THE PRAISES OF ISRAEL (5)
[p. 367] THE PRAISES OF ISRAEL (5)
Luke 22:14 - 20; Luke 22:39 - 46
JT We dwelt yesterday on chapter 19, and the thought of spiritual geography was mentioned and left open for this meeting. The matter had been mentioned earlier during the meetings, and had been deferred until we arrived at this chapter. It is a feature of importance in regard of the subject before us, especially as seen in chapter 19, where, in view of the circumstances and surroundings recorded in the passage read, the Lord said that if the disciples held their peace, the stones would cry out.
Judaea is the first place mentioned in the book, and in a sorrowful setting, because it is said that Herod was king of it. Judah, as we know, denotes “praise”, and is specially mentioned in chapter 1. Mary, after receiving the message from the angel, and in her entire submission to the will of the Lord, goes there — to the hill country, “to a city of Judah”. The hill country of Judaea denotes moral elevation, but having a link with “praise”, which “Judah” signifies, where Mary remained for about three months in communion with her kinswoman. Then we have a city of Galilee called Nazareth. It is where heaven intervened instead of in Jerusalem in relation to the incarnation — a fact that should impress itself upon us as denoting reproach religiously.
Then the birth of John brings out a further thought of the hill country of Judaea; it became the subject of conversation there. That such a topic occupied the people is significant. I suppose the elevated country would suggest a good atmosphere, and may be rightly connected with such an occasion as we are experiencing during these three days, when God gives extraordinary freedom from care, and there is a certain spiritual exhilaration amongst us as we are occupied with heavenly [p. 368] things. So that what follows in chapter 1 is salutary and balancing. John the baptist was in the deserts. Instead of the hill country, he is in the deserts where there was nothing to minister to nature; a balancing thought, and one which, I think, should enter into our instruction today in view of our dispersion to our several localities, some of which may be characterised as desert. Indeed, the idea is that we disperse into our ordinary circumstances, which are desert, viewed spiritually, and tend to balance what we have been experiencing.
Then in chapter 2 we find Bethlehem — of special note. (Of course, there are other places mentioned throughout the book, but those I am noting enter into our subject.) Bethlehem has a great place spiritually in Scripture, and one thing to be noted is what Micah says of it, “little to be among the thousands of Judah”, (chapter 5:2). There is a very salutary suggestion that these great matters are still held in smallness, but yet in moral greatness, for as translated in the New Testament it is “art in no wise the least”, (Matthew 2:6). It is not to be the least because of Him who came out of it, who is “from the days of eternity”, as Micah says. Then, we have a country in relation to Bethlehem, as we have already noted, a country in which shepherds kept watch over their flocks by night, as if to show that the shepherd principle of Bethlehem, seen in David, is maintained — that is, the principle of self-sacrificing love, a most important matter, especially when things are outwardly small. And they were small, for the Lord, although born, is viewed expressly as a Babe, and in the most lowly circumstances — laid in a manger. It is not so much the opposition that there is in the world against the Lord, but rather a circumstance of the divinely selected way of His incoming. But conditions occasioned by sin made this way necessary.
Then Jerusalem is the next place to be noted, not yet as hostile, but as the centre of God’s thoughts — [p. 369] and a man in it on whom the Spirit of God was. Simeon was divinely communicated with as to Christ. He was a spiritually instructed man, and so is characteristic here. He was not instructed after the manner of men or current religious education, but divinely. The Jordan is the next place, where we are in the presence of John’s ministry; having come from the deserts, he is at the Jordan. Not much need be said as to the great spiritual significance of Jordan. It belongs to maturity. It is a type of death that belongs to full growth; whether in the history of God’s people of old, or in the history of Christ, it stands related to maturity. It is not theoretic, it is something to be taken up in manhood; a man fully facing death and all that it signifies. For faith it is now abolished, Christ having died and arisen. The Lord is seen there, chapter 3, in maturity: He began “to be about thirty years old”(verse 23); but He was baptised, and, as having come up out of the water. He is praying. We should note the fulness of the practical thoughts that enter into this touching scene.
