"WE HAVE AN ALTAR" (1)
“WE HAVE AN ALTAR” (1)
Hebrews 13: 10 - 16; Genesis 8: 20 - 22
JT I was thinking of the subject of altars, that is, the various thoughts connected with the altar as seen in Scripture. Perhaps we may confine our remarks in the main this morning to the New Testament, and then touch a little on this first mention of the altar in the Old Testament, leading up to the great features of it running through Exodus, which, for want of time, will have to be the terminus of our enquiry; indeed what follows throughout the Old Testament is largely detail as to what is found in Exodus. Genesis and Exodus furnish the needed instruction as to the subject.
WM What do you think would be the corresponding teaching of the altar to the gentiles?
JT It is a question of worship. There are other things, but generally, as in Hebrews 13, it is what christians have as over against what is current among men. The idea of the altar was prevalent among the nations as well as among the Jews, even to the extent of applying it to the Unknown, an altar “To the unknown God”. The general thought is that it is a symbol of worship, but worship involving sacrifice on the part of the worshipper.
WM That verse in Philippians would correspond: “For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and do not trust in flesh”, Philippians 3: 3.
JT Yes, “We are”, it is what “we are” there. In Hebrews it is what we have. That is, you have the idea of the worshippers and that in connection with which they worship. So that in Revelation the altar is measured — the temple and the altar and the worshippers. The altar is what is before us [p. 326] now.
WM What is the altar we have?
JT It is the outward symbol of worship. It involves the Lord’s supper. That is how it works out. It is well to keep the expression here in its own setting. It is in Hebrews, having the Jewish mind in view, but in addressing gentile believers the apostle assumes that they understand what is attached to judaism. He says to the Romans, “for I speak to those knowing law”, Romans 7: 1. It is assumed that we understand, so that the epistle to the Hebrews is not confined to Hebrew christians. It requires, however, that we become intelligent in the vocabulary of the types.
EGMcA Nehemiah speaks in chapter 13, of certain who could not speak the Jews’ language. This he regarded most seriously; but he says, “I purified them from all foreigners”.
FI Is the altar in Hebrews as high a thought as in Genesis? In Hebrews it is connected with our eating, whereas in Genesis it is more the thought or offering up.
JT There is nothing said about Noah having part in what was offered; it was all for God. Hebrews 13 contemplates that those who have the altar eat of it; others have no right to do this. The Jewish system is treated by way of contrast generally in this epistle, but sometimes types are treated as such, and christians are supposed to be intelligent. What stands so much in our way sometimes is that we are not intelligent in these matters, as to the vocabulary of the types. We find that in writing both to the Romans and the Corinthians, the apostle assumes their knowledge of the typical scriptures. And hence we christians of the nations come into the “we” here — “We have an altar”. The point is that we might get into the great heritage that has come to us in such expressions. There are two phrases in the book which help to open it up to us “Let us” and “we have”. “We have” is a question of possession, of heritage, and “let us” is that we appropriate [p. 327] it and move accordingly. It tends to make us exclusive in shutting out what is current in the way of worldly religion, but embracing all that is of God.
JC This would produce the quality you were speaking of in your prayer.
JT Exactly. It brings out the thought of exclusiveness. The word is much used as meaning what involves quality. The altar here is exclusive in this sense. So verse 9 of our chapter says: “Be not carried away with various and strange doctrines; for it is good that the heart be confirmed with grace, not meats; those who have walked in which have not been profited by them. We have an altar ...” It is a question of eating, but in an exclusive way. To make that clear we might refer to Leviticus 10: 8: “And Jehovah spoke to Aaron, saying, Thou shalt not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, and thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, lest ye die — it is an everlasting statute throughout your generations, that ye may put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between unclean and clean, and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Jehovah hath spoken to them by the hand of Moses. And Moses spoke to Aaron, and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons that were left. Take the oblation that is left of Jehovah’s offerings by fire, and eat it with unleavened bread beside the altar; for it is most holy. And ye shall eat it in a holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of Jehovah’s offerings by fire; for so I am commanded. And the breast of the wave-offering, and the shoulder of the heave-offering, shall ye eat in a clean place, thou, and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee; for as thy due, and thy sons’ due, are they given of the sacrifices of peace-offerings of the children of Israel”, Leviticus 10: 8 - 14. The holy place and the clean place and the altar are brought together. It is a question of eating, and it is eaten in an exclusive way. We have an apprehension of our great calling and the food that God supplies;
[p. 328] the food is to be eaten in an exclusive way; according to the directions, in a holy place, beside the altar.
