READING ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
[p. 333] READING ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
RSS Does chapter 8 introduce a new subject?
JT I think so: the new covenant is in view largely. The first two verses give a summary of the things of which He had spoken: “We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man;” (Hebrews 8: 1,2) and then he goes on to the ministry that this Priest has: “Now he has got a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is mediator of a better covenant”. Hebrews 8: 6. The ministry exercised by Christ is superior to that exercised by Aaron according to the measure in which the new covenant is superior to the old. From verse seven to the end the covenant is dwelt upon, and chapter 9 returns to the thought of the tabernacle, with the object, I judge, of leading up to the “holiest of all” in chapter 10.
RSS In what way is the covenant connected with the Priest?
JT In chapter 8 He is said to be the Mediator of the covenant. Priesthood stands connected with the tabernacle.
JP That is to say the thought of ministry is properly connected with the priest. A priest without any ministry would be, so to speak, no priest at all. The point is the ministry of this great Priest.
JT The mediatorship is not quite the point: it is simply brought in to emphasise the greatness of the ministry. The ministry is excellent because He is the Mediator of a better covenant.
JP “Which is established on the footing of better promises”. Hebrews 8: 6.
WHF [p. 334] Everything connected with the new system is perfect.
JT I think the first covenant was exceedingly weak: it depended for its fulfilment on man in the flesh, upon whom death had already passed: hence it could not be effective.
JP It was “weak through the flesh”.
WCR It was really a “ministration of condemnation”, as you learn from 2 Corinthians 3:9.
JT It was, but that is not the point here. The point here is that the old covenant was ineffectual, and so God Himself found fault with it. “Finding fault, he says”. Hebrews 8: 8. It is, as it were, God testing something and finding it ineffective, He lays it aside.
JP But the new is perfectly effective. It depends entirely on God.
JT The old covenant secured nothing for God. It served a good purpose indeed, in that it brought sin home to man’s conscience, “by law is knowledge of sin”, but it did not effectuate the will of God.
The new covenant is not made with man: it is consummated “as regards the house of Israel and as regards the house of Juda:” (Hebrews 8: 8) that is, God engages Himself to fulfil it: man is not responsible. God says, “Giving my laws into their mind, I will write them also upon their hearts”, etc. Hebrews 8: 10. There is no “if”.
Ques Where do we come in?
JT The new covenant applies to us in 2 Corinthians 3.
Rem And it is seen in “the cup of blessing which we bless”. 1 Corinthians 10: 16.
JT The cup is the new covenant in His blood.
JP In 2 Corinthians 3 I think it is a new covenant-minister: not exactly a minister of the new Covenant.
JT Christ is the Minister of the new covenant. What gave rise to the covenant being introduced in 2 Corinthians was the thought of a letter of commendation,
[p. 335] and the point was to emphasise the importance of Paul’s ministry: that he was a new covenant-minister was what they had to understand.
J . B. It is of all importance to see that there is an entirely new order of things: in connection with the old there was a complete breakdown. Everything must be new.
JT So we have a new Priest, a new company, a new tabernacle, a new ministry, and a new covenant.
JP Would you say covenant refers to what God is in Himself?
JT It refers to what is in the heart of God for us. He constitutes a new covenant as regards the house of Israel and the house of Judah: that is, he expresses what is His disposition towards them. As Christ is the One who undertakes to be the Mediator of it, you can depend upon it that it will be perfectly carried out, to the end that we get the good of it. It is effectual.
WCR And no one but Christ could undertake such a service.
JHG You get, “Lo, I come to do thy will”. Hebrews 10: 9.
GWH Speaking of Christ as Priest — in Luke 10, is He not the covenant there? That is, He is seen as making known to man what is in God’s heart.
JT I suppose He is that in the end of the chapter, where Mary is sitting at His feet. There He is expressing the mind and heart of God.
JP I should think so, because the covenant involves teaching.
JT The gospel of Luke is relative in a wonderful way. We were speaking of Christ as Priest meeting man’s need but another important feature of priesthood is that He instructs man, so I think Luke 24 is a wonderful opening-up of Christ’s position as Priest in the latter aspect. “He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself”. Luke 24: 27.
[p. 336] JP And as a result the disciples became acquainted with God and knew His mind.
Ques What is the difference between the “new covenant” and “new creation”?
JT The new covenant is found in 2 Corinthians 3, and new creation in chapter 5. The new covenant was a question of the expression of God’s love in the death of Christ. The apostle was a minister of that, but not of new creation. New creation refers to the subjective work of God in man’s soul. “If any one be in Christ there is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new; and all things are of the God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ”. 2 Corinthians 5: 17.
