THE RELATION OF THE NEW COVENANT TO THE GOSPEL
[p. 480] THE RELATION OF THE NEW COVENANT TO THE GOSPEL
JT What is in mind in the scripture read, is to consider in a general way the relation of the new covenant to the gospel as a whole, the gospel inclusive of the ministry of the assembly. The ground we are on as believers from among the gentiles is that of Romans, with the instruction in the epistles which speak of the assembly in its public aspect; and then Colossians and Ephesians which treat of our heavenly relation.
By the Lord’s help it might be well to look into the relation of the new covenant to the general position of christianity presented in the gospel and in the ministry of the assembly. It is thought that an undue place is given to the new covenant in some of our minds. In making this suggestion, there is no thought at all of minimising the value of the new covenant, but yet it does not cover christianity in its full bearing. We have to reach christianity from the standpoint of Romans and the other scriptures as I have spoken of them. A correlative thought is that one aim in ministry, whether in the gospel or in the ministry of the assembly and the service of God, is that all saints should move together.
In the types, the feasts of Jehovah began with the passover. The ground was covered every year. In Leviticus 23 there are seven feasts or convocations; in Deuteronomy 16 there are three, the matter is compressed. The youngest and most inexperienced in Israel was to have part in the passover; and there was only one feast at a time, all Israel joining together in it, the most experienced and the most spiritual sharing with the least.
It is thought that the epistles to the Corinthians have this principle in mind, and that the Lord’s supper, involving the new covenant, has to do with the initial [p. 481] part of the service of God. It is hoped the brethren will be free to speak about the suggestion made, because there is a good deal of thought, and perhaps confusion, as to the new covenant in its relation to the service of God. This chapter is read to show that whilst the new covenant is treated of in chapter 3, the Spirit of God returns in chapter 4 to the main thought, the gospel in its full bearing.
PHH Does the Lord Jesus fix the new covenant for us in the Supper by saying: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood”? Luke 22: 20.
JT Yes. I think it ought to be borne in mind that its introduction was in a Jewish setting. Jewish feeling is in mind, as far as I can see, wherever the new covenant is mentioned; not that it does not bear on the gentiles, on ourselves, to fortify us against judaism, to help us to shut the door against the Jews. It is referred to more frequently in Hebrews than in all the other epistles, including even the gospels; and in the epistles to the Corinthians judaism is in mind; many of them had been Jews. The wording as to the Supper in 1 Corinthians varies from the gospels, connecting the cup formally with the memorial service in the assembly.
EJMcB Would you say a word as to the difference between the service of God prior to the Supper and after the Supper?
JT Well, taking on the types we begin with the passover, which is the most initial of the convocations. It was introduced in the first year; in the first month of the year. It contemplates Egyptian exercises, that is, exercises that come up as you are about to leave Egypt; and in view of young believers coming into fellowship now, relatively in such numbers, I believe the Lord would have us to make room for them, to give them to understand that in the beginning of our service Godward they have a real part, not only sitting there, but they have some experience that fits. The more spiritual we [p. 482] are the more we shall get down to that; with joy too; for God intends that we should, as it were, go through the fundamentals of christianity in their bearing on the service of God, every week at least. The experience of going through with the younger brethren is intended to establish us together, also to freshen us. There will be room, of course, for the more spiritual measures, for God will not be robbed, nor will anyone who loves Him rob Him. Therefore there will be room for the greatest apprehension of God there may be, but the divine thought is that the very youngest should be included, and that we should go as far as we can with him. From that point of view we see that the authority of the Lord must have a great place; hence the Supper is called the Lord’s supper, and however it is presented it is connected with Him; He is to be referred to in it.
PHH So in connection with the cup, where it mentions the new covenant, the Lord goes on to say: “This do in remembrance of me” Luke 22: 19. Does that mean that while the new covenant is mentioned, the Person of the Lord Jesus is to be prominently before us?
JT Yes. That is how the facts are presented in the Scriptures; especially as it is called the Lord’s supper, the Lord’s table, and the cup of the Lord. We progress, as in Israel’s case. The passover, the feast of unleavened bread, was followed, as seen in Deuteronomy, by the feast of Pentecost and the feast of tabernacles; each involving increased spirituality and intelligence, but whatever the degree of intelligence, an Israelite could have part, intelligent part, in the passover, for it alludes to the exodus from Egypt, and the exercises contingent thereon.