Then, to pass over the historical points noted in relation to the gospel in the intervening chapters, we come to Jericho in the beginning of chapter 19; into which the Lord entered and passed through. The idea of spiritual geography that we are speaking of begins in chapter 19, which is very full of the thought. The Lord was “going up to Jerusalem”, meaning evidently that the city is the great objective. Then we have Bethphage, which is said to allude to early figs, and Bethany, well known to us, having the meaning, as is said, of “house of song”; and hence specially relating to our subject. We may say now, it is the place of love also, in view of the Lord’s relations with it. Then the mount, of Olives, and then Jerusalem itself, as I said, at the end. As far as I understand, that is the outline of spiritual geography in relation to the subject we are dealing with, that is to say, the service of the [p. 370] assembly Godward.
JHB Is your thought that each of those places would represent some moral feature?
JT Yes. I have sought to indicate a little what each suggests. The geography entering into assembly associations is ever present to faith; we live in relation to it, not only when we are together, but always.
PL Would the thought of “This man was born there”. (Psalm 87:6), suggest that certain spiritual geography enters into our constitution?
JT That Psalm should be kept in view in what we are engaged with, for it ends with the idea of music — the singing and the dancing, or, as it may be rendered, “as well the singers and the players on instruments”(Psalm 87:7). It is a question of praise, and all their springs are in Zion.
WSS Is it significant that David’s city is emphasised in chapter 2, over against Herod being king in Judaea?
JT It is. The fact that Herod, Edomite as he was, was king, was very humbling, and there must be something to correspond with that now. What belongs to David is in other hands, but the birth of Christ in it meant the overthrow of Herod and all that he represents. Micah shows that He was the “Judge of Israel”, although smitten on the cheek, chapter 5:1, but there would be complete deliverance. The chapter has already been dwelt upon: “they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. (And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall he come forth unto me who is to be Ruler in Israel: whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity)”, Micah 5:1,2. Then they are given up judicially, it says, “Therefore will he give them up, until the time when she which travaileth shall have brought forth: and the residue of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God. And they shall abide; for now shall he be great even unto the [p. 371] ends of the earth. And this man shall be Peace. When the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight princes of men. And they shall waste the land of Asshur with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof; and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples as dew from Jehovah, as showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, neither waiteth for the sons of men. And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations in the midst of many peoples, as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and there is none to deliver. Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off”, (Micah 5:3 - 9) Now, all that enters into Bethlehem at the birth of Jesus.
WSS I thought, in connection with the subject before us, that Herod being king in Judaea would suggest that praise was in abeyance and that this great thing that was coming in in David’s city was to be the basis on which praise would be produced.
JT Yes, we can see how all was secured in the birth of the Child. “Unto us a child is born”, and then, “a son is given”, (Isaiah 9:6), and then the name that He has, implying all that we have been engaged with.
HES Is the moral greatness seen in Christ, in Luke, also in measure to mark the vessel of praise that is being formed?
JT The point in going over this spiritual geography is that there might be conformity with it, that we might live in relation to it. It is our environment; the geography represents great moral principles and conditions in which we live.
AN Do you get that illustrated in Elijah and [p. 372] Elisha, that, when Elijah was to be taken up, they passed from Gilgal to Bethel, and from Bethel to Jericho, and then to Jordan, but it was in view of a double portion of his spirit — the thought of spiritual elevation — Elijah seen going up?
JT Yes. It is to be noted that Elisha moves first; that is, it says that Elijah went with Elisha, showing that if we move from Gilgal — that is, the acceptance of death in ourselves — to the points of spiritual geography that denote the testimony, then the Lord is with us. If we are to visit Nazareth, or the hill country, or Bethlehem, we can only understand it aright as the Lord is with us. Elijah went with Elisha; that is the way the thing begins, and it ends, as regards the instruction, from Elijah to Elisha. Elisha’s desire was great; he wanted a double portion, which should be the prayer of every believer now. We need it; it is urgent that we should have all possible. In view of the ground traversed in that chapter, 2 Kings 2, Elisha understood the need he had of all that he could obtain, that is, a double portion; and Elijah says, “If thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so to thee”, verse 10. It is to bring in the idea of spiritual vigilance and watchfulness, so that we miss nothing.
One feels in these meetings how essential it is to be intent on the spiritual position; because, although we may hear and see things that are right and helpful, there must be the seeing spiritually, and thus the keeping in touch. “If thou see me when I am taken from thee”,(2 Kings 2:10) and Elisha says, “The chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof!”(2 Kings 2:12) I believe that secures the “praises of Israel”; because the “chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof” is a question of power.
EuR With regard to spiritual geography, may we apply the natural figure, in that having been born in Zion we should feel that these different territories surrounding Zion are all of interest to us, and important as bearing on our constitution?