JP New creation stands connected with the ministry of reconciliation.
JT The new covenant is a question of what God is toward man.
JP You have the gospel presented in a very simple way in 1 Corinthians 15; then in 2 Corinthians 3 the ministry of the new covenant, and in chapter 5 the ministry of reconciliation The ministry of the new covenant is the expression of what God is toward man, and in reconciliation the point is the bringing of man in for Gods pleasure.
JP That is to say, in the ministry of the new covenant it is a question of what God is toward man: in the ministry of reconciliation it is a question of man being brought in perfect suitability to God.
JT You must have new creation for that.
WJN Hebrews would hardly go on as far as new creation.
JP No.
WJN Low as the state of the Corinthians was, after all there had been that which was for God there. For instance, “Ye are the epistle of Christ”. 2 Corinthians 3: 3.
JP I suppose when we come together to break [p. 337] bread, the Lord, by His Spirit, would set our souls in the light of what the new covenant means: the expression of God’s love toward us.
JT Hence it is that we begin properly on the Lord’s day morning with what God is toward us, and end with what we are to Him. It is a wonderful thing to see that God forms us for His pleasure: forms us to be congenial to Him. That is the idea of the assembly.
Ques Would you say we really begin with the new covenant and end with reconciliation?
JT We end with the sense of what we are to God.
Ques Does Hebrews go any further than the purging of the conscience?
JT I think not, as to our side: it does not deal with the formative work of the Spirit — new creation.
Ques Is this enjoyed individually?
JT Yes. “If any man be in Christ there is a new creation”. 2 Corinthians 5: 17. Every one of us must become the subject of the work of God, but it is to the end that we might all appear before God. The sons of God appear before Him, and He finds His delight in them as associated with Christ.
JP A covenant is not effective while a man lives: that is to say, until the death of Christ the new covenant was not effective. God’s heart was always the same, but until death came in there was no confirmation of the covenant, but in the death of Christ it is made good, and when a man dies his will cannot be altered. It is a wonderful thing that God condescends to use human figures in that way, so that we may understand that there is no alteration in His mind. These are the terms upon which God deals with man now.
Ques When it is a question of appearing before God, as I understand you, it must be in the light of His purpose, must [p. 338] it not?
JT Yes; when we appear before God it is a question of what we are for God.
Rem And the whole company is included there.
JT Yes. In Leviticus 23 there is that which refers to Christ personally: the sheaf of first-fruits, offered to Jehovah; then fifty days afterwards the two wave-loaves were presented. The latter typify the church as formed by the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Christ and the church are seen there as for God — waved “before Jehovah”.
Ques I do not think that I quite get hold of your thought regarding the Sunday morning meeting. You said something about what God’s disposition is toward us.
JT That is what is before us — what the cup presents to us. It is “the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you”, Luke 22: 20.
JP The supper represents that by which the assembly is formed — divine love.
WJN I suppose knowledge of a purged conscience in itself would hardly give confidence in the presence of God. It is God’s disposition towards us, as expressed in what the cup sets forth, that gives confidence in His presence.
JT The supper in itself does not go beyond the wilderness: it supposes the absence of the Lord, but properly we begin with it. Rightly apprehended it sets our affections in motion, and this leads on to association with Christ as His companions.
Ques Is the holiest in chapter 10 privilege?
JT Yes, but it is not exactly the land of promise.
Ques Is that the reason why we get the tabernacle spoken of in Hebrews instead of the temple?
JT It is the wilderness position in Hebrews, and the tabernacle is a prominent figure, but then it is perfectly in order when speaking of the new covenant — the blessed revelation of the heart of God towards us — that we should also speak of the answer [p. 339] to that in us, namely, worship, and this involves Canaan.
Ques Would it be right to regard the supper as the entrance into the divine system?
JB In the supper the bread comes first, but then you get the cup, which is the new covenant in His blood, so you are before God in all the blessed reality of what is set forth in that.
JT The bread refers to His body given, by which there is a termination of the old order. Then what comes after the bread is the cup. That is not exactly the termination of the old order. It is the expression of what is in God’s heart; hence it is called “the cup of blessing”.
JP We enter upon all the blessedness of the new covenant.
JT But the bread represents that by which we are sanctified; we have been sanctified “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”. Hebrews 10: 10.
Ques You mean on the ground of the new covenant?