LES Would what you have in mind be seen in 1 Chronicles 25: 8, where we have the initial features of David’s service? “They cast lots with one another over the charges, [p. 483] the small as well as the great, the teacher with the scholar”, and again in Deuteronomy 26: 13:
“the small as well as the great, according to their fathers’ houses, for every gate”.
JT That is a good scripture, bearing on what is before us, “the small as well as the great”. So 1 Corinthians says, as regards matters of business, that the least esteemed in the assembly, not only the least, but the least esteemed, is capable of adjudicating on such matters.
FSM In Jeremiah 31: 34 the terms of the new covenant are given: “they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them”. Is that confirmatory of what you are saying?
JT It is. We are thinking of the least of them now.
Ques In 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul says: “we all” — the “we” is emphatic. It is that Paul would not leave any out?
JT Quite so. In the first letter it is expressly said that he determined to know nothing among them save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified; he indicates there how the most spiritual can take up that attitude, not overwhelming the young, but being alongside them as in the general position. “We all” is to encourage the young to have part in “looking on ... the glory of the Lord”. The Lord is bringing in many young, and I believe we do well to think on those lines, so that they are given to understand, and to feel that they are of the whole; if it be the least, he is one nevertheless. The word in the new covenant is: “they shall all know me, from the least”. That encourages the young believer, that he is one of the whole. The Lord said, as to the cup, “Drink ye all of it” Matthew 26: 27.
AMP Would the presenting of fourteen yearling lambs without blemish each day (Numbers 29), indicate the carrying through of the passover? I was thinking of what you were saying as to the ground being covered from the passover onward.
JT Yes. You are stressing the yearling lambs, as linking with the passover lamb. There was diminution [p. 484] of power, seen in the gradual reduction of the bullocks offered, but there was no reduction of the lambs — thus the foundational condition remained.
WmC Do we get the same idea in 2 Chronicles 35: 13,14: “They roasted the passover with fire according to the ordinance; and the consecrated things they boiled in pots ... and divided them speedily among all the children of the people. And afterwards they made ready for themselves and for the priests; because the priests, the sons of Aaron, were engaged in offering up the burnt-offerings and the fat until night”?
JT Yes. The place given to youth in the types of the Old Testament is remarkable. The result in recent times of the truth in young people is remarkable too; and they are to be held in the place of profession they have taken up; they are to be given to understand that they belong to the whole. As having the Spirit — and they should not be breaking bread if they have not — they are full grown. So that beginning thus, due allowance is made for the younger ones. In Deuteronomy 16, after the three leading feasts are mentioned, the word is that all the males should appear before God thrice in the year, synchronising with the three feasts, but the stipulation is that none is to appear before Jehovah empty, so that God is not to be robbed. The male side would represent intelligence, richness of faith, and experience. Thus in them God has His full portion. These are the two thoughts exercising one — provision for the young, that all should understand that they have the same status as the old in the general position, according to the passages read from 1 Chronicles, and that they have part, therefore, in the service of God.
Ques Would Paul be making room for the young brethren when he says to Timothy: “Let no man despise thy youth”? 1 Timothy 4: 12.
JT That passage, of course, is for the youth themselves. They should see to it that they are not to be despised. It was for Timothy to see to that, that [p. 485] his youth was not hindering his ministry. Therefore he would be grave, sober and balanced even beyond his years.
Ques Is Joseph’s cup in Benjamin’s sack a kindred thought?
JT That is right, because Benjamin there represents youthfulness. In the history of the testimony in the last thirty or forty years, we have passed through the patriarchal period, when the elder brothers unduly controlled things. Not that I am accusing anyone, but it is a fact, and the Lord is helping us in the Corinthian epistles, where eldership is not mentioned. As a matter of fact, the Corinthians could not have been more than two years old spiritually. Joseph represents youth in patriarchal times. He was seventeen years of age when his conscience was tried by evil conversation. That is a fine example for a young christian, that you turn away from damaging conversation. He reported it to his father. There was one whose youth could not be despised. He is acting like a man. It brought him into reproach, of course, but his youthfulness did not discredit him.
