THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK
THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK
JT References to the first day of the week, outside of the gospels, are not many; this is perhaps the most significant of them, as grouping the breaking of bread and Paul’s discourse in relation to it, in the presence of brethren of spiritual stature from other parts. Paul was about to depart; the allusion would be to the finish as regards that particular part, and that which he said would not only be applicable to the locality of Troas, but would have a universal bearing, because of the number of brethren there from other localities. So the spiritual thought seems to be prophetic, as connecting Paul’s particular line of truth with the Lord’s supper. The first day of the week is a day of liberty and privilege, rather than of authority. So that we do not get order here; it is no question of the order of the Lord’s supper. When reference is made to the first day of the week in Corinthians the link is not with the Lord’s supper, but with giving, the collection; so that it seems to suggest what is voluntary. The first day of the week, according to Luke and John, is a time of great activity, particularly on the Lord’s part. We have early rising, running, and late at night, specially mentioned. So that the suggestion of instruction would call upon us to be active spiritually, not sluggish or lazy, not to have a holiday, or a sabbath, but great spiritual activity and alertness. So that I thought we might take it up in that suggestive way and seek to see the bearing of what Paul said, what is in mind for us. It is not a matter of specified order, for we are not told what Paul said; but we may be sure that in what he would say he would cover his doctrine.
AN Do I understand that when he speaks of the first day of the week, he does not use it synonymously with the Lord’s day? Is there a distinct object in each?
JT I think so. The Lord’s day would denote authority. It is rightly brought in in connection with the Lord’s supper. But the first day of the week presents rather the side of spiritual activity and spiritual sentiment, so as to bring out what there is.
AN Would what the apostle says here have a prophetic character on account of the circumstances?
JT Quite so. I think the whole chapter is prophetic. He was about to depart on the morrow, and at the end of the chapter he calls the elders of Ephesus and acts as if he were departing, saying they should see his face no more. He says, “I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God”. The whole chapter seems to be Paul going out on the top note. His discourse is prolonged, and no doubt it would be to enforce the points of his ministry relative to the Lord’s supper, before they actually partook of it. It cannot be the order of the Lord’s supper, because order does not permit of a long discourse. It is rather the suggestion that he had a good deal in his mind, and would stress the main points. It was not anything new, or we should no doubt have had it recorded. More likely it would be the stressing of features of his ministry.
GS Would you connect the first day of the week more with the headship of Christ?
JT Well, I think that is right. The facts given in the gospels of course help. Luke enlarges on recovering and adjusting service on that day. John puts off the recovering service until the next first day of the week, when the disciples are again within. He confines his remarks entirely to the side of privilege.
FI You have in mind that in coming together on the first day of the week for the breaking of [p. 576] bread we should be able to follow up the extent of Paul’s ministry, right on to the Ephesian side?
JT That is what is suggested in this long discourse. The service of God is properly associated with Paul’s ministry. There cannot be a doubt that he is the author of the book of Hebrews. He would touch on that in this long discourse. The chapter affords conditions for that, because it is a love chapter. It begins with love, and you have love right through. But order would be the first thing to be considered. He made much of the Lord’s supper when he wrote to Corinth.
Ques In what way do you suggest that this may be carried on today? You have said that order does not enter into the chapter.
JT The point of the discourse evidently would be that in view of the Lord’s supper we should bear his doctrine in mind. If we look at it from the prophetic point of view and see what was to happen as regards the Lord’s supper, we can see the force of bringing in Paul’s doctrine. The Lord’s supper has been enshrouded in the darkness of human invention, bringing it down to the level of judaism, even of heathen practices. But it has been taken out of these settings, and I believe that in view of where it has been we must stress Paul’s doctrine. We must listen to Paul before we begin with the Supper.
FI Having taken the Supper according to 1 Corinthians, does that mean that we touch the thing on the public side, the side of order; but looked at here in connection with the first day of the week it is the inner or spiritual side?
JT That would be the bearing of it, I think. The public side is the dominical side; it is the Lord’s supper. Therefore authority comes into view, and what the Lord is to the assembly comes into view. We rightly address the Lord in giving thanks for the emblems. He must have given thanks to His [p. 577] Father; we are not told what He said, but He gave thanks for the bread and broke it. But inasmuch as the doctrine covering it calls it the Lord’s supper, it is obvious that the Lord is to be before us in thanksgiving in relation to it.
AN Your point then is, that as the substance of this discourse is not given, it is more the inner side?