[p. 373] JT That is what I think we should learn. The landscape is very extensive. There is an important thought in the opening of the eyes of the man of Bethsaida: he saw “all things clearly”, that is to say, what is to be seen is not only persons but things. I think these geographical places are included — that we should see them clearly.
AM Would you say that if we do not set ourselves in relation to what is heavenly, the next test will come along in relation to Jericho, as with Elisha?
JT You mean that the power to recross Jordan required that he should get a double portion of Elijah’s spirit; and we also have to do with Jordan. I suppose in Elisha’s soul there was a thought, “How wilt thou then do in the swelling of the Jordan?” (Jeremiah 12:5). That has to be understood, and we need power for it. It is a full-grown man that goes over Jordan. Elisha rends his own garment in two pieces, having taken up the mantle of Elijah.
JHT Would Aquila and Priscilla be instructed in spiritual geography? Expelled from Rome — would that be the reproach connected with Galilee? Finding themselves at Corinth, would they be instructed in the glory of the Lord, as suggested in the country round Bethlehem where the glory of the Lord shone round the shepherds: “he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord”, and “we all, looking on the glory of the Lord ...” (2 Corinthians 3:18)? Then, finding themselves at Ephesus — would that correspond with Jerusalem? And then, again at Rome — would that be the overthrow of the world’s system, and the formation of a vessel of praise — the assembly in their house?
JT That is all most instructive.
JJ Would the Song of Solomon have any bearing on this subject — the description of spiritual objects so constantly referred to in that book?
JT It is full of the thought. Spiritual geography tends to take us out of physical geography to which [p. 374] brethren are subject much more than they would admit or are even aware of. Territorial divisions of men, involving national feeling, greatly interfere with the service of the assembly Godward; for this latter we need to grasp and own practically the universal bearing of the house of God. A “man in Jerusalem” is the idea, a man in the divine centre.
WCG Does the epistle to the Philippians represent the character that appears in those who recross Jordan?
JT Yes. The extraordinary sufferings at Philippi denote the power that operated in Paul and Silas, and subsequently marked the assembly there.
PL I was thinking of Psalm 48 from the point of view of spiritual geography: “the city of our God, in the hill of his holiness. Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King”, (verses 1,2), and then it speaks of the ships of Tarshish being destroyed with an east wind. Is that the human geography disposed of in the soul? And then, mount Zion and the daughters of Judah are made glad, and there is praise to God.
JT That psalm stimulates praise peculiarly.
JTS Would the position in Acts 13 suggest the deliverance from political geography in view of the service of praise?
JT Yes; it was what God had brought about among the gentiles, so the point was what was in the assembly there, as the outcome of a year’s course of instruction to “a large crowd”, as it says, by Barnabas and Saul. What that year’s course had effected in Antioch! Then in chapter 13 we have the result in the “assembly which was there”. Olivet here, Luke 19, alludes to spiritual resources, and one enters Jerusalem, the great divine centre, in power in that connection. Luke mentions Olivet more than the other evangelists; even in regard of our Lord’s agony it is the mount of Olives instead of Gethsemane.
[p. 375] Rem Is what has been remarked summarised for us in the beginning of Acts? You have the public position of reproach acknowledged and approved in heaven: “Men of Galilee”, and the inside place of power in the mount of Olives, and the public power in testimony in Jerusalem in Acts 2, where there were men out of every nation under the sound of the word, which has some effect upon all.
JT Just so. You can understand how all that was needed, for the inauguration of the assembly. I hope this afternoon, if the Lord permit. Acts 1 will come under consideration as completing our subject.
Ques Would the fact also that the women at the cross are designated as those who had followed Him from Galilee suggest they have gone through this course of spiritual geography?
JT Exactly; they have covered the whole way.
RB-n Is Jerusalem the great objective in the pursuance of spiritual geography? The upper room comes in in that connection.
JT Yes. Now to proceed to chapter 22. Here we come to the point of formal gathering — coming together. We are, as you might say, on assembly ground. The surroundings are charged with murderous opposition to Christ. It says, “The chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill him”, (verse 2); and then, further, “Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariote, being of the number of the twelve”(verse 3). What may be observed is the importance of public order, for the pretence of serving God, worshipping God aside from public order must be very objectionable to Him; and yet on the other hand, we may have public order, as we saw in chapter 1, without the underlying state of faith. The suggestion of order here comes from the Lord Himself. Elsewhere the disciples suggest it, but here. He takes it in hand Himself, indicating its importance. It says, “He sent Peter and John, saying. Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it”,(verse 8).