FSM The thought that God is not robbed is seen in the children crying in the temple: “Hosanna to the Son of David” Matthew 21: 15. The Lord defended them and said: “Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” Matthew 21: 16.
JT I am glad you bring that in now, because in a sense Matthew is a children’s gospel: it is not a Sunday-school gospel, but it is a gospel which makes much of children in relation to the greatest things. Christ Himself is viewed as a little Child (Matthew 2: 13), not a babe. He was a Babe, but He is spoken of as a little Child and placed before His mother, showing His personal distinction; faith recognised it. Then Rachel’s wail is introduced, as showing how faith apprehended the destruction of the children: “Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not” Matthew 2: 18. We want them to be in their place according to the work of God in them, having full status, as equal to it. So the Lord likens christians, I mean His disciples, to babes, viewing them in that infantile way, in view of the greatest things. He says to the Father: “thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight” Matthew 11: 25,26. These scriptures are important. They are to impress us with what childhood is according to God, and its ability to take in divine things. So in chapter 18 the Lord calls a little child to Him, and sets him in the midst of the brethren. That is, he was given a place with His disciples. And the Lord says of the little ones: “their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven” Matthew 18: 10; and He warns anyone who despises the little ones. So in the passage alluded to they take on the highest note of the moment; “Hosanna to the Son of David”. It is what the blind men had said earlier, and it resounded as the Lord was entering Jerusalem. It was a recognition of what was due to Christ at that particular time. Others were not ready to render it, but the children were.
JJ Why is Rachel’s wail, in Jeremiah 31, the new covenant chapter?
JT Well, it is what we were saying. That it comes down to us from that chapter of Jeremiah is not without significance. It fits in with the youthful work of God along with us in the service.
GC When David told Ittai to pass over, all the men and all the little ones passed over with him. Would they be prepared to suffer with the older ones?
JT Just so. The Scriptures abound with allusions to this, and the question is whether the new covenant has not them in mind particularly, to assure their hearts, for the idea of covenant is assurance, confirmation. A spiritual man who knows God does not need God to make a covenant with him. The spiritual have [p. 487] confidence in God, but young people have not, and they need confirmation. Of course the most spiritual of the saints values the new covenant. Paul says, “he that establishes us with you ... is God” 2 Corinthians 1: 21.
AJG Is that why it is so closely linked with the gospel?
JT Yes. In speaking of his service in the gospel the apostle brings it in here parenthetically. He refers to “commendatory letters to you”, as if the Corinthians were questioning him, and in speaking of them as his letter, being the fruit of his work, he says, God has made us ‘new covenant ministers’, as the margin reads; referring to the character in his ministry. He is endeavouring to bring the saints in Corinth along with him. All of them, we might say, were young christians. No doubt there were old brothers from other parts, but generally the Corinthians were young christians, and the apostle’s effort is to carry them with him. So, as already said, in chapter 1 of the epistle: “he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God” 2 Corinthians 1: 21. Paul is putting himself alongside the young christians, and saying God establishes him and them together. God is doing that, and has anointed us too, and sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Ques Do you judge the bearing of the new covenant in that way is to put the saints on right terms with one another and with the Lord?
JT Yes; not only the elder brethren. They come in too. The new covenant ought to bear on them, but let us be sure that we have all the youth with us, that they are not left; although they may be “babes” they are “in Christ” — thus possessing full christian status.
Rem In Exodus Moses sent the youths, and they offered up burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.
JT A very important scripture, bearing on what we are saying. They are priests really.
[p. 488] Ques Is liberty presented as the end reached through the Lord’s service in that relation? Does the new covenant take us much beyond the thought of liberty?
JT That is what is in mind in chapter 3; in truth the apostle is speaking about his own service. The Corinthians questioning whether he should have a letter of commendation, he does not scorn their attitude, but shows what a place they have in his heart, and he says: I would like to have the same place in your heart. “Ye are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men, being manifested to be Christ’s epistle ministered by us” 2 Corinthians 3: 2. Everyone of them had a place in his heart, and he would get down with them, as a father with children, and speak to them according to what they could understand, in order to guide them into greater things.