ANW Is chapter 13 an advance on chapter 10?
JT The former is the outside position. Chapter 10 is the entrance into the holiest. That is not for eating, that is more for contemplation. Young believers are apt to be distressed at times because of the smallness of things, and overlook the exclusiveness, in the sense of quality, of what we have.
ANW Are you connecting our eating with worship?
JT Yes. It is worship in the general thought of it; what was offered on the altar was for God, but those who offered had part in it. It is what we have. We shall see in the types, in Genesis and Exodus, how the truth works out towards God, but if we can keep in view now that it is what we have, the young people amongst us should get encouragement because of what they have come into. The epistle stresses this, and the altar is amongst the things we have. We have an altar that others have no part in. Each should see what it is and that he has part in it.
WM It is an exclusive fellowship.
JT Quite so. It is a fellowship which involves mutual responsibility and loyalty to each other. The general thought is that God has part in the altar, but here it is what we have.
FRA What gives us the right to eat?
JT It is what “we are”. It is what this epistle teaches us as to what we are, as he says: “... holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling”, Hebrews 3: 1.
JC In Psalm 26 we have the thought of exclusiveness: “I will wash my hands in innocency, and will encompass thine altar, O Jehovah”. Then he goes on to say: “Jehovah, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thy glory dwelleth”.
JT Hebrews brings out what we have. Both what we have and what God has are brought out in the types.
[p. 329] For instance, what God has, as food, is developed in Numbers 28 and 29. Those two chapters provide food for God, speaking reverently, for the whole year. That is for His year as He reckons it. God’s year in those chapters is six months and one-half — ending on the fifteenth day of the seventh month. Of course the daily, weekly, and monthly offerings would run through the solar year, but the holy convocations ended in the seventh month, which has a spiritual significance. He requires or claims His bread and His offerings. First the morning and evening lamb each day, then His meat-offering and drink-offering, and then the sabbath. The daily portion is not to be diminished because it is the sabbath. The sabbath is increase. Then He has the first of the month — “In the beginnings of your months”, there is an additional offering. Then He has the fourteenth day of the first month. Then “the day of the first-fruits, when ye present a new oblation to Jehovah, after your weeks ...”, Numbers 28: 26. Then He has the first of the seventh month, the tenth of the seventh month, and the fifteenth of the seventh month. That is, during the whole year He has a supply of food.
WM All that indicates God’s part in the altar.
JT Yes. My bread, the bread of My offerings. It is not here the convocations exactly, although they are mentioned, but of the supply of food that God has in the offerings of His people. It is very touching that He has the whole year filled out from us in this way. This passage in Hebrews is our side: what we have, and that others have no right to it. The pope has no right to it, nor the cardinals, nor has anyone who serves the tabernacle a right to eat of it. It is to bring out how exclusive the true saints of God are, what God has provided for us. It is what we (that is, all true saints) have.
SMcC Would the apostle have that in mind in 1 Corinthians 10, the gentile setting, in bringing out the thought of eating and communion with the altar?
JT Exactly. The Corinthians were in danger [p. 330] of forfeiting the exclusiveness of the position. He says, If an unbeliever invite you and you are inclined to go, go. But it is a poor thing to be minded to go. He is pointing out that they are in danger of bringing in loose principles by example. Eating of what had been sacrificed idolatrously, this being pointed out, might lead others to think lightly or favourably of idolatry.
Rem What you are saying would shut out the idea of getting food outside. We are apt to go beyond the borders of that in connection with which food comes to us, whereas this chapter would limit us.
JT That is right. What is offered on the altar is to be eaten in a holy place or a clean place. You do not eat it in defiled associations.
AHP Would the altar in Scripture generally be the answer to divinely given light?
JT Yes. You can picture how the matter stood when this treatise was written. The christians in Palestine would still contemplate the great system at Jerusalem. A low state of things having crept in amongst them, they would be looking and thinking of what was at Jerusalem. What a big affair it was! Even the apostles said to the Lord, See what stones, what buildings! The Lord says, “Not a stone shall be left here upon a stone which shall not be thrown down”, Matthew 24: 2. This epistle is to provide for those who had faith in view of that. The system at Jerusalem was about to be destroyed, but it had not yet been destroyed. It was there, and the christians evidently were in danger of going back to it. So the epistle is to dignify christianity in the sight of those who have part in it, to bring out its greatness and exclusiveness. The Jewish system was not only judged, but there was something better. “Better” is a key word in Hebrews.
