emphasise the idea, as has been mentioned, that the thing must go on.
JT That is it. The traitor is exposed by the challenge, and now “as they were eating” is again mentioned. The Lord brings in His Supper.
EBMcC I suppose you would say here they came under the headship of Christ more directly. They receive directions from the Head in connection with the house and all their movements.
JT One is impressed with that — they are under His direction, If we are to go on breaking bread there must be the underlying state of sincerity and truth, otherwise there will be a break up sooner or later. The keeping of the feast preserves us.
SHB Should we be constantly on our guard lest we become marked by the conditions around us?
JT I think that is why eating the passover and the Lord’s supper go together. Eating unleavened bread every day nullifies inflation. Leaven is a type of sin active, and it inflates; hence you need the unleavened bread to check that.
JCS So that where local conditions are bad, I suppose it has come about as the result of one or more persons neglecting to keep the feast. If room is made for party spirit or disunion in one way or another, it would all spring out of having overlooked the necessity of keeping the feast.
JT I am sure that is so. Each one of us must judge things for himself. Unless we keep the feast of unleavened bread we shall become inflated. Whatever little things may distinguish me will be the cause of my inflation unless I maintain self-judgment, and this challenge brings out the worst feature; but it is in everyone of us; it is possible for everyone of us to betray the Lord. He says, “One of you shall betray me”. That is your heart; it is utterly untrustworthy, and the feast of unleavened bread is to preserve you from it. Then the Lord says in effect, “I want to show you My heart”. Verse 26 says, “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body”. That is evidence of what is in His heart. There is now something new to eat. This is a different food from what they were eating. One is to pull you down and reduce you, the other is to build you up.
HB So the unleavened bread would expose what is in my heart, and the bread He gave would show what is in the Lord’s heart.
JT “Take, eat; this is my body”; it is a question of eating. All that He is is available to you.
SF One feels the importance of what the six days supply. His death has supplied all that. Then we come together on the special occasion to eat in His presence.
JT That is right. You are already eating, but now it is something different; He took a loaf and said, “This is my body”.
AES He had so much to fill their hearts with. He wanted to make room for Himself.
JT Yes, the unleavened bread is to make room for Christ; it removes all that is extraneous. Now you have this one thing before you, “Take, eat; this is my body”. Then it goes on, “And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood, that of the new covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins”. The heart of God is brought into evidence. It is “for many”. In Matthew it is not exactly for the assembly, but in its general bearing.
JCS I gather from what you say that what comes out in connection with the covenant is not exclusively the assembly’[p. 247] s portion.
JT No, that is Matthew’s point of view; it is “for many”.
LDB But it tends to lead us to the mount of Olives, which is the assembly’s special portion.
JT What is exclusive in Matthew is the mount of Olives; but in Luke the body is exclusive — “for you”; but in Matthew and Mark what is special is the mount of Olives. Matthew and Mark only mention the mount of Olives in this connection.
JCS I think I am beginning to understand what is meant by entering by the administration gate and going out another way.
JT That is right. In Ezekiel if I come in by the south gate I go out by the north gate. I go out by the gate exactly opposite me. The mount of Olives is the door into heaven, we may say; it is opposite the administration gate — the twelve. I am subject to the authority of the Lord — the administration of the Lord — in coming in; but I go out with Him: “When they had sung an hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”.
HB Do you suggest that coming in is more in connection with administration, and going out another way is by influence?
JT Yes, and in company with the Lord; it is more mutual, we are His brethren. In Matthew we do not get the Lord’s supper separate from the passover; it does not say ‘for you’ in Matthew and Mark; and the covenant goes beyond us, but what is especially in these two gospels is, we go out with the Lord to heaven.
JCS So the administration order of things, so to speak, would lead us up to this wonderful gate that opens to the heavenly and eternal order of things. Did I gather from your thanksgiving this morning that up to the cup you recognise past history?
JT Surely. You get it here, it says, “For this [p. 248] is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”. Don’t you agree with that?
JCS Yes, I do indeed. I would like you to enlarge on it. I had thought the idea as we come together is that we are entirely of Christ, and no past history.
JT But look at the bread and cup before you. What does that mean? It means the Lord Jesus was here in flesh and blood, and that He had to take up past history. You cannot get away from that. There it is; it is a dead Christ that is symbolised in the Lord’s supper; but the symbol is a memorial; it calls to mind Him who is alive in heaven. But the solemn fact is, He died here, and we are publicly identified with His death. The world does not know what He is to us. His death is a historic fact, and that cannot be denied; but we are identified with Him. It is not the death of Christ, or of Jesus, but it is the death of the Lord that is shown. It is a question of public testimony, involving His rights.
GRG Will the millennial company be ushered into the eternal state?
JT The millennium is a dispensation; it is part of the public testimony, and it merges into the eternal state. How those who are living on earth will be changed is left obscure. We know well enough that flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom of God; a change must come in for that.
JCS You have spoken of the light that governs the situation. The covenant relationship would govern what we are speaking of now, and when you come to the outlet, that would be preparing us for family relations.
JT That is right.
EBMcC Is the body in that sense as wide as the cup, if you look at the two as the same? You said the cup is for many.
JT No, I don’t think it is. The Lord does not say the body is for many; they were to eat the loaf. The cup is the covenant made known, and it refers to God — to what God is towards us. In the Lord’s supper His body is for the assembly; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24.
JCS It is well to note the difference. This would be the reason why you have suggested that the notices should come in at the beginning, as connected with the administrative part of the meeting. When you come to the outlet touching eternal things it would be unsuitable to take up things connected with administration.
JT Well, things connected with administration — the public order — ought to precede the assembly in function, because the inference is very largely that when announcements are made assembly things are finished, whereas it ought to be left open, I think, because we come together in assembly, and that proceeds during the week to the succeeding week; so that the assembly’s life on earth is a life of weeks. You have the fifty days, the period between the Lord’s resurrection and the coming of the Spirit, divided into days; also into weeks in the types. The days, I think, refer to individual experience, and the weeks refer to assembly experience. I think all administrative things should precede the actual function of the assembly.
JCS I am very glad of that explanation; it shows the reason why the administrative part of the meeting comes before the outlet; it seems therefore unsuitable to give out notices at the end of the meeting.
SF So every heart is free to go home on the top note.
JT Yes. Some have interpreted that there should be nothing in the way of ministry in the assembly. I think that is quite a mistake, for the [p. 250] assembly is the place for God to minister to us as well as we to minister to Him; and it is like God to have a word for His people. It is not that anyone would take up the position of assuming that it is a word directly, but the principle is right; God would have a word for His people. What we say to Him is what we have in our hearts, but there is always what He has in mind. The assembly is without a question the place where God speaks.
Rem You wouldn’t think of going to the morning meeting without your Bible.
JT No, I would not, because it is the representation of the word of God to me, and I would like to have that in the assembly; it belongs to the assembly. If a brother is continually intruding with exhortations there what you feel is, he is abusing the thing.
WJP Do you mean the word would be in keeping with the Lord’s supper?
JT Well, a ‘word’ would always depend on the need of the saints. If there is need of exhortation it is right to exhort. We have to deal with things as we find them. There is no use in walking on stilts. We must act on the actual conditions that exist in any company of God’s people. It should be a word from the Lord.