Ques Are you suggesting that we should come back to the passover so as to include the young people?
JT Well, the passover, as the first of the feasts, is a type of the Lord’s supper in the sense of the beginning of the service of God. They had a yearly course of feasts; we have a weekly course. We go over the whole ground of the service of God, at least professedly, every week. The Lord’s supper being the introduction of the service makes room for the youngest, the smallest growth in the meeting. He can join in that, as of old the youngest Israelite could join in the thought of the passover lamb. It would touch his heart, the passover lamb being in the house four days before it was slain. So Paul says: “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”. “The feast” (1 Corinthians 5: 8), is that of unleavened bread, but the passover, as being the first feast of the year, corresponds to the Lord’s supper, in that sense. The passover and unleavened bread refer to the moral condition of the saints.
Ques Does the passover come before us at the breaking of [p. 489] bread?
JT What corresponds with it as a memorial does: “This is my body, which is for you”, the Lord says, “this do in remembrance of me” Luke 22: 19. That surely appeals to the smallest growth in the meeting, if he is alert at all. It is “for you”.
Ques “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” 1 Corinthians 5: 7. Should not that have effect previous to the coming together for the Supper?
JT Well, chapter 5, which you are quoting, especially the feast of unleavened bread, refers to what should go on continually. “Our passover”, there is a touching word, bearing on our affections. It is to affect us in our condition and walk: the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, on our side, in the keeping of the feast, is the fulness of it. “Christ our passover” is the death of Christ in a peculiarly spiritual way, in view of the assembly’s public position and service. It is to be before us all the time. The other side is the unleavened bread, which is also to be continuous. So that we come together as already partaking of this feast. It is a question of our practical state. Therefore Matthew and Mark present the introduction of the Lord’s supper when the disciples were eating. We come together in that sense as eating already, and then the Lord, as presented in His supper, touches us; and it ought to touch the youngest christian.
EG At the institution of the Supper the Lord said in connection with the cup: “this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” 1 Corinthians 11: 25. Has that a special bearing?
JT It has. “This do” alludes to what He did Himself — the giving of thanks. Then the intervening clause, “as often as ye shall drink it”, is a characterising clause. It is to bring in the thought of drinking before the thought of the memorial. He says nothing about eating the bread as broken. “This do”, refers to what He did, not to the eating, but when He comes to the cup He introduces a clause governing it, as if we need [p. 490] to understand the drinking to make us satisfied and restful in the position. “This do”, was what He did. He did not drink it. Anybody looking at the passage will see from the punctuation, that the drinking is a subjective thought introduced; not stated elsewhere, but evidently having a refreshing effect in the saints.
Ques Have you any thought as to why, in Matthew and Mark, it is: “This is my blood, that of the new covenant”, why the blood is brought in before the new covenant?
JT Well, it would lay a little more stress on His blood, and that certainly ought to be in the hearts and consciences of the youth. It ought to be there, because many partake of the Lord’s supper whose consciences are not satisfied. A purged conscience is always needed. We are to “approach ... sprinkled as to our hearts from a wicked conscience”, Hebrews 10: 22.
Ques Does the word, “When ye come together, ... tarry one for another” 1 Corinthians 11: 33, bear on this?
JT I think it does. The idea is that we are to move together. There is no licence for characteristically late-comers to the meetings; but we should move together — in heart, not merely as literally present.
Ques Referring again to Deuteronomy 16 and 1 Corinthians 5, did I understand you to say that the passover is a part in the service of God?
JT I am using the passover only as a figure of what we have in the Lord’s supper. In the old economy it referred to the beginnings of the service spiritually, the exodus out of Egypt. It corresponds with the Lord’s supper in this sense.
Rem So that the new covenant and the ministry of it would relate to the beginnings of christianity.
JT Quite so, but then you will notice that even the passover involved that those partaking in it were not to be empty. Every feast required that the males should not come there empty, so everyone is obligated to have something to offer.
[p. 491] Ques Each of these feasts is said to be in the place which Jehovah will choose. Would that have a bearing on the assembly as convened?