Rem Our chapter says, “Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate”, verse 12. Was it that He might sever them from what was [p. 331] inside?
JT Yes. You can see how the Jewish christians were in danger. Look at the Lord suffering outside the camp. Picture the scene in Jerusalem when He went out bearing His cross. He bore it Himself; “he ... suffered without the gate”. See who were there. There were jeerers there. There is one group looking at the Lord when He cried, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” They do not understand the very words He says. They say, “This man calls for Elias”, Matthew 27: 47. They did not understand the vocabulary. The Lord did not say ‘Elias’, but “Eli”. That indicates their state and attitude toward the holy Sufferer. Then there is a group of women in the distance. Who are they? They had followed the Lord from Galilee. What do they understand? They understand in measure what is happening. He is suffering there and they are thoroughly with Him. They are outside the camp with Him. They are exclusive. They are only a few, but they are there. There were also those who having seen the things that took place smote their breasts and returned to Jerusalem. They did not go outside with Him. Then there was another group. The centurion, a Roman officer, was in charge of the crucifixion, and there are others “with him”. They, having seen the earthquake and those things that were done, feared greatly, saying, “Truly this man was Son of God”. No doubt they noticed that the Lord twice cried with a loud voice. In this He was a different Man from any the centurion had seen die before. And those that were with the centurion take notice of it, “Jesus, having again cried”, it says, “with a loud voice”. The Spirit of God says that the centurion and those with him were affected, so that they said, “Truly this man was Son of God”, Matthew 27: 54. That is, persons being capable of conversion, of being immediately affected by the great facts of this transcending event. So there are the three groups, but the group from Galilee is outside the whole system. If you go and [p. 332] converse with those women you will find that they are exclusive. They learned exclusiveness from Jesus. That is the idea here. We must belong to that group.
WM Exclusiveness was forced upon them.
JT They had gone out. They were at a distance, but they had gone outside. They were thoroughly with the Lord, and all that opened up, unfolded by the Spirit, after that, was for them.
Rem The sisters at Bethany were exclusive when they made Him a supper.
JT Quite so. It was for Him. Lazarus, Martha, and Mary are the only ones mentioned by name, but there were others present.
WM There is a tremendous contrast between these few women who had been absorbed with Him in His rejection, and the great system in Jerusalem.
JT Well, I thought the young people should see in the circumstances at the cross what they are brought into, what “we have”.
WM Hebrews does not speak much of love. It emphasises grace.
JT They were in a low state. The writer in the way he presents the truth seeks to lift the Hebrew christians out of their poverty, to acquaint them with their riches, the things they had.
GMcP Does it show that the exclusiveness of the position is only maintained on the basis of sacrifice?
JT Quite so. It is going forth unto Him. There are those women from Galilee. However few they are, we must be with them. The centurion and those that were with him are an indication that the numbers are going to increase. A military officer is brought in, as it were, at once. He is the first gentile to acknowledge the Son of God.
WM He went beyond the thief in his confession.
JT The Spirit of God would not mention it otherwise, “Truly this man was Son of God”.
GMcP The truth of His Person was established in that testimony.
JT Quite so. But the group from Galilee stands out as representative of those who go forth unto Christ without the camp, bearing His reproach. They went the whole way — outside the camp where He was suffering. The group that did not understand His language say He was calling on Elias, but He was not calling on Elias, not on a man. They suggest that the Lord belonged to a mere human religion, that He was calling on a man. Today we have this in those who call on Mary, or some one like that. He was not doing that — He was calling on God. That is true religion, that is true christianity. He says, “My God”. There was a Man able to say, “My God”, as dealing with sin. That is the link. Presently He is going to say, “my God and your God”. That is the position true christians are brought into.
FRA Would the groups you speak of give us the thought of fellowship or association?
JT Yes. Those women from Galilee represent the fellowship which is according to God. John gives you a somewhat different view from Matthew. He gives you the names of the women who were there and he includes himself. It says, “Jesus therefore, seeing his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, says to his mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then he says unto the disciple, Behold thy mother”, John 19: 26, 27. The Lord from the cross is ordering the fellowship and the family links which were to exist between His mother and John. The point is to be with Him outside the camp where He is suffering. In that position He is ordering things for us. They “stood by the cross of Jesus”.
