ASSURANCE AND CONFIDENCE
[p. 518] ASSURANCE AND CONFIDENCE
Genesis 15: 8 - 18; 2 Corinthians 1: 6 - 24; 2 Corinthians 3: 4 - 6
JT What is in mind is the assurance that God affords to those who have faith, and I thought that this chapter in Genesis, linked with the passages read in 2 Corinthians, would help. The epistle makes much of assurance, and confidence towards God, and confidence in one another. We have in it that God establishes us together, Paul saying, “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ ... is God” 2 Corinthians 1: 21. What enters into this on God’s part is the thought of covenant; it enters into His relations with men generally, even His requirements of Adam were so designated, for it is said that “Adam ... transgressed the covenant”, Hosea 6: 7. There was a link in that sense between God as Creator and Adam as His creature. Then, after the flood, there was the covenant made with Noah, and the cattle, and the earth itself Then with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Israel, and with David, so that the idea marks God’s relations with men, and of course, particularly with believers. In fact, it is always with those who are in specific relations with God.
We get it here in Genesis 15 with Abram; and what is to be noted in his case, and in the case of Noah, is that certain experiences are gone through before the covenant is formally made and ratified. In Noah’s case, it was proposed before the deluge (Genesis 6:18), but ratified afterwards. Abram goes through much, and then we are told that “On the same day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram” Genesis 15: 18. There is no formal covenant made with christians as such, but the principle of covenant enters into christianity, not only the new covenant, but the first covenant with Israel in the spiritual, or anti-typical teaching of it (see Romans 8: 4). That is, God has come in in Christ in the gospel according to His love to us, and in baptism and the Lord’s
[p. 519] supper believers normally commit themselves to God. (See also note in New Translation, 1 Peter 3: 21). So that in general there is the principle of covenant between God and us as known as a people here on earth. The new covenant by itself enters into this too, only it is made expressly with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
In all this we see how God would assure us, in His readiness to commit Himself in covenant, oath, promise; but, in truth, the more we know God the less we are dependent on these specially assuring provisions. But still, He takes account of us in our weakness and shallowness, and assures us as to Himself. He has made promises to us, even swearing, as we are told in Hebrews: “Wherein God, willing to shew more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his purpose, intervened by an oath, that by two unchangeable things, in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us, which we have as anchor of the soul, both secure and firm, and entering into that within the veil, where Jesus entered as forerunner for us, become for ever a high priest according to the order of Melchisedec”, Hebrews 6:17 - 20. These are the thoughts in one’s mind in view of this meeting.
FI You have in mind that the thought of covenant runs right through from Adam.
JT That is true, and it especially affects young believers, that they should have confidence in God.
FI “God ... for us”, is more in relation to our movements here on the earth than our movements as connected with the heavenly side of the truth.
JT Yes; it is the public position here, so that we should be confirmed and stand in the truth.
Rem There are no conditions with this covenant with [p. 520] Abram.
JT Well, there are the terms from God’s side. Abram has gone through much, and the covenant is in answer to his desire to know. In verse 8 we read “And he said, Lord Jehovah, how shall I know that I shall possess it?” Genesis 15: 8. That is, he wanted assurance. Many are like that, and it is not simply that we are mentally assured from the Scriptures, but God puts us through circumstances in which He proves what He can be to us. Abram goes through much here; so also Noah had to go through much before the covenant was ratified with him. It is mentioned in chapter 6, but completed in chapter 9. God would have us to be assured as going through things with Him. If He has come in in Christ, and Christ has suffered and died and been buried, God looks for some correspondence with that in those who believe; and then He shows how He would assure us of ultimate results, as passing through these experiences. We are not simply to take up the attitude of mentally assenting to the gospel and making much of the fact that the sheep of Christ can never perish, but there are the experiences resulting from the government of God, and our ordinary circumstances in the wilderness, including our failure, and it is as passing through these that God assures us (see Romans 5: 3; Romans 8: 28). He is not assuring persons who merely assent to the gospel and fail to accept the path of His will.
Ques Is that seen too in connection with Israel? There was the assurance of the passover and the Red Sea, and the espousal to Jehovah in the wilderness before the actual covenant was entered into.