JT We begin with the end of the old order and all that belongs to it. We ought to read chapters 11 and 12 of 1 Corinthians together. The bread really ends the old order, and the cup in chapter 11 answers to the Spirit in chapter 12. The cup brings to us what is positive — what is in the heart of God for us. The bread is more the negative side of the death of Christ.
RSS The cup is the expression of the love of God. We cannot drink of the cup unless we are in the good of what the loaf means.
JT Because you cannot mix oil and water. You must apprehend the Lord’s table, which the bread represents (that is to say, the exclusive character of it, the refusal of all that is contrary), before you can enter into the blessing.
[p. 340] Rem So you can take nothing of the old order over Jordan.
JT Indeed you cannot. In order to enjoy the blessing set forth in the cup, you must have mind and heart free from what you are in the flesh.
JP The Corinthians partook of the supper “not discerning the Lord’s body”. 1 Corinthians 11: 29.
Ques Do you distinguish between the table and the cup?
JT They are presented separately. “Ye cannot drink of the Lord’s cup, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the Lord’s table, and the table of demons”. 1 Corinthians 10: 21. They are distinguished.
Rem What I was thinking of was if it is a question of communion both are blessed, but the bread really represents what is negative. Would you say there is a difference between the Lord’s table and the Lord’s supper?
JT While, as we have been saying, the bread, symbolising the body of Christ, is negative, yet from another point of view it is positive, as representing the saints as one body — “one bread”. The bread viewed as the body of Christ given for us, sets our wills aside, and this makes room for the Lord’s will in each one of us; so that we are no longer swayed by so many independent wills, but we are in the realisation of unity as under the influence of Christ. “We being many, are one loaf; for we are all partakers of that one loaf”. 1 Corinthians 10: 17.
JB You only get rid of your will by death.
JT By the body of Christ offered in death it is removed. Where there had been so many different wills, there is now only one. What Christendom presents is pretty much what is seen in the end of Judges: “Every man did that which was right in his own eyes”. Judges 21: 25. That is to say, if you get a dozen men you get a dozen wills, but that is not the idea of Christianity. There never will be any different [p. 341] wills among us if we are walking consistently with the supper.
JP I recognise every believer walking consistently with the supper; he is entitled to all the privileges I have. He ought to be recognised as equally sharing all the things we are going on with. I have fellowship with him, and fellowship is fellowship.
JT Yes, it is. “We being many are one bread, one body”. 1 Corinthians 10: 17. You have unity, and if you have unity, you have blessing.
JP All think the same thing, and all speak the same thing. That is the standard.
JT That is the company God takes pleasure in.
Ques Would you not get unity by recognising Christ as Head? And so when you find a company of saints where there is not unity, it must be that Christ is not recognised as Head.
JT The Lord says, “This is my body given”. Luke 22: 19. He has given His body — died for me. The thought of this being brought home afresh to your soul subdues and attracts you. It is in this way Christ enters in as Head in the supper. If our hearts are not callous, His love is irresistible.
JP Someone has said, “The idea of headship is pre-eminence in love”. It is in Christ’s death, His body given, that pre-eminence in love is expressed.
JT So it is in the idea of a husband; he directs in affection, not arbitrarily.
JP We think the woman is pre-eminent in love, but in Scripture the man is.
Rem I suppose if the headship of Christ were generally recognised, all Christians would be together.
JT Yes; you would not have sectarianism if the headship of Christ were acknowledged.
Rem We can only hold the Head in the activity of divine affections.
WJN I suppose, speaking in a general way, in [p. 342] Luke, Christ is presented as One who rules the heart of man by His love.
JT The manner in which the supper is presented in Luke is very touching. Speaking of the passover the Lord says “With desire it have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”. Luke 22: 15. He was thinking of them.
JP Then He says, “This is my body given for you”. Luke 22: 19.
Ques If you should come in contact with a company of saints where there was not perfect unity, what would you present to them?
JT I should present Christ, and I should expect that they would unite on Him. The effect of His presence and ministry down here was to bring men together in unity, as is seen in the opening of Acts 2. In the future Israel and Judah will become “one stick”, Ezekiel 37:19, under Christ. Christ will unite them and hold them together in the power of His love. The ten tribes will never again revolt from the house of David. I think it is a wonderful thing for the saints to unite on Christ. There is no other way of unity. That is largely what the apostle has before him in 1 Corinthians 11. There had been divisions: he says, “When ye come together into one place it is not to eat the Lord’s supper” 1 Corinthians 11: 20. The rich were eating and the poor were hungry. Then he brings the Lord’s supper before them: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread”, etc. 1 Corinthians 11: 23. It is the Head he is bringing before them, to the end that fleshly distinctions should disappear, and that they should be together in love.