SMcC Would it not seem in Matthew’s gospel that the Lord is ordering these women, not in relation to Jerusalem, but Galilee, in that the appointed place was [p. 334] Galilee?
JT That is right. It is to call attention to our true position, which involves reproach. Matthew, in view of the assembly, is aiming at detaching the people of God from Jerusalem.
GMcP These women ministered to Him of their substance. There should be living spiritual conditions with us, so that the Lord should be ministered to.
JT That enters into the altar. There is sacrifice. They followed Him, and if you follow Matthew’s account you will find that, as having followed Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, they are now outside the camp, and the principle in Matthew is that we go to Galilee. The Lord’s message to His disciples is, “tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me”. So that, according to Matthew, the christian system began in Galilee. This is in view of the assembly, as already said. Luke places it at Jerusalem in view of the gospel. The preaching was to begin at Jerusalem. Those women, we may say, are outside the camp bearing His reproach.
WM Those who served the tabernacle would not have thought much of them.
WN So the great necessity for intelligence as to that of which the altar speaks.
JT I think we should appreciate the scene that Matthew depicts. Matthew gives the extremeness of the sufferings and how faith seen in these women accepted it; and then how God was working in relation to it in the centurion and in others. That is the way the dispensation is going on now. There are those outside the camp, and others are being converted by the concurrent testimony. It does not say they joined the women, but God was working in them. Then Joseph of Arimathaea came. He was not equal to those women, but he did what they could not do. He buried the Lord in a suitable sepulchre and with fine linen. He fulfilled the prophecy that He should be with the rich in His death. Having rolled a stone to the door, Joseph went away.
But “Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary” did not go away. They remained “sitting over against the sepulchre”. They represent the normal result of the work of God.
GMcP Would this be in keeping with Moses as having pitched the tent outside the camp?
JT Yes; the exclusive position is in Exodus, where the tent is taken by Moses and placed afar off from the camp. Everyone that sought the Lord went out there — “to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp”. That is the position.
Ques Would the exclusive position involve affection or intelligence?
JT Both. But the intelligence of these women had to be illumined, so that the chapters that treat of the resurrection, especially in Luke and John, show how they were brought into accord with the whole position. Mary had to be brought into accord with it intelligently, but the affection was already there. You can see the nucleus of the assembly as outside the camp in Matthew.
WM Do you not think that the Hebrews were weak christians and therefore were exhorted to go forth? They were not fully identified with the reproach of Christ.
JT They had seen better days. Thus they are exhorted here: “Remember your leaders”. What they could remember! What glorious times they had had with the apostles!
WM They remembered Pentecost.
JT And what you find is not simply the revival of what was at Pentecost; there is a tinge of Paul all through this book. That is the recovering element now.
Ques In the book of the Acts, subsequent to Pentecost, how would the idea of going forth and having the altar work out?
JT God in His patience continued on with the Jews, but with Peter and all the others the principle of going forth was there. They were content to stay in [p. 336] relation to the temple to carry out the patience of God. You could not attribute it to them that they were a part of the system. They were in the position of these women. They had gone forth. John adds to that when he says that they were standing by the cross of Jesus. The Lord was regulating everything from the cross. All that would enter into Pentecostal days, but it does not bring out the greatness of Hebrews. It does not bring out that the saints are the brethren of Christ and partakers of the heavenly calling. The golden thread of Paul’s ministry runs through Hebrews and the writer says, “We have an altar ...” He is linking himself with them.
Ques “Let us go forth ...” Hearts having been touched by the love of Christ would respond.
JT “We have”, and “let us”. “We have” is the heritage, “Let us go forth ...” is responsibility in regard of it. It is true leadership. The writer certainly had gone forth. He was, as it were, in the position of the women that followed the Lord from Galilee, and he is calling on others to follow.
JC Does outside the camp suggest an exclusive position in that way? As standing by the cross they were actually at the altar.
JT You can see the position. Those women that came from Galilee had gone forth without the camp. That was their position. There was Christ on the altar — offering Himself. The heritage of those women included all that entered into that position. Exodus and Leviticus open up typically what was in that position. The altar was anointed seven times in Leviticus to call attention to it. And these women have that; we have that.
FRA Would the thought of the camp be that those there had settled down and were not moving?
JT Just so. There is no exercise needed in the camp in that sense. Going out is exercise. “Let us go forth”. Following from Galilee was exercise. So the Lord would keep that up, and He sends a message [p. 337] through some of these women that His brethren would see Him in Galilee. The link with Galilee is to be kept up. In Galilee you do not settle down; the Lord came up to them, it says, saying, “All power has been given me in heaven and upon earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations ...”, Matthew 28: 18, 19. There is to be no halting; there is continual exercise.