JT That agrees exactly with what I have said as to the covenant with Noah and Abram. There is a certain experience that precedes the ratification of it. God looks for some correspondence with His overtures in Christ. The sufferings of Christ command faith, and there are corresponding experiences with us. So that Israel had to suffer in Egypt and go through the [p. 521] Red Sea before the covenant was made with them, and in our case, a person who believes is baptised: “he that believeth and is baptised”, that is, it is a concurrent necessity to faith; it is a committal to the death of Christ, for “as many as have been baptised unto Christ Jesus, have been baptised unto His death”, Romans 6: 3. There is the acceptance of His death and correspondence with it. That is the idea. The Lord’s supper is the other side in a positive way, but involving the same thing.
PHH There seems to have been a certain intelligence with Abram. He is told to take a heifer and a she-goat, and so on, but he not only took all those, but he divided them and laid the half of each opposite its fellow, and the birds he did not divide. Would that point to intelligence in the soul?
JT Quite so; God did not tell him to divide them. It is a question of the intelligence he had. He placed them in a certain way and God accepted this, and entered into it, as we see in verse 17: “And it came to pass when the sun had gone down, and it was dark, that behold, there was a smoking furnace, and a flame of fire which passed between those pieces” Genesis 15: 17. God accepted the position of the pieces. It is an allusion to faith’s apprehension of the death of Christ, and affords God an opportunity of showing His power, and what His love can be to us. The smoking furnace and the burning lamp would indicate the power of God operating, so that the covenant is immediately made; it is made that day. All this indicates how God works in relation to our faith; it is a question of His love and His power.
FI Do you mean that it is an answer to movement on our side?
JT That is right; God is looking for movement in believers; we are not to be apathetic towards Him, although assenting to the truth. We are to be moving, so He indicates what is required in the creatures, specifying their age and sex, and Abram supplies them and [p. 522] knows what to do with the parts. The death of Christ is a real matter; as evidenced in the dividing of the animals. Christianity does not exist merely in terms, like Eastern religions, it involves sufferings, first infinitely in Christ, then correspondingly in us. These creatures are slain and the parts separated, and yet the wholeness is retained, for the parts stand in relation to one another. That would be figuratively awaiting resurrection.
Ques Would the scaring of the birds be pursuing the thing to its end?
JT I think it shows that Abram had holy thoughts and he could discern the work of the devil. That is another thing that young believers should beware of. Satan would be very active in the birds of the air, they represent his insidious attacks. Do I admit the thoughts he suggests to my mind, or do I scare them away? Many admit them into their minds, but Abram’s action shows the spiritual vigilance that repels all such suggestions of the devil.
PHH What would you say about the matter of obedience in connection with this? In the early history of Israel in Egypt, as God’s thoughts first became known to them through Moses and Aaron, they worshipped. Does this mark us when we obey from the heart? Then later, in Exodus 12: 28, they went away and did what Moses had commanded.
JT Yes, first we are told that “Moses and Aaron went and gathered all the elders of the children of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words that Jehovah had spoken to Moses, and did the signs before the eyes of the people. And the people believed. And when they heard that Jehovah had visited the children of Israel, and that he had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped”, Exodus 4: 29 - 31. In chapter 12 it is typically the obedience of faith. Faith is an essential in the gospel. The gospel makes proposals to all, but only those who have faith get the [p. 523] good of it. God has only one mind for all men (Luke 7: 41, 42); He desires that they should be saved, but faith in men is essential. No one gets the benefit of the gospel, save one who has faith, and hence the types show that Israel came into things on that ground, the ground of the obedience of faith — not only faith, but the obedience of faith. That is the first part of the doctrine of Romans, to the end of chapter 5; it sets out what is proposed in the gospel, and made effective to those who have faith. Then chapter 6 begins with the requirements from our side, of those who have faith, and there it says, “as many as have been baptised unto Christ Jesus, have been baptised unto his death” Romans 6: 3. It is the acceptance of His death. “We have been buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, in order that, even as Christ has been raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we are become identified with him in the likeness of his death ...” Romans 6: 4,5. That is our attitude, and what we commit ourselves to, and that will bring in certain experiences, corresponding to some extent with what is seen here with Abram. This is in order that things may become real to us. Only those who go through such experience realise the assurance. Along with the acceptance of the death of Christ, what exercises there are, so that we come into line with Abram, “who is father of us all”. Of course, that is only a relative term, but it is that we may learn from our father how to proceed in faith, and come into the good of the covenant, the disposition of God towards us. I am not speaking of the new covenant, but of the principle of covenant, that is, what God commits Himself to, as regards us. The Lord’s supper is the normal result for one who is baptised; that is the next thing.