JT That is right — assembly principles, all the rights of God recognised. So that the Lord’s supper cannot be partaken of merely because certain brethren are together. Divine principles must govern them. Schismatic or sectarian conditions forbid it; the spirit of the Lord’s supper abhors them.
AJG Have you in mind that the new covenant is intended to liberate all the wealth there is in a spiritual way?
JT That is what I was thinking, and then, priestly intelligence also being there, we know what to do. One might think of bringing in everything mentioned relative to the body of Christ, in relation to the breaking of the bread — the early part of the Lord’s supper, but the true priest would say: No, we must reserve the more spiritual features — seen in Ephesians and Colossians — for their own place in the service; we must pursue the line prescribed. Do not bring in Pentecost wording into the feast of the passover.
PHH You mean that the new covenant liberates us for the higher levels of the service of God; but do I gather that you would not dwell much on the new covenant itself; that is to say, the terms of it as given to us in several parts of Scripture?
JT I do not think we should go beyond its relative significance in the service of God. The love of God comes in later when in the service we come to God. Exodus 19: 17 says: “Moses brought the people out ... to meet with God”. There is only one title for God in our language — God, the Father; there is only one in the Greek also. In the Hebrew there were several words each denoting a certain thought. We have one appellation, but we can use it in the service in relation to whatever may be suitably brought in. We can speak to God of His Love, which includes the new covenant.
[p. 492] We can speak to Him about the covenant, but then we are speaking to Him about His love; normally Romans brings in the love of God in its proper christian setting. The covenant introduced into the Lord’s supper has, I believe, a Jewish bearing. It shuts out what is called religion, whether judaism or what answers to it in christendom today.
Ques In what light are you thinking of our being brought out to meet God?
JT In the full sense of what God is to us. The gospel of God is concerning His Son — that is not the covenant God. It is God as presented and known through the gospel. Romans opens it up, and without any formal reference to the new covenant.
Ques Would the covenant involve the settlement of all moral questions, leaving us free to go on to what is positive?
JT Well, just so — forgiveness of sins. According to the actual covenant, that is what is meant. The work of Christ is really wider even in its moral bearing than that.
Rem Joseph’s cup led to the adjustment of his brethren, so that they should be with him.
JT The cup brought out moral questions; these being settled, he reveals himself to his brethren. But then, even although the cup is said to be the new covenant in Christ’s blood, you cannot say there is not more in Christ’s blood than that. Look at the scope of the blood of Christ. Not that you would minimise the covenant, but it is evidently brought in for a particular purpose; it testifies to Christ’s love in effecting what the new covenant presents, which, as already said, liberates and satisfies in a holy way, as over against judaism, but the blood of Christ goes beyond this.
Rem “This is he that came by water and blood” 1 John 5: 6 would involve more than the covenant.
JT It does; it involves redemption in its whole bearing — all that is secured by it and based on it.
EJMcB [p. 493] The blood of sprinkling is not just the same as the blood of the covenant?
JT It has a wider significance. Hebrews 9 and 10, while including the new covenant, speak of the blood of Christ in a fuller way.
NKMcC We are accustomed to speak of covenant relationship with God. Is that a correct term?
JT In the sense in which it is generally used, I doubt it. The covenant was not made with us. These two epistles are addressed to “the assembly of God which is in Corinth” 1 Corinthians 1: 2. There is no covenant made with the assembly of God. If the new covenant is brought in, it is to help in the truth, that we might be in the assembly according to God. It augments the position, and especially in regard to persons who need confirmation. That the general idea of covenant, as between God and His people, exists, I fully believe, but it is based on the typical teaching of Scripture, especially Israel’s position in the wilderness. God would be in relation with them, on certain terms, and they committed themselves to Him on this ground. In christianity God has come out in Christ, in fulness of righteousness and love, and believers commit themselves to Him in baptism and the Lord’s supper.
EJMcB In your mind, the covenant is to get rid of all kinds of religious feelings.
JT It bears on that. I do not, of course, say that is all, but it is so especially in epistles that treat of Jewish christians, and they were at Corinth, we know. “Are they Israelites?” 2 Corinthians 11: 22. He is dealing with that element because it was damaging the saints.