[p. 376] The point was the preparation of the passover and where it should be eaten, the introduction of the Lord’s supper being in mind.
AHP Would the mount of Olives contribute the spiritual dignity in which the saints should assemble at the Supper?
JT It stands related to the Lord’s supper. They go to it after the Supper in Matthew and Mark, but we require what the mount of Olives suggests in the way of spiritual resources, and the help of the Spirit, in all these matters. What I think should be noted is that the Lord is Himself concerned in the preparation and the order that should attend the Lord’s supper.
HES Should outward conditions and moral conditions go together? In Corinthians everything is to be done “decently and in order”, 1 Corinthians 14:40, but the apostle is also concerned about the moral conditions that should be present.
JT Exactly; the moral conditions would be in the passover, but the outward order would be in the preparation. Order has to be taken account of by itself. It says, “Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat it”, Luke 22:8. It included the guest chamber and all the accessories necessary for the feast; so that, as was just quoted, all things are to be done decently and in order. That is one thing. The next thing is the moral state that is amongst us. I think the passover, or the feast of unleavened bread which accompanied it, represents the moral elements, sincerity and truth, which maintain the state suitable for the Lord’s supper.
Rem At the end of the verse speaking about order, it says that the twelve were with Him. I wondered whether that would suggest that He had confidence in them, so that, without having anything to adjust. He can indicate the thoughts of His heart immediately.
JT Yes. It is “when the hour was come”. We have the idea of “the hour” first, and then the position,
[p. 377] how He places Himself at the table, and then the twelve apostles. Notice, it is not simply the twelve (the word “twelve” is doubtful apparently); it is the apostles, stressing the thought of authority. Luke alone stresses the idea of the apostles being present, to ensure to the assembly in later years the authoritative representation of what occurred. The Lord has confidence in them, but they are apostles.
JD Would you say a word as to the place, “Where wilt thou that we prepare it?”
JT The place is important. It would be a matter of what is in the place, whether the Lord’s authority was recognised. The message was, “The teacher says to thee. Where is the guest-chamber where I may eat the passover with my disciples?” “And he” — it is an emphatic “he” — “will show you a large upper room furnished”, Luke 22:11,12. He represents the state of things there; it was shown in that the Lord’s word was immediately complied with; that disposes of all independent companies, persons who have formed companies in imitation of what is real; the Lord’s will and the Lord’s word not being complied with.
MWB Does it in principle cover 1 Corinthians — the Lord’s commandment, the general idea of His authority?
JT Yes. The epistles to the Corinthians are the opening up of this. “If any one thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord’s commandment”,
Ques Would authority be seen with Peter and the family side in John?
JT I think that is right. It is a beautiful combination, and enters in a very practical way into local gatherings. Peter, representing the administrative side, would require strict attention to public requirements or order — coming into the meetings late and the like, which John would, so to speak, modify. They represent [p. 378] a combination of feeling which ought to be present in every gathering, that there are certain circumstances which at times may justify certain irregularities, or at least may modify them. John is not a brother that says much, he is not presented as leading, he is generally associated with Peter, Peter being the speaker. So that John would be an element that is not intrusive; he will only say something if absolutely necessary. I believe that is the suggestion, and so he would, if necessary, modify anything that Peter might insist on. I am speaking of the features the two apostles represent. They are important in a practical way.
JHT The only time that John speaks in the Acts has a bearing on this particular matter. It says, “But Peter and John answering said to them. If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge ye”. Acts 4:19. Is that essential referring to what we have spoken of as to listening?
JT Yes. If John joins in, it is very obvious that what is said is right and you cannot set it aside. Not that they are always together, because the time would come when Peter would be removed, as he was, and then John would have to serve alone, which he does in a wonderful way. His gospel and epistles and the book of Revelation are all his own service, but it is beautiful to see how the Spirit of God links him with Peter at the beginning.
PL Does finality mark his attitude? The “I suppose” in the last verse of his gospel would suggest a certain spiritual education that blends with the authoritative word.