FI Are you linking this thought with what you have said elsewhere, that the elder brethren should wait for the younger, so as to leave room for the expression [p. 524] of this obedience of faith in regard of Christ’s death?
JT Yes; “tarry one for another” 1 Corinthians 11: 33. The passover contemplates that old and young participate together in divine privileges, for it was a household matter. The teaching in 1 Corinthians is: “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed”. That brings the passover into the belongings or property of christians. “For also our passover, Christ, has been sacrificed; so that let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth”, 1 Corinthians 5: 7, 8. Well, that involves suffering, that is, something in us in accord with the passover. The passover suggests Christ’s sufferings; it was roast with fire, and the feast of unleavened bread, which extended for seven days, is the disallowance of sin on our part, and is to bring us into accord with the passover, that is, with the sufferings of Christ. The feast of unleavened bread continued through the whole period; it is a continuous thing, and enables us to come together in a right attitude to partake of the Lord’s supper.
WW Is the basis of all this seen in Exodus 19:4, in the third month after they came out of Egypt? “Ye have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, and how I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself”. The covenant is suggested after that.
JT That is right. In the journey after the Red Sea, Moses brought them to Marah, and then in chapter 17 Jehovah commanded them to go to Rephidim, that is, the rock that was smitten. Now they are to apprehend the smitten rock. We have not only justification, but the Spirit comes to us through a suffering Christ. The rock was smitten by Moses in the presence of God.
PHH Is that what gives such force to the institution of the Supper in the three synoptical gospels, especially in Luke, where the Lord says, “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer”? Luke 22: 15. Is your thought that the Supper for us in its reality is missed apart from approaching it morally through the passover?
JT I am sure that is right; so in Luke 22: 15, we have, “before I suffer”, and the same writer in the Acts says, “after he had suffered” Acts 1: 3. The sufferings are kept in view, whether before or after. The coming of the Holy Spirit is from an ascended Christ, but a Christ that suffered.
FI The man in Deuteronomy 26:5 says, “A perishing Aramaean was my father”. Do you distinguish between what marks us thus during the week, and the way we are viewed at the Supper?
JT Deuteronomy 26 contemplates a worshipper coming to God with a basketful of the firstfruits, and the priest takes it out of his hand and sets it down before Jehovah. That is the first movement. The basket, and what is in it, refer to a believer in his heavenly relation, but that is abstract, and as applied to assembly service would be at the beginning. That has to be left for a time, but it is in view, and you come back to it. Then the worshipper proceeds to tell Jehovah, “A perishing Aramaean was my father, and he went down to Egypt with a few” Deuteronomy 26: 5. He goes through the whole history humbly before God, recognising that he owes everything to God. It is not a mere doctrinal thing, it is a reality with him. He has come all the way and he has the fruits in the basket, but the basket is left for the moment before God. The priest takes it out of his hand. Then he comes back to the basket himself and speaks about it and worships. That is the idea; and the understanding of it is very helpful in connection with what we are saying. It is the going through things first, as Abram did here, the experience he went through. Christ was “raised up from among the dead by the glory of the Father” (Romans 6: 4), but then, “we are become identified with him in the likeness of his death” Romans 6: 5, and that is to be entered into experimentally.
[p. 526] Chapter 7 then involves the deepest kind of exercise; what promotes spiritual fibre in us, and makes us, as we receive the Spirit, really christians and really worshippers. Then in Romans 8 there is suitable response to God.
Ques Genesis 17 brings in circumcision as the condition on which the covenant is established. What is the difference between the exercise of chapters 15 and 17?