JT Yes. I thought we might perhaps consider Paul’s doctrine. Inasmuch as he said so much, and speaking about the Lord’s supper, he would not fail to bring in what was said to him about it, “I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread”. He says that also in regard to the appearings of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 15. The appearings to Cephas, to the twelve, to five hundred brethren, to all the apostles, and to himself, would be the spiritual side, whereas chapter 11 bears on public order, the order that belongs to the Lord’s supper. I am taking what is said of the discourse here as representative of his ministry in regard to the Lord’s supper; we must listen to Paul. Eutychus failed to listen and fell down, no doubt alluding to the history of the assembly, but in verse 11, having resuscitated Eutychus, he went up and talked again, having broken bread.
AN Would Eutychus answer to a condition of drowsiness where spiritual faculties are not in exercise?
JT Quite. We may theoretically acknowledge the Lord’s right to our affections, and yet they may be very dormant. We may acknowledge the Lord’s rights and sit there without much movement of affection and become drowsy spiritually. The bride in Canticles would not rise to let Him in, hence she missed [p. 578] much.
AN As it says in Ephesians 5: 14, “Wake up, thou that sleepest, and arise up from among the dead, and the Christ shall shine upon thee”.
PD Do you think the ministry of Paul first of all suggests what is comely, as connected with order, and secondly the affectionate side, what would appeal to us in love?
JT I think that is right. We must listen to him. He says he had received of the Lord something about the Lord’s supper, and he had received something about the forty days as well, the appearings of Christ. He says he had the mystery of the assembly, and the mystery of Colossians, which he calls “Christ in you”. You can see that he is the authoritative one in regard of these matters, and we must listen to him carefully. The first thing would be the dominical side, because we come up out of the world, out of our houses, business, and the like under lawless conditions; I do not say that our houses are lawless but it is important that we should have the dominical side before us; that as we walk to the room and sit down, in whatever we do, in the way we think, the idea of authority is to settle down on our souls. This is a dominical matter; the Lord will not brook any rebellious or careless or insubordinate attitude. Chapter 11 shows that anything that happens in the assembly is peculiarly solemn; “on this account many among you are weak and infirm”.
These appearings in 1 Corinthians 15 would help us to be engaged spiritually with what is not seen to the natural eye. The Lord’s supper is seen to the natural eye, the bread and the cup and the box; all these things are outward and material and may be looked at, but in 1 Corinthians 15 it is spiritual. We do not look for these appearings now, but there are appearings nevertheless, or incomings: “I will manifest myself”. “Manifest” is the word used by John [p. 579] both in chapter 14 and chapter 21, and he alludes in chapter 20 to the Lord coming in to the assembly; he says He came in twice. So I think Paul is the one to keep before us, both as to the authority side and as to the spiritual, so that we learn to be spiritual, to discern when the Lord is there. It is not a theory, it is a reality.
AN Does the dominical side finish at eating the bread and drinking the cup, and for any further instruction we need in regard to the service do we have to take up Paul’s ministry? You have referred to the epistle to the Hebrews; He is the Minister of the sanctuary there.
JT That is right. It looks on to the covenant. The highest point reached in that instruction I think is in chapter 2, where the Lord sings in the midst of the assembly. But in the application of the instruction to us He is called the Minister of the sanctuary (chapter 8), and the instruction proceeds to bring in the covenant for the first time. When the Spirit of God touches the idea of the Minister of the sanctuary, He turns aside to link up the priesthood of Christ with the covenant, and carries it along from verse 3 of chapter 8 to verse 19 of chapter 10, where the Spirit of God urges us to draw near to God. That is to say, the covenant is brought in and treated of, but obviously with a view to setting our hearts free to draw near to God. The teaching of Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 enters into the service. As the Minister of the sanctuary is named, the Spirit of God turns to this matter of the covenant, and leads us up to the drawing near to God: “having a great priest over the house of God, let us approach”. I think that in principle enters into the service of the Lord’s supper after the emblems are partaken of.
AN I remember a remark of Mr. Raven’s, that as the Minister of the sanctuary He has the preparation [p. 580] of the holy vessels, but the way in which the holy vessels are prepared is by the ministry of the new covenant; and as you were saying, it sets the heart free.
JT That is a good remark. I would not suggest that these are simple matters; Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 require close attention if we are to be in assembly. Christ is on our side as the Minister of the sanctuary. Not that we should not address Him; He is in our midst (the cup carries that thought to completion); but the fact that He is in our midst does not preclude our addressing Him. The assembly may address Him even after the emblems are partaken of and the box is round. I think it opens up opportunity for richness and liberty of soul to make more room for Christ than we habitually do.
FI But you would address Him in regard to what He is as the Minister of the sanctuary, leading us on in relation to the service of God, not going back to what we have already touched in regard to His love expressed in death?
JT No. The chapters in Hebrews bring in the covenant; He is formally said to be the Mediator of the new covenant. Not only has He made it effective, but He makes it effective in us, so that we take on a change, from glory to glory.
Ques That is a very important part then of Paul’s ministry, bearing upon assembly service?