JT “I suppose” in John’s narrative is in keeping with the writer. He is entitled to use the word in regard of such a great matter. When Paul said that what he said was not by the Spirit but from his own judgment, 2 Corinthians 7, we recognise the same qualification. If the Lord says of John, “If I will that he abide until I come”, John 21:22. He reserves him in view of the extraordinary [p. 379] conditions that should arise. He is a man with great consideration and modifying feelings.
JJ Is there anything important in the fact that these two brothers, Peter and John, prepare for the passover but not for the Supper? Was that left for Paul, do you think?
JT The Supper flows out of the passover. Paul does prepare for the Supper, as you say, only he includes the passover in his letter to Corinth, the feast of unleavened bread as leading up to the Supper. But he brings in additional thoughts in regard of the Lord’s supper, and I think the long discourse at Troas was in view of complications that would arise, for the incident as recorded in Acts 20 is to be regarded as prophetic in this respect on account of all that has been developed out of the Supper by Rome, the Lutherans, and others. A long discourse was needed; and so it is, that the ministry during the last hundred years, has been very largely in the elucidation of the Supper and setting it in its proper relation, especially that it belongs to the assembly. It cannot be linked up with a sect. Paul said, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you”, 1 Corinthians 11:23.
DLH Would you say why it is that at the institution of the Supper, the twelve alone were there — that there was a limitation?
JT Well, evidently there were no sisters at the institution of it, although the idea is not so much to set out the assembly at the time, as to establish testimony that would be undeniable. In view of the history of the church, the complications and perversions that have arisen, it was imperative that there should be competent authoritative testimony as to it, and I believe that is why Luke stresses the idea of apostleship. He does not speak of any others being present but the apostles; it is a question of the apostles, a very important thing because of the controversy that has raged around this subject. It is a most important thing that we have [p. 380] competent testimony, and added to this, Paul’s testimony direct from heaven; and that he delivered it first of all to the Corinthians verbally, and then reiterated it in his letter, so that there could be no question as to what belongs to the order of the Lord’s supper, what enters into it, as we may say, the “simplicity as to the Christ”.
DLH Then authority enters into the matter in the thought of apostles?
JT Yes. That is, their word ought to be accepted, and so the early Christians — the three thousand — are said to have persevered in the apostles’ doctrine. If anybody were to introduce a Roman Catholic idea as to the Supper, any one of those would say. The apostles do not say so, and that would settle it. It is a question of the apostles’ teaching, the authority that goes with that, and Paul’s position in Corinth was equal to that. He associates himself with the apostles, and says, “Am I not an apostle?” (1 Corinthians 9:1).
WC Would the complications you spoke of arise from ignoring the Father’s word on the mount, “Hear him”?
JT Exactly.
WC So that Paul takes it up and says, “I received from the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 11:23. Did he assert the rights of Christ Himself?
JT That is a very important point to raise here, because Mary, as we saw yesterday, represents that side. She was listening to what Jesus was saying, and Paul received it from the Lord; it is a question of His authority.
EuR Would it be right to say that, in the midst of the complications, the Lord intervened authoritatively at the beginning of the last century, and that took place in His rights being recognised assemblywise; so that the breaking of bread in each locality must be subservient to the general fellowship?
JT That is right, and Bethesda sought to set it [p. 381] all aside.
GJE In the passage we are reading, the Lord and His apostles only were at this institution, but in the only reference to its working out in Paul’s day in Acts 20 there were many others from various localities gathered together with the brethren at Troas. Is there any reference to that in what has taken place now, spreading out universally?
JT I think there is. At Troas we have the word “assembled”. We have not that word here, but Acts 20:7 reads: “we being assembled”. Notice the word “we”. I take that to be the local assembly, but inclusive of many others. An assembly does not lose its local character by the influx of visitors.
AN Would you say in the fact of its being apostles, it was a question of the foundations, as in the holy city, the “names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14)?
JT Quite so; and what that means, among other things, is quality: “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets”, (Ephesians 2:20). It refers to the quality of the thing, that it stands the test; you cannot overthrow what the apostles testified to.
JTS Is there anything corresponding to the two men. Peter and John, in 1 Corinthians? “I received from the Lord” — would that represent the authority? And then the apostle’s word, “So that, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another”, 1 Corinthians 11:23.
JT Exactly, the two sides are there. The authoritative side, and the family side must be ever present, for the Lord’s supper is really a family matter, although also an assembly matter, for it says, “when ye come together in assembly”(1 Corinthians 11:18). The procedure should begin with the Lord’s supper. Intelligence as to what is to be done marks the assembly normally.