JT Chapter 15 refers to Israel going down into Egypt and remaining there for four hundred years. Abram had gone through deep exercise, a horror, a great darkness came upon him — a humbling thing — and then there was the passing of the smoking furnace and the flame of fire between the pieces. That is an objective thought. He had placed the pieces where they should be, that was faith and intelligence, typically. He selects the creatures according to their age and sex, and keeps Satan away, and he is now ready for God to come in and assure him as to what He had promised. This extraordinary thing, this “horror of great darkness”, happens as the sun went down. God says certain things to him, and the smoking furnace and the flame of fire pass between the pieces, and on the same day the covenant is made, that God is going to give him the land: “Unto thy seed I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates” Genesis 15: 18. What is in mind is the territory which Abram is to inherit. Chapter 17 is not that; it is a question of the son; of who it is, that is to inherit the land. The kind of man that is to inherit it, is the only-begotten son, not Ishmael, but Isaac. So the covenant in chapter 17 involves circumcision, that the flesh is to be put away absolutely; Abraham circumcised all the males, and then God comes to him in chapter 15. I think that is the order in which we go though the service of God. We see how the Israelite in Deuteronomy 26 makes his speech; he goes over the history, which corresponds [p. 527] with Genesis 15, but chapter 17 is sonship, that is, Christ apprehended as the Son.
Ques We read in Psalm 105: 8 - 10, “He is ever mindful his covenant, — the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, — which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; and he confirmed it unto Jacob for a statute, unto Israel for an everlasting covenant”.
JT That sums up the whole matter, and shows how everything is made sure, and I think that is the line the apostle is on in the second letter to the Corinthians; to assure them as to their position, and so he alludes to the deep exercise he had gone through. He says, “For we do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, as to our tribulation which happened to us in Asia, that we were excessively pressed beyond our power, so as to despair even of living. But we ourselves had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; who has delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver; in whom we confide that he will also yet deliver; ye also labouring together by supplication for us that the gift towards us, through means of many persons, may be the subject of the thanksgiving of many for us” (2 Corinthians 1:8 - 11). Then he goes on to say, “For we do not write other things to you but what ye well know and recognise; and I hope that ye will recognise to the end, even as also ye have recognised us in part, that we are your boast, even as ye are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus. And with this confidence I purposed to come to you previously, that ye might have a second favour; and to pass through to Macedonia by you, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and to be set forward by you to Judaea. Having therefore this purpose, did I then use lightness? Or what I purpose, do I purpose according to flesh, that there should be with me yea yea, and nay nay? Now God is faithful, that our word to you is not yea and nay. For the Son [p. 528] of God, Jesus Christ, he who has been preached by us among you (by me and Silvanus and Timotheus), did not become yea and nay, but yea is in him. For whatever promises of God there are, in him is the yea, and in him the amen, for glory to God by us. Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God, who also has sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts” (2 Corinthians 1: 13 - 22). It seems to me that passage corresponds with Genesis 15, that is, God has caused the great minister of the gentiles to go through things that his trust might be in God, and now he would bring the Corinthians into the same assurance. That is the principle; the young are brought into assurance with the old, and it is God who establishes us together.
Ques What you have read to us would be what Paul says. He had been made competent as a new covenant minister. Would this experience contribute to him in his ministry?
JT That leads up to chapter 3, which is, in truth, in relation to another thing — their want of confidence in him. Did he need a letter of commendation from Corinth? That is what leads him to refer to the new covenant. What we have spoken of refers to christianity in general. The apostle is addressing “the assembly of God which is in Corinth”, and he shows that, as a minister, he went through conditions of exercise and sufferings that were in keeping with christianity, and all that was intended to help the Corinthians. “For all things are for your sakes” (2 Corinthians 4: 15); (see also 2 Corinthians 6: 3 - 10). So he goes through all this, and brings it to bear on them, and God through all these things is establishing him with them. That is the thing to lay hold of. Before we come to the passage about the new covenant, he brings that in as additional, to enhance himself as minister in their eyes, for they were questioning him.
[p. 529] Ques So is all this written to increase our confidence in God?
JT That is just the point we are seeking to get at. If anyone will look through this epistle, he will be impressed with the place that confidence and assurance have. The Corinthians had been losing confidence; evil elements had been coming in, as the birds in Abram’s case, but they were not scared away at Corinth. So this epistle is to overcome all that and establish them again in the light of the gospel.
PHH Is not that largely so in regard of ourselves, that we are assured of things as we see that those who minister to us have suffered in order to bring the reality of them to us? Was that not so in regard of men like Moses and David and the prophets particularly, all of whom are recorded as suffering, in order to assure the people that the things of God were real?
JT That is the point as regards the ministers who serve in any prominent way. They not only enlighten and teach the saints, but they are models, and what the apostle brings in in that respect is that he suffered; and he would have them understand how much he suffered, and that it was all in view of them.