Rem The introduction of a better hope by which we draw nigh to God would be, for us, God the Father.
JT Quite so; only the relationship of Father to the believer is really not seen in Hebrews, save as the Father of spirits. We are not set in relation to the Father according to Hebrews. We are on a comparatively low ground, and yet most important ground, especially [p. 494] in these days when surrounded with so much judaism. Take any of the sects. They are encased by judaism, and the thought of the new covenant is to force all that out, to shut it all out from our affections in relation to the Lord’s supper.
PHH So John does not speak of the covenant, but of the doors being shut for fear of the Jews.
JJ Would you distinguish between the covenant and the love of God? Many of us have regarded those two expressions as more or less synonymous.
JT If we look into the references to the love of God in Scripture, we shall conclude that it goes beyond the new covenant. It includes it, but goes beyond it. There is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which cannot be limited to the new covenant. “God so loved the world” John 3: 16; there is no covenant in that. And many other such expressions: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son a propitiation for our sins”, 1 John 4: 10. That is a basic statement, involving the new covenant, but going further. Then we come to the Father’s love. The Lord says, “that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them”. John 17: 26. That is not covenant love. That is supreme love and it is to be in our hearts.
Ques Is it right to distinguish between the covenant and the spirit of the covenant?
JT It is the new covenant in Christ’s blood in the terms of the Lord’s supper; but in the second epistle, we are “new covenant ministers”, the apostle says, “not of letter, but of spirit” 2 Corinthians 3: 6. If he were a new covenant minister in “letter”, he would be just speaking of the forgiveness of sins, and God putting His laws in the hearts and minds of Israel and Judah, but he is not limiting himself to that. He is treating of christianity, and bringing in the new covenant in the spirit of it, and he says, the Lord is the Spirit of it; hence the suitableness of it in the Lord’s supper. “The Lord is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3: 17) is evidently because authority is necessary in the effectuation of the new covenant.
FH In 2 Kings 4 the woman stood in the doorway. Do you think that is a kind of picture of what you have in mind in view of going on to sonship? Would you connect that thought with the new covenant? Is it in view of shutting out judaism? It is a question of embracing a son after that; but she stood in the doorway.
JT That is suggestive, especially in view of the fact that the Shunammite was a “wealthy woman”, meaning that she is great spiritually, because it follows the pouring out into vessels until the vessels are filled. The creditor’s claim had been fully met, and legal demand should not again exist, for the Spirit is life in view of righteousness. Then she has to wait for her son, but she is a woman of progress, indeed she represents spiritual progress. She is to have a son in due course, but see what kind of person she was practically, how she took notice of Elisha, calling him a holy man of God.
Rem So that we cannot limit love to any particular presentation of it, which is perhaps what we have been in danger of.
JT Well, these two epistles are addressed to the assembly of God which is in Corinth. He is speaking to His own assembly.
AJG So that the apostle at the beginning of this epistle says: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 1: 3); and later, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not” (1 Corinthians 11: 31).
Ques Is it striking that in chapter 3, after speaking of being a minister, he makes no reference to God as such, but speaks of the Lord? He does not speak further of God until the next chapter.
JT That is right. He is really dealing with this one point. It is a sort of diversion. He is speaking of his [p. 496] own ministry in a general way, and he refers to letters of commendation, and introduces the new covenant, for it was a part of his ministry, which fact should enhance him in the eyes of the Corinthians. Then he enlarges on the covenant, reaching on to the glory of the Lord, bringing the Corinthians into it; saying “we all”. In chapter 4 he comes back to himself again and says: “Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” 2 Corinthians 4: 1 - 4. The apostle is back on the gospel ground again. It is a question of his gospel and what it was. It is the world-wide gospel he has in mind. It might be said, that he brings in references to the covenant, because he alludes to “the face of Jesus Christ”, but that is only to bring out how Scripture is available to us in our ministry. He refers to God causing the light to shine out of darkness — the first chapter of the Bible, He draws on the Scriptures, but he is really dealing with christianity, with what belongs to the assembly. Therefore he goes on to the fulness of the gospel, “the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ”; and that has shone in our hearts “for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” 2 Corinthians 4: 4,6. Then he refers to himself as having “this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be of God” 2 Corinthians 4: 7. As Gideon’s pitchers were broken the light shone, so it was with Paul. Later he speaks about new creation and reconciliation, which are not properly covenant subjects, but essentially belonging to christianity.