GWH You get the unity in chapter 12.
JT Yes, the members were to have the same care for one [p. 343] another.
JB What bound all together was love, and without that there is nothing.
JT If a member is suffering you would endeavour to help him, and you would not make much of anything that discredits him.
JP In connection with what you have just said, 2 Corinthians 3 is interesting. Whilst the new covenant is the disposition of God, I think that one point there is how it is made effectual in us. I mean it is Christ written on the fleshy tables of the heart. The heart is fleshy, soft, and impressionable, and the Spirit has written Christ there, and in that way Christ is commanding the affections of the heart, and we become His epistle.
JT The way the apostle alludes to himself in that chapter gives you the idea of how Christ is transcribed in the human heart. He says, “Ye are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men”. 2 Corinthians 3: 2. What he was alluding to was the place the Corinthians had in his affections, and everywhere he went that was his letter, if he needed one, and it was “read” by the way he spoke of the Corinthians; and they were the proof of the power of his ministry.
JP The evidence of his great affection for the Corinthians was his letter of commendation. If a man speaks well of the saints it is a good commendation, but if one is speaking badly of them he does not deserve much consideration; he has no letter in his heart at all.
JT The man that cannot speak well of the saints is not commendable That was the letter the apostle Paul carried with him. Whatever the Corinthians said of him, he loved them and spoke well of them.
JP He says, “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you, though the more abundantly I love you the less I be loved”. 2 Corinthians 12: 15. That is the kind of an epistle that is desirable.
Ques And is it not in that way the Lord acts [p. 344] when He speaks about the seven churches? He gives every one of them credit for all He can.
JT Yes.
WJN Why does the apostle not go beyond the work that purges the conscience in Hebrews?
JT In Hebrews it is the wilderness position, and things are presented in connection with the tabernacle. God was to be approached, and the way into the holiest was now made manifest. This necessarily involved a purged conscience. It is not our relationship with the Father and the Son: that is more Canaan, and involves new creation.
JP They were in danger of giving up, and it was a question of bringing in the light as to the superiority of the Christian position to what had gone before. The saints are viewed as in the wilderness, yet in relation to the testimony.
Ques Would you say when you pass into the holiest you pass out of the wilderness?
JT In a sense you do, still there was no flooring in the tabernacle, It was still the wilderness as far as their feet were concerned.
WHF The tabernacle indicates movement.
WCR As you said yesterday, the holiest is a question of individual apprehension.
JT Yes.
RSS Would you explain what you mean by its being a question of apprehension?
JT I think the point in the holiest is that it presents that by which God will bring to pass the moral universe — the ark of the covenant, the mercy seat, etc. I do not exclude the thought of love from entering into the holiest, for it is only as divine affections are in activity that one could appreciate it, for no one would care to enter on God’s side of things unless he loved God, but at the same time affection is not so much the point as apprehension.
Ques Who went into the holiest in [p. 345] the tabernacle?
JT Only the high priest.
Ques. What for?
JT Look at chapter 9: 6: “Now, these things being thus ordained, into the first tabernacle the priests enter at all times, accomplishing the services but into the second, the high priest only, once a year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people; the Holy Ghost showing this, that the way of the holy of holies has not yet been made manifest, while as yet the first tabernacle has its standing”. Hebrews 9: 6. The contrast to this is found in chapter 10: 19: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus”. Hebrews 10: 19. The way in is opened up by the One who expressed the heart of God.
RSS We must always remember what it contained: the golden censer, the ark, the golden pot, the rod of Aaron, the tables of the covenant, and the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat.
JT The apostle does not say, “Let us enter the holiest”. He says, “We have boldness to enter”. Hebrews 10: 19. Having that boldness, we may draw near to God. He immediately passes on to the thought of the great Priest over the house of God, and then says, “Let us approach with a true heart”. Hebrews 10: 22. That was really what he had before him.
RSS What difference is there between “drawing near” and “entering”?
JT The privilege of entering the holiest is opened up to Christians, but you might say the holiest is not exactly the objective —properly God is the objective. You draw near to God. What I mean to convey is, that whilst it is your privilege to contemplate what God has set forth in Christ, the point in drawing near is to draw near to God.
Ques Would you say God is presented in the various things found in the [p. 346] holiest?