Ques Referring to Noah, had you in mind the exclusiveness of the position, and hence his altar was in keeping?
JT Yes. He represented exclusiveness. Peter says, “into which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water”, 1 Peter 3: 20. That is the “few” of exclusiveness. There were millions, no doubt, that missed it, but Noah and his house were saved in the ark.
WM The camp today is regulated with as much military precision as it was in the days of judaism. It is simply man’s ordering.
JT It is judaism or paganism revived, allied with certain features of christianity. It is a camp where there is military precision, but the exercise belongs to a few. The hierarchy take on the responsibility mainly. It is comforting to nature to be able to hand your matters over to others, but the movement of the women coming from Galilee means that everybody is to be moving as responsible.
APT “Going forth” is forward movement, not backward. It is to Him.
JT You are very definite in what you are doing. You are to go forth against pressure. The whole setting of the altar, that is, in Gethsemane, where it is fully seen as anticipating the cross, indicates that there was terrific pressure there. When they entered Gethsemane, the Lord says, “Sit here until I go away and pray yonder”, Matthew 26: 36. We are to see Him in this pressure and consequent agony, “He takes with him Peter and James and John, and he began to be amazed and oppressed in spirit”. He said, “My soul is full of grief even unto death”. We see the movement of a Man in pressure. We have to understand Gethsemane and the cross to understand the altar. Indeed, what transpired from the time of His arrest until He died especially enters into it.
GMcP Do you think the Lord contemplated the pressure that would be marshalled against the assembly when he spoke of “hades’ gates”?
JT Quite so.
WM Would Peter leaving the ship be Matthew’s way of presenting going forth unto Him?
JT Exactly. What we should see here is what we have, how it is illustrated in these women, how they had gone forth and what was opened up to them. Exodus, for instance, would, in due course, be opened up to them. The Lord, on the morning of resurrection, begins to open up the truth. It is a question of opening up the truth for those who have gone forth. While the truth corrects us, we never apprehend it fully until we are in the position to which it applies. How can people in human systems get the truth of the assembly? It is only when we are in the position to which it applies that we can apprehend it. The Lord began to open up the truth in resurrection, and this service, by the Spirit, goes on all the time.
JC Do you suggest that exclusiveness works inside as well as outside in the thought of quality?
JT The altar is public. It is properly in the court. It is a public position we are in. People say, See how small you are! You have no bishop nor anyone of any account amongst you. Well, the intelligent christian says, We have something of infinite value that you have not, nor can you have where you are. Besides having Christ as the altar, referring to His power in the endurance of suffering, we have Him as Great Priest and Minister of the sanctuary, and this infinitely outweighs the bishops, cathedrals, and choirs.
AHP Do you think we have to learn the altar [p. 339] in the way these women had, that is in the Lord Himself in His holy sufferings?
JT Yes. He began instruction from the cross itself, as we have noted. The whole area is impregnated with suffering. It is a suffering scene, “Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate, therefore let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach”. The suffering goes on, but in the suffering there is instruction. He regulates John, He regulates His mother, He regulates the thief, and then as soon as He is risen from the dead He continues His instruction, and it goes on now.
Rem In Acts 14 it says, “But there came Jews from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds and stoned Paul ...”, verse 19. Is that identified with what you are speaking about? The enemy uses against Paul the same forces that were used against the Lord in the days of His flesh.
JT Just so; suffering attaches to the position.
APT “Bearing his reproach” — that indicates that there is something in me.
JT Yes. The allusion is to His cross. He bore His cross. Then Simon, a Cyrenian, had part in that. Not evidently voluntarily, not what he had premeditated, but he was brought into the great honour of bearing the reproach of Christ at that time. He was father of Alexander and Rufus. So that he was the progenitor of men evidently prominent amongst the saints. I think the allusion is to the acceptance of reproach. If you bear reproach God will honour you.
WM It says that they compelled Simon.
JT Yes, but he bore the cross. He came into this honour. Many of us come into advantages we have not sought after. I should like to have borne that cross! Many of us here can look back and see how we have been brought into privileges. We had not thought of coming into them. It was not premeditated. Simon was coming from the country, and they put the cross of [p. 340] Jesus on him, and he bore it, “Bearing his reproach”, is really an allusion to the cross. How great a thing it is to have part in that reproach, the reproach of Christ! Jesus bore His own cross, but Simon had part in it. Of Moses it is said, “esteeming the reproach of the Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt”, Hebrews 11: 26.