Rem “This treasure” is not only the ministry of the covenant, but the gospel of which he had been speaking.
JT Quite so.
Ques Is there anything greater than the gospel?
JT In a way, no. It is the gospel of God concerning His Son. Paul makes it clear that is what he preached, he and Timotheus and Silvanus. Connected with this is the ministry of the mystery. Besides being a new covenant minister, Paul was the minister of reconciliation and of the mystery.
CG When Moses came down from the mountain, it says that the skin of his face shone. The others were afraid to draw near, and Moses calls to them to secure their confidence. They came to him and then it says, Moses talked to them. Is that a suggestion that there was something more, something greater, to open up to them?
JT Just so. When he went in to Jehovah he took off the veil. That was pointing to the recovery of the Jews at the end. We have this alluded to in 2 Corinthians 3: 16: “when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away”. But the apostle is showing clearly that he has christianity in mind, and he reverts to his own position as a minister (chapter 4) and shows how he moved; what had characterised him, and leads on to the thought of looking at what is unseen and eternal. That goes beyond looking at “the glory of the Lord”. He is looking at what is unseen, the general thought of what is spiritual and eternal. He speaks of “an eternal weight of glory”, which is more than the glory of the new covenant.
ECB Would it be right to turn from the Lord to the Father?
JT I think the normal course in assembly service is that when the Lord’s place is clearly recognised, and His relations with the assembly, He would bring us to God. Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God. In assembly we ought to have to do [p. 498] with God. It is God who speaks to us in these epistles, speaks to His assembly though His servant. So it seems as if, as we are brought to God in His service, we can speak to Him about the covenant, but, of course, we can speak to Him about His love including the covenant. The Father’s love is a greater thought, and then our relations with the Father as sons.
Rem Colossians 2: 12: “through faith of the working of God who raised him from among the dead”. You have spoken of the faith position in view of entering into what is spiritual. It is God there, is it not?
JT Quite so.
Ques Would you say a little more about Moses leading the people out to meet with God? In what relation would we stand at that point?
JT Well, we are led out of the camp. I suppose the allusion would be to our public position, the camp being this. The Lord’s supper does not go beyond our public position. But when we are led out to meet with God what is spiritual and unseen is implied — “God is a spirit”. Of course, the Lord is also a Spirit, the Spirit of the covenant, but the Lord says, “a spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me having” Luke 24: 39. God is expressly spoken of as a Spirit. As brought to God we can speak to Him about the covenant, not forgetting that it is God’s love that we speak of, the covenant being included, as already said.
Ques Would you say a little about the word: “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”? 2 Corinthians 4: 6.
JT That is a gospel statement. The face of Jesus Christ is that in which the glory shines, but it shines in our hearts for its shining forth. The apostle is alluding to his own service in the gospel.
JJ Why does he change from the gospel to the suffering, the dying of Jesus? Why does he enlarge on the sufferings in connection with the ministry of the gospel in this [p. 499] chapter?
JT It is an allusion, I suppose, to Gideon’s pitchers, another illustration of how the Scriptures yield to us in our service. The new covenant is one augmentary thought; Gideon’s pitchers is another without being named. The torches were to be put in these pitchers, and at a given moment the pitchers were to be broken. When they were broken the light shone. If “our earthly tabernacle house be destroyed” 2 Corinthians 5: 1, that brings us to eternity, but meanwhile the breaking of the earthen vessels means the shining out of the light of the gospel.
Ques I would like to ask a further question as to the place God has. I refer to Exodus 19. Would that be, for us, that God is an Object, as One who has drawn near to us, and so we speak to Him in that light, while the thought of the family is further on?