JT It is. What He has in us must come in because we are to be changed; “We all, looking on the glory of the Lord ... are transformed according to the same image”, 2 Corinthians 3: 18. That is part of the service of the Lord in relation to the covenant.
RM When Eutychus was taken up in the apostle’s arms, would he be moved to a higher sphere? Would he move on to the spiritual side as set forth in Hebrews 8, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10?
JT Well, you certainly get Paul’s touch.
[p. 581] Rem I should like a little more help on the point that you have drawn attention to in Hebrews 8 as to the change over from the minister of the sanctuary to the introduction of the priest, and how it bears upon the service as going forward.
JT Well, I think the writer refers back to the great subject of priesthood, that He must have somewhat to offer. That is all he says about offering there; he leaves it there. It seems to be a collateral line. Nothing more is said about offering until the covenant is introduced. Then chapter 9 goes into the question of offering and runs on to verse 19 of chapter 10, where he again formally alludes to the new covenant. “Having therefore”, he says, “brethren, boldness for entering into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus”. God would promote liberty in our souls so that the service might be in power, and not merely formal.
JD Is the great thought in the covenant that we should be brought to God? At the very outset in Exodus 19 the subject comes before us, “Ye have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, and how I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself”. That lies at the very root of the covenant does it not?
JT Well, it does. We have not yet come to the covenant here. In that chapter you remember Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God. Now that passage which you quote is spoken of them whilst in the camp; they encamped before the mountain. I think we may fairly connect the camp with the public position in the Lord’s supper, and our being brought out of it by the Mediator to meet with God suggests the inner position. The covenant was there in principle, because He proposes what He would do for them and they accept it, undertaking to be obedient. The camp is an earthly, public position; to meet God is another [p. 582] matter. But when we proceed in the book of Exodus we find that in chapter 24 Jehovah proposes that they should go up. That chapter brings out the volume of the blood, the blood put into basons and sprinkled on the altar and on the people. The thought is that before going up we are imbued with the idea of the covenant and the love that is expressed in it. 2 Corinthians 3 brings out the service of the Mediator in changing us, so that we take on proper dress, not simply as we came out of our houses. We are not without glory as we sit down obedient to Christ; there is glory in it, public glory. But the glory that we take on is by the Lord the Spirit. We look on the face of Jesus, “looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face” and then He acts — it is by the Lord the Spirit. We must make room for the service of the Mediator in effecting the covenant in us to bring about a change, so that we are in proper dress in the assembly.
Ques That brings us to verse 19 of chapter 10?
JT Well, I think so. The covenant being applied, the Mediator having served us according to 2 Corinthians 3, we would proceed to the heavenly side of the service as enriched, as having taken on glory.
Ques Is Hebrews 10: 16 in view of setting our hearts free for movement?
JT Now I think that is good. Only that 2 Corinthians 3 takes it on to the assembly level. The terms of the covenant that he quotes here are from Jeremiah, but Paul in writing to the Corinthians puts it on a higher level: he brings in the spirit, not the letter. “The Lord is that Spirit”. It is not in the terms of it, the question of forgiveness of sins; it is in the spirit of it that it comes into the assembly. So that instead of saying that our sins and iniquities shall be remembered no more, it is a question of beholding the glory in His face. The allusion is to the second giving of the law, meaning that we have [p. 583] a higher level of things. We get the spirit of the covenant. They got it as it was written; it was really made with Israel and Judah; but the Lord as Mediator of it carries it forward into the assembly and applies it to us, and it is not only that we are forgiven, but we change our dress from glory to glory.
JS You make a distinction between the service of the Mediator and that of the Minister of the sanctuary?
JT Yes. The service of the Mediator bears on us. In His death He made the thing effective from God to us. But that is not the whole service; He makes it effective in us too. 2 Corinthians has that in mind; instead of being called the Mediator He is called “the Lord the Spirit”, and “where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty”.
PD Is it in this service that he secures in the hearts of the saints what He can offer — that he should “have somewhat also to offer”?
JT Well, I think that ‘somewhat which he may offer’ is more than what you may have in your heart; it is what the High Priest is doing. I believe the point is to refer back to the priesthood again and carry it on in the line of the covenant, the collateral line, to what we had in the end of chapter 7, so as to bring us suitably into the service as knowing the new covenant.
FI In 1 Corinthians 11 you have “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”, but in chapter 3 of the second epistle is it more the Person that is in view, not the blood so much?
JT The blood is not mentioned; it is the spirit of the thing. He begins with, God “who has also made us competent, as ministers of the new covenant; not of letter, but of spirit”. Then we have a long parenthesis, in which there is much richness, as to the new covenant. Then we come to verse 17 in which he says, “The Lord is the Spirit”. It is a question not of the external side, but the spirit of the thing, so that we are changed from glory to glory even as by the Lord the Spirit.