JT They typify what is seen in Christ as Man. God dwelt between the cherubim.
JP What I think we should see is that there were two thoughts in regard to the holiest. First, it presents what Christ is as the One by whom God brings to pass the moral universe; but then also, God dwelt between the cherubim: God was there Himself, so in drawing near you draw near to God.
WJN Would you say in the holiest you get the contrast to the present state of things?
JT You learn there how God brings to pass His own Universe.
GWH Is the thought here that you are qualified to hold fast the confession because of what you see inside?
JT I think so. We have boldness to enter; we have a new and living way, and we have a great Priest over the house of God. Everything is provided for us, then let us draw near. You come out wonderful men, imbued with what God is going to accomplish, and how He accomplishes it.
JB When Asaph was troubled about certain things, what relieved him was going into the sanctuary of God.
Ques What does it mean by the veil being rent?
JT It was rent from top to bottom. God would be no longer concealed behind a veil. He would come out fully in revelation. In Hebrews, however, the point is our going in.
JP The rending of the veil is more properly connected with chapter 8 — the new covenant.
Rem The veil is not rent here.
JP You go through the veil.
JT The veil is completely rent from God’s side, but from our side, entering the holiest depends upon state.
Rem The veil is said here to be “his flesh”.
JT Yes. He has opened for us a new and living
way. To enter on the “living way” necessitates the work of God in us, and our acceptance of the death of Christ.
WHF Our entrance into the holiest is proved by our being acquainted with the mind of God.
JP If we get divine light and intelligence they will regulate us.
Ques Is worship connected with the holiest?
JT It is hard to say it is not, because you draw near to God, but what comes in in regard to worship is the worshipping company. God has the tent of the testimony, and you move on in relation to that. The point for every man in Israel was to stand in relation to the tent of testimony.
Rem I like what you said about the company being worshippers; worship is not individual.
JT I think that is right. Worship is properly “The Father seeketh such as his worshippers”. John 4: 23. “True worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth”. John 4: 23.
JP The Lord leads the praises of the assembly.
JT He does not lead an individual, but the company.
JB There can be nothing so blessed as to be in the presence of God.
JT No, I am sure of that, and to be there intelligently.
JB In Mary sitting at the Lord’s feet — would you not say she found the holy place?
JT I believe she did. I think the Lord is the holiest.
GWH Do you see intelligence in Mary in John 12?
JT Yes.
RSS Can you get love apart from intelligence?
JT I think so, but it ought to be connected with intelligence.
JR. Mary of Magdala had very little intelligence [p. 348] really as to resurrection, but she had intense love for the Person of Christ,
JT Intelligence would not have led her to the sepulchre, but her love led her to the place where they had laid Him.
JP What I see in Scripture is that when there is the activity of love, you will find intelligence consequent upon it.
JT You will; properly love precedes intelligence.
JP I have thought Mary of Bethany was a wonderful illustration of that, when she sat at the Lord’s feet, hearing His word, by the way she comes out at the close: she anoints the Lord for His burial. I think that scene is an indication of the great gain she had received in connection with being at His feet and hearing His word. She really was the only person on earth equal to such an act.
JB The Lord manifests Himself to those that love him.
Ques Is the holiest more a question of knowledge, and worship consequent upon that?
JT I think the holiest is strictly a question of knowledge or apprehension. It is apprehension of Christ, the One by whom God brings into existence His moral universe. What a wonderful thing it is!
JP When the heavenly city comes down from God out of heaven, no one can tell how it is sustained — it is only as you enter the holiest, and really come to the moral, spiritual apprehension of things, that you can understand how it will all be brought about and maintained.
JT Hence it is that Christ is said to be the wisdom of God, that by which things are devised and brought to pass; also the power of God, that by which things are upheld.
JP He upholds all things “by the word of his power” Hebrews 1: 3.
Ques Would you say power is given us to free us [p. 349] from things down here, so that God can draw us to Him?
JT Yes, and you can understand the force of the apostle bringing Christ in as the wisdom and power of God in writing to the Corinthians, for the reason that the Greeks were so pretentious in asserting that they could understand the working of things by their wisdom, whereas it was foolishness. His desire was that they might apprehend Christ, as the wisdom and power of God.
Ques Would you say that simple souls are led astray by lack of apprehension?
JT There are various ways of being led astray. I know people at the present time who are suffering from being led away through lust — desire to get on in the world. A man may be very unworldly and upright in his walk and yet be under baneful influence through the activity of his mind.