JT Yes. We approach Him from the Lord’s supper. You remember that in the type the injunction was that no one but Moses should come near, and that Moses should go down and see that no one broke through. That was the first thought. Then God says: Aaron can come with you. Then later: Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders; so there is a gradual increase of those who ascend. That helps in the understanding of the service of God. So they went up and “they saw the God of Israel”. How different from the thunderings and lightnings and barriers so that not even a beast could pass! They “saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone ... and upon the nobles ... he laid not his hand” Exodus 24: 9 - 11, indicating that as they advanced upwards they are more dignified, and more in liberty. They are formed there; they ate and drank, and He did not lay His hand on them.
LES Would Peter in his first epistle have this in mind? — “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God” 1 Peter 3: 18, and then in chapter 4: “If any man speak ... as the oracles of God; if any man minister ... as of the ability [p. 500] which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen”. 1 Peter 4: 11.
JT All that fits with what we have been saying, so that Exodus proves invaluable as typical teaching as to the service of God — the mediator’s part first, and then he and the seventy going up with Aaron and his sons; and then Moses called up higher still, Jehovah saying to him, “Come up to me into the mountain, and be there” Exodus 24: 12. It is not said that Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and the seventy go up to the mountain; the mountain is not mentioned. It is a spiritual ascent for us, but the Mediator goes higher. It is Christ’s fixed position in relation to the service of God, but Joshua is with him.
EJMcB The peculiar references to the Lord, “the Lord’s supper”, “the Lord’s table”, “the Lord’s cup”, are all elements that are conducive to this spiritual rise in the soul of the saints.
JT You may say: I have no need to go through that again; but you have, everyone of us needs to, to keep ourselves fresh. We need to go through from the passover to the feast of tabernacles, and as we pass each point we know what to say. The priestly element in us enables us to know what to do.
Ques After partaking of the cup and speaking of the covenant, there is a wide field opened to us, including the glories of the Mediator.
JT If the speakers, as priests, have wealth, they know just where to bring it in, and be brief in bringing it in. We may go from one thing to another, because there is great variety. And another thing to bear in mind is that the marital thought is there from the beginning. Zipporah is brought to Moses just as the covenant is introduced. We have other types of the assembly, beginning with Eve, which fit in later, so the marital thought runs right through to union. That involves great richness and felicity and glory, so that [p. 501] we are joyful. In the last feast in Deuteronomy the people were to be “wholly joyful”. The service of God requires spiritual joy.
LDM In Deuteronomy 26 the offerer brings the basket of first-fruits and the priest takes it out of his hand and sets it down before the altar of Jehovah. Is that the idea of bringing in what is right at the right time?
JT Yes. You will observe that the priest is in charge of it, and the offerer speaks of the basket to the priest; he says very little about it, but goes right back in the history of the people, goes over the whole ground from the beginning. The basket is not touched yet. Then he comes back to the basket, and sets it down before Jehovah, and the priest is not in evidence any more. The man himself is the priest; he is a worshipper, but quite able to go back to the very beginning of his ancestors. That is the principle; we begin with the Lord’s supper, and go on to the greatest things — that is, what belongs to the land.
Ques Would that be the purpose of God?
JT Well, it is the full thought, the enlargement of blessing with which we are blessed. That is the character of the feast of tabernacles, what we are as the subjects of the work of God. So that although we go back to the beginning, God is not robbed; we present the best we have to Him.
WC Is it significant that in the feast of tabernacles as in Deuteronomy there is no remembrance, they were to be wholly joyful, there is no going back?
JT In the feast of tabernacles, which contemplates the harvest reaped and gathered in, we reach the full thought. In the feast of Pentecost there is no time limit, meaning that in the power of the Spirit we may enter into the heavenlies and enjoy heavenly things. The Spirit opens the heavenly door, and causes us to understand that there is no limit there; we may stay there. We are blessed with every spiritual blessing in the [p. 502] heavenlies, and we are raised up together and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus.
PHH Does that mean that as brought out of the camp to God we have great spiritual expansion in the service of God before us?
JT Quite so; so it is not said that the seventy elders and Aaron and his sons came down. God would say, I am pleased with you up here; He did not lay His hands upon the nobles of the children of Israel, we are told.
EJMcB You remain up there in spirit, but leave as to the body.
Ques In connection with going back to the beginning, you would not encourage us to delay the breaking of bread, but rather that we should be in a state to take it up immediately?
JT It is the beginning of the service. We come together having it immediately before us.