FI Would you infer from that that we should dwell upon Him more as the Mediator of the covenant?
JT That is just what I think is a little defective with us. There is not enough scope given to the Lord to effect that service, to bring about the change. I believe scope should be given after the box is passed round — the box itself enters into the matter of the covenant, the thought of giving — to give time for the Spirit of God to move with us in relation to Christ in the various offices in which He functions in the assembly. Why should He not have full scope in which to function, if He wishes to bring Himself before us more, so as to affect our appearance that we are suitable for the presence of God? God looks at us and is pleased with us in our very appearance. It was said of Stephen that his face was as the face of an angel. That indicated what was going on.
AN I was wondering, as to our actual state, whether the hindrance often is that we are more under the old covenant than the new. In the old there was the question of our responsibility Godward, but in the new it is what He has in His heart toward us. Would that be the cause of our slowness sometimes, that we are more occupied with what we are than with what He is to us?
JT I think that is good. If you go back to the first covenant you get instruction about the new. We get more in the first covenant; the new covenant is entirely a question of what God does, so that even the change effected in us is by the Lord the Spirit.
Rem You have referred to the possibility of a hymn being given out at the beginning of the meeting which may express responsive affections to [p. 585] Christ that may not truly be with us. Would that not apply also to a hymn given out after the Supper had been partaken of? If the free movement of the affections of the people of God were allowed, we might get the true expression of the state of the meeting, and where the Lord was in it.
JT Quite so. He will affect all the saints as the emblems are partaken of. It is remarkable that He spoke about the cup and what it meant, after they drank out of it. Drinking of the cup ought to have an effect upon us. It includes the idea of drinking into one Spirit, into spiritual experience governed by the Lord, and our demeanour and faces reflect what is inside. He is doing that by the Lord the Spirit, to make room for Him as still serving us before the idea of the Minister of the sanctuary is taken up. I believe the matter is left to the brethren who usually take part, but the service of the Mediator would be to change every brother and sister. If there are those sitting there who ought to be taking part and drinking the cup, there is a voice to them, because they all drank out of it. Now if all drink out of it, what the Lord has administered ought to affect all of us, and produce a certain experience and movement which constitute us fit for the service of God. So that we are not sluggish; if a hymn is given out that is suitable we are all touched and carried along with it. God is looking for movement in the assembly; it a place of love. Divine Persons are all there and active to serve us to bring about the desire of God.
JS Would the thought of the Mediator help us in relation to Hebrews 2: 11, “Both he that sanctifies and those sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren”?
JT I think we come to that. We have it as doctrine of course every day of the week, and it may be we enjoy it, but it is another thing to come [p. 586] to it that we are the same kind of humanity as Christ. I believe that is ministered to by giving scope to the Mediator to affect us by what is presented in the cup.
Ques Would you say a little as to what is suggested as to the conversational side?
JT Well, that comes in in verse 11, “And having gone up, and having broken the bread, and eaten, and having long spoken until daybreak, so he went away”. It seems to be a question of what he did and said. There is no question here of order of the Lord’s supper, but of Paul having to say to them, and of our letting into our souls all that he has said about it. The conversational side I think is perhaps an allusion to meetings where we converse as we do now. The Lord’s supper sets us free for that.
AN Your reference to drinking into one Spirit raises the question as to whether we have taken in the significance of that. It is, of course, the communion of the blood of Christ; but on the other hand there is what you have been indicating, a forward movement which leads you a step further.
JT Quite so. They all drank out of it, and that brings everybody in. Now the Lord tells them what they had drunk into. Then it says they sang a hymn, meaning that they are all brought into it, and they went out to the Mount of Olives, in a mutual and feeling way.
FI Of what character do you think it would be, a hymn to God or a hymn to the Lord?
JT I think it would be a hymn to God.
FI Perhaps some of us have stressed that too much, and we have turned straight away with a hymn to God. But I gather that an interval should be left, that we might have the proper clothing on, as contemplating Christ as Mediator.
JT I think so. The fact that there is nothing said as to who is addressed in the hymn does not [p. 587] settle the matter. We have to come to the doctrine of the thing, and the doctrine is in the epistles. So if it is the Lord’s supper, all that relates to it is to be addressed to the Lord. Then there is the paternal side, “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in the heavens and on earth is named”, Ephesians 3: 14. So that we are finished with the dominical side and we are ready, through the service of the Lord in the assembly, for the higher thing. We are His brethren; He has us with Him now. Our affections are moved, and we are ready to go on. So that the Spirit of adoption now begins to take effect; someone gives out a hymn to the Father and that is right, we are all in it. We are with the Lord on heavenly ground now.
AN I think that is what underlies; “having sung a hymn, they went out to the mount of Olives”. There was a higher elevation.
JT That is what I think is meant. The Lord used to go there at night; it was the place of His relations with the Father.