PHH Referring again to 2 Corinthians 1: 21 — “Now he that establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, is God”. Do I understand you to mean that it was really for the purpose of establishing Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus in the confidence of the Corinthians, so that the full christian light might be embraced by them?
JT That is exactly the principle; according to the first epistle they had allowed Satan to come in amongst them through partisan feelings, and Satan had in mind to disrupt the whole position and scatter the saints; that they should lose confidence. Satan’s great effort was to discredit Paul, and if he could do that he would discredit his ministry. “If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3.
[p. 530] Paul has to go through this extraordinary experience of tribulation, but all to their benefit; God meaning to establish him with them, not only to establish the minister, but to establish the saints with the minister. He says, “But we ourselves had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead” 2 Corinthians 1: 9. Then he says further, “Now he that establishes us with you ... and has anointed us, is God” 2 Corinthians 1: 21.
L Would you say that the apostle is concerned that every one should have assurance, even the one who had sinned? He said, “Wherefore I exhort you to assure him of your love” (2 Corinthians 2: 8).
JT That is one line that runs right through the epistle. Paul is assured in God who raises the dead, and the Corinthians are all to be assured, and the man who has been put under discipline is to be assured. Everything is put on the ground of assurance and confidence, and that is the real characteristic of christianity. Chapter 3 brings in the matter of a letter of commendation, and it is in that connection that we have the new covenant introduced; an additional thought in order to enhance the great apostle, as the Corinthians had somewhat withdrawn their confidence from him. He says, “Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or do we need, as some, commendatory letters to you, or commendatory from you? Ye are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read of all men, being manifested to be Christ’s epistle ministered by us, written, not with ink, but the Spirit of the living God; not on stone tables, but on fleshy tables of the heart. And such confidence have we through the Christ towards God: not that we are competent of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our competency is of God; who has also made us competent, as ministers of the new covenant; not of letter, but of spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens” (2 Corinthians 3:1 - 6); he brings in this additional thought [p. 531] from Jeremiah 31 to enhance himself according to what he was; according to what God had made him as a minister, in the eyes of the Corinthians, that they might have confidence in him.
PHH Is it something like Moses coming down from the mountain in Exodus 34? It says “And Moses called to them; and they turned to him, — Aaron and all the principal men of the assembly” Exodus 34: 31, and then it says, “And afterwards, all the children of Israel came near; and he gave them in commandment all that Jehovah had spoken with him on mount Sinai” Exodus 34: 32. Is that like the principle of confidence in Moses, or as in Paul, working out gradually amongst the saints?
JT Quite so. The passage in Exodus, from chapter 32 to 34, corresponds with these two epistles to the Corinthians. “For this Moses”, they said, “... we do not know what is become of him!” Exodus 32: 1. That is, Moses’ importance had waned in their minds. They could get along without him, and that really was the sort of evil that had come in at Corinth. They could get along without Paul, and therefore without Christ; and all kinds of evil were allowed to spring up. So the first letter was to deal with that, just as Moses and the Levites dealt with the state in Israel. Then, after chapter 32, we have the instruction of chapter 33, which greatly enhanced Moses by his faithfulness, and then chapter 34 shows how God honoured him, saying, “Hew for thyself two tables of stone like the first; and I will write upon the tables” Exodus 34: 1. Jehovah passes before Moses and proclaims His name and says to him, “for after the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with thee and with Israel” (Exodus 34: 27); meaning that it is no longer the letter, but the spirit; for in truth the second giving of the law was the foreshadowing of the new covenant, and therefore Moses comes out and his face shines. That is, there is increased revelation, increased light, and the saints are to be in the benefit of all this, but they did not have confidence in Moses,
[p. 532] and so he calls them to him (verse 31). That is what Paul is doing in this second letter; he is calling the Corinthians in love, and they turned to him. So he says in chapter 3, “But when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away” 2 Corinthians 3:16; that is, the heart is changed and is right; there is no veil, and we behold the glory of the Lord, that is the truth as applied to the Corinthians.
WW Would you say a word on 2 Corinthians 1: 20, where he brings in “for glory to God by us”?
JT It shows that God is using Paul and those who laboured with him. The promises were all yea and amen in Christ, but they were being effected down here through the ministry; the service of these men, “for glory to God by us”. It shows how the ministry is used of God to effectuate His thoughts about us.
EG Would you say a word on the latter part of verse 6: “For the letter kills, but the Spirit quickens”? 2 Corinthians 3:6.