FRA The four hundred men that went down to the cave of Adullam went down to David. They accepted the conditions in which David was found.
JT That is the thought there.
FI What “we have” enables us to take up the suffering; “therefore”, it says, “let us go forth ... bearing his reproach”.
JT The position is defined, “We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle”; then the sufferings of Christ in the type: “for of those beasts whose blood is carried as sacrifices for sin into the holy of holies by the high priest, of these the bodies are burned outside the camp. Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate: therefore let us go forth to him without the camp, bearing his reproach: for we have not here an abiding city, but we seek the coming one. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name”. That is christianity. The teaching here includes Leviticus — the sin-offering, whose blood was carried inside the veil by the priest and put on the mercy-seat. The bodies of those beasts were burned outside the camp. It is God’s terrible judgment against sin. That is what enters into this position.
APT That distinctly links on with the gospel of Matthew. The Lord’s expression on the cross, which one utters very feelingly, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” That enters into this side of it, does [p. 341] it not?
JT It contemplates that the believer is brought to understand the full bearing of the sin-offering — the judgment of God as to sin. The blood of some of the sin-offerings was not carried inside. The priests had such offerings as food. The sin-offering is sometimes brought within our range and connected with the believer’s apprehension. The more I know God, the more I see that it refers to Him. It is a question of the majesty of God, and that requires that the bodies of those beasts be burned outside the camp. It requires the forsaking. It is Matthew’s side of the truth. Christ was forsaken of God; His judgment required that. Very few believers apprehend that. Our altar carries all that with it, the full apprehension of the bearing of the death of Christ. It is not merely a partial apprehension — what relieves my conscience — but what has appeased the majesty of God. This affects the worshippers profoundly.
ANW Would you say a word to distinguish between the thought of eating and offering?
JT Offering is God-ward, but eating would allude to the part that came to the priests. For instance, the sin-offering whose blood was carried inside was burnt wholly outside the camp. There were other offerings that were not, the priests had them as their own food. So that what is offered to God is a sacrifice, but I have part in some of it. Some of it comes to the priests. So that when Aaron failed to eat it, Moses reproached him because of his failure, particularly with regard to the sin-offering. We must not fail to eat what belongs to us.
A.P.T. Why?
JT Because it is our food. It is to maintain us spiritually according to the position. It is to maintain us in our souls. I believe the secret of the poverty of our worship is that the sin-offering is not understood. Then it goes on to say: “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name. But of doing [p. 342] good and communicating of your substance be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”. That is caring for the saints, the needy, and the like. It all comes under this head. It is remarkable how the idea of the altar runs on to meeting the needs of the saints, “for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”. It is practical christianity that the writer is dealing with.
Ques Is eating the sacrifice connected with service?
JT It is. It gives you constitution for the position. If we are to be in the sanctuary we must be supported in it. “They that attend at the altar partake with the altar”, 1 Corinthians 9: 13. We live of it. It is remarkable how it works out in giving to the needs of the saints, “with such sacrifices God is well pleased”. God has part in that. If you give a brother something that he needs, God has part in that. This brings it within the range of every one of us.
Rem We are exhorted to do so by the example of the Lord Himself. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he being rich became poor ...”, 2 Corinthians 8: 9. It seems to give colour to the whole idea of giving.
JT Yes. All this is that we might see what “we have”. It is an exclusive thing, but it is a positive thing. “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, the fruit of the lips confessing his name. But of doing good and communicating of your substance be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased”.
WM “For we have not here an abiding city, but we seek the coming one”.
JT The heavenly touch really is connected with Paul. It is Paul that brings out the heavenly city as our mother. John deals with it afterwards by itself, and brings it down. It is Paul that brings the thought out properly in christian doctrine. In this book, which probably he wrote, it is said, “for he waited for the city which has foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor”, Hebrews 11: 10.
WM He also was a sufferer.
JT He aimed to fill up that which was behind of the sufferings of Christ, for His body (Colossians 1: 24).
WM It is not merely conjecture that Paul wrote this epistle. Peter says that Paul “also has written to you”, 2 Peter 3: 15.
JT The allusion to Timothy, in Hebrews 13: 23, would also indicate this.
APT “For we have not here an abiding city, but we seek the coming one”, is in keeping with Paul’s way of speaking.