Ques Does the ‘table’ stand for authority, whether in connection with the passover or the Supper?
JT Well, we have the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians. The idea of the table is the administration of food. You get it in the tabernacle, and right through Scripture.
[p. 382] It suggests that food is administered or distributed in an orderly way, as seen in the shewbread. In 1 Corinthians 10 the Lord’s table evidently alludes to the bread in the Supper, and so has the same general idea. It is also exclusive. Here the idea is the order that belongs to it. Of course, it is the passover table, but it is the order that belongs to it, so that the Lord placed Himself there. The word “placed” is to be noted. It is what He was doing, and the apostles were witnesses; they were present.
HMS Why do you think this chapter does not mention the hymn that was sung at the end of the Supper, whereas we have it in Matthew and Mark?
JT That raises the question of the difference between the gospels of Matthew and Mark and the gospel of Luke. Matthew and Mark both record that the disciples were already eating when the Lord introduced the Supper; and then, as to the Supper, He says, “Take, eat”, nothing being said about the memorial in either gospel. They have in view the moral constitution of the saints, that is to say, eating precedes worship, as seen in Psalm 22:26, to which attention has been called. The allusion to the hymn sung in the two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, is to suggest the power in which the remnant emerged from Israel, from Jewish settings, and entered on to the setting of Christianity. It involves power; they went out to the mount of Olives, having sung a hymn. It is the emerging from one position to another. You do not get that in Luke, neither do you get anything about eating or drinking. Luke says, “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me”. “In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”. It says nothing about eating or drinking, but stresses the memorial. It has in mind the settling down into our souls of the love of Christ on the principle of recall, the power of calling the Lord [p. 383] to mind, making room for Him to come in. So that you have no eating or drinking, no hymn, and no immediate going out to the mount of Olives by the saints; it is more the settled, quiet attitude of soul making way for the Lord to have His place. It makes way for the Lord to come in in headship. In Matthew and Mark they sang a hymn and went out. Of course the Lord was there, but it is collective action. There is much more in this recalling than some may have noted; it is a question of the state of the saints as in the assembly, where there is that restfulness in recalling the Lord — no activity, no eating or drinking or singing. I am not saying it is not all there, for it is, but I am thinking of the holy restfulness that is implied in quietly remembering the Lord. It is a question of inward power, so that silence is spiritual, making room for Christ.
ELM Does it connect with the thought you suggested at the outset, the intelligent movements being more with Matthew and Mark, and what is spiritually emotional more with Luke’s line?
JT I think so. Mary of Bethany would suggest it. Sitting at the Lord’s feet is a restful state, and one accustomed to that will know how to be in the assembly in the way of recalling the Lord in His supper.
HD'AC So that He comes livingly before every mind and heart.
JT Yes, as the condition is there into which He can come spiritually.
EG In 1 Corinthians 11 you get the thought of remembrance twice, both in regard of the loaf and the cup: “This do in remembrance of me”. It is not quite so in Luke 22.
JT The apostle stresses the idea of remembrance, attaching it both to the bread and the cup. Then he also adds the side presented in Matthew and Mark, for he goes on to speak about eating and drinking. So the three evangelists are included in 1 Corinthians [p. 384] 11.
PL After they had partaken of it, it says “There was also a strife among them which of them should be held to be the greatest”, Luke 22:24. The disciples were seeking to make room for themselves in self-assertion in place of making room for the Lord.
JT Yes. We can see how the Lord was making room for Himself in this institution, according to Luke’s presentation of it.
JJ In verse 39 it says, “going forth he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives, and the disciples also followed him”. Why is all this instruction about the people that exercise authority over them, and then about Peter, and the scrip and the sword, and so on, brought in between the remembrance and the going out, in Luke?
JT It was to bring them into accord with Himself. As was pointed out, “they began to question together among themselves who then it could be of them who was about to do this”(Luke 22:23), and “there was also a strife among them which of them should be held to be the greatest”(Luke 22:24). Well, one has to stop there; how sorrowful it is, that where the Lord is seeking to make room for Himself in this touching manner, they are occupied with who should be the greatest! What follows, therefore, is to correct them.
WC If the Lord comes in, it would be as “the sweet psalmist of Israel”(2 Samuel 23:1), and He would take charge of the service.