JT It seems a sort of axiom. The letter kills, so we must get the spirit of things. The apostle would make it clear, that we are to get the spirit of anything in christianity. We have to get the spirit even of the new covenant, and the Lord is the Spirit of it. The insistence on the letter of anything may kill; that is a general thought throughout Scripture. Christ indeed is the spirit of Scripture in one sense, but the point the apostle is making is that he is a new covenant minister, not of the letter, but of the spirit. He is not bringing forward the actual letter of the new covenant from Jeremiah; he is dealing on a much higher level than that. He is preaching the Son of God, but the spirit of the new covenant entered into his ministry. It is not that he was the minister of the new covenant, but a new covenant minister, which ministry conveys the idea not of demand, but of supply. The law written in the heart is what God does; that is the principle of the new covenant. The spirit of it is that God does everything for us, and Paul was on that line. He was not demanding, but supplying, and so he goes on to [p. 533] say at the end of the parenthesis, “the Lord is the Spirit” 2 Corinthians 3: 17, characteristically the Lord, not Christ, but “the Lord is the Spirit”, because that is what was needed at that time, the dominance of Christ amongst the Corinthians.
Rem That verse would not justify us in connecting the letter with the old covenant and the Spirit exclusively with the new covenant. Is there not also the spirit of the old covenant, and the letter of the new covenant, as well as the spirit of it?
JT Certainly. That is what I was saying, that even the first covenant with Israel, in the spirit of it, applies to us. It is used in that way, as indeed in Romans 8: 4, as already quoted; “the righteous requirement of the law should be fulfilled in us”; again in Romans 13: 10, “love therefore is the whole law”; it is not abrogated. The Lord is the spirit of it too; He had it in His heart; He loved it and died to establish it. The letter would insist on the formal details of the book of Exodus, which of course brought Israel into bondage, and has brought christians into bondage, too; it is the spirit of things we want: “the Lord is the Spirit”.
FI So the apostle brought in the thought of life — “the Spirit quickens” — in contrast to the ministry of death.
JT That is right. Paul’s ministry was like that; it was vivifying. With the opposing leaders at Corinth it was a question of demand (see 2 Corinthians 11: 20), and so in the whole ecclesiastical system it is a question of demand, whereas the ministry is life-giving.
PHH Is that largely the force of the new covenant as applied in the Supper, that it has a quickening effect upon our affections at that particular moment?
JT It has indeed, and that is the point in it. The synoptical gospels give the first introduction of the Lord’s supper, but the words which the Lord gives to Paul actually differ from all. This in 1 Corinthians 11 [p. 534] is the final word. It is as if the Lord rewrote the thing, because it was to have a new setting. Matthew and Mark give us a Jewish setting, and then Luke adds to the bread the idea of a memorial. The apostle says, “For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke it, and said, This is my body, which is 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: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”, 1 Corinthians 11: 23 - 25. You do not find that in the gospels, nor anywhere, save in the final word as to the Lord’s supper, which the Lord Jesus delivered to Paul. If we are to understand this great subject, we must begin with this last word from the Lord to Paul, the minister of the assembly; for it is the setting of it in the assembly, formally detached even from our houses, that we have in 1 Corinthians 11. The brethren will do well to follow that, for while, of course, not setting aside what is said elsewhere, it reduces the Supper to smaller limits, as set in assembly service. He says nothing in regard of the forgiveness of sins, or even that His blood is poured out; it is just, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” 1 Corinthians 11: 25.
FI In the gospels, the Lord as being here on earth gives it to His own, but in Corinthians it is given from the Man in glory, and that makes a difference.
JT The Lord is pressing the new position of the Supper, which is in the assembly among the gentiles. I would like to know what the brethren think of this final word given to Paul, carrying instructions as to the Supper set among the gentile assemblies. What do we understand by the words as to the new covenant: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”? 1 Corinthians 11: 25.
[p. 535] I think we have omitted largely the idea of remembrance that is here attached to it; this is not found in the gospels. The remembrance is confined to the bread in the gospels.
PHH According to the word used, it would seem to be an active calling to mind of the Lord Jesus personally in connection with the cup. Would that fit in with what Paul says in the second epistle about “the Lord is the Spirit”, the spirit of the covenant? Should we therefore, as giving thanks for the cup, trace all to the Lord Himself personally as being the expression of it all?