JT Luke has in mind what we began with, the service of the assembly Godward, and in the record here the Lord is aiming at a place for Himself in the assembly, for how can we have the service, the “praises of Israel”, without Him? The sweet psalmist of Israel is Christ. What follows in chapters 22 and 23 is to bring out the sufferings of Christ, which is a great feature entering into this subject of praise, because the sufferings give tone to the service. But the disciples have to be regulated as to their own wretched thoughts [p. 385] about who should be the greatest, for how can we have the service of God in the assembly where any such thoughts exist? The Lord therefore regulates the disciples, and so, “going forth he went according to his custom to the mount of Olives, and the disciples also followed him”. Now He has them with Him. No doubt it is the same event as recorded by Matthew and Mark, but here the Lord is entering on the suffering side.
Ques Would you say the disciples entered into the sufferings of Christ sympathetically, over against the chief priests and the religious world? John strikes a special note of praise when he says, “To him who loves us, and has washed us from our sins in his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father: to him (be) the glory and the might to the ages of ages. Amen”, (Revelation 1:5, 6).
JT The book of Revelation, from the beloved disciple, is full of the praise of Christ and of God, and the Lord undoubtedly is leading them all on to this here. So that He goes to the mount of Olives as was His custom. The idea extends back, as has been already remarked; and His disciples followed Him. Now He has them with Him. In the other evangelists, Matthew and Mark, you get the Lord disposing of the disciples in Gethsemane. You do not get the word “Gethsemane” in Luke — it is in Matthew and Mark only — because I think Luke would modify the sufferings, as we might say — at least, as regards ourselves. In Luke we have the ministration of angels. Sufferings on our side might interfere with the service; they might be more than we could endure. The apostle says, “No temptation has taken you but such as is according to man’s nature; and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able to bear, but will with the temptation make the issue also, so that ye should be able to bear it”, (1 Corinthians 10:13). God would not have the service interfered with by undue pressure;
[p. 386] and so we have the ministration of angels in Luke and no forsaking, and the word “Gethsemane”, which, I think denotes pressure, is omitted. All this is a question of consideration for us, while not in any way ignoring the sufferings of Christ in their entire extent. The record of the occurrences that we are now dealing with in verses 39 - 46 — whilst we know, of course, that all that Matthew and Mark speak of entered into this — is in tender consideration for the saints in the service of God in their priestly capacity; there is divine mitigation so that the service should not be impaired, but that it should proceed.
EJMcB In the assembly you would have a soul that would magnify the Lord. The Lord’s ordering of things is so beautiful; everything is so ordered that the soul of the assembly is in accord with Christ, compare Luke 1:46,47.
JT That is what one experiences in having to do with the service of God and the saints; how the Lord comes in in what seems to be insuperable, and He becomes endeared to you. You get it constantly with Paul. “The Lord stood with me”, he says, and it was a terrible time, “and gave me power”(2 Timothy 4:17); and so at Jerusalem the Lord stood by him.
PL Have we that thought of mitigation and consideration in the fact that the Lord is kneeling in Luke instead of falling upon His face to the earth, as in Matthew? Then He found them sleeping from grief, (verse 45), the Spirit affording a motive for their sleeping, and then the Lord says, “Why sleep ye? rise up and pray that ye enter not into temptation”.
JT He was considering for them; He did not ask them to pray for Him. Their grief is mentioned by Luke only.
JJ His sweat being as great drops of blood is mentioned in Luke only, whereas the forsaking is in Matthew and Mark. The intensity of the sufferings on this line is recorded as nowhere [p. 387] else.
JT I suppose it brings out the reality of His humanity. We have already dwelt on that side. The vessel of praise is a human one, although the Lord is known in it. The Lord Jesus, a divine Person, enters into it, and leads us, but the vessel is human, and I believe Luke specially stresses the reality of His manhood here.
RB-n Would you say a word on the way heaven took account of the intensity of the sufferings, and that an angel was in attendance, although the disciples evidently were at some distance?
JT “An angel appeared to him from heaven strengthening him”. We have to take note of that, as strengthening Him in the circumstances, because it applies to ourselves. Sufferings will come; our note of praise would be very poor without them, but then there is mitigation in them, as we have remarked.
PL Is not the service of praise in Hebrews preceded by the tender activities of Christ as Priest?
JT Yes. Hebrews opens up the subject. The Leader of our salvation is there said to be made “perfect ... through sufferings”. Provision is made for us to go through them and at the same time to have part in the service of God.