JT It is important that it should be regarded in that way. It is “the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me” 1 Corinthians 11: 25 — the “remembrance of me”, “my blood”. The personal pronouns show that He is concerned to be before us in it.
PHH Is your point that the Me refers to the One who is speaking, in the place from which He is speaking, that is, the Lord in glory giving this word to Paul?
JT That has to be borne in mind. It is not coming to Paul through the twelve, but direct from the Lord Himself. It is then set in a gentile assembly, and this is the wording, the last word from Christ as to it.
Ques Would the service of Christ as the Mediator of the covenant come in at that point?
JT Yes. He is not said to be the Mediator of it in this wording; you get that from another scripture. We may go very far afield, but the question is whether spiritual intelligence would admit of that, whether the Lord did not intend that it was a matter of recalling Him. I believe it is, the more I think of it.
FI Not so much bringing God into view?
JT When we come to God in the service, we speak to Him about His love, which includes the new covenant, but it is more than the new covenant. It is God as made known in the gospel.
[p. 536] Ques What place do you give to the scripture in Hebrews 9: 16 — “For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must needs come in”?
JT That is brought in in a parenthetical way. That chapter treats of the blood of Jesus in a wider sense than the new covenant. The theme of the chapter is largely the blood of Christ, and the new covenant part is brought in there. The idea of a testator, that is, a man making a will, is brought in only to stress the idea of death, which is the leading thought of the chapter. So, if we apply it to ourselves, we are not the subjects of the will at all literally, but in spirit we come into it; nor is the idea of the administration of the will involved in the parenthesis (Hebrews 9: 16, 17). There will be nothing lost if we bear that in mind when, in the service, we come to God to speak to Him about His love in Christ. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts is more than the covenant; it is the love of God without any modification.
PHH Scripture seems to allow for a reference to the covenant in the Supper, but the real thought is the Person; it is a memorial of the Person.
JT Quite so. If one wishes to mention the covenant in speaking to God of His love, there is liberty for that.
Ques What is the significance of the words in connection with the cup, “This do ... in remembrance of me”?
JT It would refer to what the Lord did in connection with it. It would allude to the giving of thanks for the cup, how He did that. That is where the memorial seems to lie, because it says, “as often as ye shall drink it”. It is remarkable it does not say, As often as ye shall eat the bread, in the early part; the cup has a vivifying effect upon our souls. We are enjoying the thought; and it promotes what is felicitous; there is enjoyment in the drinking. The scripture does not mean that the covenant is equal to all that is conveyed in Christ’s blood. The cup is the new covenant, but there is more in the blood of Christ; we cannot eliminate other things from it.
Ques Should the Lord Himself personally be fully before us in the Supper?
JT It is Himself; that He might be in our minds. The Supper is not a memorial of God; it is of Christ: “in remembrance of me”; so He says, “my body” and “my blood”.
FVW Would the expression “in my blood”, set in movement holy feelings with us, that would extend beyond the covenant?
JT We must take account of the blood by itself. Much is said of it elsewhere that ought to be included in our minds.
FI Would the drinking bring about stimulation in our affections?
JT I am sure the new covenant is just for that purpose. It is not here the everlasting covenant. The word “new” attached to the covenant in Jeremiah connects it with the old, not with the covenant made with Abraham and Noah, but with the one given at Sinai. Every Jew was affected by that demand at Sinai and needed to be saved from it.
JM Does the word “remembrance”, standing related to the cup also, imply Christ’s absence?
JT In Luke, the memorial is connected with the bread only, and the breaking of the bread undoubtedly affects our minds, so that the Lord may come in; the cup is the completion, or fulness of the thought of memorial. According to Luke 24: 35, the Lord was made known at Emmaus in the breaking of bread, but the cup is an integral part of the Lord’s supper, and the Lord adds, “as often as ye shall drink it”. While attention is focused on the memorial rather than on the drinking, yet the drinking enables us to remember the Lord with greater ease, and enjoyment, and feeling, because drinking is a suggestion of satisfaction.
[p. 538] Ques Would it be more in keeping that the Lord should be addressed in connection with the cup, rather than God?
JT The word would require that: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me”, 1 Corinthians 11: 25. It is called the Lord’s cup, not God’s cup. As already said, the new covenant is included in God’s love. Let that never be forgotten.